Let us dispense with the usual hand-wringing. The news from Texas, where the state has mandated Bible study in public schools, has sent the usual suspects into a paroxysm of righteous fury. The UK Education Secretary, in a predictable fit of self-regard, has condemned this as the establishment of a 'state religion'. One can almost hear the collective sigh of relief from Islington dinner parties: finally, something to tut about across the Atlantic.
But before we join the chorus of disapproval, let us consider the historical context. The American republic was founded not on the blank slate of secular rationalism, but on a peculiar synthesis of Enlightenment ideals and Protestant Christianity. The Founders, for all their Deist leanings, understood that a society without a moral compass is a ship without a rudder. The question, then, is not whether Texas is imposing religion, but whether any society can long endure without a shared ethical framework.
The critics, of course, will invoke the spectre of theocracy. They will point to the Crusades, the Inquisition, and the wars of religion. They will warn of a slippery slope to compulsory prayer and blasphemy laws. But this is sheer intellectual laziness. The Texas mandate is not a return to the Medici papacy; it is a modest attempt to expose students to the foundational text of Western civilisation. The Bible, after all, is not merely a religious document. It is a work of literature, a source of law, a repository of myth and metaphor. To exclude it from education is to render half of Western art, music, and philosophy unintelligible.
One might ask: why single out the Bible? Why not include the Quran, the Bhagavad Gita, or the Analects of Confucius? A fair question, but one that ignores the reality of Texas's demographic and cultural inheritance. The United States, for all its diversity, remains a country shaped by its Protestant roots. This is not to denigrate other faiths; it is to acknowledge that a society's educational system cannot pretend to be a blank slate. The French, for all their laicite, teach the history of the Catholic Church. The British, for all their secularism, maintain an established Church. Hypocrisy, it seems, is a luxury reserved for those who do not have to govern.
The real issue here is not religion, but authority. The modern liberal state has, over the past century, systematically evacuated any transcendent source of meaning. In its place, we have the cult of the self: therapy, identity politics, and the endless pursuit of consumer satisfaction. The result is a society that is rich in material goods but poor in moral vocabulary. The Texas mandate, whatever its flaws, is at least an attempt to address this vacuum. It is a recognition that a society that cannot transmit its values to its young is a society that will not endure.
Let us also consider the hypocrisy of the British response. The UK Education Secretary, in his condemnation, conveniently forgets that British schools have long taught Religious Education, which overwhelmingly focuses on Christianity. The difference, of course, is that the British do it with a veneer of multiculturalism and a tone of apology. The Texans, bless them, have the courage of their convictions. They do not pretend that all religions are equally valid or that the Bible is just one text among many. They state plainly that this is their heritage and they intend to pass it on.
None of this is to say that the Texas program is beyond criticism. The implementation may be clumsy, the curriculum may be tendentious, and the risk of proselytisation is real. But the principle is sound. A society that forgets its gods is a society that forgets itself. The Romans learned this lesson too late. The Victorians understood it instinctively. We, in our smug secularism, have chosen to ignore it.
So let the UK Education Secretary cluck his tongue. Let the secularists wring their hands. Meanwhile, Texas will be teaching its children that there is a moral order to the universe, that some things are sacred, and that the state is not the ultimate arbiter of truth. In an age of nihilism, that is not a danger. It is a remedy.
