Religious or Secular: The Mandate of Bible Teachings in Public Schools in Oklahoma

In June of 2024, Oklahoma’s state superintendent, Ryan Walters, mandated public schools to teach the Bible in grades 5 through 12. Each classroom would contain a physical hard copy of the Bible, and teachers were required to read and teach from it; compliance was necessary. To fund the supply of Bibles, Walters planned to use taxpayers' money. Walters, who is a strict conservative, exclaims that the Bible is both a historical and cultural “touchstone” and thus, without basic knowledge of it, the students attending Oklahoma public schools are unable to understand the foundation of the United States fully. In teaching students about verses from the Bible, Walters believes that students would gain a profound understanding of Western Civilization, ethics, and history. These books would be used for historical purposes, which he argues makes them secular, as they are not being used for religious purposes.

On October 15, 2024, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, the Oklahoma Appleseed Center for Law & Justice, the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Oklahoma Foundation, and the Freedom From Religion Foundation filed a lawsuit in the Supreme Court of the state of Oklahoma on behalf of 32 plaintiffs. The plaintiffs included parents, public school teachers, religious leaders, and Lori Walke, all of whom come from different religious backgrounds (Baptist, Catholic, Atheist, United Church of Christ, and Presbyterian). They sued Ryan Walters and the State Department of Education under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment in the case of  Rev. Lori Walke v. Ryan Walters, arguing that by mandating Bible teachings in public schools and using tax-payers money to purchase Bibles, Walters and the DOE are establishing a religion; intertwining Church and State. Further, the religious freedom provisions of Oklahoma’s Constitution prohibit spending state funds to support religion. By spending millions of dollars on Protestant Bibles, Walters, and the DOE are both directly violating the separation between Church and State and endorsing one religion, which the Constitution prohibits. 
Adam Soltani, a parent, exclaims “We adamantly oppose any requirements that religion be forcefully taught or required as a part of lesson plans in public schools, in Oklahoma, or anywhere else in the country.” Likewise Rachel Laser, president and CEO of Americans United for Separation of Church and State exclaims “Public schools are not Sunday schools… This is textbook Christian Nationalism: Walters is abusing the power of his public office to impose his religious beliefs on everyone else’s children. Not on our watch.”

The constitutional issue in this case deals with the Establishment Clause, which states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” The Establishment Clause was intended to create a wall of separation between Church and State to prevent the State from establishing a religion. The use of public schools, which are tax-funded by the State, for religious instruction and education, or the use of tax-payer funds to fund religious activities, is a violation of the Establishment Clause, as the State would be entangled with the Church. By mandating the teaching of the Bible for grades 5 through 12 in Oklahoma public schools and using taxpayer funds to purchase Bibles, did Walters violate the Establishment Clause? This is the question that the Court must answer.

When Abbington v. Schempp is applied to the case at hand, there are stark parallels. In Schempp, a Pennsylvania law had been enacted that required 10 Bible verses to be read at the start of each school day in public schools. The Shempp family, who had kids that attended these public schools, sued on behalf of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, exclaiming that the law violated the First Amendment. In an 8-1 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the law violated the Establishment Clause because its purpose was religious, not secular. It violated the constitutional principle of the separation between Church and State. This landmark case, which set boundaries between public schools and religion, can be compared to Lori Walke. Given that the schools in Oklahoma are public and are therefore government institutions, any mandate involving religious content, especially one that promotes a specific religion, violates the Establishment Clause. In Schempp, the government found that even having voluntary Bible readings and prayers could lead to the idea that the government is endorsing religion. In the case at hand, teachers and students have no choice but to comply with the Bible mandate, as all teachers are required to teach the Bible in their classrooms. This appears to be an even more direct violation of the Establishment Clause than in Schempp. In this sense, Lori Walke seems to be a direct violation of Schempp, which ruled that state-mandated religious teachings in public schools are unconstitutional.

I strongly believe that this case should be ruled in favor of Lori Walke. In my opinion, it seems that the goal of the Bible mandate is to spread Christian beliefs. Walter exclaimed that teachers were required to have the Bible in every classroom and “teach from it.” This mandate is not education, but rather, indoctrination. Though Walters argues that the Bible would be used for secular purposes, specifically for teaching students about United States history, the Bible is an inherently religious text. The public schools in Oklahoma would be extremely entangled with religion, as religious doctrine teaching would be required. The Establishment Clause prohibits the government from establishing, favoring, or endorsing religion. Public schools, which are funded by the State are required, under the Constitution, to remain neutral when it comes to religion. They therefore cannot promote or mandate anything religious. In this case, by mandating Bible teachings in public schools in all classrooms, the State is directly using its resources to promote Christianity, and thus endorsing religious teachings. This is a direct violation of the Establishment Clause, as any state-sponsored teaching of the Bible, especially when it is mandatory and strict compliance is expected, can be seen as the government sponsoring religion. Further, in making the Bible teachings mandatory in the curriculum, the government appears to be favoring Christianity over other religions, which is not neutral. In my opinion, there is unquestionably a violation of the Establishment Clause.

I ask you all to consider these questions. Do you think that the purpose of the Bible mandate in public schools is secular, as Walters exclaims? Does the mandate violate the Establishment Clause? Is there a constitutional way to incorporate Bible teachings in public schools? What do you guys think?