Texas Senate Passes Bill for High School Bible Classes, Maybe Even Mandatory Classes

[Towlie]

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/4831635.html

AUSTIN — The Senate easily passed and sent to the governor a bill Wednesday to teach Bible classes to high school students, but lawmakers immediately disagreed on whether the measure would make the courses mandatory.

more (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/4831635.html)

(Upon further reading, I think "mandatory" refers to forcing Texas schools to offer the class, not forcing students to take it.)

[Alt+F4]

Legislative leaders differed on whether school districts may offer the religion studies course, or whether they are obligated to do so if 15 or more students sign up for it.

Wow, I wish I had gone to high school in Texas! All I would have to do is get 14 friends and we could demand to be taught:

- Scientology
- Mormon Fundamentalism
- Satanism
- Pupperty and You
- Disney in the Classroom
- Astrology

[Dymanic]

Familiarity with the Bible is not only vital to understanding the history of Western culture, it's also the best argument for atheism I've seen yet. If more of the people who identify themselves as "believers" would actually read the damn thing, I think there'd be a lot fewer of them.

[Ryokan]

Familiarity with the Bible is not only vital to understanding the history of Western culture, it's also the best argument for atheism I've seen yet. If more of the people who identify themselves as "believers" would actually read the damn thing, I think there'd be a lot fewer of them.

I suspect bible classes aren't for reading the bible, but learning what it 'really says'.

[Bikewer]

I suspect this will not stand court inspection.

[Achán hiNidráne]

Oh tut, tut you nasty militants! Even though this is a clear violation of the separation the Chruch and State, we have to remember that we're talking about deeply held and cherished beliefs. Who are we to say that teaching that Jesus is our personal lord and savior and that all non-believers will be tortured for all eternity is wrong? Of course, I don't believe it, so I don't see why anyone other atheist should be offended by it either. Christians NEED to believe these things, so taking that away from them will only hurt their feelings! We don't want to hurt anyone's feelings, don't we?

[Dymanic]

I suspect bible classes aren't for reading the bible, but learning what it 'really says'.
If there is any hope of seeing the thing stand up to the inevitable court challenges it will face, they'll need to be able to guarantee that they can avoid having the classes exploited for purposes of proselytizing. If they can do that, I'd see it as a good thing. Something I'd especially like to see included is study of the history of the bible itself, including the process of canonization, beginning with Council of Nicaea in AD 325.

[Dr Adequate]

If there is any hope of seeing the thing stand up to the inevitable court challenges it will face, they'll need to be able to guarantee that they can avoid having the classes exploited for purposes of proselytizing. If they can do that, I'd see it as a good thing. Something I'd especially like to see included is study of the history of the bible itself, including the process of canonization, beginning with Council of Nicaea in AD 325. Why do so many people think that the Council of Nicea established the canon of the Bible?

---

As far as the OP goes, I can't see how this doesn't violate the First Amendment. Am I missing something?

[quixotecoyote]

Why do so many people think that the Council of Nicea established the canon of the Bible?


AFAIK it was the first of several councils that hammered out what was and was not canon. Wasn't it?

[Dymanic]

Why do so many people think that the Council of Nicea established the canon of the Bible?
It didn't -- but previous to the adoption of the Nicene creed, there was no basis upon which to determine which writings were "inspired". It was a vital first step in the process.

[Alt+F4]

As far as the OP goes, I can't see how this doesn't violate the First Amendment. Am I missing something?

I think what they are trying to do here is make it seem like the class is not religiously motivated but rather social studies oriented in order to get around the First Amendment. Kind of like saying someone isn't a criminal, they are "legally challenged".

[Achán hiNidráne]

If there is any hope of seeing the thing stand up to the inevitable court challenges it will face, they'll need to be able to guarantee that they can avoid having the classes exploited for purposes of proselytizing.

Well, they're apparently not avoiding evangelizing now (http://www.tfn.org/site/DocServer/TX_Bible_Report_UPDATE_DEC-06.pdf?docID=167), so what makes you think they're going to stop?

