Legal rights groups urge school leaders not to adopt Texas' Bible-infused curriculum
The American Civil Liberties Union of Texas, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Center for Inquiry and the Freedom From Religion Foundation sent superintendents and their school boards a letter Thursday telling them that adopting the curriculum, called Bluebonnet Learning, would "unlawfully impose a set of religious beliefs upon your students and violate their constitutionally guaranteed right to be free from religious coercion."
The letter suggests a willingness by the groups to take legal action to stop Texas schools from adopting the materials.
"Our organizations, which have long fought for religious freedom for all, will closely monitor any school district across the state that considers implementing the Bluebonnet curriculum and will take any action that is necessary and appropriate to protect the rights of Texas children and their parents," the letter reads.
The Texas Education Agency did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the letter.
The State Board of Education narrowly approved the free-to-use elementary school curriculum in November, with a temporary Gov. Greg Abbott appointee casting the deciding vote.
Schools that choose to adopt the materials this year could begin using them for free at the start of the 2025-26 school year. The state will offer an incentive of $60 per student to districts that choose to do so. The education agency said the funding would allow schools to offset the costs of printing the curriculum's materials.
The curriculum uses reading and language arts lessons to advance or establish concepts in other subjects, such as history and social studies. Many of the lesson's critics, which include religious studies scholars, note that the curriculum's lessons reference Christianity more than any other religion. They believe the disparity could lead to the bullying and isolation of non-Christian students, undermine church-state separation and grant the state far-reaching control over how children learn about religion.
Critics have also questioned the accuracy of some lessons, saying the materials whitewash America's history of slavery and racism. Many see the curriculum as part of a growing Christian nationalist movement, which holds the belief that the United States' founding was ordained by God and that its laws and institutions should favor Christians.
Education officials and advocates for the curriculum say references to Christianity will provide students with a better understanding of the country's history and the impact of important texts like the Bible on the world. They also say the materials cover a broad range of faiths and only make references to religion when appropriate. Gov. Greg Abbott, following the curriculum's passage, called Bluebonnet 'a critical step forward to bring students back to the basics of education and provide the best education in the nation.'
Since the curriculum received approval in November, at least one school board — the South San Antonio school district — has voted to adopt the materials. The Eagle Mountain-Saginaw district in Fort Worth plans to use the math portion of the materials and avoid the reading materials infused with the Bible lessons. The Conroe school district, located north of Houston, started considering whether to adopt the lessons. And the Denton school district in North Texas publicly stated that it does not plan to consider the curriculum.
School districts have wide latitude when it comes to adopting lesson plans. A district could, for example, decide to use parts of Bluebonnet and ignore other sections, such as the chapters that reference Christianity. Or a district could choose to heavily reference the biblical lessons in Bluebonnet while using another curriculum for other teachings.
Legal experts told The Texas Tribune that recent rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court's conservative majority have eroded decades of precedent and made it unclear what state actions constitute a violation of the Establishment Clause, which prohibits state endorsement of a particular religion.
The Supreme Court decided, for instance, that a Washington state high school football coach did not violate the First Amendment by conducting personal prayers on the field after team games. In doing so, the justices ended what many referred to as the Lemon test, a standard the court relied upon to assess whether a government action, in part, represented an "excessive entanglement" between church and state.
The letter sent by the legal organizations on Thursday expressed the groups' stance that the Bluebonnet curriculum 'treats Christianity and the Bible as true.' The organizations cited many lessons in the curriculum, including one for fifth-graders on the painting of The Last Supper. The organizations say it presents the Book of Matthew as 'a literal and historical record of what happened.'
The groups reference a unit they say describes Jesus as a historical figure 'without any qualification' and that directs teachers to mention that the 'Christian Bible explains that Jesus rose from the dead.' The groups also criticize a lesson that asks students to repeat the phrase that starts the creation story in the Book of Genesis and an activity requesting that children remember the order in which the Bible says God created the universe.
