Edward McKinley of the Houston Chronicle reports that the Texas State Board of Education is on track to approve Bible-based teaching in public schools. The Christian evangelicals are running the show in Texas, with help from Governor Gregg Abbot. They are knocking down the wall of separation between church and state with a sledgehammer. What about the rights of children whose parents are secular or not Christian?
He writes:
The Texas State Board of Education appeared on track to endorse a controversial set of new state-written lesson plans after narrowly defeating an effort to block it on Tuesday.
The lessons and textbooks, known collectively as Bluebonnet Learning, were drafted by the Texas Education Agency. The reading and language arts lessons integrate Biblical stories and characters and are viewed by many as connected to a national effort to return Christianity and prayer into public schools.
They would likely face a legal challenge if adopted. The SBOE will vote on the curriculum as one of more than 100 sets of lesson plans and textbooks later this week.
If approved, schools would have the option to use the plans and would receive extra funding if they do.
The lesson plans have faced criticism from Democrats and some Republicans. Academics have warned that they include teachings from the Bible without contextualizing them as religious beliefs and downplay the role of racism and slavery in American history, while some on the right have argued they teach material too advanced for younger children.
But proponents say the materials are based on a scientific understanding of the best way to teach reading and they believe it will lead to higher standardized test scores.
“There’s a line between indoctrination or evangelism and education. In my view, these stories are on the education side and are establishing cultural literacy,” said Will Hickman, a Houston-area Republican who supported the Bluebonnet curriculum. Hickman added that districts can still choose whether or not to use the lesson plans….
The Bluebonnet curriculum covers kindergarten through 5th grade mathematics and reading, as well as middle school math and algebra….
A report from religious scholar David Brockman and the Texas Freedom Network, which has been critical of the lesson plans, said they could effectively turn public schools to Sunday schools by introducing Christian stories and ideas to young kids without contextualizing them properly as religious beliefs. There’s far more focus on Christianity and Jesus Christ than on other world religions, the report says.
The lesson plans also faced criticism for their teaching of history and downplaying the role of slavery and racism in American history and to the founding fathers and other important American figures.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Wonder how Elon Musk views this now that he is getting into the “school business” in Texas😵💫!
https://fortune.com/2024/11/20/elon-musk-ad-astra-school-permit-montessori-bastrop-texas/
LikeLike
Why should non-Christian children have to be subjected to Christian religious doctrine in a public school? Do these non-Christian children have no rights? The right has consistently accused public schools of “indoctrinating” young people when it is the Christian Nationalists that actually have the intention to indoctrinate young people and tread on the rights of others. Religion doctrine should not be part of the instructional day in a public school.
LikeLike
I have said the same repeatedly.
Evangelicals demand vouchers, claiming that the public schools are “indoctrinating” their children. To respect others? To have friendship without regard to race or religion?
What they want with vouchers is real indoctrination into one true faith–their own.
LikeLike
you cannot educate on doctrine in any level of school. Subtle differences in Christian denominations mean that teaching Christian doctrine is at least as complex as the dreaded CRT, which we all know is non-existent in school for the same reason. What purveyors of this curriculum want is to teach the idea that a particular strain of Christianity that involves declaration of open intentions is taught. Wait until this sparks argument among Protestant groups.
Like other proposals, this one has the sole purpose of creating an artificial dividing line in the voting public that a large bloc of voters will never cross. Controlling their votes, the sycophancy can then go one to rob the very people they claim to represent.
LikeLike
“What purveyors of this curriculum want is to teach the idea that a particular strain of Christianity that involves declaration of open intentions is taught.”
No, they haven’t openly declared their intentions up until now. The xtian theocrats think they have America by the cojones and plan on clamping a vice onto them
LikeLike
And not just Protestant groups, but other faiths that these evangelicals consider “non Christian,” such as Catholics and Mormons, to say nothing of other faith traditions and those who subscribe to secular beliefs
LikeLike
“they believe it will lead to higher standardized test scores.”