Besides, it's a win-win situation for the fundies when and if it does go to court. All it takes is one Reagan/Bush era Judge to side with the Jesus-freaks, and a defeat will only mean decades of free propaganda for the Christian Right's political machine.

[Dymanic]

Well, they're apparently not avoiding evangelizing now (http://www.tfn.org/site/DocServer/TX_Bible_Report_UPDATE_DEC-06.pdf?docID=167), so what makes you think they're going to stop?
Must I really wade through that 94 page document, or can you excerpt the portions where it points out how evangelizing in Texas public schools is taking place now?

[boloboffin]

The thing about Texas is it's a huge textbook market. Get a book approved in Texas and you're well on your way to getting it in other states, plus you've got a great pile of money to build your business and write nice Bible-adhering science books.

[Bob Klase]

The thing about Texas is it's a huge textbook market. Get a book approved in Texas and you're well on your way to getting it in other states, plus you've got a great pile of money to build your business and write nice Bible-adhering science books.

You seem to making some kind of connection I can't see. The pile of money would be going to the book publishers. If they really wanted Bible-adhering science books they'd already be publishing them. Texas is important because publishers wil publish whatever Texas wants published in textbooks used in Texas. Since Texas is such a large market the cost for non-Texas books could increase more because the market would be drastically smaller. That cost difference could encourage other states to buy the cheaper textbooks.

How that all translates to them (the people pushing for the Bible friendly science books) getting a big pile of money by selling books they're going to write once they get the big pile of money makes no sense.

[boloboffin]

You seem to making some kind of connection I can't see. The pile of money would be going to the book publishers. If they really wanted Bible-adhering science books they'd already be publishing them. Texas is important because publishers wil publish whatever Texas wants published in textbooks used in Texas. Since Texas is such a large market the cost for non-Texas books could increase more because the market would be drastically smaller. That cost difference could encourage other states to buy the cheaper textbooks.

How that all translates to them (the people pushing for the Bible friendly science books) getting a big pile of money by selling books they're going to write once they get the big pile of money makes no sense.

Well, if you would try a little less hard to misunderstand my post, you'd understand my post.

The book publisher is who I mean gets the money, which helps subsidize their business until they can sell a Bible-friendly science book. This bill is a sop to the creationists.

[shadron]

Well, they're apparently not avoiding evangelizing now (http://www.tfn.org/site/DocServer/TX_Bible_Report_UPDATE_DEC-06.pdf?docID=167), so what makes you think they're going to stop?

Besides, it's a win-win situation for the fundies when and if it does go to court. All it takes is one Reagan/Bush era Judge to side with the Jesus-freaks, and a defeat will only mean decades of free propaganda for the Christian Right's political machine.

The old saw that any publicity is good publicity works well for a cheap racy movie or a lousy novel, but I really don't think that bad publicity plays well in conservative churches. One Texas-style judge might allow it to play, but it will then wind up in the Texas supreme court, and that kind of stuff just won't float there with enough of the judges. Sure, they can play the martyr card, but it's a two edged sword and it tends to make people tired, particularly when Islamicists are playing the same card at the same time. No, it's not a win-win, it's a gamble at a time when they think they have a strong hand.

[Monketey Ghost]

Why do so many people think that the Council of Nicea established the canon of the Bible?

Tom Hanks established the canon of the Bible, with help from Magneto.

[shadron]

The thing about Texas is it's a huge textbook market. Get a book approved in Texas and you're well on your way to getting it in other states, plus you've got a great pile of money to build your business and write nice Bible-adhering science books.

That argument works a while lot better when you are trying to remove mention of evolution from texts. That's firm legal (if not scientific) ground, and from the national aspect it can harm books all over the nation. Getting them to publish a Bible book is not a biggy; it's not going to flood the market outside the Bible belt, and it's going to get appealed tout de suite, and because it won't get picked up nationally, it will be an expensive book. Texas doesn't particularly care about the rest of the nation, but the ICR and the DI certainly do.

