Separation of Church and State

[Blythany]

My state of Arkansas recently passed legislation allowing the teaching of Bible classes as electives in High Schools (I'm not sure about Jr. High Schools and Middle School). These classes would be classified as history classes. Some people in the state are saying the separation of church and states is being demolished and action is being taken by some to repeal it. It is set to begin next school year in Arkansas. I'm curious of what others think of the situation. What has your state done? Is this taking place anywhere else? Any thoughts and comments are welcomed!

[Choronzon]

My state of Arkansas recently passed legislation allowing the teaching of Bible classes as electives in High Schools

Underlined word makes it ok. No one has to take it.

[Scomagia]

No one is being forced to listen to their bullshit, so I'm not too concerned. Probably shouldn't be considered history though.

[Daynor]

These classes would be classified as history classes.

I would have just gone for science. Go big or go home.

I'm okay with this. A lot of our world is shaped by religious terms and concepts.

[TaQud]

My state of Arkansas recently passed legislation allowing the teaching of Bible classes as electives in High Schools (I'm not sure about Jr. High Schools and Middle School). These classes would be classified as history classes. Some people in the state are saying the separation of church and states is being demolished and action is being taken by some to repeal it. It is set to begin next school year in Arkansas. I'm curious of what others think of the situation. What has your state done? Is this taking place anywhere else? Any thoughts and comments are welcomed!

elective just means it is in option so its doesn't mean its mandatory so it shouldn't be that much of a problem...

[Scomagia]

My state of Arkansas recently passed legislation allowing the teaching of Bible classes as electives in High Schools (I'm not sure about Jr. High Schools and Middle School). These classes would be classified as history classes. Some people in the state are saying the separation of church and states is being demolished and action is being taken by some to repeal it. It is set to begin next school year in Arkansas. I'm curious of what others think of the situation. What has your state done? Is this taking place anywhere else? Any thoughts and comments are welcomed!

elective just means it is in option so its doesn't mean its mandatory so it shouldn't be that much of a problem...

What would be a problem is if classes that study other religions were shut out. Then it would be a Separation of Church and State issue.

[TaQud]

elective just means it is in option so its doesn't mean its mandatory so it shouldn't be that much of a problem...

What would be a problem is if classes that study other religions were shut out. Then it would be a Separation of Church and State issue.

obviously yes...

[Scomagia]

What would be a problem is if classes that study other religions were shut out. Then it would be a Separation of Church and State issue.

obviously yes...

I was just pointing out that there really isn't anything to discuss here.

[Thafoo]

No one is being forced to listen to their bullshit, so I'm not too concerned. Probably shouldn't be considered history though.

Yes it should, because the Bible is a piece of history, no matter how non-existent the omnipotent being in it is.

[I Want to Smash Them All]

My state of Arkansas recently passed legislation allowing the teaching of Bible classes as electives in High Schools (I'm not sure about Jr. High Schools and Middle School). These classes would be classified as history classes. Some people in the state are saying the separation of church and states is being demolished and action is being taken by some to repeal it. It is set to begin next school year in Arkansas. I'm curious of what others think of the situation. What has your state done? Is this taking place anywhere else? Any thoughts and comments are welcomed!

Actually, I believe only the Arkansas House of Representatives has passed the bill in question and it may be meaningless:

Arkansas House passes bill for Bible study Feb. 20, 2013

LITTLE ROCK (AP) — The Arkansas House approved a bill Monday to require the state’s Education Board to sign off on classes involving an academic study of the Bible.

Lawmakers voted 79-3 in favor of House Bill 1017 that would direct the state to approve elective Bible courses as long as they meet certain standards, such as an appropriate level of academic rigor. Republican Rep. Denny Altes of Fort Smith is sponsoring the bill.

Those who voted for the measure included Rep. Karen Hopper, R-Lakeview, Rep. Tommy Wren, D-Melbourne, Rep. John Payton, R-Wilburn, Rep. Scott Baltz, D-Pocahontas, Rep. David Branscum, R-Marshall, and Rep. John Burris, R-Harrison.

Rep. Kelley Linck, R-Yellville, was one of 17 House members who did not vote on HB1017.

Department of Education Chief of Staff Phyllis Stewart said Monday that the legislation is unnecessary because school districts are already allowed to offer an academic study of the Bible as a history or social studies elective course. She said about four or five schools in the state offer such classes.

