Oklahoma Loosens Rules for Mandatory Classroom Bibles

The good news is that schools won't be forced to stock Trump-endorsed Bibles. The bad news is that they're still being forced to supply Bibles.

Oklahoma public schools will soon be required to stock Bibles in classrooms—though they may no longer end up having to supply a Donald Trump–endorsed copy of the text.

In June, Oklahoma Superintendent of Public Instruction Ryan Walters announced his plan to require schools to stock Bibles in classrooms and incorporate the Bible and Ten Commandments into curriculum.

"Every teacher, every classroom in the state will have a Bible in the classroom and will be teaching from the Bible in the classroom," Walters said, "to ensure that this historical understanding is there for every student in the state of Oklahoma."

In a memo laying out his order to schools, Walters further explained that scripture "will be referenced as an appropriate study of history, civilization, ethics, comparative religion, or the like, as well as for their substantial influence on our nation's founders and the foundational principles of our Constitution."

The announcement was almost immediately met with backlash from critics who saw Walters' move as an unabashed attempt to force religious instruction in schools. It isn't entirely clear whether Walters' directive violates the Establishment Clause, as limited, contextually appropriate discussion of religious texts is already broadly considered legal. The memo pushes "the edge of the envelope," Andrew C. Spiropoulos, a constitutional law professor at the Oklahoma City University School of Law, told The New York Times in June. "By singling it out as a proposal standing alone, that could be legally problematic."

That wasn't the end of the controversy over Walters' directive. Last month, Walters requested a total of $6 million to purchase the 55,000 Bibles needed for Oklahoma classrooms. Earlier this month, The Oklahoman reported that the state's request for proposal (RFP) guidelines—directing how manufacturers should bid for the state's contract to supply the Bibles—were so restrictive that almost no Bibles currently in circulation would meet the criteria. The guidelines required that the Bible be a King James Version of the text bound alongside "copies of The United States Pledge of Allegiance, The U.S. Declaration of Independence, The U.S. Constitution, and The U.S. Bill of Rights." The Bible also had to be bound in a "leather or leather-like material."

One popular Christian bookstore told The Oklahoman that not one of the 2,900 Bibles it carries would meet the requirements. In all, The Oklahoman found just two Bibles that met the strict requirements: Both were endorsed by former President Donald Trump. Both Bibles are far more expensive than typical versions of the text, coming in at $60 and $90.

"It appears to me that this bid is anything but competitive," former Oklahoma Attorney General Drew Edmondson told The Oklahoman. "It adds to the basic specification other requirements that have nothing to do with the text. The special binding and inclusion of government documents will exclude almost all bidders. If the bid specs exclude most bidders unnecessarily, I could consider that a violation."

In response to a flood of new criticism over the RFP's apparent Trump-favoring design, the Oklahoma Department of Education released an updated RFP last week. The new guidelines allow the copies of American founding documents to be provided separately from the Bible. While this update could pave the way for a cheaper Bible to enter Oklahoma's classrooms, the mandate itself is still a bizarre, cynical attempt at religious culture warring—one that could cost taxpayers millions.

"If we get sued and we get challenged, we will be victorious, because the Supreme Court justices [Donald Trump] appointed actually are originalists that look at the Constitution and not what some left-wing professor said about the Constitution," Walters told PBS News in July. "The separation of church and state appears nowhere in the Declaration of Independence or Constitution."

Comments

[Chumby]

End all taxpayer coerced funding for education.

[Uncle Jay]

I have a better idea.
End all taxpayer-funded schools, and let the parents pay for their own kids' education.
Just think of the billions of dollars that would be saved.

[Chumby]

Estimates put the US K-12 public education system at about $850B/yr. That’s a bit of wealth redistribution there.

https://educationdata.org/public-education-spending-statistics

How the parents spend when it is all their own money is up to them. But there’s an opportunity for savings. Maybe more will homeschool.

[I, Woodchipper]

As always, get rid of public schools and the problem is solved.

[Earth-based Human Skeptic]

But how are the precious children to learn (and believe) the official government narratives?

[SQRLSY]

Agreed! However, a MAJOR part of the deal has GOT to be, get rid of licensing!!! If I can't get a license to scratch my butt without Government Almighty's DEGREES-GATED permission, shit's snot worth diddly squat!

Butt don’t you see, SOME professions NEED to be SUPER-highly educated to that they can PROTECT us benighted peons! Think of super-highly edumacated DOCTORS of Expert Medical Doctorology, who protect us from the use of not-properly-authorized DANGEROUS medical implements of mass death and destruction, such ass cheap plastic flutes, AKA, the dreaded, complex and dangerous LUNG FLUTE!!!

