logo
Alabama House passes bill requiring Ten Commandments displays in K-12 schools

Alabama House passes bill requiring Ten Commandments displays in K-12 schools

Yahoo18-04-2025

Rep. Mark Gidley, R-Hokes Bluff, listens to a presentation in the Alabama House of Representatives on April 3, 2025 at the Alabama Statehouse in Montgomery, Alabama. (Brian Lyman/Alabama Reflector) Gidley's bill that would require the Ten Commandments to be displayed in public K-12 schools passed the House on April 17, 2025.
The Alabama House of Representatives Thursday passed a bill requiring public K-12 schools to display the Ten Commandments.
HB 178, sponsored by Rep. Mark Gidley, R-Hokes Bluff, passed the chamber 88-11. It requires schools to display the Ten Commandments in an entry way; a common area an entry way or common areas like cafeterias, and in classrooms where the history of the United States is taught. The displays must be at least 11-by-14 inches in size and include text saying the commandments are 'a key part of the Judeo-Christian religious and moral tradition that shaped Western Civilization and ultimately the founding of the United States,' as well as other arguments claiming they are foundational texts.
Displays would be made based on the availability of donations for them.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Gidley, a pastor, said in the House Thursday that the country was founded on the principles of the Hebrew-derevied text, which makes it historical.
'This is about returning foundational principles to schools to be taught,' he said.
Alabama voters in 2018 approved a constitutional amendment allowing the Ten Commandments to be displayed on public property but not mandating such displays. Federal courts have allowed the displays of the Ten Commandments in historical contexts in schools but not as religious or moral displays. Local school boards do not have to use their state-allocated funds to purchase a poster to display, Gidley said.
The legislation does not list any sanctions for schools that do not comply.
Louisiana passed similar legislation in 2024, but a federal district court ruled it unconstitutional in November, citing the separation of church and state. Louisiana's law, unlike Gidley's, required the Ten Commandments to be displayed in every classroom.
Rep. Patrick Sellers, D-Pleasant Grove, was the only Democrat to support the legislation. Sellers, pastor of Mount Zion Missionary Baptist Church in Birmingham, said the values in the Ten Commandments should be in schools.
'These are principles that our children need, and even if it's just looking at it on the wall to remind them of what they are and how they should live from day to day,' Sellers said. 'That's what's missing in our schools. That's what's missing in our homes, that's what's missing in our families.'
Rep. Danny Garrett, R-Trussville, supported the legislation, but said putting the Ten Commandments in schools would not make more Christians.
'As a Christian, we should be salt and light in the world. And I think that happens through relationships,' Garrett said. 'But legislative mandates are not going to renew minds and change hearts.'
Rep. Marilyn Lands, D-Huntsville, said some of the commandments may not be age appropriate for young school children.
'I think that the 10 commandments have their place, but I don't know that we need to mandate that they be in our schools,' she said. 'I think we teach our children well in our homes, and I think we have churches to teach them, but I'm not sure that they belong in our schools.'
Rep. Mary Moore, D-Birmingham, said putting the Christian text in schools would disrespect other religions.
'All I am saying is there are other faiths, those people deserve to practice whatever faith you practice,' Moore said.
The bill moves to the Senate. Sen. Keith Kelley, R-Anniston, has a companion bill that was approved by the Senate Education Policy Committee last week.
SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Congress introduces bill addressing national guidelines for college sports
Congress introduces bill addressing national guidelines for college sports

