News

33318 readers

1993 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.

2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.

3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.

4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.

Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.

5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.

6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.

7. No duplicate posts.

If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.

8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.

9. No link shorteners.

The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.

10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

JonsJava@lemmy.world

gedaliyah@lemmy.world

little_cow@lemmy.world

124

Oklahoma Supreme Court tosses Bible lawsuit after education leader declines to enforce mandate (www.kosu.org)

submitted 1 day ago by Stamau123@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

14 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Saying the issue is now moot, Oklahoma’s highest court dismissed a lawsuit challenging a requirement that public schools keep Bibles in classrooms and teach from them.

In a 6-2 decision, the Oklahoma Supreme Court wrote Monday that newly appointed state Superintendent Lindel Fields and the six new members of the Oklahoma State Board of Education said they planned to nullify a 2024 mandate requiring Bible usage in schools. The new education leaders also told the justices that they were not pursuing other mandates issued by former state Superintendent Ryan Walters that would use taxpayer money to purchase classroom Bibles or “biblically-based character education materials.”

Over 30 Oklahomans of various faiths or no religious affiliation had sued State Department of Education leaders in October 2024, arguing that the Bible mandates issued by Walters in June and July 2024 violated the state Constitution’s prohibition on state-established religion. They asked the court to block the use of taxpayer dollars to purchase Bibles and declare the overall mandate unenforceable.

They argued the Education Department did not follow state requirements when implementing the Bible teaching requirements, and that state academic standards hadn’t been changed to justify Walters’ order. Many of those plaintiffs had children in public schools and said required school-based biblical instruction could interfere with their ability to teach their own religious or moral beliefs at home.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] meco03211@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

While this case is fresh, the point of it being moot is that there are not ostensibly two sides in active disagreement that need the court to rule. Consider whenever you hear about old laws that aren't enforced (like sodomy laws or race mixing). If it's not being enforced, how do you get a lawsuit? There is no "injured party" or someone with a grievance. Who would defend it? You could bankrupt a district by continually challenging laws that aren't being enforced. Now you might think you still want this case to go forward since it's obviously unconstitutional, but what stops the "other" side from challenging whatever they don't like whenever they want?

[–] reddig33@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Sounds like a sword of Damocles. You should have the right to challenge unjust laws even if they aren’t currently enforced. There’s nothing stopping a bad actor from throwing you in jail for sodomy. And being able to fight bad laws to get them off the books should be a thing, whether they are currently actively enforced or not.

This might not be the way the law works, but I’d argue it should be.

You could bankrupt a district by continually challenging laws that aren't being enforced.

You say that like it’s a bad thing. Maybe don’t pass so many unconstitutional laws if you don’t want to be taken to court.