Bill introduced to require Bible reading in all public schools, sparking constitutional questions - NewsBreak
NewsBreak, By LAURA GUIDO, on February 7, 2025
https://www.newsbreak.com/share/3794686379971-bill-introduced-to-require-bible-reading-in-all-public-schools-sparking-constitutional-questions
Idaho lawmakers are considering a bill that would require daily Bible readings in public schools, specifically from the King James Version (KJV) or New King James Version (NKJV). Introduced by Representative Jordan Redman and backed by the Idaho Family Policy Center, the legislation mandates that an occupied classroom in every school district read the Bible sequentially each morning, completing the entire book over ten years. The bill’s proponents argue that this has historical merit, as Bible readings were common in public schools before the 1960s. However, opponents point out that such a law would be a clear violation of the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause, which prohibits government endorsement of religion. Critics argue that this initiative is not just unconstitutional but also fundamentally ineffective in fostering faith, as passive, mandatory exposure to scripture without discussion or interpretation is unlikely to inspire genuine belief. The comparison is made to literature classes—no teacher would require students to read To Kill a Mockingbird without analysis or engagement. The plan, which dictates a rigid reading schedule, would subject students to some of the Bible’s more controversial and inappropriate content, such as violent passages or sexually explicit themes, raising concerns about age appropriateness and teacher preparedness. Some skeptics suggest that the plan could backfire, as forcing students to sit through lengthy, archaic passages from the KJV—a version known for its difficult language—may bore them into disinterest. There is also the issue of Christian exclusivity, as the law would not require readings from other religious or philosophical texts, effectively promoting one religious tradition in a public education setting. Even within Christianity, the KJV is not universally accepted, with many denominations—including Catholics—not considering it a primary translation. The bill’s opt-out clause, which requires parental permission, is also controversial. Critics argue that default participation assumes that Christianity is the norm and that non-Christian students must actively excuse themselves, which could ostracize them. Furthermore, precedent from cases like Abington School District v. Schempp has already determined that mandatory Bible readings in public schools are unconstitutional, reinforcing the argument that this legislation would not stand up to legal scrutiny. There is broader concern that this is part of a larger effort to push Christian nationalism, using historical precedent as justification. However, as critics point out, historical precedent does not inherently validate a practice—slavery, segregation, and other outdated societal norms were once common but are now rightfully condemned. The push to integrate religious teachings into public institutions appears to be less about historical tradition and more about maintaining ideological control in an increasingly secular society. Ultimately, this bill is viewed by opponents as a blatant attempt to erode the separation of church and state, forcing religious doctrine into public education under the guise of tradition. Supporters claim it is a benign acknowledgment of America's Christian heritage, but the reality is that it privileges one religious group at the expense of everyone else. With significant legal hurdles and widespread opposition, this legislation is likely to face strong challenges, both in the courtroom and in public discourse.
The Non-Prophets, Episode 24.7.3 featuring Scott Dickie, Stephen Harder, Helen Greene and The Ejector Seat
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-non-prophets--3254964/support.
NewsBreak, By LAURA GUIDO, on February 7, 2025
https://www.newsbreak.com/share/3794686379971-bill-introduced-to-require-bible-reading-in-all-public-schools-sparking-constitutional-questions
Idaho lawmakers are considering a bill that would require daily Bible readings in public schools, specifically from the King James Version (KJV) or New King James Version (NKJV). Introduced by Representative Jordan Redman and backed by the Idaho Family Policy Center, the legislation mandates that an occupied classroom in every school district read the Bible sequentially each morning, completing the entire book over ten years. The bill’s proponents argue that this has historical merit, as Bible readings were common in public schools before the 1960s. However, opponents point out that such a law would be a clear violation of the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause, which prohibits government endorsement of religion. Critics argue that this initiative is not just unconstitutional but also fundamentally ineffective in fostering faith, as passive, mandatory exposure to scripture without discussion or interpretation is unlikely to inspire genuine belief. The comparison is made to literature classes—no teacher would require students to read To Kill a Mockingbird without analysis or engagement. The plan, which dictates a rigid reading schedule, would subject students to some of the Bible’s more controversial and inappropriate content, such as violent passages or sexually explicit themes, raising concerns about age appropriateness and teacher preparedness. Some skeptics suggest that the plan could backfire, as forcing students to sit through lengthy, archaic passages from the KJV—a version known for its difficult language—may bore them into disinterest. There is also the issue of Christian exclusivity, as the law would not require readings from other religious or philosophical texts, effectively promoting one religious tradition in a public education setting. Even within Christianity, the KJV is not universally accepted, with many denominations—including Catholics—not considering it a primary translation. The bill’s opt-out clause, which requires parental permission, is also controversial. Critics argue that default participation assumes that Christianity is the norm and that non-Christian students must actively excuse themselves, which could ostracize them. Furthermore, precedent from cases like Abington School District v. Schempp has already determined that mandatory Bible readings in public schools are unconstitutional, reinforcing the argument that this legislation would not stand up to legal scrutiny. There is broader concern that this is part of a larger effort to push Christian nationalism, using historical precedent as justification. However, as critics point out, historical precedent does not inherently validate a practice—slavery, segregation, and other outdated societal norms were once common but are now rightfully condemned. The push to integrate religious teachings into public institutions appears to be less about historical tradition and more about maintaining ideological control in an increasingly secular society. Ultimately, this bill is viewed by opponents as a blatant attempt to erode the separation of church and state, forcing religious doctrine into public education under the guise of tradition. Supporters claim it is a benign acknowledgment of America's Christian heritage, but the reality is that it privileges one religious group at the expense of everyone else. With significant legal hurdles and widespread opposition, this legislation is likely to face strong challenges, both in the courtroom and in public discourse.
The Non-Prophets, Episode 24.7.3 featuring Scott Dickie, Stephen Harder, Helen Greene and The Ejector Seat
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-non-prophets--3254964/support.