USA Today

timean hour ago

  • USA Today

Congress introduces bill addressing national guidelines for college sports

Congress introduces bill addressing national guidelines for college sports With the settlement of three athlete-compensation antitrust cases against the NCAA and the Power Five conferences having received final approval from a federal district judge on June 6, members of the U.S. House of Representatives have moved into action with new legislative proposals regarding national rules for college sports. On Wednesday, June 10, Reps. Lisa McClain, R-Mich., and Janelle Bynum, D-Ore., introduced a bill that comes shortly after Reps. Gus Bilirakis, R-Fla., and Brett Guthrie, R-Ky., circulated a discussion draft of a bill that would largely put into federal law the terms and new rules-making structure of the settlement. The discussion draft is set to be the centerpiece of a hearing June 11 by a subcommittee of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Bilirakis, who has been involved in previous college-sports bill efforts, chairs the subcommittee. Guthrie chairs the full committee. The bill – in addition to being a bi-partisan presentation – continues recent work related to college sports from McClain, who is the current House Republican Conference chair. That makes her the GOP's No. 4-ranking member in the House. In April, McClain introduced a bill that would prevent college athletes from being employees of their schools, conferences or an athletic association. The discussion draft – as posted on Congress' general resource site, - includes language that specifically would allow the NCAA, and potentially the new Collegiate Sports Commission, to make rules in areas that have come into legal dispute in recent years and in areas that the NCAA wants to shield from legal dispute. The discussion draft, first reported on by The Washington Post, also includes language that would require most Division I schools to provide a series of benefits for athletes that are currently called for under NCAA and some conferences' rules but do not have the force of federal law. In addition, the discussion draft includes a 'placeholder' section for language that likely would be connected to providing antitrust or other legal protection for various provisions. According the discussion draft, an 'interstate collegiate athletic association' would be able to 'establish and enforce rules relating to … the manner in which … student athletes may be recruited' to play sports; 'the transfer of a student athlete between institutions'; and 'the number of seasons or length of time for which a student athlete is eligible to compete, academic standards, and code of conduct'. The NCAA's rules regarding when recruits can be offered money in exchange for the use of their name, image and likeness; athletes' ability to freely transfer; and the number of seasons in which they are eligible to compete all of have been – or currently are being – addressed in federal and state courts across the country. That has raised concerns for NCAA officials about the future of rules such as those concerning academic eligibility requirements The discussion draft also includes language that would require most Division I schools to provide a series of benefits for athletes that are currently called for under NCAA and some conferences' rules but do not have the force of law. These include medical coverage for athletically related injuries for at least two years after the conclusion of an athlete's career; guaranteed financial aid that would allow an athlete to complete an undergraduate degree; and 'an administrative structure that provides independent medical care and affirms the unchallengeable autonomous authority of primary athletics health care providers (team physicians and athletic trainers) to determine medical management and return-to-play decisions related to student athletes.'

Trump's 'big beautiful' spending bill could make it harder to claim this low-income tax credit
Trump's 'big beautiful' spending bill could make it harder to claim this low-income tax credit

CNBC

timean hour ago

  • CNBC

Trump's 'big beautiful' spending bill could make it harder to claim this low-income tax credit

As Senate Republicans debate President Donald Trump's "big beautiful bill", a lesser-known provision from the House-approved package could make it harder to claim a low-income tax credit. If enacted as written, the House measure in the "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" would require precertification of each qualifying child for filers claiming the so-called earned income tax credit, or EITC, starting in 2028. Under current law, taxpayers claim the EITC on their tax return — including Schedule EIC for qualifying children. The provision aims to "avoid duplicative and other erroneous claims," according to the bill's text. But policy experts say the new rules would burden eligible filers, who may forgo the EITC as a result. The measure could also delay tax refunds for those filers, particularly amid IRS cutbacks, experts say. More from Personal Finance:Job market is 'trash' right now, career coach says — here's whyWhat a 'revenge tax' in Trump's spending bill could mean for investorsWhat Trump's plan to slash Pell Grant to lowest level in a decade means for you "You're going to flood the IRS with all these [EITC] documents," said Janet Holtzblatt, a senior fellow at the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center. "It's just not clear how they're going to process all this information." Holtzblatt, who has pushed to simplify the EITC for decades, wrote a critique of the proposed precertification last week. "This is not a new idea, but was previously considered, studied and rejected for very good reasons," Greg Leiserson, a senior fellow at the Tax Law Center at New York University Law, wrote about the proposal in late May. Studies during the George W. Bush administration found an EITC precertification process reduced EITC claims for eligible filers, Leiserson wrote. During the study, precertification also yielded a lower return on investment compared to existing EITC enforcement, such as audits, he wrote. One of the key benefits of the EITC is the tax break is "refundable," meaning you can still claim the credit and get a refund with zero taxes owed. That's valuable for lower earners who don't have a tax bill, experts say. To qualify, you need "earned income," or wages from work. The income phase-outs depend on your "qualifying children," based on four IRS tests. "Eligibility is complicated," and residency requirements for qualifying children often cause errors, said Holtzblatt with the Tax Policy Center. For 2025, the tax break is worth up to $8,046 for eligible families. You can claim the maximum EITC with adjusted gross income up to $61,555 for single filers and $68,675 for married couples filing jointly. These phase-outs apply to families with three or more children. As of December 2024, about 23 million workers received the EITC for tax year 2022, according to the IRS. But 1 in 5 eligible taxpayers don't claim the tax break, the agency estimates. Nine Democratic Senators last week voiced concerns about the House-approved EITC changes in a letter to Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., and House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La. If enacted, the updates would "further complicate the EITC's existing challenges and make it more difficult to claim," the lawmakers wrote. Higher earners are more likely to face an audit, but EITC claimants have a 5.5 times higher audit rate than the rest of U.S. filers, partly due to improper payments, according to the Bipartisan Policy Center. The proposed EITC change, among other House provisions, still need Senate approval, and it's unclear how the measure could change. However, under the reconciliation process, Senate Republicans only need a simple majority to advance the bill.

