We Need to Shut this Down Hard and Fast
A week ago, I wrote an article on the Medium writing platform about Louisiana passing a law that required all public school classrooms to post the Ten Commandments. It was boosted, so I got a lot of comments, and I’m happy to say that all but one was supportive and positive, and a few were even funny. The author of the one negative comment asked me if I disagreed with any of the ten commandments, that the Ten Commandments “represent the foundation of civil society not a specific religion.”
Hate to break it to her, but they most certainly represent a specific religion, in fact, two specific religions, although Christians generally claim credit over the Jews for them, and this person went on to say that “not agreeing with the Ten Commandments is just a petulant adolescent refusal to follow the rules.” I replied to his/her comments, shut down the argument with facts and statements of my own, and blocked the person. I don’t have the time or energy to refute nonsense or idiocy.
Side note: I’m not against the Ten Commandments per se, I’m simply opposed to the required posting of them in public school classrooms. I actually follow most of the commandments, as I try not to lie, steal, or murder anyone, although I don’t refrain from those things because the Bible tells me to, I simply try to be a good person.
I want to point out that many of the rest of the comments were written by Christians who joined me in taking exception to the entire idea that religious texts belong in public schools. Christians are often criticized as an entire group of religious zealots who are supporters of Christian nationalism, and that’s just not true. Like any other religious group, there are good people and nutcases.
Just when things were settling down, and I was pleased and relieved to hear of all the counterefforts in motion to fight the new law, low and behold, Oklahoma’s state superintendent, Ryan Walters, announced a new, modern-day commandment of his own that requires all public schools to not only provide access to Bibles in classrooms, grades 5-12, but to require teachers to teach it. It is now a required source for subjects including, but not limited to history, geography, social studies, ethics, civilization, comparative religions, and who knows what else.
The gentleman went on to say that “This is not merely an educational directive but a crucial step in ensuring our students grasp the core values and historical context of our country.” It is “effective immediately.” I’d like to take a look at the “historical context of our history” before moving forward.
There are all kinds of ideas as to who the founding fathers of our nation included. Some consider all those who signed the Declaration of Independence or the U.S. Constitution as founding fathers. Most sources agree that the bulk of the work and planning that led to both of these documents came down to seven men, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison.
Of those seven men, based on their personal letters, papers, and diaries, five considered themselves to be “rationalistic theologists”, commonly referred to as deists. If you’re not familiar with what this means, I’ll break it down for you. Deism is considered to be philosophical and intellectual in nature, rather than religious. The base beliefs revolve around the rejection of revelation as a source of divine knowledge and considers God through the lens of rational thought, rather than religious text. In short, although they believed God existed, it had nothing to do with religion or religious texts or doctrines, including the Bible and the Ten Commandments. So much for the superintendent’s reference to historical value of the nation’s foundation coming from the Bible.
Further, founding father Thomas Jefferson is considered to be the author and builder of the ideal of separation of church and state, which revolves around the idea that there should be no connection between civil rights and religious doctrine or the spending of any public funds that support any religion in the public sector.
I’m not suggesting that for some, the Bible and religious beliefs didn’t influenced choices regarding forming a new country. I’m sure for some, they did. However, while the Bible might have influenced people on a personal, individual basis, it was neither noted nor used as a documented source to develop the country on a collective or historical basis. In other words, religious people are usually guided by their religious beliefs in many aspects of their lives, however, no one was recorded as checking the Bible or using the Bible to make sure that the new country’s laws and foundation followed it. As a matter of fact, the founders went out of their way to do everything in their power to protect the freedom of religion for Americans.
So, let’s toss out the whole Bible is our history argument.
Teacher unions are all over this, as well as several civil rights groups and freedom watchdogs. The head of the Interfaith Alliance perhaps said it best when she stated, “True religious freedom means ensuring that no one religious group is allowed to impose their viewpoint on all Americans.”
If the federal level laws and foundation of national laws doesn’t sway Walters, you would think the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruling that all districts have the right to select their own sources and textbooks for instructional purposes would have an impact, but apparently not. Walters is on record for stating that the new ruling is “an historical argument. The left can be offended, but that’s our history.” Further, he is quoted as being against the invasion of what he describes as “woke ideology” and wants to help fight the “radical left” who wishes to rewrite history by removing the Bible.
