\n<\/p>\n
In 2023, Texas\u00a0passed a law<\/a>\u00a0aimed at\u00a0improving K-12 students\u2019 reading<\/a>. In part, it called for a required reading list to spell out \u201cat least one literary work to be taught in each grade level.\u201d<\/p>\n An initial list<\/a>\u00a0named about 300 texts \u2013 many of them from the Bible. The Texas State Board of Education then cut the list by 100 readings but still included\u00a0more than a dozen biblical texts<\/a>.<\/p>\n Debate over the Bible\u2019s place in classrooms, if any, has erupted since the list was published. At the board\u2019s\u00a0April 10, 2026<\/a>, meeting, all nine Republican members preliminarily approved the materials, while the five Democrats rejected the list. The board plans to\u00a0take a final vote in June<\/a>.<\/p>\n Critics argue that mandatory Bible readings in public schools would\u00a0violate the religion clauses in the First Amendment<\/a>\u00a0to the U.S. Constitution.<\/p>\n American courts have considered similar questions for 150 years \u2013 with the answer often depending on a lesson\u2019s purpose.<\/p>\n The first reported case on the Bible in U.S. schools was in 1872, when the Supreme Court of Ohio\u00a0affirmed a ban against religious instruction<\/a>\u00a0in public classrooms. Conversely, 50 years later, the Supreme Court of Georgia\u00a0upheld an ordinance<\/a>\u00a0to start school days with readings from the King James Version of the Bible.<\/p>\n Bible reading first reached the U.S. Supreme Court in 1963, in the case of School District of Abington Township v. Schempp. This case, from Pennsylvania,\u00a0was consolidated with a similar one from Maryland<\/a>, called Murray v. Curlett.<\/p>\n Opponents in both states challenged mandatory Bible readings and prayer at the start of school days. The plaintiffs argued that these activities violated\u00a0the establishment clause<\/a>\u00a0of the U.S. Constitution\u2019s First Amendment: that \u201cCongress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.\u201d<\/p>\n The justices\u00a0struck down both practices<\/a>, finding that they did not have a secular purpose and that their main effect was to advance religion.<\/p>\n Attempting to allay concerns they were anti-religious, the justices declared, \u201cIt 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.\u201d<\/p>\n Justice William Brennan\u2019s concurrence added, \u201cThe holding of the Court today\u00a0plainly does not foreclose<\/a>\u00a0teaching about the Holy Scriptures or about the differences between religious sects in classes in literature or history.\u201d<\/p>\n Similarly, in the following decades, lower courts invalidated classes as violating the establishment clause if the subject matter promoted Christianity \u2013 teaching it as religious truth rather than discussing the Bible\u2019s literary and historical qualities. In 1981, for instance, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals banned a\u00a0Bible literature<\/a>\u00a0course in Alabama.<\/p>\n Two years later, the\u00a08th Circuit<\/a>\u00a0summarily affirmed<\/a>\u00a0a judgment striking down a program in Arkansas allowing students\u00a0to take voluntary Bible classes during school hours<\/a>.<\/p>\n In 1996, a federal trial court in Mississippi invalidated\u00a0Bible study classes<\/a>\u00a0taught in a rotation with music, physical education and library courses, plus another called A Biblical History of the Middle East. The courts agreed that the classes were unacceptable because they advanced Christianity.<\/p>\n Returning to Texas, the board\u2019s reading list\u00a0is far from inclusive<\/a>. Proposed passages are primarily from a handful of translations of the Bible: the English Standard Version, New International Reader\u2019s Version, King James Version, and one from the Jewish Publication Society. The list does not include translations used by Catholics or sacred texts from non-Jewish and non-Christian faiths.<\/p>\n Texts on the proposed list<\/a>\u00a0include well-known biblical lessons such as the Golden Rule for kindergarten, the Parable of the Prodigal Son for first grade, Corinthains\u2019 definition of love for seventh grade, and the Beatitudes for eighth grade \u2013 the passage that begins, \u201cBlessed are the poor.\u201d Selections for older students include David and Goliath, The Tower of Babel, and passages from the books of Job and Ecclesiastes \u2013 that \u201cfor everything there is a season.\u201d<\/p>\n As of now, the proposal permits\u00a0parents who object<\/a>\u00a0to opt their children out of specific readings if they conflict with their religious or moral beliefs.<\/p>\n As Brennan noted in Abington, the Supreme Court \u201cplainly does not foreclose<\/a>\u00a0teaching about the Holy Scriptures or about the differences between religious sects in classes in literature or history.\u201d However, there is a significant difference between\u00a0objectively teaching about<\/a>\u00a0religion and teaching of religion from a faith perspective.<\/p>\n This difference has been important throughout my own career. For 36 years,\u00a0I have taught law<\/a>\u00a0with a special interest in the relationships between religion, law and education. But in addition to my education and law degrees, I hold a master\u2019s degree in divinity. I previously taught religion, social studies and law to high school students, while teaching college theology part time.<\/p>\n Teaching religion at two Catholic high schools before and after law school, my job was to inculcate Roman Catholic values in my students. Conversely, teaching theology to adult students, I emphasized 11th-century theologian Anselm of Canterbury\u2019s dictum that theology represents \u201cfaith seeking understanding<\/a>.\u201d In other words, my goal was to enable them to make their own judgments about whether to follow religious teachings.<\/p>\n In many cases, I have argued that increasing religious practices in public life is constitutional. My concern about Texas, however, is that the readings fail to distinguish between teaching about and of religion. Expanding students\u2019 horizons and advancing tolerance by exposing them to religious perspectives is a good intention. Yet the breadth of selections is hardly inclusive, given its focus primarily on Christianity, to the exclusion of other faiths. Texas certainly can promote teaching about religion to enhance understanding of others, but it must be careful not to teach religion.<\/p>\n \n <\/div>\nCourts, Bible and schools<\/h2>\n
Texas proposal<\/h2>\n
2 types of teaching<\/h2>\n