Altes acknowleged his bill does “almost nothing,” but codifies the law.

However, the devil (no pun intended) is in the details of how and why the Bible is being used in teaching and laws like this tend to end up violating the separation of Church and State.
Course Correction: Ark. Legislators Should Rethink Bible Class Promotion:

Texas legislators got the bright idea in 2007 to pass legislation encouraging public school districts to begin offering courses about the Bible. Although objective academic study of religion is constitutionally permissible in public schools, Americans United was suspicious.

Indeed, it hasn’t worked out so well. Reports issued by the Texas Freedom Network indicate that many of the classes are anchored in fundamentalist Christianity. Some promote creationism, the Religious Right’s inaccurate version of American history and even the idea that modern-day racial differences are the result of descent from the three sons of Noah.

Now it appears that Arkansas lawmakers are determined to go down the same misguided path.

The Arkansas House of Representatives yesterday passed House Bill 1017, a measure that directs education officials to approve elective Bible courses in public schools. Allegedly, the courses will have to meet certain academic standards.

Again, AU is just a bit skeptical. We were told the same thing in Texas as well. The classes were supposed to be objective and offer real academic content. In fact, the Lone Star State allocated no money for teacher training or curriculum development. As a result, lots of teachers are just flying by the seat of their pants.

One high school teacher in Abilene, Texas, was perhaps too frank when he told a local newspaper, “It would be nice to have some training and some guidance, but I'll just have to wing it on my own. I'll make it up as I go.”

This is not a recipe for success. Yet it’s the one Arkansas legislators seems intent on following.

Phyllis Stewart, an official with the Arkansas Department of Education, told the Associated Press that she believes the bill doesn’t change things much. Stewart said school districts are already permitted to offer Bible classes and said the measure does “almost nothing.”

I’m not so sure about that. Putting the state on record as officially favoring the courses may prod some districts to implement Bible classes. Without guidance from professional educators who have no theological axe to grind, the classes could easily end up being Sunday School lessons on steroids.

Just to be clear, legitimate instruction about religion is permissible in public schools. The Supreme Court made this clear in 1963 in the school prayer case Abington School District v. Schempp.

In that landmark ruling, Justice Tom Clark observed, “It might well be said that one's education is not complete without a study of comparative religion or the history of religion and its relationship to the advancement of civilization. It certainly may be said that the Bible is worthy of study for its literary and historic qualities. Nothing we have said here indicates that such study of the Bible or of religion, when presented objectively as part of a secular program of education, may not be effected consistently with the First Amendment.”

Unfortunately, as the Texas experience indicates, that’s not what goes on in many of these courses. In Texas, the default assumption is often that the fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible is correct. There is no comparative religion by reading other religious texts and no serious examination of the many perspectives of how the Bible came to be. (I’m trying to imagine the reaction in Texas if a teacher introduced the school of “higher criticism” favored by many theologians.)

Given the dearth of decent curriculum materials for Bible courses, a better approach is to incorporate religion into the curriculum when it’s appropriate. There would be ample opportunities to do this in history courses, and in English classes, teachers could discuss biblical allusions in novels, short stories and poems.

The Arkansas Bible bill passed by a lopsided vote of 79-3. Here’s hoping the Arkansas Senate is a little more deliberative and puts the brakes on this misguided measure.

The Perils of Teaching the Bible in Public Schools:

Rob Boston at Americans United notes that the Arkansas House just voted to require the state’s Education Board to approve elective classes about the Bible if they meet appropriate standards. The Supreme Court has said the Bible may be taught about in public schools when “presented objectively as part of a secular program of education.”

But teaching about the Bible without teaching it religiously is not an easy thing to do. It requires carefully designed curricula, well-intentioned and well-trained educators, and a commitment to meaningful oversight. People For the American Way was part of a religiously and politically diverse group of organizations that worked together to produce the 1999 publication The Bible in Public Schools, a First Amendment Guide. That guide emphasized that how any such course is taught will determine whether it passes constitutional muster:

When teaching about the Bible in a public school, teachers must understand the important distinction between advocacy, indoctrination, proselytizing, and the practice of religion – which is unconstitutional – and teaching about religion that is objective, nonjudgmental, academic, neutral, balanced, and fair – which is constitutional.

