The suit alleges the mandate violates the Oklahoma Constitution because it involves spending public money to support religion and favors one religion over another by requiring the use of a Protestant version of the Bible. It also alleges Walters and the state Board of Education don’t have the authority to require the use of instructional materials.
“As parents, my husband and I have sole responsibility to decide how and when our children learn about the Bible and religious teachings,” plaintiff Erika Wright, the founder of the Oklahoma Rural Schools Coalition and parent of two school-aged children, said in a statement. “It is not the role of any politician or public school official to intervene in these personal matters.”
I’m actually surprised this is the first time I’ve heard this argument, because there’s a lot of parents who don’t necessarily object to teaching the Bible in school, but are concerned that the way it’s being taught in school differs from how it’s taught at home. A Catholic would naturally have a problem with Protestant teachings in school, not to mention all of the different Protestant denominations.
I think, ultimately, that denominational infighting is what’s going to sink this.
Fingers crossed.
Isn’t that the original idea behind the Establishment Clause? The founders weren’t worried about religions, but denominations.
They were descendants of people who fled England specifically because they didn’t like the official church and refused to pay taxes that support it.
That’s long before the Constitution. At the Founding, you have Congregationalists in New England, Presbyterians in New Jersey and Philly, Quakers in Pennsylvania, Catholics in Maryland, and Church of England and Methodists all throughout. Which denomination should the federal government support? None, they decided.