There’s a raft of unconstitutional, religion-based legislation in the Idaho Capitol | Opinion

As if it isn’t enough for some legislators to try showering millions of dollars of taxpayer money into religious education, they now want to bring religious instruction into public schools. All of this, of course, flies in the face of the strict separation of church and state required by the Idaho Constitution.

Legislators know by now that Article IX, section 5, of the Constitution prohibits taxpayer money from being used for religious purposes. They have to be aware that most of the $50 million in public money being targeted by House Bill 93 for private schooling will be spent on religious education. Those who support that unconstitutional raid on the public treasury are breaking their solemn oath to support our Constitution.

Two bills have now been introduced that violate Article IX, section 6, of that sacred document. House Bill 162 requires public school teachers to read a “selection” from one of three specified versions of the Bible in every occupied classroom on each instructional day. House Bill 238 requires public schools to display the Ten Commandments, specifying the exact wording. Both bills are prohibited by section 6, which says, in part: “No sectarian or religious tenets or doctrines shall ever be taught in the public schools.“

H162 does not define what a Bible “selection” is. It might be a chapter, a verse or something in between. The bill calls for “the entire Bible” to be “read sequentially and completed over ten (10) school years.” The reading is to be without comment by the teacher.

Many Bible readings would be a mystery to the kids. In Sunday school, they could be explained, while in public school, they might be impossible to comprehend. For example, Numbers 31:17 might be a bit of a scary head-scratcher for kids: “Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man by lying with him.” This is totally inappropriate for public school children and clearly violates our Constitution.

H162 provides that school district residents, parents and employees, as well as the state attorney general, can sue in court to enforce bible reading. That puts teachers and school districts in a real bind because Article IX, section 6, says that any teacher or district that violates the prohibition against religious instruction won’t “receive any of the public school moneys.” Ouch!

Any judge would almost certainly hold that the Constitution prevails over the provisions of H162. Why should the Legislature waste its time on unconstitutional legislation? That question should be directed to Blaine Conzatti, the head of the Idaho Family Policy Center, who seems intent on infusing his Christian nationalist agenda into every nook and cranny of Idaho society. He has indicated no concern as to whether his proposals comply with Idaho law.

When H162 came before the House Education Committee, Conzatti was asked whether Attorney General Raúl Labrador had given an opinion on the bill. He declined to respond. A spokesman for Labrador’s office declined to comment. Either could simply have said no, if that was the case. That raises the real concern that Labrador gave an opinion on the bill, but did not want to make it publicly known. The only correct answer is an easy call – the bill is simply unconstitutional.

H238 is also an unconstitutional waste of time. Labrador’s culture-war soul brother, Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry, got a Ten Commandments bill approved for his state last year. I predicted at the time that such a bill would be coming to Idaho and here it is. A coalition of families that opposed religious intrusion into the Louisiana public schools brought suit against the law in federal court and got a preliminary injunction stopping the law in its tracks. A federal judge ruled last November that the law violated the U.S. Constitution.

If H238 gets enacted into law, a court in Idaho would certainly find it to be void and unenforceable under the Idaho Constitution, the U.S. Constitution or both of them. The attorneys making the challenge court would likely get their fees paid by the state.

This story was originally published February 21, 2025 at 4:00 AM.