By Matt Underwood Oklahoma Supreme Court tosses Bible lawsuit after education leader declines to enforce mandate
So, here’s the deal: Oklahoma’s highest court has essentially punted on a lawsuit challenging a mandate to keep Bibles in public school classrooms and teach from them. The court, in a 6-2 decision, said the whole issue is now “moot.”
The reasoning is pretty straightforward. The newly appointed state Superintendent of Education, along with the new members of the Oklahoma State Board of Education, have stated they intend to nullify the 2024 mandate regarding Bible usage in schools. Not only that, but these new education leaders aren’t pursuing any of the other mandates issued by the previous superintendent, which would have used taxpayer money to buy classroom Bibles and “biblically-based character education materials.”
Now, you might be thinking, “Great, a win!” And, on the surface, it seems like one. But let’s dig a little deeper. Many of us would have preferred the lawsuit to be struck down on clear religious grounds, to definitively declare the mandate unconstitutional. This would have set a precedent. The court’s decision, however, avoids making such a broad ruling. The court instead essentially said, “Well, they’re not going to enforce it, so there’s no need for us to intervene… for now.”
This creates some concerns. This decision effectively leaves the door open for future administrations or school boards to revive the mandate. If they do, it will mean another lawsuit, more wasted taxpayer dollars, and the continuation of this political theater. It doesn’t actually prevent the same situation from repeating itself down the road. It also sidesteps the larger issue of whether this type of mandate even aligns with the Constitution.
And let’s be honest, the history is a little… colorful. The previous Superintendent, the one who initiated this whole mess, is gone. The fact that he was the subject of investigation is also relevant context to this situation. This whole thing feels like a carefully choreographed move, a way to avoid a definitive ruling that could have broader implications. It’s a bit like the court caught the car, but the car can still run you over.
The core of the issue, however, remains. There are sincere concerns about the separation of church and state, especially when it comes to the public education system. Forcing a specific religious text into the classroom, or even requiring it to be available, raises serious constitutional questions. And let’s not forget the broader implications – if one religious text is mandated, how do you prevent others from demanding equal time and access? This leads to complex conversations, especially with the 10 Commandments being displayed in schools as well.
The study of literature and history provides valuable context, as do the stories and histories within various religious texts. But mandating the Bible in classrooms seems to prioritize a specific religious perspective over the diverse religious and philosophical beliefs present in our community.
The court’s decision, while seemingly a victory in the short term, feels like a missed opportunity to create a precedent that would have protected religious freedom. It appears the case was dismissed because the mandate is not being actively enforced. It’s like the court is waiting for the next round, the next attempt to push a particular religious agenda.
There is a sentiment that the new leadership’s commitment to nullifying the mandate is doing a lot of heavy lifting. But the courts could rule that the mandate is illegal. Such a ruling would have longer-term consequences to prevent its resurgence. As it stands, there’s nothing legally stopping a future school board from trying again. This means that these citizens have to file yet another lawsuit to fight it, as the question of the mandate’s legality was not answered in the instance.
And, of course, the fact that the previous superintendent tailored the requirement to specifically favor a particular edition of the Bible raises even more questions. This isn’t just about the Bible, it’s about the potential for government endorsement of specific religious groups and products.
Ultimately, this feels like a temporary reprieve, not a final resolution. Until a court definitively rules this kind of mandate unconstitutional, it will likely continue.