From the "Wrong Reverend Donald J. Trump:" Teach the Bible in Our Public Schools

Trump must be following whose guidance we wonder

Trump signaled in a tweet his typical support for several state bills that would allow public schools to teach courses in the Bible, which Trump once proclaimed was his favorite book. Why now?

Trump’s tweet:

Donald J. Trump‏ @realDonaldTrump

Numerous states introducing Bible Literacy classes, giving students the option of studying the Bible. Starting to make a turn back? Great!

5:21 AM - 28 Jan 2019

Recall that Trump said while campaigning in 2015: “Nothing beats the Bible — not even The Art of the Deal.”

Trump’s tweet came minutes after “Fox & Friends” aired a segment about pending legislation in six states: FL, IN, MO, ND, VA, and WVA — that would allow Bible literacy courses to become a part of a public school education.

My 2 cents: Does even comprehend what “Separation of Church and State” actually means? Seems doubtful.

Applicable:

1. Separation of church and state: The principle that government must maintain an attitude of neutrality toward religion. ... The First Amendment not only allows citizens the freedom to practice any religion of their choice, but also prevents the government from officially recognizing or favoring any religion.

2. The Establishment Clause: This is a limitation placed upon the United States Congress preventing it from passing legislation respecting an establishment of religion. 

The second half of the Establishment Clause inherently prohibits the government from preferring any one religion over another. (Note: This is the line Trump crosses with his teach the Bible in public schools is okay).

So, what if another president advocates teaching from the Quran (Koran) or from the Torah or some other religious sect holy book?

Supreme Court on this general topic – two key cases: Although the Schempp case, and the Engel decision banned ceremonial prayer and scriptural readings, First Amendment scholars point out that the court didn't ban religion from public schools. 

The rulings simply clarified government's role as a neutral player that should not be in the business of composing prayers or mandating students to read sacred texts without a non-religious purpose. 

“The place of religion in our society is an exalted one, achieved through a long tradition of reliance on the home, the church and the inviolable citadel of the individual heart and mind,” Justice Tom C. Clark wrote for the majority in the Schempp case. “We have come to recognize through bitter experience that it is not within the power of government to invade that citadel, whether its purpose or effect be to aid or oppose, to advance or retard.” 

In his concurring opinion, Justice Arthur Goldberg, one of five liberals on the court, warned against an extreme interpretation of government neutrality on religion becoming a “brooding and pervasive devotion to the secular and a passive, or even active, hostility to the religious.” 

In fact, the court said the teaching and study of religious history, comparative religion or the Bible as literature can be valuable with Clark writing: “Nothing we have said here indicates that such study of the Bible or of religion, when presented objectively as part of a secular program of education, may not be effected consistently with the First Amendment.” 

Finally, Trump is flat out wrong with this crazy-ass proposal – again playing to his ultra-conservative base and not much else. Wait and see. Thanks for stopping by.