I guess if these folks believe hard enough, maybe it will happen. Or, maybe if they pray hard enough, scores will go up. Assuming God cares about test scores.
LikeLike
❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️👏👏👏👏
LikeLike
Of course god* cares about test scores, he/she/it ain’t got nuthin better to do.
*Which god I don’t know. All I know is the FSM has personally told me that Homo Supposedly Sapiens can take them and shove them through a colander.
LikeLike
Would be interesting to see these material. Hard to imagine how it’s not crossing the line.
LikeLike
There are no lines in Trump’s America
LikeLike
Maybe not now, but I expect soup lines as in the Great Depression.
LikeLike
Good twist on the word “lines”!
LikeLike
Are they going to use “Jefferson’s Bible,” our founding father, authoof the Declaration of Independence, cut away the biblical sections he found repellent, check it out, if the Texas Board heard of it they’d probably ban references to Jefferson
LikeLike
I’m so glad I’m not teaching anymore. I surely would either be fired or walked out of the building in handcuffs for breaking some ridiculous law by talking about something forbidden by the Neanderthal Florida legislature. We have to continually remind the masses that our country was founded on the concept of freedom OF and FROM religion. We are a SECULAR country. These Christian Nationalists need to be smacked down whenever they try crap like this. Their arrogance & self-righteousness is just infuriating!
LikeLike
I’m actually considering ways to teach the bible in the event this becomes part of the required curriculum. One thing I learned about teaching reading is it can’t just be “sit-and-get.” You HAVE to get the students up and involved. For example, I’d have students work in small groups of three to act out the scene from Genesis of Lot and his two daughters (Gn 19:30-38).
Older students would act out Onan and Tamar (Gn. 38:8-10), and we would have a STEM component where they learn about coitus interruptus.
Eventually, I’ll be selling these unit and lesson plans on Teachers Pay Teachers.
This is all assuming the school board doesn’t try to ban the Book of Genesis (a very x-rated book in places). Then I will stand at the ready (to play the victim) against those who “declare war” on the Bible and try to oppress my teaching and student learning.
LikeLike
I love it. Go for it. I’ll be waiting to see you marched out in cuffs, especially if you’re in Tennessee, as your name indicates!
LikeLike
IN MODERATION for Joe Nashville. CBK
LikeLike
Joe Nashville: Of all the books interpreting Bible studies, the ones to bring into the classroom are those who do two things: (1) compare religions in the context of their related histories (not doctrines, but their actual histories, warts and all) and (2) teach from the writings of those involved with interfaith dialogue and pluralism.
My own experience was with Raimon Panikkar’s work where, in one paper, he draws out of all major religions what they all share, as religious faith journeys and moral/political import and influences.
He was a Catholic, but his writings pointed to personal development that is needed to inform one’s religious views, whatever they are, and aimed at pluralism while maintaining one’s own traditions and practices. CBK
ResearchGatehttps://www.researchgate.net/publication/…
Raimon Panikkar’s Contribution to Interfaith Dialogue
In the visionary thought of Panikkar, the call for the actual praxis of dialogue among traditions has become an existential imperative. The chapter examines his contributions, beginning with his…(from google)
LikeLike
This is fascinating CBK! I really enjoyed reading the paper you linked. Thanks for sharing it! I recall taking a non-western religions class in college, and it was indeed fascinating. (Unfortunately, a lot of people pushing the Bible in schools seem to be agains interfaith dialogue.)
Although there are some interesting stories in the Bible, so much of the writing (particularly in the Old Testament) seems redundant too. But the use of similes and metaphors is rich.
Often times when people are pushing the Bible in schools, I wonder if they’ve actually read it. Some of it is definitely not age appropriate (unless using a version edited for a particular age). I seriously would not feel comfortable teaching middle schoolers about circumcision (for example) among other things.
Btw, CBK, you wouldn’t happen to live in one of the Dakotas would you? If so, I may have known you in 2015-17.
