Via Religion Clause:
In a surprise decision yesterday, the Board defeated by a 10-5 party line vote a proposal by Democratic member Mavis Knight that government classes teach about the Establishment Clause. Her proposal called for students to examine the reasons the Founding Fathers “protected religious freedom in America by barring government from promoting or disfavoring any particular religion over all others.” Republicans on the Board said that Knight’s proposal was based on an inaccurate interpretation of the Founder’s intent and was a half-truth that would play down the importance of religion to the Founders. (Dallas Morning News.)
In other words, the government said the school can’t teach the government policy about schools not teaching religion because religious people in the government believe that the government policy doesn’t say what it says and thus it shouldn’t be taught in schools at all. Why do I sense that they’d have no problem teaching that the founding fathers were full-throated evangelical Christians (even though we know they were at best, deist, if that)?
As a friend of mine just said, “We can’t even teach the Constitution without people’s fucking religion getting in the way.”
(Hat tip to vjack for introducing me to Religion Clause.)