Arkansas religious rights bill augurs more than just a clarifying guide

Yahoo

27-02-2025

Sen. Missy Irvin, R-Mountain View, speaks against Senate Bill 223 on the Senate floor on Tuesday, February 25, 2025. (Tess Vrbin/Arkansas Advocate)
Sen. Alan Clark told his colleagues Tuesday he was initially skeptical about Senate Bill 223, which would 'Create the Religious Rights at Public Schools Act.'
I too was skeptical. But unlike the Republican senator from Lonsdale, who ultimately voted for the bill, I remain skeptical.
The legislation would require public school districts and open charter schools to distribute at the beginning of each school year a copy of the act alerting students, parents and staff that they have 'broad religious freedom' under the U.S. Constitution and First Amendment case law under the U.S. Supreme Court.
Among the rights the bill spells out are the ability to pray silently or out loud, individually or in groups and through other activities permitted to other groups by the school, including forming clubs. Also enumerated in the bill is the right to 'display, print, recite or discuss religious texts and religious beliefs' when a student has the discretion to choose a topic or person of interest.
The bill further makes clear that students and staff can 'give a Bible or other religious text to any other person at the school.'
Bill sponsor Sen. Mark Johnson, R-Ferndale, assured his fellow senators that the legislation merely serves as a guide 'to clarify religious rights at public schools' and doesn't introduce any new rights.
Republican Sen. Breanne Davis of Russellville echoed Johnson, saying the bill is 'solidifying what's already law.'
'Students, parents and staff want to know what their religious freedoms are. There are situations … where teachers are fired, students get in trouble, and it's because people do not know where these things are in law. … Nobody knows what their rights are,' Davis said.
If people don't know what their rights are, it could be because schools aren't teaching civics. But I suspect what's going on here is that certain religious sects want free rein to inject their particular brand of religion into public schools.
Despite the senators' assurances that the bill is innocuous and not insidious, I remain concerned that if the bill becomes law, certain deeply religious people will use it to browbeat students and teachers into accepting their version of Christianity as the one true religion.
And like Democratic Sen. Stephanie Flowers of Pine Bluff, I see the bill as potentially disruptive to public education and public schools.
In speaking against the bill, Flowers delivered a disquisition on Article 14 and Amendment 53 of the Arkansas Constitution, which promise the state will 'ever maintain a general, suitable and efficient system of free public schools.'
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
'It's a bill that lends itself to indoctrinating young vulnerable, impressionable children,' she said. 'When I talk about the possibility of indoctrination, I'm concerned about these documents of historical significance that are of a religious nature.'
She cited as an example a 1956 publication, Arkansas Faith, published by the White Citizens Council of Arkansas, noting that the subscription form declares subscribers to be white Christians who will oppose integration by any legal means necessary.
Flowers also said she didn't think the bill was appropriate for public schools.
'It emboldens us to have religious rights outweigh and overpower our educational rights for our children.'
Johnson disagreed with Flowers, saying, 'What we have here is a failure to communicate.' The bill 'simply affirms existing religious rights. It's not attacking anyone's beliefs or establishing any beliefs.'
Republican Sen. Missy Irvin of Mountain View described herself as a deeply Christian person, but opposed the bill.
Irvin remembered being told by a fellow fifth-grader in her Catholic school that her parents weren't going to heaven because 'it's easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to go to heaven.'
'That deeply offended me,' she said.
'Growing up Catholic, do you know how many times I was told I was going to hell because we were baptized as babies? From people that went to Baptist churches?' Irvin asked.
'I'm sorry but I just don't think you bring people to Christ by beating them over the head with a Bible. I don't think that's right.'
She also described the bill as unnecessary: 'You can do this already.' Her four children, who attend public schools, 'pray all the time,' she said. 'They carry Bibles in their backpacks. … This is not a problem, and it should not be in this law.'
While SB 223 carefully notes that 'other religious texts' can be studied or read and shared in schools as well as the Bible, the language of the bill is clearly Christian-centric.
Johnson maintained that the legislation stays true to the First Amendment and is inclusive of all faiths.
'The First Amendment is messy,' Clark said. 'We are a messy country. … Sometimes we don't just disagree, we really disagree.
'I am very against the establishment of religion. [But] saying you can pray and this is what you will pray are two very different things.'
Clark is right about that, but SB 223 leaves too much room for someone in authority to tell students and teachers what they must pray.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE