Alabama Senate approves bill requiring school boards to adopt religious instruction policies
Sen. Shay Shelnutt, R-Trussville (left) speaks with Sen. Lance Bell, R-Pell City, on the floor of the Alabama Senate on April 8, 2025 at the Alabama Statehouse in Montgomery, Alabama. (Brian Lyman/Alabama Reflector)
The Alabama Senate passed a bill Tuesday that would require local school boards to develop policies allowing students to leave campus during school hours for religious instruction.
SB 278, sponsored by Sen. Shay Shelnutt, R-Trussville, would mandate that school districts establish procedures for students to attend religious classes off-site for elective credit, provided certain conditions are met. The bill passed 25-6 and moves to the House for consideration.
'We passed a law in Alabama in 2019 allowing school districts to enact policies. Since that time, very few school districts have adopted release time policies … parents are approaching superintendents and school boards throughout the state and are being told no,' Shelnutt claimed as he introduced the bill to the floor.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Under the bill, which Shelnutt framed as a 'parental rights and religious freedom bill,' participation in religious instruction would be optional and require parental consent. The bill would mandate that organizations providing instruction provide transportation to and from school and that they be liable if anything happens to a child. The bill would also prohibit local funds from being used to provide religious instruction.
Sen. Bobby Singleton, D-Greensboro, asked about teacher qualifications and program accreditation for the off-site religious classes and whether instructors needed to be certified.
'If I'm Muslim, and I want to go to a mosque to get this done — so the school board has to go speak with the person who's over the mosque to make sure that they're accredited and certified in their program?' Singleton asked.
Shelnutt said this would be decided locally, saying 'that would be up to the local school board if they want to set their policy.'
This led to further exchanges about whether local boards would vet programs across different faiths, such as instructors at a mosque or various churches. Shelnutt maintained local boards set the policy.
'I'm sure there will be differences in the local school boards and how they set them up,' Shelnutt said when pressed on potential inconsistencies across the state's 139 districts.
Sen. Greg Albritton, R-Atmore, asked for assurance that local policies could not discriminate against specific religions.
'The policy cannot isolate whether it be the Jehovah Witnesses or whether it be the Seventh Day Adventists or be the Methodists … the policy would have to cover for each of those, is that correct?' Albritton asked. Shelnutt said the policy 'cannot be restricted' and parents ultimately choose participation.
Sen. Merika Coleman, D-Pleasant Grove, asked about liability, particularly regarding child safety, referencing past issues within religious institutions. She asked who holds liability under programs if something negative happened to the child.
'A child could break his or her leg or hurt themselves? Who holds that liability? With these off-campus type entities,' Coleman asked.
Shelnutt said that the 'sponsoring entity holds all the liability, and the state law already states that,' which would absolve the school system.
Sen. Vivian Davis Figures, D-Mobile, questioned the need for the bill, given existing religious education avenues and school choice laws.
'Why don't you give the local school board the option to vote this in if they even want to do it for their particular school system?' Figures asked.
Shelnutt maintained they are giving the local school boards 'local control' by 'giving the local school board control of coming up with the policy.'
Shelnutt also added an amendment before the bill's passage to ensure that school boards with pre-existing release time policies would not be required to change them, which was adopted 26-4 with one abstention.
