A Republican-backed bill that would permit teachers at public K-12 schools and educators at state universities to discuss the historical, positive impact of religion on American history passed the Ohio House along party lines last month. House Bill 486 is known as the Charlie Kirk American Heritage Act, named for the conservative Christian commentator who was assassinated at an event at Utah Valley University in September.
And the bill got strong reactions in House committee hearings before the floor vote.
On the proponent side, Ohio College Republican Foundation chair Gabe Guidarini said the bill doesn’t force religion on students, but allows teachers to acknowledge Christianity’s influence in the founding of the US without fear of legal backlash.
"This bill does not impose a belief system. It simply allows teachers and professionals to exclude historical truths that have too often been neglected," Guidarini told the House Education Committee. “It's not only correct for us to do so, but there's also a moral imperative for us to teach that history and to give that historical context in the classroom.”
He added: "There might be pressure in many cases to, to kind of not provide this type of education, to provide this information because of social stigmas, because of other events that are happening right now, because of fear. I think that we need to really bridge that gap. And I think that this bill is 100% a great way of doing it."
Conservative strategist Libby Krieger said the bill will allow history to be taught more honestly.
"You don't have to be a Christian to support this bill. You really just have to be honest about history," Krieger said. "No serious reading of the founders or our founding documents could conclude that Christian influence was absent from the public square. The founders never intended for faith to be erased. Religion has always shaped public policy, and it always will."
“No serious reading of the founders or our founding documents could conclude that Christian influence was absent from the public square. The founders never intended for faith to be erased.”
At another hearing, opponents turned out to testify, including Maxine Irvin, who has two kids in public school in Hilliard. She said she's concerned that the bill promotes teaching the good aspects of Christianity without addressing more negative views and results.
"This is extremely misleading because this bill is Christian nationalism, attempting to hide behind more moderate aspects of Christianity," Irvin said. "The creators of this bill simply want an excuse to get Christianity into public schools, and then they can define what the good aspects are to teach. Hate and racism is an integral part of white supremacy and Christian nationalism. This bill is a pathway for Christian nationalists to promote racism and hate in public schools, while claiming the moral high ground. This is gaslighting wanting us to believe one thing while the intentions are otherwise."
Ivory Kennedy, who works at a state university, brought up some statements made by Kirk that have been singled out as racist—for instance, a widely reported comment from Kirk saying Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was "awful" and "not a good person".
"If we are talking about a true and honest picture of American history, then let us tell it all and let us leave politics out of history, because it happened already," Kennedy said. "When we try to influence history with ideology, we continue to go down this road where I have to ask or answer a question to my son about someone who shared divisive rhetoric, which is not very patriotic."
Several references to Christianity in the bill were changed to Judeo-Christian values.
The bill passed the House on a strictly party-line vote of 62-27. It's now headed to the Senate.
