An Indiana legislator has drafted a bill that would require every public and charter school to teach the Bible as literature at each grade level, and also make it difficult for the government to deny public dollars on the basis of religion.
Rep. Craig Haggard, R-Mooresville, submitted House Bill 1232 earlier this month. It's split into two parts.
The first would obligate schools to teach "the Bible as literature ... from kindergarten to grade 12."
"The public school must provide age-appropriate instruction on the history of Israel, the moral and ethical teachings of the Old and New Testaments, the life of Jesus, the history of the early Christian church, and the Bible's influence on Western civilization," the bill reads.
It goes out of its way to bar educators from teaching the book in any way that would violate the constitutional separation of church and state. That includes banning any teacher from framing the book as religious dogma or pushing the idea that the book is "divinely inspired."
It also allows parents to opt their child out of any Biblical instruction.
In a lengthy statement to the Courier & Press, Haggard called the Bible "foundational to Western civilization and to the historical development of the United States." He claimed teaching it is "no different than teaching Greek mythology, Enlightenment philosophy, or the religious motivations of historical movements."
"The Bible is the best-selling and most widely read book of all time, and its central figure, Jesus Christ, is the most widely recognized historical figure in human history, not only in the United States, but across the globe," Haggard said in part. "A basic academic understanding of the Bible and of Jesus as a historical figure is essential to cultural literacy.
"From an educational standpoint, it would be difficult to justify excluding instruction on the most influential book and figure in human history."
Ryan Jayne, senior policy counsel for the Freedom From Religion Action Fund – an arm of a Wisconsin-based nonprofit that advocates for the separation of church and state – said teaching the Bible as literature in public schools is already permitted through the U.S. Constitution. And Freedom From Religion has no problem with that basic tenet.
However, there are several issues with Haggard's bill, he said.
The line between treating the Bible as literature and inadvertently slipping into religious territory is a thin one, and he said many teachers wouldn't be able to manage it.
"If this bill were to be enacted, it would undoubtedly lead to thousands of Indiana public school students receiving unconstitutional religious instruction," he said. "Because teachers who have no training in how to teach this material from a secular, neutral prospective would either fall back on their own experience, which likely comes from a religious prospective, (or) they might look for material online which (could) come from a non-secular source."
He also disagreed with the importance Haggard placed on Jesus as a historical figure. Most of what people know about Jesus comes directly from a Bible that calls him the son of God. Actual historians know very little about the man himself, he said.
Then there's the fact students would only learn about one religious text. The bill says nothing about the Quran or foundational tomes for Buddhism or Hinduism.
In his statement, Haggard said he focused on the Bible because it's woven deeply into American culture. Jayne conceded that point somewhat, but said the sole focus on the Bible could cause students to believe their school favors one religion over the other. That's especially concerning for any child whose parents opt them out of the instruction.
"It further marginalizes that student," he said. "If you’re the only kid who leaves every time the Bible comes out, it’s pretty obvious to your classmates you are different.”
Separation of church and state
Jayne's biggest worry about the bill, however, comes after the Bible section.
Titled simply "church and state," the second section of the legislation says "a governmental entity may not refuse to provide a benefit, in whole or in part" based on several issues – including the separation of church and state.
The bill doesn't say what "benefit" means in this context. Is it taxpayer money? A grant backed with public funds? Something else?
The Courier & Press reached out to Haggard for an answer. He didn't offer a thorough explanation like he did for the Bible-as-literature portion of the bill. This time, he didn't respond at all.
Jayne believes Haggard may have tacked the second part onto the bill to try to sneak it through the legislature.
"I think the Bible-as-literature section is easy to understand. It’s controversial, and it’s a clear sort of signaling opportunity for legislators. If you want to show you are on the side of the kind of Christian nationalist movement, you would definitely strongly support this provision," he said. "The second section is so opaque and just seems so dense. At first glance, you skim it and see it’s about denying benefits. That doesn’t sound so bad, so it might even seem benign.
“... But the effect would be churches and religious entities would be almost entitled to taxpayer funds.”
In effect, Jayne said, the bill "ties government actors' hands." According to his interpretation, if a church or religious organization applied for government grant money to proselytize their beliefs, any agency that rejected their bid on state-church grounds could leave themselves open to a lawsuit.
In some cases, the attorneys that take on a case on behalf of the government could be held financially liable from their own personal funds if the case doesn't go their way. That could dissuade officials from denying the grant in the first place and allow public money to flow to religious organizations.
There are some narrow exceptions, including if there's a court decision requiring the government to such the benefit. The only eligible courts listed in the bill, though, are the U.S. Supreme Court and the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. The Indiana Supreme Court isn't mentioned.
"To be clear, courts would not stand for that," Jayne said. "I think any court that looked at this bill would say this is outlandish and a massive overreach by the legislature.”
The bill has been referred to the House Education Committee As of Monday, there were no hearings scheduled for it.
It's not the only piece of legislation that deals with Christian symbols. House Bill 1086, submitted by Rep. Michelle Davis, R-Whiteland, would require a poster or picture of the Ten Commandments to hang in every classroom.
When Haggard last ran for his state seat, a section of his campaign website was labeled "Community Church." It's since been replaced by a site touting his current bid for U.S. Congress. But an archived version expresses his support for "Christian symbols in public spaces."