Gentle readers, please allow me to start with a short anecdote from about 15 years ago, during the years when I was teaching journalism a few blocks from the U.S. Capitol.

I attended a typical off-the-record think tank forum in which lawyers from church-state groups were talking about rising tensions in public, taxpayer funded, institutions. At one point, someone asked a question that sounded something like this: What should public-schools leaders do when approached by parents who want opt-out choices for their children when faced with class activities that clash with the teachings of their faith?

The question, of course, was linked to tensions between public-school leaders and evangelicals, and maybe traditional Catholics (“traditional” in the FBI meaning of the word).

One lawyer gave an answer that was way ahead of its time: School administrators should look at these people and do everything they can to pretend that these parents are Muslims. In other words, pretend these parents are part of a minority faith that public officials respect (Muslims), as opposed to part of a larger faith group that administrators distrust, fear and possibly even loathe (evangelicals).

This was one of two Beltway anecdotes I shared during this week’s “Crossroads” podcast (click here to tune that in), which focused on a Washington Post story that I have been thinking about during the past week or two. That headline: “Hundreds of Md. parents protest lessons they say offend their faiths.” The Post team appears to have worked hard to keep the main news hook out of that headline and even the lede.

Hundreds of parents demonstrated outside the Montgomery County Board of Education’s meeting … demanding that Maryland’s largest school district allow them to shield their children from books and lessons that contain LGBTQ+ characters.

Still in the dark, right? Keep reading:

The crowd was filled largely with Muslim and Ethiopian Orthodox parents, who say the school system is violating their religious rights protected under the First Amendment by not providing an opt-out. Three families have filed a lawsuit against the school system.

The books that feature LGBTQ+ characters are a part of a supplemental curriculum the school system launched this academic year. It adds titles for every grade level, including kindergarten to fifth grade, where the curriculum has been the most controversial. A few months ago, a handful of parents had spoken at board meetings about the issue, but the demonstrations have expanded to hundreds.

There is much to unpack here, including some common problems with the “book banning” stories that are now common in media on left and right. For example: Are there specific issues and even images that the parents complained about? Is it fair, or even accurate, to describe their concerns as complaining about “books and lessons that contain LGBTQ+ characters”? Is that the heart of the issue? What are the titles of some of the books? What content issues did parents mention (if they were allowed to mention them)?

However, it’s important to note that some conservatives praised this story in social media as being rather fair-minded. Why? Because Post editors did allow some of the parents to be quoted.

Kind of. There are no quotes, however, that clash with the Post descriptions of the classroom materials. Here is a sample:

Shibeshi Darge listened to the bullhorn speeches from the middle of a crowd of hundreds, holding a large poster board sign that declared “Calling someone hater for asking his rights hurts.”

“I’m here for the children,” said Darge, who lives in Silver Spring and has three children in kindergarten and fourth and fifth grades.

Montgomery County school officials said that Maryland state law does not permit parents to opt their children out of certain lessons, except for a specific unit on sexuality and family life in the health education curriculum.

Still, Darge, an Orthodox Christian, said he would like the option for his children to opt out of reading books with LGBTQ+ themes because those themes do not align with his family’s faith.

Books containing “LGBTQ+ themes”? That’s what he said? Later, this protester notes:

Darge said he imagines protests will keep growing if the school board stands its ground.

“We’re a big community,” he said.

Tuesday’s rally was the first Darge chose to attend, but he said he would be back with more parents if the school board failed to act. He said the district’s claim that state law bars the opt-out will not silence demonstrators.

“To the parents, that is not acceptable,” he said. “This is our kids.”

There was a noticeable, unusual security presence outside the building for a board meeting; security staff directed traffic, and dozens were stationed in front of the building’s entrances. The school system restricted meeting attendance to guests and those who registered to speak during the public comment period.

At this point I started to wonder: What did some of the Muslim leaders have to say?

Online, I was seeing quite a few references to a speech by Sameerah Munshi of the @CoalitionVirtue group. I also wanted to know what school leaders have been saying in response.

The story did note this:

During the meeting, most of the public comments were focused on the supplemental curriculum. Jennifer Martin, the president of the district’s teachers union, spoke via video in favor of the books.

“Students must have texts that reflect the many identities people have,” Martin said.

As you would expect, the Fox News coverage of the same event included some additional material. The hot-button quote in the story came from an earlier meeting in local government.

I wondered if this quote had something to do with the larger crowds, especially the turnout from Muslim communities?