Richard Conn, general counsel for the Center for Inquiry, an organization advocating against religion in government, said in a statement that the Bluebonnet curriculum represents 'a clear and obvious Establishment Clause violation, even if Texas legislators have decided to pretend otherwise.'
Conn added: 'We urge school superintendents not to make that same mistake and instead to stand up for the rights and constitutionally protected freedoms of the students, families, and communities they serve.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fox News
2 hours ago
- Fox News
Charlamagne tha God names surprising 2028 presidential suggestion
Charlamagne tha God is known for making waves as a prominent talk show host — and is pushing for a fellow entertainer to run for president in 2028. The popular face of "The Breakfast Club" radio show suggested "The Daily Show" star Jon Stewart should run as the Democratic Party's candidate in the 2028 presidential election during an appearance on "My View with Lara Trump." "This is going to sound ridiculous, probably, coming from me," he told Fox News host Lara Trump. "I would love to see Jon Stewart run in 2028." Charlamagne emphasized Democrats' need for a "change agent" after former Vice President Kamala Harris' loss to President Donald Trump in the 2024 presidential election, and that Stewart could help the party broaden its base. "If we're talking about a change agent coming from the outside that's really going to shake things up, and somebody that I feel like can speak to all people… he's a celebrity who actually knows what they're talking about," he said. "We've seen him get legislation and stuff passed before — like, we know where his heart is." "He'd be somebody I'd like to see really get in the race and disrupt things in 2028." Charlamagne suggested that "The Late Show with Stephen Colbert" host Stephen Colbert should run alongside Stewart on this hypothetical ticket, explaining that he's "not going to have a job." CBS revealed on July 17 that the show would be ending in May 2026, calling the plan to terminate it "purely a financial decision against a challenging backdrop in late night," per a public statement. Elsewhere in the wide-ranging interview, Charlamagne advised Democrats to look to their governors for other possible 2028 candidates, including Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro and Maryland Gov. Wes Moore. "They actually have a track record, right?" he said. "You can go look at their states to see what they're probably going to end up doing on a national level." The headline-making personality also did not rule out a Republican candidate earning his vote in the next presidential election. He cited former South Carolina Gov. and former U.S. Amb. to the United Nations Nikki Haley as someone who he would consider supporting. "Traditional conservatives are going to take the Republican Party back," he said in part. Charlamagne also reviewed Trump's first six months in office, predicted Harris' political future and discussed New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani's policy proposals and whether he agrees with socialism. Watch Fox News host Lara Trump's full interview with Charlamagne tha God on "My View with Lara Trump" on Saturday, Aug. 2, at 9 p.m. ET.
Boston Globe
6 hours ago
- Boston Globe
FBI redacted Trump's name in Epstein files for privacy reasons
The review was part of a broader effort sparked by Trump's campaign promise to 'declassify' files related to Epstein, which his MAGA base has long requested. In March, FBI Director Kash Patel directed his special agents from the New York and Washington field offices to join the bureau's FOIA employees at the agency's sprawling Central Records Complex in Winchester, Virginia, and another building a few miles away. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Responding to public pressure, FBI personnel were instructed to search for and review every single Epstein-related document and determine what could be released. That included a mountain of material accumulated by the FBI over nearly two decades, including grand jury testimony, prosecutors' case files, as well as tens of thousands of pages of the bureau's own investigative files on Epstein. Advertisement It was a herculean task that involved as many as 1,000 FBI agents and other personnel pulling all-nighters while poring through more than 100,000 documents, according to a July letter from Senator Dick Durbin to US Attorney General Pam Bondi. Advertisement The employees reviewed the records using the Freedom of Information Act as their guide for deciding what information should be withheld. That alone isn't uncommon. In the FOIA, Congress established nine exemptions as a way to balance the public's right to know against the government's need to protect sensitive interests, such as national security, official deliberations, ongoing law enforcement proceedings or privacy. When such competing interests arise in non-FOIA matters, those exemptions are often applied even if the exact language set forth in the FOIA statute doesn't appear in the final record. A photograph of Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein at a