To find precise details on what NOT to do, to avoid the flute police, please see http://www.churchofsqrls.com/DONT_DO_THIS/ … This has been a pubic service, courtesy of the Church of SQRLS!

[Mother's Lament]

Tell us about psychologists, Sqrlsy. Do you have a beef with that noble profession?

[Chumby]

They told him to stop eating feces but he knows better. He says the shit he eats is the shit.

[Uncle Jay]

Public schools already have bibles in their libraries.
Their called, "Das Kapital" and "The Communist Manifesto."

[AT]

To say nothing of all the rainbow alphabet cult nonsense.

[mad.casual]

“It appears to me that this bid is anything but competitive,” former Oklahoma Attorney General Drew Edmondson told The Oklahoman. “It adds to the basic specification other requirements that have nothing to do with the text. The special binding and inclusion of government documents will exclude almost all bidders. If the bid specs exclude most bidders unnecessarily, I could consider that a violation.”

LOL. The specs requiring the POA, DOI, Constitution, and BOR makes them anti-competitive?

Good God what fucking retards. Again, one of the "7 Habits of Highly Effective People" is 'Seek the win-win.' The opposition somehow seems to have re-interpreted that as 'Seek the lose-lose.'

New! Improved School Bibles! Now with 2% more Bible!

[Don't look at me!]

Needs more gay sex!

[Chumby]

Sodom and Gamorrah field trip?

[Mother's Lament]

Teach them how to stone infidels who leave tire tracks on sacred crosswalks.

[Dillinger]

the horrors!

[TJJ2000]

“The separation of church and state appears nowhere in the Declaration of Independence or Constitution.” — Holy F crap!!! And this guy is in charge of ?education?…

1st Amendment.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.

14th Amendment.
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.

So long as Commie-Indoctrination camps fly under the legislative body it is MOST DEFINITELY a violation of the 1st Amendment.

[Mother's Lament]

1st Amendment.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…

You forgot the second part.
I’ve got no dog in this fight, but one could argue that making a national rule prohibiting bibles, or even preaching in the classroom and paying for it, is “prohibiting the free exercise thereof”.
Particularly since state governments aren’t “congress”.

[TJJ2000]

Which brings us to the *real* issue.
Commie-Indoctrination camps fly under the legislative body.

Legislation can't prohibit it's *free-market* exercise but also cannot make laws respecting it.

The Slave-State (US Congress versus State Powers) was put to rest by the Civil War and the 14th Amendment in which Prohibited States from violating the Bill of Rights. (Amendments 1-10)

[AT]

The bad news is that they're still being forced to supply Bibles.

You never explained why, Emma.

You are terrible at this. Seriously, your articles are awful. I don't know how or why you have a job here.

[TJJ2000]

Because violating the Supreme Law of the Land. The people's very law over their government is bad even if one thinks the 'ends' justify the 'means' (which is literally how Democrats conquered this nation).

[AT]

Because violating the Supreme Law of the Land.

How do you figure?

[TJJ2000]

1st Amendment.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.
- As long as the Education is Legislated.

[Daddyhill]

maybe this sort of thing would be more tolerable if we could apply the fairness doctrine and require schools to place copies of other religious texts in public school classrooms along with the bible. the koran, for instance, which certainly would qualify as ''an appropriate study of history, civilization, ethics, comparative religion, or the like''. or the foundational texts of the other abrahamic religons. or the shruti texts central to hinduism [e.g. the upanishads]. teaching from the bible [whatever that means] outside of the context of the religious diversity found throughout the world and within the usa, would be intellectually dishonest in classes not explicitly labeled as religious education.

historically, over the course of the 19th and 20th centuries religious education and secular education, which had been in close combination prior to the civil war, diverged as non-public parochial schools developed and prospered. in many communities parochial schools came to be regarded as superior to the public ones in the teaching of general, non-religious subjects. until recently our society accepted the principle that religious bodies may and should create their own schools but that these separatist institutions should not receive financial support out of the community's revenues.