Following the children speaking out at the June 6 meeting, a Montgomery County council member, Kristin Mink, accused them of being on the "side of White supremacists."

"This issue has unfortunately does put… some Muslim families on the same side of an issue as White supremacists and outright bigots," the Democrat representing County Council for District 5 said. "I would not put you in the same category as those folks, although, you know, it's complicated because they're falling on the same side of this particular issue."

The Fox News story also stressed the remarks by Muslim demonstrators and activists, such as the aforementioned Munshi.

"We [as Muslims] reject the implication that acting on our faith's principles is a willful means of harming others. In fact, we see it as a point of bigotry that some only care for our community and will only protect our rights when we assimilate to their way of life and ways of thinking," Sameera Munshi of the Coalition of Virtue said. 

"Our faith is not partisan and our people are not backwards," she continued. "Part of the American dream of our people is that they pass on their values to their children. But members of this school board have mocked our values and have said we cannot be allowed to opt our children out precisely because they want to end that dream."

Why not quote the Muslim voices?

This leaves me with several unanswered journalism questions. The main one: How will newsrooms that depend on the support and respect of American progressives cover the presence of Islamic believers in “parental rights” coalitions?

During the podcast, I suggested a few hooks for news stories that might be worth exploring:

(1) GetReligion patriarch Richard Ostling recently published a Memo — before this near-Beltway firestorm — about an important document, published in May, that is clearly linked to these discussions. That Ostling headline:: “200-plus North American Muslim authorities join the sexuality culture wars.”

Journalists: Click here for a copy of that document: “Navigating Differences — Clarifying Sexual and Gender Ethics in Islam.” Ostling noted:

The ad hoc grouping upholds the “immutable” teaching on sexuality defined by the Quran and Hadith sayings of the Prophet Muhammad, then “unanimously agreed upon” in Islamic jurisprudence over the succeeding 14 centuries.

The newer news is that these scholars also assert that believers have been unfairly put on the defensive. The signers acknowledge that North American law and culture have moved away from traditional beliefs on marriage, sexual relations and gender identity, and affirm that citizens of a democracy who disagree with Islam have every right “to live in peace and free from abuse.”

However, they say, religious dissenters face “unwarranted accusations of bigotry” and, more troubling, “an increasing push to promote LGBTQ+ beliefs among children through legislation and regulations, disregarding parental consent” and suppressing Muslims’ “conscientious objection.” This is said to “subvert” parents, worsen “intolerance” in society and violate citizens’ religious freedom.

“We call on policymakers to protect our constitutional right to practice our religious beliefs freely, without fear of harassment, and to oppose any legislation seeking to stifle the religious freedoms of faith communities.”

Yo, editors: Maybe this is relevant? Read Ostling’s full Memo here at GetReligion.

(2) Another interesting point from Ostling: Have Muslim scholars been active in preparing briefs for the U.S. Supreme Court linked to church-state cases and, in particular, those focusing on clashes between the First Amendment and the doctrines of the Sexual Revolution?

Ostling looked for briefs of this kind linked to the landmark Obergefell v. Hodges decision on same-sex marriage. He didn’t find any. Will this change with future cases?

(3) OK, I will ask: Are there any active, traditional Muslim lawyers on the teams of major D.C. Beltway church-state think tanks on the cultural left or the right? What do these Islamic believers have to say?

(4) What about Muslims in networks linked to private religious schools and homeschooling? Well, OurMuslimHomeschool.com might be a good place to start. Are Islamic communities involved in efforts to defend their homeschooling rights (such as the Home School Legal Defense Association)? How about the rights of administrators of Muslim private schools?

I’ll end with this: Is it possible for public-school leaders to safely navigate what is clearly a clash between two different kinds of religious faith?

In his Substack feed, my longtime friend Rod “Live Not By Lies” Dreher urged readers to listen to this speech by a Canadian teacher, responding to the rise of Muslim “parental rights” activists.

Dreher also recommends this Twitter blast from the Muslim feminist Asra Nomani, concerning the demonstrations in Montgomery County.

Note: This is a women who states that she agrees with the cultural left on some issues, but that it’s time to face the obvious: Traditional Muslim believers cannot compromise on issues linked to the moral education of their children.

That’s all for now.

This story has been developing for a decade or more in Beltway-land. As Ostling noted in his Memo, i’s time for mainstream coverage.

Enjoy the podcast and, please, pass it along to others.

FIRST IMAGE: Screen shot from the Substack feed of Rod Dreher, focusing on social-media reports about the Muslim demonstrations at the Montgomery County Board of Education meetings.