London bus stop. Leon Neal/Getty While reviewing the Epstein files, FBI personnel identified numerous references to Trump in the documents, the people familiar with the matter said. Dozens of other high-profile public figures also appeared, the people said. In preparation for potential public release, the documents then went to a unit of FOIA officers who applied redactions in accordance with the nine exemptions. The people familiar with the matter said that Trump's name, along with other high-profile individuals, was blacked out because he was a private citizen when the federal investigation of Epstein was launched in 2006. Last month, the DOJ and the FBI concluded that 'no further disclosure' of the files 'would be appropriate or warranted.' Epstein avoided federal sex-trafficking charges in 2008 when he agreed to plead guilty to state charges in Florida for soliciting prostitution. In July 2019, following an investigation by the Miami Herald that also scrutinized the integrity of the government's probe, Epstein was indicted on federal charges of sex trafficking of minors. A month later, he died by suicide in his jail cell, federal law enforcement authorities said, while awaiting trial. Advertisement A White House spokesperson would not respond to questions about the redactions of Trump's name, instead referring queries to the FBI. The FBI declined to comment. The Justice Department did not respond to multiple requests for comment. In a statement on Friday after Bloomberg first reported the redactions, Durbin said that Trump 'has the power to unilaterally help fix this by consenting to the release of his name in the files to the public to fulfill the promises of Attorney General Bondi that the public would see the 'full Epstein files.'' ©2025 Bloomberg L.P.
USA Today
17 hours ago
- USA Today
From marginal religious groups to mainstream Christians: Why some see a shift in Supreme Court cases
The court's first case involving a Rastafarian highlights the role smaller religious groups have played in the court's history, even as more cases come from mainstream Christian groups. WASHINGTON – There have been no shortage of religious groups seeking help from the Supreme Court in recent years, including three cases last term that involved the Catholic Church. But the religion at the center of a case set for after the summer is not nearly as well represented in the population - or in the courtroom. In fact, it appears to be the first time the Supreme Court will hear an appeal from a Rastafarian. Damon Landor said his religious rights were violated when his dreadlocks were forcibly shaved by Louisiana prison guards. More: Supreme Court to decide if prison officials can be sued over inmates' religious rights Handcuffed to a chair while his dreadlocks were shaved off Landor had shown prison officials a copy of a court ruling that dreadlocks grown for religious reasons should be accommodated. But an intake guard threw the ruling in the trash and Landor was handcuffed to a chair while his knee-length locks were shaved off. The justices will decide whether Landor can sue the guards for compensation under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. Landor – whose appeal was backed by more than 30 religious groups and the Justice Department − argues that monetary damages are often the only way to hold prison officials accountable when religious rights are violated. Legal experts on religion cases expect the court will side with the Rastafarian. That would be consistent not just with the high success rate of appeals the court agrees to hear from religious people, but also with the role smaller religious groups have played in the court's history. Jehovah's Witnesses and Seventh-day Adventists Most of the religious cases Richard Garnett teaches in his classes at the University of Notre Dame Law School involve smaller religious communities, including Jehovah's Witnesses and Seventh-day Adventists. 'The story of religious freedom in America has developed through cases involving members of minority religions,' Garnett said. Other court watchers, however, say that was more true in the past than it is now. 'That's kind of a legacy view,' said Carl Esbeck, an expert on religious liberty at the University of Missouri School of Law. In fact, a 2022 study found that; since 2005, the winning religion in most Supreme Court religious cases was a mainstream Christian organization. In the past, by contrast, pro-religion outcomes more frequently favored minority or marginal religious organizations, according to the analysis by Lee Epstein at Washington University in St. Louis and Eric Posner of the University of Chicago Law School. 