I see this as a Texas state issue, not a national one.

[boloboffin]

That argument works a while lot better when you are trying to remove mention of evolution from texts. That's firm legal (if not scientific) ground, and from the national aspect it can harm books all over the nation. Getting them to publish a Bible book is not a biggy; it's not going to flood the market outside the Bible belt, and it's going to get appealed tout de suite, and because it won't get picked up nationally, it will be an expensive book. Texas doesn't particularly care about the rest of the nation, but the ICR and the DI certainly do.

I see this as a Texas state issue, not a national one.

I see. So it's okay to feed the troops of anti-science, as long as we don't pay for their weapons.

[shadron]

This bill is a sop to the creationists.

Certainly the local voters in Texas. It doesn't mean much to the ICR. No doubt they applaud it, but it's not any part of a national agenda, not at least until they enjoy a lot of other victories first.

This represents a direct challenge, mounted by Texas fundamentalists, to the First Amendment and church/state separation.

[Monketey Ghost]

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_296004a7dc1e3b78e2.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17167)

[Bob Klase]

Well, if you would try a little less hard to misunderstand my post, you'd understand my post.

The book publisher is who I mean gets the money, which helps subsidize their business until they can sell a Bible-friendly science book.

So you're saying the book publisher (who gets the money) want a Bible-friendly science book?

Or are you saying that if Texas pays the book publisher(s) for a Bible-friendly science book then the book publisher(s) can use that money to subsidize their business until they can sell a Bible-friendly science book. I assume that they can then use that money to continue to subsidize their business until they can sell a Bible-friendly science book to someone else which will continue to give them money to subsidize their business until... ad infinitum.

The publishers are already selling textbooks. They will continue to sell textbooks whether the books are Bible friendly or not. Perhaps you need to a little harder to make your post more understandable:

This bill is a sop to the creationists.

That has nothing to do with the book publisher(s), unless they happen to also be creationists. Perhaps you should be trying a little less hard to make a connection between the creationists desire to have a Bible-friendly textbook and the money someone will make selling textbooks no matter what the states decide to put in the textbooks.

[KoihimeNakamura]

Except Bible Classes are valid as long as they are not mandatory:

From the majority opinion of (Abington Township School District v. Schempp) (1963):

"Nothing we have said here indicates that such study of the Bible or of religion, when presented objectively as part of a secular program of education, may not be effected consistently with the First Amendment"

[boloboffin]

So you're saying the book publisher (who gets the money) want a Bible-friendly science book?

Or are you saying that if Texas pays the book publisher(s) for a Bible-friendly science book then the book publisher(s) can use that money to subsidize their business until they can sell a Bible-friendly science book. I assume that they can then use that money to continue to subsidize their business until they can sell a Bible-friendly science book to someone else which will continue to give them money to subsidize their business until... ad infinitum.

The publishers are already selling textbooks. They will continue to sell textbooks whether the books are Bible friendly or not. Perhaps you need to a little harder to make your post more understandable:

I really love reading your posts. My only objection is that you seem to think you're responding to something I've said.

That has nothing to do with the book publisher(s), unless they happen to also be creationists. Perhaps you should be trying a little less hard to make a connection between the creationists desire to have a Bible-friendly textbook and the money someone will make selling textbooks no matter what the states decide to put in the textbooks.

Mr. Klase, since you seem so determined to misunderstand what I say, I'll try again.

The people who stand ready to publish Bible-friendly science textbooks also stand ready to publish textbooks for a brand-new class on Bible history. This bill is a lifeline to these people so that they can keep funding efforts to have states like Texas purchase their Bible-friendly science textbooks.

I don't know if smaller words are possible. I guess I could try.

[Bob Klase]

I really love reading your posts. My only objection is that you seem to think you're responding to something I've said.

I was responding to things you said. I usually quote what I'm responding to if that helps. It's not uncommon that people think they said something other than what they actually wrote.