But that’s not how if often works in practice. In 2000, People For the American Way Foundation published a scathing expose, The Good Book Taught Wrong: Bible History Classes in Florida Public Schools. The PFAW Foundation investigation found that “Bible History” classes were often being taught more like Christian Sunday School classes from a sectarian, Protestant perspective. Bible stories were treated as literal history. Among lessons and exam questions asked of students:

• "If you had a Jewish friend who wanted to know if Jesus might be the expectant [sic] Messiah, which book [of the Gospels] would you give him?"
• "Compose an explanation of who Jesus is for someone who has never heard of Him."
• "Why is it hard for a non-Christian to understand things about God?"
• "What is Jesus Christ's relationship to God, to creation, and to you?"
• "Who, according to Jesus, is the father of the Jews? The devil."

That expose led Florida officials to yank those classes and revamp the curricula.

But more than a decade later, similar problems persist, as the Texas Freedom Network documented in a January report that found classes designed more to evangelize students to a literalist, fundamentalist view of the Bible rather than to teach about its role in literature and history. Included in the lesson plans examined by TFN were characterizations of Judaism as a flawed and incomplete religion, Christian-nation approaches to US history, and material “explaining” racial origins via the sons of Noah.

Are Arkansas legislators and education officials prepared to invest in the development of curricula, the training of educators, and meaningful oversight into how the classes are taught?

I would add to these comments:

1. It should be remembered in any discussion (and, more importantly discussed in any use of the Bible in public school classes) that there is no single "Bible." There is the Jewish Bible (the Hebrew scriptures or Tanakh), and various Christian Bibles –- such as Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox –- some with additional books, arranged in a different order. These differences are significant. For example, Judaism does not include the Christian New Testament in its Bible, and the Catholic Old Testament has 46 books while the Protestant has 39. There are also various English translations within each of these traditions. Using any particular Bible (or translation) without expressly addressing and teaching about the differences among various Bibles would likely to suggest to students that it that particular version is normative (i.e., "the" or "the best" Bible).

2. Teaching the contents of any Bible as history is fundamentally flawed and would violate the First Amendment. Obviously, both the Old and New Testaments describe many inherently religious events and teach the existence of God. It is unacceptable to teach high school students that these are factual events and entities. It is a matter of faith whether these events happened as described and whether individuals/entities described exist or existed. Also, it is highly controversial even whether or not the "mundane" parts of the Bible are good accounts of history.

3. Teaching about the influence of the Bible on history is more reasonable and may be constitutional, but it isn't straightforward or non-controversial. For good or bad, many things (such as U.S. law) are attributed to "the Bible" without much foundation for that attribution. Students should not be taught falsehoods merely because communities, teachers, etc., believe them as part of their religious creed. More critically, historical events that may have been influenced by the Bible include both "good" and "bad" things. The concern should not just be both that the Bible's influence on history is not sugar-coated AND not be overly vilified. One can easily image how parents, teachers, community members, etc., may well object strenuously (reasonably or not) to how the Bible is portrayed whether they are Jewish, Christian (of any denomination), Muslim, believe in any religion, or believe in no religion. (Merely being outrageous to some -- or even all -- does not make public school instruction illegal, but it is a practical concern that may rise to a legal concern.)

See also The Bible & Public Schools: A First Amendment Guide (20 p pdf) (this 1999 publication was endorsed by a wide range of religious organizations, teachers and school board groups, civil rights organizations and other groups); ADL: Religion in the Public Schools.

[I Want to Smash Them All]

My state of Arkansas recently passed legislation allowing the teaching of Bible classes as electives in High Schools

Underlined word makes it ok. No one has to take it.

Although many have expressed this sentiment, a class being an elective is only slightly relevant to whether or not it violates the separation of Church and State. If a class violates the First Amendment because it respects an establishment of religion, whether or not students are coerced into attending the class does not make it constitutional. Coercion of students or the lack thereof may be relevant to determining whether a state action establishes religion, but that is all. For example, no one should be taxed to pay for the government to teach a religious viewpoint regardless of whether or not anyone is forced to attend.

The First Amendment mandates governmental neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion. Government entities and state actors may not aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another -- whether they be the state legislature, the state Education Board, a local school board, etc. Thus, the statue in question, its implementation, or the content of any class that results from the statute must all (1) reflect a clearly secular purpose; (2) has a primary effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion; and (3) avoid excessive government entanglement with religion. Any action of the state which, either directly or indirectly, conveys that religion, or a particular type of religion, is more accepted, respected, or tolerated than another value system has the potential to subtly coerce students to acquiesce to the promoted religion and is verboten. Any elective public school course and its contents are created by state actors and taught by state actors. Further, the existence of the elective course is pursuant to an act of the state legislature. Thus, there are multiple levels of state action that must be scrutinized to protect fundamental liberties.