'The religion clauses of the First Amendment were once understood to provide modest but meaningful protection for non-mainstream religions from discrimination by governments that favored mainstream Christian organizations, practices, or values,' they wrote. Similarly, traditionalist Christians – such as orthodox Catholics and Baptists – had been significantly less successful than other religious groups in getting accommodations from lower federal courts from 1986 to 1995, according to a study by Michael Heise of Cornell Law School and Gregory Sisk of the University of St. Thomas School of Law. But from 2006 to 2015, their disadvantage 'appeared to fade into statistical insignificance,' they wrote in 2022. The Supreme Court, they said, 'appears to be setting the stage for a more equitable and expansive protection of religious liberty.' Colorado and the gay wedding cake debate Daniel Mach, director of the ACLU Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief, agrees that the court has taken an expansive view of religious liberty protections. But he says it hasn't always been equitable. In 2018, the court said Colorado had shown "religious hostility" to a baker who didn't want to make a custom wedding cake for a same-sex couple. More: How a Supreme Court case about a gay couple's wedding cake got caught up in Israeli judicial reform But that same month, Mach said, the court upheld President Donald Trump's travel ban 'even in the face of Trump's repeated unambiguous statements condemning Islam and Muslims.' More broadly, he said, the court's 'general hostility to the separation of church and state' erodes protections for minority groups promised by the First Amendment's prohibition against the government favoring a specific religion or favoring religion in general. 'Built into that structure is necessarily a protection against the imposition by the majority of its favored religious doctrine,' he said. In February, President Donald Trump signed an executive order aimed at 'Eradicating anti-Christian Bias' and calling on agencies to eliminate the "anti-Christian weaponization of government." The administration cited that order when telling federal employees in a July 28 memo they may discuss and promote their religious beliefs in the workplace. More: Supreme Court blocks Catholic charter school in big setback for religion advocates Ruling for Amish built on to benefit other religions In June, the Supreme Court built upon a 1972 ruling for the Amish as it affirmed the religious rights of parents to remove their elementary school children from class when storybooks with LGBTQ+ characters are being used. When deciding more than 50 years ago that Amish parents did not have to keep their children in school until age 16 as Wisconsin required, the court said those parents had an argument 'that probably few other religious groups or sects could make.' But Justice Samuel Alito left no doubt about the broader significance of Wisconsin v. Yoder in the 6-3 opinion he authored in June that sided with parents from a variety of religious backgrounds − including Roman Catholic but also Muslim, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church and other faiths − who objected to the LGBTQ+ storybooks used in Maryland school district. 'Yoder is an important precedent of this Court, and it cannot be breezily dismissed as a special exception granted to one particular religious minority,' Alito wrote. More: Supreme Court sides with Maryland parents who want to avoid LGBTQ+ books in public schools In a 2020 speech to the conservative Federalist Society, Alito had warned that 'religious liberty is in danger of becoming a second-class right.' He listed examples of cases he'd judged about religious minorities, including the rights of Muslim police officers to have beards, of a Jewish prisoner to organize a Torah study group and whether a Native American could keep a bear for religious services. The baker who didn't want to make a cake for a same-sex wedding and Catholic nuns who objected to insurance coverage for contraceptives 'deserve no less protection,' Alito said about more recent cases. More: Supreme Court sides with Catholic Charities in case about tax exemptions and religion `Clear pattern of preference for religious groups' Cornell Law School Professor Nelson Tebbe said more of the claims about religious freedom started to come from mainstream majority Christian groups as political polarization increased and as the gay rights movement picked up speed. 'Suddenly, civil libertarian groups who had been on the side of minority religions…started to realize that civil rights laws could be vulnerable to religious attacks by conservative Christians and they started to get worried,' Tebbe said. As the court has shifted its approach, he said, the justices have both granted exemptions from regulations that burden religion as well as said government must treat religious groups no differently than secular organizations when providing public benefits − such as school vouchers. 'While both of those could be seen as understandable on their own terms, when you put them together, there's a clear pattern of preference for religious groups,' he said. 'It's a pretty dramatic moment in constitutional law in this area.' Garnett, the religious freedom expert at the University of Notre Dame Law School, said the court's decisions are a reflection of the ongoing debate over how much accommodation should be given in a country with diverse religious views. 'So the fact that those cases are coming up isn't because the court sort of shifted to protecting majority groups,' he said. 'It's because events on the ground shifted. And the nature of the controversies that are served up are different.'