A House committee rejected a similar bill earlier this month.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
35 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Musk predicts Trump's tariffs will cause recession amid growing spat with president
Former presidential adviser and confidante Elon Musk escalated his growing feud with President Trump by saying the president's tariffs would result in a recession later this year. 'The Trump Tariffs will cause a recession in the second half of this year,' he wrote on his social media website, X. The remark is the latest dig at Trump's policies since the tech billionaire left his role in the administration last week as head of the government cost-cutting panel known as the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE. Musk blasted Republicans' tax-and-spending-cut bill this week, which Trump helped to shepherd through the House last month, calling it a 'disgusting abomination.' 'I'm sorry, but I just can't stand it anymore,' Musk wrote on X on Tuesday. 'This massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination. Shame on those who voted for it: you know you did wrong. You know it.' Beyond the president's policies, Musk also attacked Trump personally, claiming Thursday that Trump is mentioned in files pertaining to Jeffrey Epstein, the convicted child abuser who died in jail in 2019. 'Time to drop the really big bomb: [Donald Trump] is in the Epstein files. That is the real reason they have not been made public. Have a nice day, DJT!' he wrote on X. Musk's efforts with DOGE during his time in the Trump administration stirred a flurry of controversy and led to resignations of top officials in multiple agencies, including the IRS and the Treasury Department. Concerns about his team's access to private data have resulted in lawsuits. 'DOGE's mission to advise OMB and the White House on how to slash regulations and cut expenditures puts at risk important consumer safeguards and public protections,' Robert Weissman, co-president of Public Citizen, an advocacy group that brought a lawsuit against the administration, said in a January statement. Controversies have also been swirling about Musk's personal life. A recent New York Times investigation found that Musk was 'juggling … a drug habit far more serious than previously known.' Musk's criticism is channeling concerns among economists and business leaders about the prospect of a recession resulting from tariffs. Trump's tariffs — notably his 'reciprocal,' country-specific tariffs and triple-digit tariffs on China — have been walked back, but a highly elevated overall U.S. tariff rate relative to recent decades has remained in place. The overall tariff rate is somewhere between 10 and 15 percent now, according to various estimates, and Trump's tariffs are expected to pull in about $2.5 trillion in federal revenues. The Federal Reserve has repeatedly painted a stagflationary picture of the economic outlook in recent months. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) factored a boosted inflationary prediction of 0.4 percentage points as a result of the tariffs into its budgetary calculations this week. However, a recession is far from guaranteed, and many predictions about the economy have grown more positive as trade negotiations have continued. The U.S. trade deficit narrowed by a record amount in April following intense front-running of tariffs by importers in the first quarter, causing a collective sigh of relief from many investors. 'The drop in imports should have a positive impact on GDP, quelling any fears of a recession in the near term,' Damian McIntyre, vice president at investment firm Federated Hermes, commented Thursday. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
35 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Opinion - Trump-Musk divorce threatens the president and the entire Republican Party
Few expected the relationship between President Trump and Elon Musk to survive four years, but the spectacular collapse of this partnership has shocked even seasoned observers with its speed and intensity. Now, as two of the world's most powerful men openly clash, there are seismic implications for the country as a whole and the Republican Party specifically. Put another way, not only does this fissure expose cracks in the GOP and MAGA coalition, it's also a considerable threat to Republicans' midterms hopes and Trump's signature legislation. The fight, which began two weeks ago when Musk expressed 'disappointment' with Trump's 'one big, beautiful' bill had initially been confined to disagreements over the legislation, rather than personal attacks. Then, on Thursday afternoon, it escalated in unprecedented, dramatic fashion. Following Trump's recent comment that he would have won Pennsylvania without Musk's help, Musk replied 'Without me, Trump would have lost the election, Dems would control the House and Republicans would be 51-49 in the Senate.' That was just Musk's opening salvo against the man he spent roughly $300 million to get elected. The tech billionaire then went on a blistering war path. He claimed Trump was on 'the Epstein list,' supported impeachment — a touchy subject for the twice-impeached Trump — and claimed that tariffs would cause a recession. Not content with attacking Trump, Musk has also threatened to fund primary challenges to Republicans who support the bill, and has criticized both Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) and Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-La.). With unprecedented speed, Musk went from the man who could pour hundreds of millions into Republican coffers to Republicans' enemy number one. Influential commentator Steve Bannon pushed for Musk's deportation, claiming he's an illegal alien, and Trump threatened to cancel all government contracts with Musk's multiple companies, saying Musk 'went CRAZY.' Whether or not the rumors of an