more recently there has been increasing pressure within states and the nation generally, under the shibboleth of 'school choice', to restore public subsidies of non-public schools in the form of school vouchers. to the extent that proponents of choice are acting solely because of their belief that public schools are in bad shape and getting worse, their cause seems reasonable, even admirable when it includes efforts intended to improve public education for everyone. less admirable is their cause when it is driven by one or another form of religious zealotry or desire to escape local school taxes. i'd like to think that money isn't much of a driving factor [apart from the cost of bibles] in our current debates about education, but of course it is. many of us don't want to go on paying taxes for the support of failing public school systems. many of us balk at the notion of providing financial support for students in tax-exempt parochial school systems.

overall it does seem that the school choice movement aims at blurring the differences between public and parochial systems so that church schools and homeschoolers might be supported by the single pot of local revenues. this would be part of a long-game strategy of the right aimed at eliminating our foundational principle of separation of church and state, which they denounce as ahistorical. millions of americans used to fear sharia law as something that might possibly win a place here. millions more fear the imposition of christian religious law on americans of other religions or no religion. i suggest a ceasefire and a return to the societal consensus of the past that allowed public and parochial schools to coexist within our communities without much friction. i tend to regard nostalgia for past times as a type of euphoric recall, but i'm making an exception here. i'm of course aware that my memories of the community i grew up in may be suspect and even factually inaccurate.

i might feel a bit more sanguine about the presence of bibles in classrooms if there were clear indications that both testaments would be referenced equally. after all, conservatives like to refer to american society and culture as based on our judeo-christian heritage. if that's true, is there any reason why the 'judeo' half of that should take second or fifth place behind the christian. if bibles will be required in history and science classes, how exactly will biblical references contribute to those subjects, given that the bible is full of errors, omissions, and ignorance. what about all the violence described in the old testament and practiced by all the strands and forks of christianity that supposedly revered the new.

[i apologize for the 'archie', no caps, one-handed style of keypressing]

[AT]

the koran, for instance, which certainly would qualify as ”an appropriate study of history, civilization, ethics, comparative religion, or the like”.

No it wouldn't. You may as well suggest that we teach them Scientology and Helter Skelter while we're at it.

Thing about the Bible (and Torah) is - which Islam and Hinduism (going all the way back to the Vedic texts) and Buddhism very clearly lack - a foundation based on real history. Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism - they all like to intertwine mythology into it. Islam, in particular, likes to avoid contemporaneous references to the things ACTUALLY happening at the time the Koran supposedly references. Like it's all after the fact. The Bible syncs up with recorded history. The Koran - and Hindu and Buddhist texts - clearly do not. Mohammed, for example, is very much an after-the-fact figure in the Koran, whereas Jesus is as it's happening. Kinda like Mohammed was trying to be a prophet, instead of actually being one.

From an entirely secular perspective, the difference is clear. Jesus was, "They made a religion out of me." Mohammed (and to lesser extents, Siddhartha and Rama - or their authors, at least) is, "I can make a religion out of this."

America - and its Founders - weaved Christianity into every aspect of American values, principles, and culture. They didn't do the same with Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism. It's perfectly appropriate for Middle Eastern schools to teach Islam. As it is for Indian/Asian schools to teach Hinduism/Buddhism. That's culturally relevant, even if it's nonsense.

In America, we teach the Bible. Not just because it's what we were founded upon, but because it's ALSO the most historically/scientifically accurate. It's inherently woven into American culture. If you want to go outside that, for whatever personal interests you might find interesting and valuable (like I did), that's what college is for. Or your local library.

[Mother's Lament]

To be fair the Rigveda most likely does reference events that took place 4000 years ago in the Bactria–Margiana Archaeological Complex and Andronovo culture, as well as the invasions of the Harappan civilization by the Indo-Aryans.

[SRG2]

Thank you for that!

[AT]

That's fair. And props to you Mom, for being versed in the subject. That said, it's still more mythology than recorded history. And that's my point. Nothing quite syncs up with the historical record as much as Christianity does. Now, in full disclosure, Hinduism may suffer from the lack of "recorded" because of just how far back it goes (certainly farther back than Christ, though not necessarily Abraham). That's a legitimate point to make.

But I would posit that the reason Christianity is the most rational of all faiths is because we can look back on it and say things like, "Yea... Pontius Pilate really DID do that." With a much greater frequency and accuracy than we can other religions.

[Zeb]

But what you describe is exactly how those other texts also contribute to studies of history, civilization, ethics, comparative religion, or the like. Your argument seems to be more for the Bible being a superior religious and historical text. Which may be so. But isn't an argument against studying other religious texts in school if the purpose is secular and not religious indoctrination.

[AT]

But those other texts didn’t contribute to American history, civilization, ethics, or the like. The Bible did. Simply put, an American culture studying Americanism (civics, history, and culture) doesn’t care about other religions – because they’re not relevant to studying Americanism.