LikeLike
Hello Joe Nashville: (No, never been to the Dakotas.)
However, . . . and you can take this as you will . . . my view is that to be a secular-democracy, does not mean that religious information, understood as a part of human history, should be eliminated from public schools–as a matter of fact, to leave out religion on principle constitutes a gross distortion of a study of human history.
To me, this means for a teacher in today’s environment one needs to be very clear about the difference between (a) indoctrination of a particular religious order and (b) educating children to understand the place of religion in history–their own and everyone else’s. And like all K-12 education, it all must be age-appropriate and have great clarity about formal guidelines that account for these distinctions (some already have these so one need not recreate the wheel) so a teacher has a way to at least start-off well, to avoid predictable potholes, and regardless of one’s own religious affiliations. In my view, these are basic parts of a good humanities education.
(Kids can even do presentations of their own religions as a civilizing event in small classrooms for everyone, if handled rightly; but then that’s getting into the weeds of “situation readiness” and that’s up to the people who work in those weeds.)
But then there is the elephant in the room: Parents and sometimes religious clergy . . . some of whom do not understand the “why” of the above; as well as some staunch atheists on the “other side.”
Much could be said about that, but here’s the political point: The above would present to parents who feel their religion is being ignored if not deliberately trashed while all sorts of other “horrible” social and moral issues are “let in” . . . a great compromise that COULD bring peace to the often-extreme (in or out) tensions associated with the essential nature of even having “freedom of religion” and a necessary distinction between “church and state” in a civilized culture.
Basic is that (1) you would have religious study in public school, but (2) such a study need not be wholly objected to and can be amenable to other religious affiliations and even atheists (if their own view is also a part of the curriculum again, as informational). Tall order–but the alternatives are, in my view, unacceptable.
Between me and you, the greater “WE” NEED public schools, in part, not to get rid of religion (as I know some want), but to civilize people/students away from what is, in fact, tribal about our inheritance of religion–by civilize, I mean to educate students so that they can keep and celebrate their own religious background while affording a peaceful respect for others.’ They are building a new society for themselves here. I mean by tribal that one’s religious education endorses MINE and not YOURS and so YOURS must go.
That idea is no abstraction–just look at the Middle East right now, and Putin’s Russia is totalitarian tribalism but without direct religious identity.
So, I sense that you have a job already by mediating between hair-pulling from both sides of two extremes where, on principle, neither can have the peace they all say they want. In my view, you need a group of like-minded people who can present a cohesive and well-delivered voice towards your purpose, which I assume is a peaceful and civilized educational environment. CBK
LikeLike
JOE: I inadvertently cut the below paragraph from my text about religion in public schools:
“We” cannot endorse or have freedom of religion as part of our Constitution while at the same time requiring doctrinaire teaching of only ONE religion or ONE religious text in our public schools. CBK
LikeLike
You have a great view of things CBK, and I thoroughly enjoyed reading your post. I especially agree with your view in your first full paragraph.
Back when I taught in the K-12 system in TN, our social studies teacher always had complaints from parents because, as a part of world history, students were learning about the prominent religious practices of different parts of the world. I recall one of my colleagues telling students she was “not teaching them religion, but was teaching them ABOUT the religions in different parts of the world.” I’m in total agreement that excluding any reference to the Bible would neglect the teaching of western historical traditions, etc.
When I was still teaching K-12 in TN (not that long ago), I can’t tell you how many times I was in a day-long workshop with lunch provided, and they would say, “All right y’all, we’re gonna do the blessing; let’s all bow our heads for the blessing.” Of course it was a Christian prayer. One time this happened after a morning discussion of the importance of diversity, and one of my colleagues looked at me afterwards and said, “Hmmm… diversity…”
In my K-12 teaching in TN, I found people (students and especially parents) to be extremely tribal and very emotional regarding religion, even to the point of having to be a member of the “correct” denomination.
LikeLike
Republicans continue to be traitors to the Constitution.
