The Texas Bible Class Case

Thou shall not bear false witness

The Ector County Independent School District in Texas is being sued over its new Bible course by eight parents who contend the course is not objective, but teaches specific religious beliefs. This particular course, approved in a 4-2 vote by the Ector school board in December 2005, was purchased from the National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools (NCBCPS) based in Greensboro, North Carolina.

Since the Georgia Department of Education recommends school systems purchase commercially available courses for Georgia's recently approved elective Bible classes, I thought it would be interesting to see if the arguments in this case appeared to be legally viable. Although the participants themselves turned out to be far more interesting, the legal points are more important, so we'll examine those first.

It is well established that Bible courses in public schools are constitutional, provided they are objective and do not teach religious beliefs as fact. The legal points in this case concern Ector's compliance with this requirement.

School Superintendent Wendell Sollis, one of the named defendants, said district officials are reviewing the lawsuit with their lawyer and declined to comment on specifics. This is generally accepted as the correct legal position for a defendant in this type of case.

The plaintiffs, according to court documents, allege the Bible course runs afoul of constitutional standards because it "reveals no serious and objective awareness of either scholarly or alternative religious interpretations of the Bible (particularly of Judaism, Orthodox Christianity, Mainline Protestantism, and Roman Catholicism)." Specific arguments include teaching the Bible as "literal, historical truth" by presenting Noah and his ark, and the creation described in Genesis, as fact. According to the complaint, students were asked to discuss how these facts could "affect their daily lives."

Plaintiffs also contend Superintendent Sollis intentionally violated policy by manipulating the results of the Bible Curriculum Committee, a group charged with making a course recommendation to the Ector school board. According to the complaint, the committee had reviewed only two curricular options and favored a package marketed by the Bible Literacy Project. When Mr. Sollis became aware of the decision, he altered the committee's instructions from recommending one course to offering two options, to ensure the NCBCPS package was included. Despite committee objections, Mr. Sollis recommended only the NCBCPS course to the school board.

Although plaintiffs contend the NCBCPS curriculum itself is unconstitutional, this seems to be immaterial since NCBCPS is not a named defendant, which makes Ector's implementation of this program the legal issue.

This case was filed on May 16, so there is no publicly available documentation to support either side, but if the plaintiffs can establish even one of their major claims, they have a winning case.

Far more interesting are some facts that surfaced during the research into this case. The plaintiffs appear to be typical, concerned parents with no particular axe to grind. They are Jews, Catholics and Protestants, including an ordained Elder. Most, according to their public statements, actively support public school Bible classes and one served on the Bible Curriculum Committee.

read the full bio (pdf file)

On the other side, the NCBCPS comes off as something less than objective. The biography of Elizabeth Ridenour, founder and president of the National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools, states she "believed teaching the Bible in public schools violated separation of church and state - a common myth she would soon learn had been propagated by liberal organizations, such as the ACLU."

Yes, this is a tragic myth that has somehow flourished over 40 years, but it's not propagated by the ACLU. The ACLU web site states, "Children are free to pray in public schools either as individuals or in groups. In addition, whenever a teacher opens up an assignment topic for the children's choice (such as which book to read, what to discuss in a talk to the class, or which song to sing), students may choose religious themes - and the ACLU has protected their right to do so. In addition, schools may offer courses about religion or about the Bible or other religious works."

The ACLU site lists dozens of legal cases they funded to prove their position. So who is propagating this myth? Continued reading of Ms Ridenour's web site seems to provide the answer.

The first line of her Legality page reads "There has been a great social regression since the Bible was removed from our schools."

Excuse me Ms Ridenour, but isn't this the myth that shouldn't be propagated? The same page includes a link to the Abington case, which disproves your opening statement.

Let's read on. The first link on her Current News page is to one in series of WorldNetDaily (WND) articles written by Chuck Norris. In one of his articles, Norris calls the ACLU an atheist organization and mentions their "claim to fame was the banning of prayer and Bible reading in public schools in 1963." This ban is complete fiction. The Abington case struck down laws in four states that required students be taught specific religious beliefs and specifically mentioned students' rights to follow their own religion.

Ms Ridenour, the ACLU is representing both Jewish and Christian families who think your product is biased, while you have a dozen (when I stopped counting) links or statements on your own site that falsely claim Bibles were banned from public schools.

I won't claim that you are a dishonest businesswoman profiting from government contracts to counteract an invented problem, but should someone make this accusation, I certainly couldn't defend what you are doing.

May the more honest side win this case.