Walters went on to say that non-compliance by teachers could result in the loss of their teaching certificates. One has to wonder where individual rights will fit in regarding freedom of religion in this instance. I mean, aren’t doctors excused from performing abortions due to their religious beliefs? Shouldn’t teachers also be exempt from teaching a religious text if it goes against their religious beliefs. I doubt it, and you know why? Because Walters is in charge of hearing all cases on an individual basis where non-compliance is concerned and the decision to strip a teacher of his or her certificate is involved.
What about the students and parents who practice other religions? Should they be forced to endure instruction of religious material that is not of their own religion? I think not.
It’s not that I’m anti-religion. I am, however, against religion and religious resources being forced to be taught in public schools. It’s a disservice and tramples on others’ rights and freedoms.
Regarding whether or not there is a place for the Bible in the curriculum, I can think of a few examples where it might be applied, such as in Geography when students are studying the Middle East. I see value in comparing what the geography of the Bible looked like in comparison to today’s geography. I could do a nice compare and contrast using a venn diagram in a lesson like that. Or if students had a choice of an informational elective in world religions, and religious texts from a variety of religions were presented, I’d be okay with that. The key words here are “informational” “elective” and “variety.”
I’m going to step out on a limb here and say I can even see using the Bible as a potential source for American culture, including idiomatic sayings and quotes used in literature and everyday use from the Bible, but then again, I see the benefit of including Critical Race Theory and how slavery and the history of the US still contributes to the unfair treatment of minorities. Now, that is true history. I wonder what Mr. Walters and his buddies would say about that … never mind.
I wonder what’s next. Communion offered (read required) as a side dish in the cafeteria lunches (of course it would include grape juice, rather than wine, so don’t freak out). The teaching of the creation story is already being pushed as a part of the science curriculum, although, I haven’t heard of other creation stories being included. Every religion has one, you know. Remember Cronos in Greek mythology, born of Mother Earth and the Universe? I don’t think anyone is going to promote including the White Christian view of what Jesus looked like in a genetics classroom, because, that vision of a light-haired, blue-eyes Jesus just wouldn’t fly. Genetics is safe!
The positive in all this is that people in general are not supporting this Christian nationalism movement and think of it as craziness, not to mention as a threat to democracy. That’s democracy, not theocracy. Theocracy is what Islamic leaders do in countries like Iraq and Afghanistan, where people don’t have a choice but to follow the religion as interpreted by religious leaders in charge of the government. Oh wait, I think that’s the goal of Christian nationalism, now that I think of it, although of course, they would use their own version of the only true religion, Christianity.
Really, what’s the difference? Enforcing an agenda where people are forced to read and teach religious texts and adhere to and recognize religious guidelines is the same, isn’t it? Not caring whether or not people agree with these laws, requiring them to be “affective immediately”, threatening jobs, funding, etc., and stripping people of their religious rights and freedoms, not to mention their teaching certificates, where religion is concerned is the same on both these agendas. Ask Muslim or Christian fanatics why they think this is okay, and they’ll tell you because theirs is the only true religion, it’s God’s will, and their purpose to enforce it.
One of the great things about living in the US has been freedom of religion, among other freedoms that some other countries do not offer. Christian nationalism aims to take that away and promote their version of the only true religion above all other religions. I in no way oppose their right to freedom of religion, and they should be able to practice their beliefs and worship in whichever ways they see fit, as long as it doesn’t impose on others’ beliefs and freedom of religion. Stay in your own lane, folks. Leave me and American children alone to stay in ours. Follow your religious beliefs in your churches and homes, not in public schools.
One last point I’d like to add is that Oklahoma is ranked number 49 in the US in terms of quality of education. Mr. Walters, I fail to see how this new directive is going to improve your ranking, and I’d think that would be your first concern as the Superintendent of Oklahoma. If anything, the uproar attached to this newest ruling is bound to detract from education rather than improve it. Thankfully, there are people standing in line to fight you on this. One can only hope they act expediently and with extreme prejudice. Religion, including religious beliefs and texts, has no place in the public school classroom.
Comments