I remember prayer in school. I remember Jewish kids being ostracized because some ignorant parents had indoctrinated their kids to hate certain people.
This was easy because the tiny number of Jews and blacks who actually lived in the town was quite small. So the racial and religious hatred was written off as something these few people should just ignore, it was only kids saying these things, after all.
Kids get their information and views from their parents. This is a form of indoctrination, not minorities whining about some kids.
LikeLike
WHOSE BIBLE?
WHOSE TEN COMMANDMENTS?
RELIGIOUS WAR IS AHEAD as Catholics and Protestants get set to battle over whose Bible and whose Ten Commandments will be taught in public schools.
Protestants and Catholics each have their own versions of the Ten Commandments and their own version of the Bible. Whose version of the Commandments and whose version of the Bible would be posted and taught in public schools?
In the Protestant version of the Commandments, the Second Commandment says that it is sinful to make “graven images”, such as statues — the Catholic version of the Commandments says nothing about graven images, so Catholic churches contain many statues of Mary and the saints. Will Catholic children in public schools be shamed by their classmates as sinful because Catholic churches contain statues of Mary and the saints?
Catholic parents of children in public schools will arise to protest all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court that any posting of the Protestant Ten Commandments will violate the religious rights of Catholic students…and seven of the nine U.S. Supreme Court Justices are Catholic.
Also, the Catholic Church and many mainstream Protestant denominations have accepted evolution and rejected the literal interpretation of Genesis; here are their official statements, some of which are very militant in urging their members to reject “creationism”:
The CATHOLIC CHURCH: Half of all Christians in the world are Catholic, and in the 1950 Papal Encyclical “Humani Generis,” Pope Pius XII declared that the human body came “from pre-existent and living matter” that evolved through a sequence of stages before God instilled a spiritual soul into the human body. Catholics accept that Genesis is not literal and are only bound by faith to believe that the natural evolution of the human body was a God-guided process, and that the spiritual human soul that inhabits the physical human body didn’t evolve, but is created by God.
The EPISCOPAL CHURCH declared in its 67th General Assembly:
“Whereas, the state legislatures of several states have recently passed so-called ‘balanced treatment’ laws requiring the teaching of ‘Creation Science’ whenever evolutionary models are taught; and
Whereas, in many other states political pressures are developing for such “balanced treatment” laws; and
“Whereas, the dogma of ‘Creationism’ and ‘Creation Science’ as understood in the above contexts has been discredited by scientific and theologic studies and rejected in the statements of many church leaders; and
“Whereas, ‘Creationism’ and ‘Creation Science’ is not limited to just the origin of life, but intends to monitor public school courses, such as biology, life science, anthropology, sociology, and often also English, physics, chemistry, world history, philosophy, and social studies; therefore be it
“Resolved: that the 67th General Convention affirm the glorious ability of God to create in any manner, whether men understand it or not, and in this affirmation reject the limited insight and rigid dogmatism of the ‘Creationist’ movement, and be it further
“Resolved: by 67th General Convention of the Episcopal Church, 1982, that the Presiding Bishop appoint a Committee to organize Episcopalians and to cooperate with all Episcopalians to encourage actively urge their state legislators not to be persuaded by arguments and pressures of the ‘Creationists’ into legislating any form of ‘balanced treatment’ laws or any law requiring the teaching of ‘Creation Science’.”
The LUTHERAN WORLD FEDERATION declared in its Encyclopedia of the Lutheran Church, Vol. I, 1965, that: “An assessment of the prevailing situation makes it clear that evolution’s assumptions are as much around us as the air we breathe and no more escapable. At the same time theology’s affirmations are being made as responsibly as ever. In this sense both science and religion are here to stay, and the demands of either are great enough to keep most (if not all) from daring to profess competence in both. To preserve their own integrity both science and religion need to remain in a healthful tension of respect toward one another and to engage in a searching debate which no more permits theologians to pose as scientists than it permits scientists to pose as theologians.”
