Ryan Walters, Oklahoma's State Superintendent of Public Instruction, recently announced that he is requiring Oklahoma schools to teach the historical significance of the Bible in America's history. All Americans should be in favor of this, regardless of religious views. We can debate how the Bible was used, but the fact that the Bible was used is not debatable. Therefore, the Bible's historical context and application (whether good or bad) must be taught in order to rightly teach American history.
The Bible's presence in public schools is historical. Walters' mandate is a new development in our immediate context, but the Bible is not a new addition to our educational system. The Bible has been an integral part of educating America's children since before the forming of our union as the United States. Even after the Supreme Court's ruling in 1963 (Abington v. Schempp), which deemed mandatory non-educational reading of the Bible unconstitutional, students and staff have been free to carry and read their Bibles, and teachers have been free to teach anything about the Bible that is for an educational reason.
Now, how do we respond to the criticism that this will offend someone? For example (not in reference to any real person), imagine a Buddhist teacher objecting that he is offended by this mandate. Well, we must respectfully remind him that he is teaching in this nation, and this nation has a historical context that is independent of his worldview. He should not expect us to ignore our history in order to cater to his religious viewpoint. Him expecting that would be him forcing his religion on us, not in coercion to adhere to his religion, but in coercion to cut holes in our story to accommodate his feelings.
Additionally, someone might say that this is not fair. If we put Christianity's book in our classrooms, then we should/will have to put the books/works of other religions in our classrooms. The response to this is very simple: This nation was founded on Judeo-Christian principles, not the tenets of Islam, Satanism, or any other religion/cult. The Bible is part of this nation's history, not their books or works. Therefore, this is about teaching the knowledge of this nation's history, not the knowledge of Christianity in and of itself.
That leads to understanding this: This does not mean that Oklahoma public school classrooms are now surrogate Sunday school classrooms. This is not a mandate to teach Bible studies in our public classrooms, and we don't want it to be. We just want the facts taught as they are--the specific ways that the Bible is woven into the fabric of this nation, again, whether good or bad. If a prominent historical figure used the Bible to justify slavery, that needs to be taught. And in contrast, where a prominent historical figure used the Bible to denounce slavery needs to be taught. What the Founding Fathers said about the Bible, how they quoted the Bible, and how they applied principles from the Bible--the reason that we can find Bible verses on historical monuments--the reason that the Ten Commandments are displayed on the Supreme Court building--all of this should be taught. If we are going to teach true American history, then these essential facts of our history must not be left out.
The Bible was so integral to this nation's founding that this nation would not exist if the Bible didn't exist. Therefore, without its inclusion in the teaching of our history, a right understanding of our history is not possible. For too long, too many like myself have graduated with a censored, "Swiss-cheese" version of our history because of it being left out. This must stop.
“That book, sir, is the rock on which our republic rests.”
(Andrew Jackson, hero of the Battle of New Orleans & 7th president of the United States, speaking about the Bible)
