Bible-infused lessons in Texas schools ignore the law and hurt students like me
Starting this fall, a Bible-influenced curriculum approved by the State Board of Education last November will be allowed in Texas public elementary schools. The lessons could reach as many as 7,000 schools and 2 million K-5 students.
As a second-generation Hindu teenager in Texas public schools, I find this curriculum worrying. Minority students can feel socially ostracized. Adding lessons that emphasize one religious tradition will increase social alienation for those who don't identify with that faith.
Secular education, which has contributed to maintaining peace in classrooms, is being threatened. Young students rarely understand religious differences between themselves and their peers, in my experience. When a particular tradition — whether a place of worship or dietary restriction — is presented as "correct" or "better," those outside that tradition feel demeaned.
Public elementary schools should not teach about the Bible. Period.
The First Amendment mandates the separation of church and state, and the Fourteenth Amendment requires individual states to comply with all other Amendments. The Bible is a religious text. Public schools are state funded. Texas should not be endorsing religious material in elementary schools.
Schools are not religion-free, but teachers must remain impartial during instructional periods. Student-led activities during free periods, like my school's Fellowship of Christian Athletes club, are protected. A Bible-infused school curriculum, however, sanctions religious expression in class by teachers and the school.
In the case of Abington School District v. Schempp (1963), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled a Pennsylvania school district's mandatory Bible readings were unconstitutional, even though individual students were allowed to opt out in rare cases.
Even if a Texas school's decision to use the Bible-infused curriculum is optional, the U.S. Supreme Court has already thwarted an attempt at religious instruction in public schools. Furthermore, the judicial system is 100% backed up by the Constitution.
Proponents argue that Christianity is a major part of U.S. history and will enrich humanities lessons. But 26% of Texans are religiously unaffiliated, while 6% practice non-Christian religions. A Bible-influenced curriculum disregards a third of the state population.
The curriculum inserts Biblical stories into previously secular subjects. English is a required subject for K-5 public schools. In the subject textbook, the new curriculum includes scientific lessons alongside a unit called 'Serving Our Neighbors,' which emphasizes Jewish and Christian scriptures. By placing a religious chapter next to nonspiritual lessons, the textbook presents a certain religious tradition as the default, alienating students from other faiths.
I recall arguing with classmates in third grade about God, reflecting our various faiths. We disagreed on God's abilities, whether he could walk on hot surfaces or fly, among other superpowers. As young children, we struggled to understand each other, and our teacher had to intervene. Infusing education with a majority religion worsens divisions for minorities.
Although Christianity influences U.S. culture, religious pluralism is an important part of America's constitutional fabric. Public education should reflect those values rather than religious superiority.
Though adoption of this new curriculum is optional for schools, they will receive additional funding if they do so.
A 2024 Kinder Institute study found that 73% of Texas school districts are underfunded, and the most financially strained districts are more likely to have student achievement ratings of C or lower. State funds being reserved to reward religious education should instead be used to increase teacher salaries and improve educational opportunities. It is frustrating that underfunded schools are pressured to adopt a Bible-infused curriculum.
Students like myself have attended primary schools for years to develop basic skills and identities. Controversial topics being taught, or worse, strangled in a biased environment, undermine our educational fabric. They threaten the future of my fellow students and minorities. All students deserve to feel valued in their classrooms, not subjected to alienation or divisions along religious and cultural lines.
Rajasi Agarwal is a ninth grader at Westlake High School.
This article originally appeared on Austin American-Statesman: Teaching the Bible in Texas schools hurts students like me | Opinion
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
26 minutes ago
- Yahoo
What to know about Trump's pardon of ex-Cincinnati City Councilman PG Sittenfeld
Former Cincinnati City Councilman P.G. Sittenfeld, who was convicted of federal bribery and attempted extortion charges, was pardoned May 28 by President Donald Trump. Sittenfeld's convictions derailed a promising political career, in which he had once been the frontrunner for mayor. He was arrested months after announcing his campaign for Cincinnati mayor in 2020. The president's decision to grant clemency to Sittenfeld came as an unexpected move, considering the ex-councilman had voiced disapproval of Trump. Here's what we know and don't know about Sittenfeld's pardon. Trump signed an "executive grant of clemency" directing the U.S. Attorney General to sign and grant a "full and unconditional pardon" to Sittenfeld. "The Attorney General shall declare that her action is the act of the President, being performed at my direction," it reads. However, the document does not list any specific reasons why Trump would grant such a pardon. The case against Sittenfeld centered on donations to his political action committee, which prosecutors said he solicited from an informant for the FBI and FBI agents posing as developers of a downtown Cincinnati project. Prosecutors said Sittenfeld's actions went beyond campaign fundraising and crossed the line into bribery. A jury found him guilty in 2022. After a lengthy post-conviction legal battle, Sittenfeld was sentenced to 16 months in prison, although he only served about four and a half months at a facility in Ashland, Kentucky. In May 2024, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals released him while his appeal was pending. Earlier