Brayton points out that this will probably result in a lot of lawsuits.
As one commenter points out:
No, the real trouble with this is that it forces the local school boards into a very difficult position. They have already handed the local boards a suitcase bomb by issuing a curriculum mandate in a highly politically charged field with no attendant guidelines. This latest move handcuffs that bomb to the boards’ collective wrists. They must come up with a Bible course, and responsibility for its content falls entirely on their heads.
They know that if the course isn’t objective and scholarly, they will immediately be sued and lose. If it is, a large block of their constituency will be outraged. Given that it isn’t their personal money that will be at risk in any lawsuit, how many board members do you think will be willing to stand on principle and tell the proselytizers where to go?
My question is this: Granted that it is certainly possible to have a curriculum that includes the Bible as subject matter taught in such a way as to be non-religious. But is it possible that there is an establishment clause problem in that the original law singles out the Bible for such treatment and does not require such treatment about any other subject matter (Q’ran, Talmud, or even Art or Music for that matter)?
Separate from that, of course, are questions about how much taxpayer money will be wasted in lawsuits that could have been avoided were it not for a vocal minority with a religious agenda.