Texas approves elementary school curriculum that incorporates Bible lessons

In 1987, the Supreme Court of the United States struck down a Louisiana law that would require the teaching of creationism alongside evolutionary science. The Court ruled that the law violated the Establishment Clause, which states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Not only does this clause establish freedom of religion. It also acts as a protection from religion.

But this week, Texas education officials approved an elementary school curriculum that incorporates Bible lessons. Though the curriculum is currently optional, schools that adopt it will receive $60 of additional funding per pupil.

Included in the new curriculum:

A kindergarten lesson about the “golden rule” will prompt instructors to teach Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount.

A kindergarten unit about art appreciation will focus on the book of Genesis, and art inspired by it.

A first-grade unit about “sharing stories” will teach The Parable of the Prodigal Son.

A third-grade unit on ancient Rome will teach about the life of Jesus and Christianity.

A fifth-grade poetry unit will teach a biblical Psalm.

These changes come as religious affiliation is rapidly diminishing. In 1972, 90% of Americans identified as Christian. In 2022, that number sat at 63%. The fastest growing belief group is the non-religiously affiliated, which accounted for 5% of Americans in 1972, but made up 29% of the population in 2022.

Despite Christianity losing its ground, 63% is still a significant enough majority to give credence to new religious proposals like the one approved in Texas.

On its face, it seems that these intrusions into a secular curriculum violate the Establishment Clause. But instead, they are falsely presented as moral guides. Texas Governor Greg Abbott voiced support for the curriculum, saying it "will allow students to better understand the connection of history, art, community, literature, and religion on pivotal events like the signing of the U.S. Constitution, the Civil Rights Movement, and the American Revolution."

If this were true, would this not become self-evident in the study of literature and history? Would an environment of academic freedom not bring forth discussions of religious impact? None of this would require new legislation.

Opposing this law requires us to acknowledge that the principal function of education should not be teaching students what to think. It is to teach students how to think. The new religious curriculum fails to pass this test because it already assumes that religious belief is knowledge. It does not ask students to evaluate religious claims on the basis of merit.

It’s also clear that the lessons that are impacted could be of equal or better quality, and more accurate, without the influence of religion.

The “golden rule” can be traced back to ancient Egyptian, Indian, and Greek cultures, hundreds of years before the birth of Jesus, and the Sermon on the Mount.

A “sharing stories” unit that uses the Parable of the Prodigal Son is straightforward religious indoctrination. Why is this story taught over any other?

Art appreciation does not require images inspired by the stories of Genesis.

A unit on ancient Rome should already discuss the impact of Christianity, given that it was the official religion of the Roman Empire. This is a case where religion should be discussed in its historical context, but the new Texas curriculum has the potential to give these lessons a religious context which is unaligned with secularism.

The fifth-grade poetry unit already contains writings from American poets Robert Frost and William Carlos Williams. If you would like to add new authors to the curriculum, dozens could fit the bill. What could be learned from a biblical Psalm that could not be learned from Whitman or Dickinson?  

Using legislation and the promise of funding to move schools away from secularism is yet another example of religious encroachment into all areas of life. The number of areligious people is growing, but as they do, the religious grip on institutions tightens.

Hopefully, this legislation, like the Louisiana law that required the teaching of creationism, is struck down. If not, it is incumbent on every school district to decline adopting this curriculum, and miss out on the extra funding, in order to maintain an environment of academic freedom. Children must learn how to think. The new Texas curriculum, like religious doctrine itself, tells students what to think. These two approaches are not remotely similar.