this year, the 6th Circuit, in a 2-1 decision, upheld the convictions. At that time, all three Trump-appointed judges appeared to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case. Sittenfeld has taken his case to the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn his convictions. It's not clear if Sittenfeld will continue to challenge his convictions. It remains unclear how Sittenfeld, a Democrat who once called Trump a 'buffoonish carnival barker," was able to garner favor with the Republicn president's administration. More: Trump's pardon of Sittenfeld stunned many in Cincinnati, but the move fits a pattern Trump has complained repeatedly about what he describes as the 'weaponization' of the legal system against him and others. He's also granted clemency to other public officials convicted of corruption charges, although most of those pardons have gone to Republicans or to people who've publicly praised Trump. Ultimately, the president doesn't have to explain his reasons for pardoning anyone, including Sittenfeld. The pardon power requires no Congressional oversight and no judicial review. Sittenfeld wasn't the only person Trump deemed fit to grant clemency for federal convictions. The moves were part of a fresh wave of pardons by Trump on May 28, according to USA TODAY. Other prominent people who received a pardon from Trump include: Former Connecticut Gov. John Rowland, who pleaded guilty in late 2004 to one count of conspiring to commit tax fraud and depriving the public of honest service. Louisiana-born rapper NBA YoungBoy, whose real name is Kentrell Gaulden, who pleaded guilty to a federal gun charge in 2024. Larry Hoover, a Chicago gang leader who co-founded the Gangster Disciples and was convicted of murder in 1973. Hoover is still serving state sentences. Former New York Rep. Michael Grimm, a Republican who resigned after being convicted of tax fraud. Former 1st Lt. Mark Bashaw, who was discharged from the U.S. Army after his 2022 conviction at a special court martial for refusing to follow COVID-19 safety measures. Reality TV stars Todd and Julie Chrisley of "Chrisley Knows Best" fame, who were found guilty in 2022 of conspiring to commit tax evasion and defraud Atlanta banks, as well as the IRS. Enquirer staff writers Kevin Grasha, Dan Horn and Scott Wartman contributed to this report. USA TODAY also contributed. This article originally appeared on Cincinnati Enquirer: PG Sittenfeld pardon: What to know about Trump's order to grant clemency
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
India and Pakistan's ‘water and blood' wars could spark global catastrophe
'Pakistan has violated the spirit of the treaty by inflicting three wars and thousands of terror attacks on India,' said India's Permanent Representative to the United Nations, Parvathaneni Harish, last Friday, referring to the Indus Waters Treaty of 1960. India suspended the World Bank-brokered agreement the day after gunmen killed 26 mostly Hindu tourists at Pahalgam in Indian-controlled Jammu and Kashmir. Pakistan also claims Jammu and Kashmir. New Delhi blames Islamabad for harboring militants who staged the April 22 attack, as Harish noted in his remarks at a U.N. Security Council Arria-formula meeting titled 'Protecting Water in Armed Conflict — Protecting Civilian Lives.' Pakistan has denied responsibility. By India's count, Pakistani terror attacks have taken more than 20,000 Indian lives in the past four decades. 'It is against this backdrop that India has finally announced that the treaty will be in abeyance until Pakistan, which is a global epicenter of terror, credibly and irrevocably ends its support for cross-border terrorism,' Harish announced. 'It is clear that it is Pakistan which remains in violation of the Indus Waters Treaty.' India's action is the first-ever suspension of the pact. The treaty, 'a rare beacon of cooperation between India and Pakistan,' allocates waters in the Indus basin. India got control of the eastern rivers of Ravi, Beas and Sutlej. Pakistan controls western rivers, the Chenab, the Indus and Jhelum. The treaty is generous to Pakistan, allocating to it about 70 percent of the total water carried by the Indus River System. Water stoppages pose a dire threat to Pakistan. Rivers covered by the treaty provide almost 80 percent of its water for drinking and irrigation. 'Water is a vital national interest of Pakistan, a lifeline for its 240 million people and its availability will be safeguarded at all costs,' a Pakistani foreign ministry spokesperson said on April 25. 'Any attempt to stop or divert the flow of water belonging to Pakistan as per the Indus Waters Treaty, and the usurpation of the rights of lower riparian will be considered as an act of war and responded with full force across the complete spectrum of national power,' the Pakistani spokesperson continued. 'Complete spectrum of national power' is a significant phrase, given that Pakistan is a nuclear weapons state. Nuclear war is always on the menu. India launched Operation Sindoor on May 7 against known terrorist sites in Pakistan, and for four days the two nuclear-armed powers hit each other with air, drone and missile strikes. After India targeted the Nur Khan and Mushaf airbases, both close to Pakistan's nuclear weapons installations, an alarmed Trump administration intervened and brokered a ceasefire. Ishaq Dar, Pakistan's deputy prime minister and foreign minister, told CNN on May 12 that the cease-fire could fall apart 'if the water issue is not resolved.' India currently does not have the ability to deny water to Pakistan, because its upstream dams have only limited storage capacity. The most New Delhi can do with the current infrastructure is affect the timing of water flows to Pakistan. New Delhi's goal is to prevent any water from leaving India, however, and the country is planning to improve its system of dams so that they do not have to release water into Pakistan. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has maintained a hardline stance. 'Water and blood cannot flow together,' Modi has said. 'Terror and talks cannot happen at the same time. Terror and trade cannot happen simultaneously.' Most analysts believe that Pakistan's forces got the better of India in the four days of fighting. Whether that is true or not, Pakistan's army came out ahead at home. 