The people who stand ready to publish Bible-friendly science textbooks also stand ready to publish textbooks for a brand-new class on Bible history. This bill is a lifeline to these people so that they can keep funding efforts to have states like Texas purchase their Bible-friendly science textbooks.

You've finally cleared up what you were attempting to say. Now I'd just disagree with what you're saying: I don't think the profit from publishing books to fund efforts for more Bible-friendly books is really part of their agenda. The vast, vast majority of people pushing for Bible-study classes and/or bible-friendly science books are not book publishers and at best a tiny insignificant percentage of those people care about getting profit from books to fund further books.

ETA: Please don't call me Mr. It makes me feel old. The fact that I may be old is irrelevant.

[boloboffin]

I was responding to things you said. I usually quote what I'm responding to if that helps. It's not uncommon that people think they said something other than what they actually wrote.

Is that what you call bending over backwards to mock someone who's using English?

You've finally cleared up what you were attempting to say. Now I'd just disagree with what you're saying: I don't think the profit from publishing books to fund efforts for more Bible-friendly books is really part of their agenda. The vast, vast majority of people pushing for Bible-study classes and/or bible-friendly science books are not book publishers and at best a tiny insignificant percentage of those people care about getting profit from books to fund further books.

ETA: Please don't call me Mr. It makes me feel old. The fact that I may be old is irrelevant.

Sorry, Mr. Klase. People who work that hard to amuse themselves at my expense I don't consider to be on a first name basis.

It would still be state money going to these businesses, and in Texas that means a substantial amount of state money going to these businesses, giving them money to market and hire writers and work to get these classes in other states of the Union. Feel free to disagree with me all you want.

[KingMerv00]

I'm pretty sure this won't get past the Supreme Court but sadly I can't be completely sure.

Scalia and Thomas would probably invoke some tripe about states rights but I think the other justices would have more sense than that.

[Bob Klase]

Is that what you call bending over backwards to mock someone who's using English?

I don't recall claiming that I bend over backwards (or any other direction). And while you can call it mocking if you want, the fact is that while you used English you didn't use it to communicate what you were trying to say.

It would still be state money going to these businesses, and in Texas that means a substantial amount of state money going to these businesses

So you continue to insist that "these businesses" are owned and/or controlled by the people who want Bible-friendly science books. Do you actually have information on what businesses would publish the books under discussion? I'm pretty sure that the people who currently publish textbooks for a profit will print any textbook that the state of Texas wants to purchase. Unless those businesses are part of the Bible-friendly textbook advocates I'm sure their profit will go to the same places it goes to now.

[leftysergeant]

Texas is important because publishers wil publish whatever Texas wants published in textbooks used in Texas. Since Texas is such a large market the cost for non-Texas books could increase more because the market would be drastically smaller. That cost difference could encourage other states to buy the cheaper textbooks.


That is the whole thing in a nut shell right there, Mr. Klase.

The nutbags in Texas would make it less ecconomicly feasible for the schools of other states to buy scientificly sound science books.

I do not want the people of a state who think that the Shrub was fit to be governor deciding what should be taught in our schools.

[boloboffin]

The Bible Literacy Project (http://www.bibleliteracy.org/site/Curriculum/index.htm) in their own words. One of the board members, Kevin J. "Seamus" Hasson, is the founder and president of Becket Fund for Religious Liberty (http://www.becketfund.org/).

Who else is on the board (http://www.bibleliteracy.org/site/Board/index.htm) and what they're doing (http://michaelturton2.blogspot.com/2005/12/what-is-bible-literacy-project-really.html).

In my view what we have here is a case of "pre-priming". The students are given the text (actually a selected list, Christian in orientation) but without any social, historical, or scholarly, context, just as in a conservative Bible study. The next step, obviously, is to provide them with "interpretations" that will control their reading of the text. That will happen in the course of things, since there is no community without conservative Bible studies. One can easily see what will inevitably happen -- students will be steered by sympathetic teachers to conservative "Bible Studies" where they can be properly indoctrinated. This sounds conspiratorial, but it is not; it is merely the inevitable workings of the vast political movement that is the American Religious Right. After all, students can hardly be steered to competent scholarship, as most laymen lack any awareness of where to go to find it.

