OK says Bible to be taught in public schools. Which parts will they teach? I'll start:

[Igel]

40. What's pertinent to the topic at hand.

I like original documents, not what somebody outraged at what somebody outraged said based what a political or ideological foe said the Bad Person said. And I like original documents in context

From the original memo:

The Bible is one of the most historically significant books and a cornerstone of Western civilization, along with the Ten Commandments. They will be referenced as an appropriate study of history, civilization, ethics, comparative religion, or the like, as well as for their substantial influence on our nation’s founders and the foundational principles of our Constitution. This is not merely an educational directive but a crucial step in ensuring our students grasp the core values and historical context of our country.

Had the link to the pdf, closed the window but failed to copy the link (and can't find it again--pretty much nobody cites original sources, just themselves and 4th parties so I feel like I'm in a hall of mirrors doing searches). Anyway, /rant off/.

I don't see chemistry in there or how dildos influenced the Constitution (but I'm sure if you ignore context and are creative enough, you can find references--and if you can't, well, then we can talk about silence).

But did it influence the role of women and children? Arguably, although that's rather a cross-cultural thing so maybe it's just substratum and largely predates Xianity in Common Law. However, if you read about arguments for slavery in the Ante-bellum South and read about the "mark of Cain," or saying that African-descended folk are punished as descendants of Ham, good luck not referencing the Bible. (Oh, noes, they're preaching religion! But they're not preaching, they're teaching what those making that argument believed, and why. Teachers are free to condemn it, and few current Xians would do more than shake their heads in disbelief; mind you, those who would support the preaching side of it are (1) subject to admin correction and (b) probably already actively racist in the classroom, so it's more of the same--and subject to admin correction.)

It's the same for teaching Locke in history or the Quran when discussing the Islamic conquest and its sequelae, or even Hamas. Don't get the context, you don't understand the whys. Unless you have your own pre-packaged whys that explain everything based on what you believe, and that's easy, feels good, gain followers, but it's unethical teaching (by my lights). I may not agree with those dead, long- or otherwise. But I think they deserve the dignity to be understood on their own terms as their own individuals, not on ours terms with attributed goals and thoughts. I don't condemn Newton because he didn't understand the photoelectric effect or QED--he helped get us there. Good for him.

Now, it's a different argument as to whether he can issue this diktat when the SCO (SC/OK) said districts clearly determine their own educational resources. He can't, so consider his directive "suggestion" and not "directive."