'One Big Beautiful Bill' harms more than it helps, says Miami archbishop
'One Big Beautiful Bill' harms more than it helps, says Miami archbishop

Miami Herald

timean hour ago

  • Miami Herald

'One Big Beautiful Bill' harms more than it helps, says Miami archbishop

The 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act' passed in the U.S. House and is now in the Senate. Senators have a critical opportunity to reshape or amend some of the bill's provisions before moving it forward. Doing so is imperative, as the bill passed by the House contains real and substantial threats to the promotion of the common good and the protection of human life and dignity. Many across the political spectrum object to the bill's enormous spending, arguing it will add to the already unsustainable national debt. One of the most problematic areas is its doubling down on an enforcement-only approach to immigration, which needlessly adds to this debt. This sweeping legislation allocates $24 billion for immigration enforcement and $45 billion for detention — including the detention of families — a 400% increase from current funding levels, according to Dominican Life USA, which has broken down the immigration costs. It also proposes $100 million to expedite the removal of unaccompanied children. Additionally, the bill would impose prohibitive fees on immigrant families: $8,500 for family reunification with an unaccompanied child, $1,000 to request asylum, which does not exist now, and $550 for a work permit that must be renewed every six months. These draconian measures undermine both financial logic and moral responsibility. The administration has already effectively regained control of the border and is aggressively removing and deporting 'bad actors' — those who commit serious felonies after entering the country. However, as employers in agriculture, healthcare and service industries can attest, the majority of immigrants are honest, hardworking individuals who are simply seeking a better future for their families. Most undocumented immigrants are not criminals. Many have temporary protections, such as TPS (Temporary Protected Status), parole, or pending asylum applications. Some — including Haitians, Cubans, Venezuelans and Nicaraguans — entered under special humanitarian visas. Others arrived legally on student or visitor visas and later fell out of status by overstaying their visas. DREAMers, brought to the U.S. as children, have only been granted 'deferred departure' and still have no pathway to legal permanent residence. Rather than spend billions on mass deportation efforts targeting people who are already contributing positively to our nation, it would be both more financially prudent and morally just to halt enforcement-only policies and expand legal pathways to permanent status for non-criminal immigrants. The U.S. is currently facing labor shortages in many industries, including healthcare, services and agriculture. Removing immigrant workers will only worsen these shortages. While the administration enforces the laws, Congress makes the laws — and has the power to change them. Congress could revise the 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act' to be less expensive, more economically advantageous and better aligned with our values by eliminating wasteful spending on enforcement and including a stay on deportations of non-criminal immigrants. Otherwise, this legislation will fund a mass deportation campaign that could tear apart families, disrupt industrie, and undermine communities. Long-term residents with U.S.-citizen children — people who work, pay taxes and enrich our culture — will be forced out. That does not serve the long-term interests or moral foundations of our country. Thomas Wenski is the archbishop of Miami.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store