EMILY GILL

Within the last several weeks, Texas officials have approved a Bible-based elementary school curriculum for reading and language arts. Although it is optional, financial incentives exist to induce individual districts to adopt approved curricula. The Oklahoma school superintendent is seeking to require all educators there to teach from the Bible. Meanwhile, a federal judge in Louisiana blocked a state law requiring a Ten Commandments display in all public school classrooms. These efforts to force religion into public educational settings are problematic, to say the least.

First, they constitute a state endorsement of religion, a move that many Supreme Court justices have in the past interpreted as an establishment of religion. The Court has now moved away from an endorsement test to the issue of coercion. Justice Clarence Thomas favors a return to what he takes as the original meaning of the establishment clause, the “coercion of religious orthodoxy and of financial support by force of law and threat of penalty” (Van Orden v. Perry, 2005). The Louisiana judge wrote, however, that a Ten Commandments display is coercive in its effects, as students cannot opt out of viewing it when it will be present in all educational settings throughout their school years. Incidentally, school districts will be forced to display the Ten Commandments even if their governing boards disagree with the law, and they will be penalized for not complying.

Second, the display will constitute only one version of the Ten Commandments, whereas different versions are orthodox to different religious denominations. A classic definition of separation of church and state means that no aid to or promotion of religion in the public sphere is permissible, lest the government favor some religions over others or favor religion generally over nonreligion. A broader definition equates separation with nonpreferentialism, or the stance that the government may aid religion as long as it does not prefer some religions over others. A required Ten Commandments display falls afoul of both of these definitions. It favors Judeo-Christianity over Islam, Hinduism, and many other religious expressions. Even if classrooms were required to display religious expressions of all major faiths, some would be left out, including those adhering to no religion. Increasing pluralism in the U.S. has necessarily expanded the requirements of government neutrality toward religion.

Third, many parents and teachers in Texas have objected to the Bible-based curriculum, arguing that the lessons blur instruction and proselytization and present scripture as factual truth to young children. Moreover, the curriculum favors Christianity over other faiths. Proponents say that knowledge of the Golden Rule and the Prodigal Son, for instance, is necessary for cultural literacy. Governor Greg Abbott says that reading comprehension will suffer without this knowledge. This material, however, belongs in a history of religion class, not in English class.

Fourth, those who favor the insertion of religious displays and materials into public schools are often also those who criticize government overreach and desire to lessen government regulation in people’s lives. These are also the same people who favor vouchers that parents can use at private schools, including religious ones, thereby increasing parental choice. Some parents, however, have objected that religion-based curricula infringe on their own rights to religious freedom. Children should receive secular education at school and religious education at home or in their own religious communities.

Finally, yes, it is true, as the Louisiana Ten Commandments posters are required to state, that these were “a prominent part of American public education for almost three centuries.” But think of slavery, Jim Crow, lack of women suffrage, and laws against same-sex intimacy. The longevity of a practice proves nothing about its virtue.

— Emily Gill is Caterpillar Professor of Political Science Emerita, Bradley University