I go with stupid, too. The Bible is a book, not a weapon. I’m an atheist but I have the right to read any book I want and so does any child.
Considering more Bibles have been sold and published than any other book, how could one consider themselves well educated if they haven’t read through it? Accordingly, how can an educator sincerely have interest in the well being of a student if they forbid such from being read?
Interestingly, if the teacher sincerely thinks such action is less discriminatory and promoting of rational thinking, acting as though reading the Bible as an opiate for the masses, the action probably only enticed the child to spend more time reading the Bible at every opportunity away from class.
In regards to the Massachusetts case, its amazing the same area where Jonathan Edwards now takes this position. Kid should have pulled out Edwards’ “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God” sermon and chalked it up to studying State History.