Because, well, let’s call it what it is: the Founders did, and many Americans still do, consider the Bible a – the – superior religious and historical text. To the point that America’s founding – its history and growth through the decades – can’t be completely understood (let alone appreciated) without understanding the Christian framework that it was based upon. The logistics of the government and our legal system can, sure – but America is so much more than just how its government works.

Which is, incidentally, why I answer any demographic question about my race or ethnicity as: “American.”

Because “American” is distinct race of people. Because American is a distinct ethnicity with its own unique culture, traditions, and way of life. As the saying goes, we’re “the great melting pot.” Well, just like any pot filled with various ingredients, eventually the whole becomes greater than the sum of its parts – and we recognize it as a distinct and identifiable thing thing. Something more than just the ingredients that went into it.

Or, at least, we did. In the age of intersectionality, we seem more obsessed with the individual ingredients, and less interested in the delicious soup that was made by combining them. The way other, frankly more inferior, nations and their people tend to view themselves. (Too many of whom, I'm sorry to say, we're currently importing.)

[Liberty_Belle]

“As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen [Muslims],”

Excerpt from Treaty of Tripoli, – John Adams , circa 1797

[AT]

Yes, but do you understand it? I hope this isn't TLDR for you, and I do hope you read it and give it consideration.

We indisputably did not establish a Christian government. We expressly did not establish a State Religion, and a big part of the reason we declared independence was the explicit rejection of the mandatory Church of England and to escape persecution by the Anglicans.

We also know, indisputably, that Christian faith guided much of the Founders designs and that it was openly referenced by its leadership and the authors of our Founding documents. So, how is that reconciled in a conversation such a this?

Simple: We did not establish a Christian government. But we did establish a Christian society - and by extension a Christian nation. It's the simple difference between the legal framework and the social/moral framework of America. The legal framework is indeed secular (though still-based in Christian ideas such as Natural Law and the Absolute Rights of the Individual being God-Given) as applied to all citizens equally. The social framework, however, they go to great length to establish as explicitly Christian-based.

You'll note that John Adams also said, "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." He also said, "I know not what to make of a republic of 30 million atheists," referring of course to France who, at the time, was feeding the guillotines on a daily basis and heavily persecuting Christians.

Adams - a Christian - was referencing the fact that America is a secular government of and by a religious people. Specifically, Christians. Because Christianity, according to the Founders, was the only religion that advanced the moral principles necessary for the United States of America to work.

And this wasn't reflected just in their speeches and founding documents, but in their basic understandings of Civic Duty and Moral Responsibility/Accountability - which is the ONLY way a rights-based free nation could succeed and prosper. (And, you'll note, why ours is currently in a downward spiral following the modern abdication of those duties and responsibilities.) It could never have worked with something overtly oppressive like Islam (which singularly wants the extermination of anything not-Islamic), or even with something less oppressive like Hinduism (that caste system, and its effect on ones dharma, can get sketchy), or even the chill stuff like Buddhism and Taoism (which was a little too "go with the flow with your non-self"). Christianity was - and still is - the only existing religion that works for America and its principles of governance. And it's no surprise to any Christian how, the more secular and immoral/amoral it becomes, the worse off it becomes and the worse its representative leadership become.

As an aside, it's why I always love when people (on the left, primarily) who try to use the term Christian Nationalist as a slur. Like, that's supposed to be offensive? Every single Founding Father - even the skeptics - were Christian Nationalists. Every time someone jeers the term at me, I feel a great swell of humility being compared to them and knowing I'm not anywhere near as great as God made them.

Anyway, bottom line - Christian nation (or, at least Founded as one) with a secular government. That was the idea. And it worked for a very long time. Now, as Americans abandon Christianity (or bastardize it by reducing all of the Word of God to some simplistic one commandment of "just kinda be nice to each other" belief that requires no effort or repentance or obedience to God - yea, I'm looking at you, Protestants) - you can see how it's quickly falling apart.

"Only for a moral and religious people." But specifically a morality and religion that would champion liberty (God gave us free will), equality (we are all equal under the eyes of God), and democratic self-sovereignty (literally The Golden Rule).

Thanks for your time, Liberty. I know I probably took a bit of it. 🙂

[Mother's Lament]

less admirable is their cause when it is driven by... desire to escape local school taxes.

Sounds admirable to me. This is an ostensibly libertarian website.