The UNITED METHODIST CHURCH declared at its 1984 Annual Conference that:
“Whereas, ‘Scientific’ creationism seeks to prove that natural history conforms absolutely to the Genesis account of origins; and,
“Whereas, adherence to immutable theories is fundamentally antithetical to the nature of science; and,
“Whereas, ‘Scientific’ creationism seeks covertly to promote a particular religious dogma; and,
“Whereas, the promulgation of religious dogma in public schools is contrary to the First Amendment to the United States Constitution; therefore,
“Be it resolved that The Iowa Annual Conference opposes efforts to introduce ‘scientific’ creationism into the science curriculum of the public schools.”
The UNITED PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH in the USA declared at its 1982 General Assembly that:
“Whereas, the dispute is not really over biology or faith, but is essentially about Biblical interpretation, particularly over two irreconcilable viewpoints regarding the characteristics of Biblical literature and the nature of Biblical authority:
“Therefore, the United Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. General Assembly: Affirms that, despite efforts to establish ‘creationism’ or creation science’ as a valid science, it is teaching based upon a particular religious dogma; and,
“Calls upon Presbyterians, and upon legislators and school board members, to resist all efforts to establish any requirements upon teachers and schools to teach ‘creationism’ or ‘creation science’.”
So, whose dogmas about the Book of Genesis are going to be taught in public schools? Fights are going to arise and courts will likely rule that all views must be taught. Fundamentalists won’t like that, just as Catholics and most mainstream denominations will bitterly oppose teaching that Genesis must be taken literally.
Such disagreements between Christian churches caused generations of war in Europe, and relatives of our Founding Fathers died in such wars, which is why our Founding Fathers wrote our Constitution to keep religion out of any part of our government, including schools.
So, whose version of the Bible, whose Ten Commandments, and whose dogma on the Book of Genesis will teachers be required to teach? Or will teachers be allowed to teach all versions of the Bible, different sets of the Ten Commandments, and all the different Christian views of Genesis, from the literal interpretation, to the acceptance of evolution which says that Genesis is an allegory?
In order to avoid trampling the religious rights of the different denominations, ALL the versions of the Bible and ALL views and dogmas will have to be taught in comparative religion curricula — and that could have the effect of causing children to just shrug at all religious beliefs because they will see the conflicting views.
LikeLike
Thank you for this excellent post!
I’d like to correct one thing however. The 10 Commandments in my Catholic Bible actually does mention graven images. Here’s an online example from the RSVCE.
According to Catholic Answers (a respected resource), “The Catholic Church permits statues because they remind us of unseen things, but it condemns the idolatry of statue worship.”
For accuracy, I would encourage you to read more about the Catholic position on graven images.
LikeLike
I’m reading a book now about The Ten Commandments. There are many versions.
LikeLike
Dr. Ravitch, if you see this, I’d be interested in the title of the book so I can read it as well.
LikeLike
The book is : “A Short History of the Ten Commandments” by Michael Coogan.
LikeLike
Thanks Dr. Ravitch! It’s in my cue for after I finish the book I’m currently reading.
LikeLike
Ugh! It just passed 8-7. Hopefully most districts won’t take the $60 per student “bribe” to adopt the curriculum.
LikeLike
I hope everyone understands that this is a show coming to a school near you. Schools provide the medium through which the Right can impose a theocracy.
And that’s what they’re doing. They intend to replace our Constitution with a religiously-based government. The first step is to make their version of Christianity our government.
The second is to criminalize anyone who disagrees. And back it with guns and violence.
The third is to erase the past.
If this sounds Orwellian, you are right.
LikeLike
“But proponents say the materials are based on a scientific understanding of the best way to teach reading and they believe it will lead to higher standardized test scores.
Searching for the Holy Grail of higher standardized test scores. Seems appropriate since xtins have been searching without success for the Holy Grail for many centuries. May they encounter the killer rabbit of Caerbannog and never find those higher scores!
LikeLike