Why is there a division between church and state? One of the definitions of religion is “a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance.” The danger in religion being curriculum is that one person might ascribe supreme importance to something that is irrelevant, or even offensive to someone else. The essence of this law, is to prevent one person’s passion from being imposed upon another person.

Religious discussions and observances shape a child’s viewpoint on life, his purpose and who he is. In a similar, but more subtle way, weaving sexuality and sexual identity into discussions and practices at school, shapes the viewpoint of a child as well. It raises questions, thoughts, and emotions that are distracting in school, and inappropriate at a young age. The danger in having these viewpoints mixed in with math, science and language arts lessons, is that they are made absolute, by association with what is more absolute. Clearly, this laced approach is intentional. Additionally, it removes the parent’s ability to opt their child out.

There have been countless measures taken, to remove a religious belief system from all texts and activities at school. Wasn’t this done to prevent unwanted religious persuasion at school? Comprehensive sexuality education is simply a belief system, which is not accepted by everyone, being forced upon the most susceptible to influence, our children. No one wants her child to be told what to believe, especially as it relates to moral matters. These intended changes remove our right to teach and guide our own children, according to our values, and on our own timeline. I am in strong opposition to a bill that gives schools the right to shape a child’s view of who they are. Influencing identity is teaching religion, and that’s my prerogative.

Kristie Barns

Federal Way