'Rather than deterring its rival, India precipitated a retaliation that ended up burnishing the Pakistani military's reputation and boosting its domestic popularity,' wrote Georgetown University's Aqil Shah in Foreign Affairs. So expect more hostilities. Shah's piece is titled 'The Next War Between India and Pakistan.' There will be one for sure. Operation Sindoor, Modi said, had 'drawn a new line under the fight against terrorism.' 'This is a new phase, a new normal. If there is a terror attack on India, we will give a jaw-breaking response.' Modi has recently said that Operation Sindoor has not yet ended. The conflict could spread to include another nuclear weapons state. Beijing, for instance, could intervene by blocking water flows into India. The headwaters of the Indus are in China. So are the headwaters of the Brahmaputra. 'This could well overshadow any previous, containable conflict between India and Pakistan,' writes Gregory Copley, the president of the International Strategic Studies Association and editor-in-chief of Defense and Foreign Affairs Strategic Policy, on the next war. 'It could be the big one.' Gordon G. Chang is the author of 'Plan Red: China's Project to Destroy America' and 'The Coming Collapse of China.'.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
British Attacks on Free Speech Prove the Value of the First Amendment
Political activists occasionally propose a new constitutional convention, which would gather delegates from the states to craft amendments to the nation's founding document. It's a long and convoluted process, but the Constitution itself provides the blueprint. Article V allows such a confab if two-thirds of Congress or two-thirds of the state legislatures call for one. These days, conservatives are the driving force for the idea, as they see it as a means to put further limits on the federal government. Sometimes, progressives propose such a thing. Their goals are to enshrine various social programs and social-justice concepts. Yet anyone who has watched the moronic sausage-making in Congress and state legislatures should be wary of opening Pandora's Box. I'd be happy enough if both political tribes tried to uphold the Constitution as it is currently drafted. It's a brilliant document that limits the power of the government to infringe on our rights. Without the first 10—the Bill of Rights—this would be a markedly different nation. For a sense of where we might be without it, I'd recommend looking at Great Britain and its approach to the speech concepts detailed on our First Amendment. Our nation was spawned from the British, so we share a culture and history. Yet, without a specific constitutional dictate, that nation has taken a disturbing approach that rightly offends American sensibilities. As Tablet magazine reported, "74-year-old Scottish grandmother Rose Docherty was arrested on video by four police officers for silently holding a sign in proximity to a Glasgow abortion clinic reading 'Coercion is a crime, here to talk, only if you want.'" Thousands of Brits are detained, questioned, and prosecuted, it notes, for online posts of the type that wouldn't raise an eyebrow here. The chilling effect is profound. This isn't as awful as what happens in authoritarian countries such as Russia, where the government's critics have a habit of accidentally falling out of windows. But that's thin gruel. Britain and the European Union are supposed to be free countries. Their speech codes are intended to battle disinformation/misinformation, but empowering the government to be the arbiter of such vague concepts only destroys everyone's freedoms. In 1998, Great Britain approved Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. It protects a citizen's "right to hold your own opinions and to express them freely without government interference." But it comes with limits and conditions. The authorities may quash such speech to "protect national security, territorial integrity (the borders of the state) or public safety," or "prevent disorder or crime," or "protect health or morals," or "maintain the authority and impartiality of judges." One may not express "views that encourage racial or religious hatred." Those are open-ended terms, which has led to bizarre prosecutions. Our First Amendment includes these words: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble." A constitutional amendment stating "no law" is more protective than a statute with asterisks and exceptions. With the political Left devoted to limiting speech based on its fixations on race and gender and the political Right's willingness to, say, deport students who take verboten positions on the war in Gaza and malign reporters as enemies of the people, I'd hate to see how speech protections would fare in a refashioned constitution. Traditionally, the Left has taken a "living and breathing" approach, insisting its plain words and founders' intent are up for reinterpretation. Sadly, modern conservatives, who previously defended originalism, seem ready to ditch the Constitution when it hinders their policy aims. Just read their dissing of due process—as stated in the 5th and 14th amendments, when it comes to immigration policy. When asked about habeas corpus during a Senate hearing, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said it's "a constitutional right that the president has to be able to remove people from this country." It's the opposite, as habeas corpus requires the government to explain why it's detaining people—and forbids it from holding them indefinitely. MAGA apparently believes the words of the Constitution mean the opposite of what they say. Frankly, I wouldn't want either side to be near a constitutional convention that's empowered to rewrite a document penned by men more brilliant and civic-minded than our current lot. "Those who won our independence by revolution were not cowards," wrote Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis in the 1927 free-speech case, Whitney v. California. "They did not exalt order at the cost of liberty. … If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence." We don't need to revisit the Constitution, but to uphold the protections already within it. This column was first published in The Orange County Register. The post British Attacks on Free Speech Prove the Value of the First Amendment appeared first on