That said, it is not clear the content of the courses would violate the First Amendment or that the statute is unconstitutional

[Menassa]

Nothing's being forced upon you...

'Bible Classes' is a loose definition... who is teaching them? What Testament is it on?

[Lemanrussland]

I'm of the opinion that it's a clear violation of separation of Church and State.

They are teaching the Bible as "history", which is completely unconstitutional, at least in my opinion. Publicly funded schools should not be endorsing any religion whatsoever... they should only teach children about religion from a factual, non-partisan standpoint.

The whole point of separation of church and state is so that no one's religion is held over another, and that the state does not meddle with the religious beliefs of anyone.

[Menassa]

I'm of the opinion that it's a clear violation of separation of Church and State.

They are teaching the Bible as "history", which is completely unconstitutional, at least in my opinion. Publicly funded schools should not be endorsing any religion whatsoever... they should only teach children about religion from a factual, non-partisan standpoint.

The whole point of separation of church and state is so that no one's religion is held over another, and that the state does not meddle with the religious beliefs of anyone.

They're not making you take the class... you can choose not to get involved.

[Lemanrussland]

I'm of the opinion that it's a clear violation of separation of Church and State.

They are teaching the Bible as "history", which is completely unconstitutional, at least in my opinion. Publicly funded schools should not be endorsing any religion whatsoever... they should only teach children about religion from a factual, non-partisan standpoint.

The whole point of separation of church and state is so that no one's religion is held over another, and that the state does not meddle with the religious beliefs of anyone.

They're not making you take the class... you can choose not to get involved.

So it would be alright if the government started to set up state churchs, as long as admission was voluntary (besides the whole "we're going to tax you to pay for this" thing)?

There is already a place for this sort of thing, in the parent's home, and at the church/mosque/synagogue/whatever.

[Empire of Narnia]

Separation of church and state sucks. America should be a theocracy.

[Wisconsin9]

My school's only religious class is Biblical Literature, which counts for half an English credit. I, an atheist who fully supports the separation of church and state, plan on taking it next year.

[Menassa]

They're not making you take the class... you can choose not to get involved.

So it would be alright if the government started to set up state churchs, as long as admission was voluntary (besides the whole "we're going to tax you to pay for this" thing)?

There is already a place for this sort of thing, in the parent's home, and at the church/mosque/synagogue/whatever.

Do taxpayers decide where their money goes?

[Dyakovo]

So it would be alright if the government started to set up state churchs, as long as admission was voluntary (besides the whole "we're going to tax you to pay for this" thing)?

There is already a place for this sort of thing, in the parent's home, and at the church/mosque/synagogue/whatever.

Do taxpayers decide where their money goes?

No.

[Menassa]

Do taxpayers decide where their money goes?

No.

This I did not know... if it wasn't wasting taxpayers money.

[Suicune]

If it was handled properly it shouldn't be a problem. However, it won't be and people will, and should complain.

[Nationalist State of Knox]

Separation of church and state sucks. America should be a theocracy.

And England should be ruled by the French.

[Menassa]

Separation of church and state sucks. America should be a theocracy.

And England should be ruled by the French.

England's not ruled by the french? Goddamned state textbooks!

All their money went to these newfangled 'bible classes.'

[Nationalist State of Knox]

And England should be ruled by the French.

England's not ruled by the french? Goddamned state textbooks!

All their money went to these newfangled 'bible classes.'

Where the US spends their tax money is no concern of mine. If they had half a mind, they'd spend it on raising the defence budget to allow for war elephants.

Afghanistan would be over in a matter of days.

[Reggae Magmia]

Eh... I don't know on this one. It's an elective so It's probably not an issue, but then one must ask the question of "what about the books of other faiths? Is it favoritism and or promotion of a religion if others are not also studied?" Tough call.

Separation of church and state sucks. America should be a theocracy.

And civil war would break out immediately over which denomination should head the theocracy.

That is just one possible problem of the countless more I don't feel like going in to at 2:30 in the morning.