This is not Bible Literacy. It is not educational. This "Bible Literacy Project" is nothing more than a bold attempt to indoctrinate American youth with a decontextualized and essentially false view of what the Bible is, as part of a long-term effort by the Religious Right to effect cultural change in the United States.

This is who Texas is about to send state tax money to.

ETA: And who provided the initial funding to the Bible Literacy Project (http://www.bibleliteracy.org/site/News/bibl_news050506Corvalis.htm) to help write their textbook? The John Templeton Foundation (http://www.templeton.org/), whose main concern is spreading, you guessed it, creationism.

Now ask me, Mr. Klase: how much of that story did I know before I posted in this thread? Answer: none of it. I didn't even know the name Bible Literacy Project. But after I realized what getting the class into Texas schoolrooms meant, the pieces were easy to discover.

Save it for Sunday School. It doesn't belong in a public school classroom.

[leftysergeant]

Save it for Sunday School. It doesn't belong in a public school classroom.

If it is conducted as stated in your citation, it belongs in church.

If it is not taught as historical background or world literature, BAN IT.

Otherwise it is religious instruction on the public dime. Been there, done that.

Sucked.

[Bob Klase]

Now ask me, Mr. Klase: how much of that story did I know before I posted in this thread? Answer: none of it. I didn't even know the name Bible Literacy Project. But after I realized what getting the class into Texas schoolrooms meant, the pieces were easy to discover.

Nice job on the research Mr. Boffin, but none of it applies to your claim that making a profit selling books is any part of their motivation to get Bible books in schools.

The John Templeton Foundation, whose main concern is spreading, you guessed it, creationism.

Sort of supports what I've been saying- the John Templeton Foundation doesn't give a crap about making a couple million dollars selling textbooks. They give away millions (ETA: 60 million a year) so if they're interested in getting textbooks in the hands of students they're not doing it because they'll make a profit printing the books. They'd probably even donate the textbooks free if they thought that would help get the books into the hands of students.

Save it for Sunday School. It doesn't belong in a public school classroom.

We're not talking about whether anything belongs in a classroom- the only topic that you and I have discussed is whether proponents for bible-in-school textbooks are motivated by the profit from selling those books. So you can save your 'Save it for Sunday School' comments for someone who thinks it's a good idea for Texas to have bible classes in it's high schools.

ETA: The John Templeton Foundation, whose main concern is spreading, you guessed it, creationism.

I don't know that much about the Templeton Foundation. I knew it supported religious issues and creationism may be their "main concern", but according wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Templeton_Foundation) it's not. I didn't look at any other references though:

In 2005, the foundation disputed suggestions that it promotes intelligent design, saying that, while it has supported projects by individuals who identify with intelligent design, it does not support the intelligent design movement. The foundation has also funded critics of the movement. (bolding mine)

In 2007 in the LA Times, Pamela Thompson, Vice President for Communications of the Templeton Foundation, wrote "We do not believe that the science underpinning the intelligent-design movement is sound, we do not support research or programs that deny large areas of well-documented scientific knowledge

Of course ID and creationists have been known to lie (under oath, in court), so they could be lying. But this seems indicate that maybe they're not:

In March 2009, the Discovery Institute accused the Templeton Foundation of blocking its involvement in a Vatican-backed, Templeton-funded conference in Rome on evolution.

[leftysergeant]

It is still the camel's nose under the tent. Smack it.

[boloboffin]

I search my posts for the word "profit" in vain. Mr. Klase is off again.

[UnrepentantSinner]

This is sort of old news down here and it's not going to be the intellectual armageddon some of you are making it out to be. These classes will (I say because Gov. Hair will definately sign the bill) not replace science or history classes. They're an elective. Not one I'm thrilled about being included, but I'm guessing the kids who take them aren't likely to be on a science track anyway.

