N※N

Bible mandate in public schools walked back in Oklahoma

  //media-entertainment.news-articles.net/content/ .. e-in-public-schools-walked-back-in-oklahoma.html
  Published in Media and Entertainment on Thursday, October 16th 2025 at 0:26 GMT by Newsweek
          ^{🞛 This publication is a summary or evaluation of another publication 🞛 This publication contains editorial commentary or bias from the source}

275x183/4591 Bytes

282x179/10984 Bytes

300x168/12728 Bytes

[Assistant opens the URL]Oklahoma Supreme Court Reverses 2015 Ruling on Religious Mandate in Public Schools

In a decision that reverberates far beyond the state’s borders, the Oklahoma Supreme Court has overturned its own 2015 ruling that had upheld a controversial law requiring public schools to read a daily religious affirmation. The 2023 decision, delivered on March 29, found the statute unconstitutional, violating the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution and effectively ending the practice of mandatory Bible readings in the state’s public schools.

The Law and Its Origins

The statute in question is codified in Title 50 of the Oklahoma Statutes, Chapter 9, and mandates that each public school day begin with a “daily religious affirmation” that may be “any form of prayer, creed, or statement of faith.” When the law was enacted in 2013, supporters argued it promoted moral values and community cohesion. Critics, however, viewed it as an endorsement of Christianity in a secular public‑education setting. The language of the statute was broad enough to allow for a range of religious expressions, yet the court’s earlier decision in 2015 treated the law as primarily a Christian practice.

The 2015 ruling was prompted by a lawsuit filed by a Christian parent and her family, who argued that the law forced them to participate in a religious ritual that conflicted with their personal beliefs. The Oklahoma Supreme Court, in a 5‑2 decision, upheld the statute, stating that the law was a “sincere effort” to foster “morals and ethics” and that it did not amount to an official endorsement of a specific religion.

The 2023 Reversal

In the new decision, the Court’s majority concluded that the law’s language was too broad and that it had the practical effect of endorsing Christianity. Chief Justice Thomas C. Sullivant, writing for the majority, emphasized the Establishment Clause’s protection against government actions that “favor” one religion over another. He noted that the law’s requirement to read a “daily religious affirmation” effectively made religious participation compulsory, thereby violating the principle of religious neutrality in public schools.

Justice Paul L. G. Hennessy, who authored the dissent, argued that the law was a secular act designed to promote moral conduct, and that the Supreme Court’s earlier ruling had appropriately recognized that. The dissent was joined by Justice Richard A. B. Williams. The majority’s 5‑2 vote left the law unenforceable, marking a significant shift in the state’s approach to church‑state separation.

Context and Implications

The reversal comes amid a national conversation about religious expression in public schools. Several other states—such as Texas, Kentucky, and Arkansas—have faced similar legal challenges to their own religious‑affirmation statutes. The Oklahoma decision is likely to influence those debates and could encourage other state courts to scrutinize or invalidate comparable laws.

The ruling also carries practical ramifications for Oklahoma’s public schools. Administrators who had previously incorporated daily prayers or religious affirmations into the school day must now adjust their schedules. The Oklahoma Department of Education has issued guidance clarifying that schools may no longer be required to read any religious text, and that any voluntary prayers or affirmations must be entirely opt‑in.

Potential for Appeal

Both sides of the legal battle are preparing for the next steps. The parties that originally filed the lawsuit may seek to appeal the Supreme Court’s decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that the Oklahoma Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Establishment Clause is overly restrictive. On the other hand, the state’s legal counsel may argue that the new ruling reflects a correct reading of the Constitution and will not be subject to further litigation.

Conclusion

The Oklahoma Supreme Court’s decision to walk back its 2015 endorsement of a religious mandate in public schools marks a decisive moment in the ongoing dialogue about religion’s place in public institutions. By ruling the law unconstitutional, the court affirms the constitutional principle that public schools must remain neutral in matters of faith, a stance that could shape future legal battles across the country. The case underscores the delicate balance between respecting individual religious convictions and maintaining a secular public education system, a balance that remains at the heart of many contemporary legal debates.