Oklahoma Superintendent Ryan Walters announces guidelines for Bible usage.
Oklahoma Superintendent Ryan Walters announces guidelines for Bible usage.
Oklahoma Superintendent Ryan Walters issued guidelines Wednesday on how teachers should include the Bible in public school curriculum that include requiring analysis of biblical stories and art.
You're viewing a single thread.
“The Bible is indispensable in understanding the development of Western civilization and American history. To ensure our students are equipped to understand and contextualize our nation, its culture, and its founding, every student in Oklahoma will be taught the Bible in its historical, cultural, and literary context.”
We learned this in elementary school. We learned that the colonies were, in large part, established as a way to escape religious oppression and persecution by The Church of England. One of the most important points of this country is to be free to practice any religion you wish.
Annie Laurie Gaylor, co-president of state-church watchdog group Freedom From Religion Foundation, said the guidelines are unconstitutional.
I'm not so sure. The First Amendment stipulates that Congress shall not establish a religion. States are free to do as they wish. This is an Oklahoma matter and I hope they figure out that this guy and the rest of his oppressive cult are full of bullshit.
Actually, I would support our public education covering Christianity, Islam, Judaism, and other non-Abrahamic religions in an honest historical manner. I learned more about the world and human history in my college art classes which were heavily influenced be religious paintings. Human history has been immensely influenced by religion. It shouldn't be ignored.
There's a lot of misinformation and a lot of cultists out there lying to everyone for power and glory. American children should be well educated. Our public schools should have higher standards. Our teachers should be paid more and better educated themselves. The conservative push towards private and (publicly subsidized) charter schools is detrimental to the future of our nation as a whole.
These cult leaders are an insult to our ancestors and our founding fathers and mothers. I think most people would agree that being religious isn't inherently bad. But forcing others to do what you 'believe' to be true aligns you more with the Devil than with Jesus.
I'm not so sure. The First Amendment stipulates that Congress shall not establish a religion. States are free to do as they wish. This is an Oklahoma matter and I hope they figure out that this guy and the rest of his oppressive cult are full of bullshit.
The Fourteenth Amendment extends the prohibitions to the States.
Which part? Do you have any case law to reference?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution?wprov=sfla1
Literally most of the cases you've ever heard of.
Uh, what? How does this apply? Can you use your words, please?
From the Wikipedia link:
The Due Process Clause prohibits state and local governments from depriving persons of life, liberty, or property without a fair procedure. The Supreme Court has ruled that this clause makes most of the Bill of Rights as applicable to the states as it is to the federal government, as well as to recognize substantive and procedural requirements that state laws must satisfy.
It's not straightforward from reading the amendment, so you have to look at Supreme Court rulings to see how it has been interpreted.
The tenth amendment says,
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Given the context, it’s reasonable to assume the Supreme Court (especially today’s court) would hold that the first amendment is specific about Congress not establishing religion and therefor is open to interpretation by the states.
Unless you have a specific case law regarding the application of the first amendment to state legislation regarding religion, I’m not seeing how The Due Process law is relevant.I really want to know so I’ve ’done my own research’.
Here’s the closest cases I could find. It seems reasonable here that the Supreme Court has historically ruled in a way that specifically objects to Oklahoma’s legislation. I’m convinced that you’ve offered relevant material yet I’m still 50/50 on the matter with today’s Supreme Court. If Thomas were off the bench, I could see it ruled otherwise.
Carson v. Makin (2021)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carson_v._MakinThe case centered on the limits of school vouchers offered by the state of Maine, which had disallowed the use of vouchers to pay for religious-based private schools. In a 6–3 decision the Court ruled that Maine's restrictions on vouchers violated the Free Exercise Clause, as they discriminated against religious-backed private schools. The minority opinions argued that the decision worked against the long-standing principle of the separation of church and state, since state governments would now be required to fund religious institutions..
[Roberts] wrote that the Maine legislature excluded "private religious schools from those eligible to receive such funds" and that such exclusion separates of church and state more than intended under the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution. He wrote that, on the basis of Zelman, "a benefit program under which private citizens 'direct government aid to religious schools wholly as a result of their own genuine and independent private choice' does not offend the Establishment Clause."
Zelman v Simmons-Harris (2001)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zelman_v._Simmons-HarrisThe lawsuit was initiated when a group of Ohio taxpayers filed an action against Susan Zelman, the superintendent of public education in Ohio, arguing that the program violated the Establishment Clause. Simmons-Harris, along with other residents of the Cleveland area, argued that the government "could not pay tuition for students to attend religious school".
Chief Justice Rehnquist delivered the majority opinion, which held that the school voucher program was not in violation of the Establishment Clause. The ruling also determined that government support for religion is constitutional if it does not occur de jure but de facto, and if the use of religious facilities is neither specified nor encouraged. Cleveland's program was declared to be religiously neutral and to be giving parents the benefit of true private choice.
The amendment limits the actions of all state and local officials and also those acting on behalf of such officials.