Wow, I wish I had gone to high school in Texas! All I would have to do is get 14 friends and we could demand to be taught:

- Scientology
- Mormon Fundamentalism
- Satanism
- Pupperty and You
- Disney in the Classroom
- Astrology

Before we trot out the logical fallacies, I can give an academic justification for including a Bible course in the cirriculum as an elective (and I oppose them on priciple). Can you do the same for those on your list?

ETA: And who provided the initial funding to the Bible Literacy Project (http://www.bibleliteracy.org/site/News/bibl_news050506Corvalis.htm) to help write their textbook? The John Templeton Foundation (http://www.templeton.org/), whose main concern is spreading, you guessed it, creationism.

Sorry for the snip, but I only disagree with this part so... Sorry, but no.

A check of the page discussing whether evolution explains human nature (http://www.templeton.org/evolution/) and you'll see a robust, scientific dialogue where most of the expert respondants are affirmative or affirmative with reservations.

[Alt+F4]

Before we trot out the logical fallacies, I can give an academic justification for including a Bible course in the cirriculum as an elective (and I oppose them on priciple). Can you do the same for those on your list?

The point I was trying to make is, since when do we allow students to decide school curriculum, which was implied in the OP?

I can think of no academic justification for including a Bible course as a high school elective, and I've been teaching about the Bible for 15 years....in a Social Studies Global Studies class. Am I missing something here?

[Bob Klase]

I search my posts for the word "profit" in vain. Mr. Klase is off again.

The thing about Texas is it's a huge textbook market. Get a book approved in Texas and you're well on your way to getting it in other states, plus you've got a great pile of money to build your business and write nice Bible-adhering science books.


My mistake. If you mentally replace the word 'profit' in my posts with the phrase "great pile of money" then everything I wrote still applies.

And since it's not profit, exactly where does that 'great pile of money' you were talking about come from?

[tyr_13]

This is sort of old news down here and it's not going to be the intellectual armageddon some of you are making it out to be. These classes will (I say because Gov. Hair will definately sign the bill) not replace science or history classes. They're an elective. Not one I'm thrilled about being included, but I'm guessing the kids who take them aren't likely to be on a science track anyway.

It's an elective (that is drastically wrong about history and even the Bible), so it's fine right? Well no. Just read the court decision linked to earlier.


Before we trot out the logical fallacies, I can give an academic justification for including a Bible course in the cirriculum as an elective (and I oppose them on priciple). Can you do the same for those on your list?

What is that academic justification? If it is the one I think it is, it very much applies to many of those. In fact, more so for at least one.



Sorry for the snip, but I only disagree with this part so... Sorry, but no.

You disagree with the nutters who will be part in creating the material for the course? Great! So do most of us. You can see why we don't want them teaching any children in the public school, elective or not.


A check of the page discussing whether evolution explains human nature (http://www.templeton.org/evolution/) and you'll see a robust, scientific dialogue where most of the expert respondants are affirmative or affirmative with reservations.


Non-sequiter much? What does the ability of evolution to explain something that it could only partially effect in theory have to do with teaching inaccurate 'Bible' studies in school?

[UnrepentantSinner]

The point I was trying to make is, since when do we allow students to decide school curriculum, which was implied in the OP?

Trust me, as a Texan who has been watching this crap for 3 or 4 years now, the issue isn't about a certain number of students requesting an elective class. Within the context of students requesting it, I now get your point, but my objection to your point remains. The fundies legislators students whoever pushing this agenda could justify it academically (see below) while I'd still like to see you justify your list similarly.

I can think of no academic justification for including a Bible course as a high school elective, and I've been teaching about the Bible for 15 years....in a Social Studies Global Studies class. Am I missing something here?

Really? There's nothing in lit class that comes from the Bible? There's nothing that explains the current situation in the Mid-East in the Bible? There's nothing in history class that can't be discussed within the context of Biblical content? That's literature, social studies and history in three sentences.

I guess I'll just have to keep reiterating it with every post I make on this topic, but while I oppose Bible classes on a number of grounds, the "it's not academic" one doesn't hold water for me.

