Dayton Daily News education reporter Scott Elliott writes about schools, kids, teaching and learning.
Home > Blogs > Get on the Bus > Archives > 2006 > August > 06 > Entry
“Infidel books” here in the Midwest?
A ban on teaching “sectarian, infidel, or immoral doctrine” and “infidel books” forbidden? No, it’s not Taliban Afganistan.
It’s just over the Ohio River in Kentucky.
And it’s state law.
My pal Frank Lockwood, a fine reporter who blogs about religion for the Lexington Herald-Leader at Bible Belt Blogger, unearthed a Kentucky state law from the 1800s that is still on the books and still in effect.
Seems harmless enough, right? Ohio has its own bizarre, old laws that are not enforced and practically irrelevant. And in fact, sections of Kentucky’s law require instruction in the Bible, allow the teaching of Biblical creation and permit the recitation of the Lord’s Prayer in public school, all specifically struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court and, therefore, unenforceable.
Yet, as Frank writes, the Kentucky School Boards Association recommends districts follow this law. And Frank has a guest post from Constitutional lawyer Bruce Fein calling on the Kentucky Legislature to repeal the law. Fein says Kentucky lawmakers are “stunting public education” by not taking action.
Take a look at what Frank and Fein have to say and then answer this question — are old laws like this something to chuckle at, or is serious action required?
(Image credit: www.bookthink.com)
Permalink | Comments (7) | Categories: Schools and Politics
Comments
By Josh
August 9, 2006 11:12 AM | Link to this
With the disclaimer that I am very distrustful of any combination of state and church, there is an undercurrent to this article that is a bit troubling. KY school administrators claim they are “simply following the law of the land” in including this ban. Yet at the same time they choose to not include other “laws of the land” that are still on the books — laws such as allowing the teaching of Biblical creationism in schools and mandating the reading of the Bible in school. Really the major defining difference between the book banning law and other secular laws is the secondary KY ruling that the Bible and other Hebrew scriptures are somehow not sectarian. While the book banning law is vague in language and obviously a legal relic, I can’t help but question why that particular law was singled out for inclusion in official policy while others of an also secular nature were not. Does the inclusion of this archaic law in official policy underscore a deeper agenda by the Kentucky School Boards Association?By Oldprof
August 8, 2006 12:18 PM | Link to this
Perhaps, Rick, you don’t know the Muslims that I do? But, of course, religion is one thing, personal behavior is another—saying that you profess a certain religion doesn’t predict your behavior, there are some in all faiths who are admirable and some who are repulsive. All of the world religions may inspire people to good, or provide a smoke-screen for evil. In the case of Islam, it’s necessary to discern and sort the Rumis from the Osamas.By dick
August 8, 2006 11:45 AM | Link to this
I lived in Kentucky for about 3 years during the 1990’s. I had some ultra religious neighbors. I just told them I had my own beliefs and thanked them very much. They didn’t bother me again. I think if someone were to move to Kentucky and decide they were going to show the hillbillies there that they had to come up to the present times and get rid of their religious sysmbols on war memorials or other things as espoused by the ACLU, then you might validly have problems with the locals. So long as you do not try to force your beliefs on someone else, then they will most likely not force theirs on you. As an example an atheist is San Diego is trying to force the city to remove a cross that has been an integral part of a war memorial in the city for over 50 years, ever since the memorial was put up. He claims that having the cross there means the state is forcing the people to become Christians. He is having problems with the citizens who like things the way they are. Another case, again from California, the ACLU threatened to sue the city of Los Angeles because the city seal has a cross on it. The fact that the city was founded by monks and the full name of the city is the new city of our lady of the Angels apparently means nothing to the ACLU. The whole history of the city is based on that monastery from several hundred years ago and the seal of the city represents the various parts of the city history. The city fathers caved on this one but IMNSHO should not have. The essence is that if you respect others, they will respect you. If you try to force your ideas on them, trouble!!By Rick
August 7, 2006 7:42 PM | Link to this
I don’t know Mark. The more I learn about Islam and its adherents, the less accepting I am. As for the old laws, they are good for a chuckle. Did you notice that pitiful photograph of a couple of books and a few pamphlets being burned. Look’s staged to me and irrelevant to Kentucky’s law, which does not require books to be burned.By Mark McGregor
August 7, 2006 12:25 PM | Link to this
While this comment is a little off topic from your blog, it brought up a point that has irked me for a few years…we American’s are less accepting of other persons’ beliefs simply because of the nonexistent primary and secondary education on the topic. My own acceptance of other’s religion (and the culture that is more often than not defined by such) came shortly after taking a variety of humanities classes at the college level. Seems that the less knowledge I had about other’s religion, the less accepting I was, and the more anti-whatever religion. Perhaps we as Americans would benefit more from a mandate that all major religions must be taught during a one-year class; each religion receiving the same amount of time and weight. I’m absolutely opposed to one religion or another being singularly taught in school, but I also think it’s a shame to ban outright the teaching of what others believe. Perhaps we would all get along better just because we can understand each other’s positions.By Oldprof
August 7, 2006 9:04 AM | Link to this
Let me again answer your question by posing another: do we need more proof that legislators spend countless hours debating “feel-good” legislation that doesn’t work, while neglecting the legitimate and necessary task of cleaning up past messes?By Mary
August 7, 2006 8:26 AM | Link to this
It just reflects our societal and systemic clutter everywhere. Our laws are cluttered. School and other government agency responsibilties are cluttered. Our landfills are cluttered. Our closets are cluttered. Demands on our time are cluttered, etc. As our planet approaches 6 billion people, the entire planet is cluttered. It is time to organize, simplify and prioritize with a larger infrastructural approach beyond our own personal clutter. The Kentucky law does not surprise me at all. There is a lot of clacking along with the clutter about what is morality and patriotic and so on.