isn't an Evangelical Christian. He's said a lot of things that give people good reason to question just how much of a Christian Re-constructionist he is. Reconstructionists have a lot of legitimate criticisms of the state as it is, but so does anyone who is on the outside of power looking in, wanting it so they can impose their own version. They are not libertarians wanting the state out of the way so they can impose nothing in its place.
Parents should be asking questions about how deeply Re-constructionist views may penetrate the curriculum. And if answers aren't easy to find, I expect many people at the screening stage for half a dozen curricula will move on.
Being gob-smacked that anyone's questioning the curriculum will get us nowhere. And if, in their sincere efforts to address their concerns, they come across straw-manning of their criticisms as an attack on Evangelicals, they may conclude their concerns will never be taken seriously and move on to something else that much more quickly.
The people asking these questions are good people looking for quality materials. They've looked into the materials deeply enough to ask, "who is this Gary North?", not just deeply enough to say, "oh, didn't I hear Ron Paul is crazy?" They are the market for the curriculum, not a bunch of statists trying to put down anything freedom-related. If Gary North's involvement is a detriment to that quality to them and there is no argument that addresses their actual concerns, then I would think a reasonable person should move on to something else.
There is a market that's not worried about Reconstructionist views being included, but it's Gothard, ATI, and other patriarchal movements. I was envisioning Ron Paul's curriculum having a further reach and I still hope concerns can be addressed better so it can.