impending détente between the two is enough to heal the rupture remains to be seen, but it's unlikely that all of the pieces will ever get put back together. Given Musk's deep pockets and control of social media platform X, where he has a cult-like following, Trump and the Republicans now find themselves in a treacherous spot at a precarious time. Indeed, even before the dramatic escalation, Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' was in limbo in the Senate. As Alexander Bolton noted in this publication prior to Thursday's blowup, Trump's bill is 'losing momentum in the Senate in the face of blistering attacks from Elon Musk.' To that end, Musk's criticisms of the bill and threats to primary its Republican supporters has already led two House Republicans who voted for the bill, Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) and John Rose (R-Tenn.), to come out against some of it. It appears that this fight has brought some Republicans back into Trump's fold. Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas), who had been opposed to the bill prior to its passage in the House, condemned Musk, saying he 'crossed the line.' And Rep. Tim Burchett (R-Tenn), another House conservative, dismissed Musk's influence, saying he is 'just another shiny object.' For their part, Republican senators who may have had doubts about Trump's signature legislation now risk being seen as taking Musk's side and being disloyal to the president. However, it would be a mistake to overlook the implications of the breakup or the dangers for Republicans. If he wants, Musk could very easily fund primaries against vulnerable GOP House members, and his control of X gives him unprecedented influence over the media ecosystem. Further, Musk's influence among the Silicon Valley cohort that moved stridently to the right in 2024 could peel off a new group of Republican voters and donors. In that same vein, there are possible electoral consequences for Republicans, even if tempers between Trump and Musk cool down. Trump was counting on the bill's passage to be a significant political tailwind that would boost his polling numbers and Republicans' midterm hopes, particularly given the ongoing chaos over tariffs and trade policy. Now, whichever version of the bill eventually passes, Republicans look like the party of chaos. It is entirely possible that this ongoing feud dents voters' confidence in Republicans' ability to competently govern, something Democrats are clearly hoping for. As the Wall Street Journal reported, Democrats are 'reveling' about the fight, with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) reposting Musk's attacks and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) taking digs at the 'GOP civil war.' To be sure, despite Musk's efforts, it remains likely that a version of Trump's 'one, big, beautiful bill' will still pass, but Republicans now have a bigger headache. Ultimately, divorces are always messy, but the Trump-Musk divorce is unprecedented, and it could not have come at a worse time for Republicans. With razor-thin margins in the House and the absence of Trump's much-touted trade bills, it poses the most significant threat to Republicans' midterm hopes, and by extension, the rest of Trump's term. Douglas E. Schoen and Carly Cooperman are pollsters and partners with the public opinion company Schoen Cooperman Research based in New York. They are co-authors of the book, 'America: Unite or Die.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Boston Globe
40 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Ayotte issues first veto as N.H. governor, keeping transportation mandatory for half-day kindergarten
'To no longer require transportation for these children to and from these schools would place an undue burden on working families,' Ayotte said, lauding half-day kindergarten as a tool to help give students a strong foundation for success later in life. Get N.H. Morning Report A weekday newsletter delivering the N.H. news you need to know right to your inbox. Enter Email Sign Up 'While school districts throughout New Hampshire should be actively looking for ways to effectively utilize their funding, this is a step in the wrong direction,' she added, referring to the legislation. Advertisement Ayotte vetoed HB 319 on Tuesday, according to an entry added to The bill's prime sponsor, Representative Keith Ammon of New Boston, said he respects Ayotte's veto authority, but was surprised by her decision. 'This bill, requested by the New Boston school board chair, would have saved our district $75,000 annually by eliminating an unfunded state mandate that forces our district to run nearly empty buses in the middle of the day,' Ammon said. Advertisement 'Unfortunately, the governor's first veto may send a chilling message to legislators trying to eliminate the many unfunded state mandates that drive up property taxes for New Hampshire families,' he added. The legislation had passed with a 204-171 vote in the House in March and a 13-8 vote in the Senate in May, which suggests lawmakers are unlikely to muster the two-thirds majorities needed to override the governor's decision. Aside from her first veto, Ayotte also announced Friday that she had signed 19 more bills into law, including legislation related to rights and complaints in special education (HB 76, HB 753, and HB 754), financial assistance for those victimized in cases of sexual assault or harassment while serving in the national guard (HB 62), and a requirement that public schools observe Constitution Day with patriotic exercises (HB 571). This article first appeared in Globe NH | Morning Report, our free newsletter focused on the news you need to know about New Hampshire, including great coverage from the Boston Globe and links to interesting articles from other places. If you'd like to receive it via e-mail Monday through Friday, Steven Porter can be reached at