[TJJ2000]

“if [WE]” … packing Gov-Guns of locked-step ?education? indoctrination.
^IS THE PROBLEM.

The USA was founded on the principle of Individualism.

[AT]

No, wrong. You couldn’t be more wrong if you tried. To wit: We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The USA was founded on the principles reflected in the moral teachings of Christianity. What you’re thinking of is our economic system – Capitalism – which is based on the principle of Individualism. Which is where our property rights comes from. You own if you earn it, the "collective" has zero claim to anything that's rightfully yours - even, and especially if, they "need" it.

[StevenF]

There was NEVER a requirement for "Trump endorsed Bibles". The requirement was only for Bibles from the start.

[Mother's Lament]

Yes, but it's hard for Emma to smear if you tell the truth.

[SRG2]

When the RFP required extraneous documents only present in the Trump Bibles - note that "not one of the 2,900 Bibles it carries would meet the requirements" - it is a pretty safe bet that the RFP required the Trump bibles.

Plus there is no need for physical Bibles at all. The KJV is widely available online.

[JFree]

Curriculum has been a problem since the beginning of public education in the US – 1647 –

It being one chief project of that old deluder, Satan, to keep men from the knowledge of the Scriptures, as in former times keeping them in an unknown tongue, so in these later times by persuading from the use of tongues, that so at least the true sense and meaning of the Original might be clouded by false glosses of Saint-seeming deceivers; and that Learning may not be buried in the graves of our fore-fathers in Church and Commonwealth, the Lord assisting our endeavors: it is therefore ordered by this Court and Authority therof;

That every Township in this Jurisdiction, after the Lord hath increased them to the number of fifty Householders, shall then forthwith appoint one within their town to teach all such children as shall resort to him to write and read, whose wages shall be paid either by the Parents or Masters of such children, or by the Inhabitants in general, by way of supply, as the major part of those that order the prudentials of the Town shall appoint. Provided that those which send their children be not oppressed by paying much more then they can have them taught for in other towns.

[Mother's Lament]

Where's the problem?

[Moderation4ever]

After all those bibles are purchased, they will sit on the shelves. I attended a Catholic school and we rarely if ever used the bible. Most of our religious studies simply used text books. The average person gets their bible lesson about one a week at church and that is often from a small number of selected stories. This requirement is unconstitutional and a waste of government money.

[JFree]

Sola scriptura is mainly a Protestant thing. It is why those countries emphasized mandatory public education and increased literacy very early on. And why fundamentalism/literalism are so prevalent

[Rex L'Amoureaux]

How did I go back to being an atheist (since we're all born atheists)? I read the bible.

[AT]

That’s an interesting way to perceive it. You were in fact born fallen, and stained with Original Sin, having inherited the propensity for sin and a sinful nature. And, of course, the greatest of all sins is violating the First Commandment; denying God Himself and placing your own beliefs above Him.

Which I suppose would be a default position upon birth that fits the definition of atheist, on account of being cast out of the Garden, no longer in His presence, and forcibly separated from it by legions of angels.

Now, I can’t speak for the denominations that went off and did their own thing, but in Catholicism the sacrament of Baptism fixes that. The propensity for sin is still there, but the relationship with God is fixed – and, assuming they’re raising their child right, the parents help foster that relationship and raise their children in the faith so that, when they’re older they can begin to understand and obey and repent for breaking His Commandments (Reconciliation), participate in the Mystery and have genuine communion with Christ (Eucharist), and ultimately confirm their Catholicism, to become full members of the Church fully imparted the gifts of the Holy Spirit and empowered with the ability to bear witness to Christ (Confirmation).

Meaning that, all throughout your Catholic life, you’re working (or should be working) to fix yourself of that broken state of atheism in service of your obedience to God’s First Commandment. The easiest and worst of them to break. (“Amen I say to you, this very night before the cock crows twice you [Simon Peter, the First Apostle and the rock upon which His Church was built] will deny me three times.”) And it's the easiest to break because it's the one the deadly sins - especially pride and envy, the two most seductive - encourage breaking.

So…. yea. I guess you’re kinda right. We are all born atheists. And then we have to – with the help of our family and later our Catholic community – decide to reunite with God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit. And commit to it in our daily lives, knowing that we will constantly fail and keep picking ourselves up in spite of it.

You really gave me a lot to think about, Rex, thank you! If you ever want a hand in finding your way back, consider this an indefinitely open offer. Thank you, sincerely.

[Liberty_Belle]

Bible thumpers are gonna thump.