[UnrepentantSinner]

It's an elective (that is drastically wrong about history and even the Bible), so it's fine right? Well no. Just read the court decision linked to earlier.

You seem to be confused, or maybe I am since I've been drinking, but I don't see any post by you to this thread at all much less one to a court decision germaine to this situation.

What is that academic justification? If it is the one I think it is, it very much applies to many of those. In fact, more so for at least one.

Instead of trying to read my mind, read my response to Alt4.

You disagree with the nutters who will be part in creating the material for the course? Great! So do most of us. You can see why we don't want them teaching any children in the public school, elective or not.

Dangit! Now I've got straw all over my feet. You seem even more confused than above since I'm not advocating or supporting Bible electives, I'm just stating the reality when it comes to whether they will occur in Texas or not.

Non-sequiter much? What does the ability of evolution to explain something that it could only partially effect in theory have to do with teaching inaccurate 'Bible' studies in school?

Dude, you're all over the place. Please try and focus. I was responding specifically to boloboffin's suggestion that the Templeton foundation was an advocate of Creationism. As such it was hardly a non-sequitor.

[tyr_13]

You seem to be confused, or maybe I am since I've been drinking, but I don't see any post by you to this thread at all much less one to a court decision germaine to this situation.

Rika posted this little bit about a very salient decision on the matter.

From the majority opinion of (Abington Township School District v. Schempp) (1963):

"Nothing we have said here indicates that such study of the Bible or of religion, when presented objectively as part of a secular program of education, may not be effected consistently with the First Amendment"

The keep part that relates to this topic is that, 'when presented objectively' part.

So what have you been drinking? :p



Instead of trying to read my mind, read my response to Alt4.


Seeing as you hadn't make you response to Alt4 before I made my comment, I don't know how I would have known besides reading your mind. But as to that reply, no, I think you're missing the actually curriculum that these people are advocating here.


Dangit! Now I've got straw all over my feet. You seem even more confused than above since I'm not advocating or supporting Bible electives, I'm just stating the reality when it comes to whether they will occur in Texas or not.


So the part of the statement that you said you disagreed with was the Templeton project being concerned with creationism? Their blurring of religious and scientific questions? That they weren't really the people who started funding for this?

I agree that the Templeton Foundation doesn't seem to be primarily concerned with creationism, only reconciling Christianity or other religious beliefs with science. But they did fund, and they are supplying money to 'interpretations' of the Bible. That is, very specific interpretations. I'm not saying that they specifically have poor motives, but that they are supporting something that does.


Dude, you're all over the place. Please try and focus. I was responding specifically to boloboffin's suggestion that the Templeton foundation was an advocate of Creationism. As such it was hardly a non-sequitor.

If that was the case then I mis-read your post.

[boloboffin]

My mistake. If you mentally replace the word 'profit' in my posts with the phrase "great pile of money" then everything I wrote still applies.

And since it's not profit, exactly where does that 'great pile of money' you were talking about come from?

And that's your error. I posit them using the money for other ends. You portray my position as profit as its own end. That's called a straw man. Less mental replacement and more dealing with my actual words.

[Beerina]

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/4831635.html

AUSTIN — The Senate easily passed and sent to the governor a bill Wednesday to teach Bible classes to high school students, but lawmakers immediately disagreed on whether the measure would make the courses mandatory.

(Upon further reading, I think "mandatory" refers to forcing Texas schools to offer the class, not forcing students to take it.)

I submit this breaks their oaths of office, assuming it has language about not taking the position with any hidden agendas. They know full well the Constitution forbids this. Therefore they took the oath with their fingers crossed behind their backs.

[Alt+F4]

There's nothing in lit class that comes from the Bible? There's nothing that explains the current situation in the Mid-East in the Bible? There's nothing in history class that can't be discussed within the context of Biblical content? That's literature, social studies and history in three sentences.

Do you really think what they are trying to do with this bill is help teach literature, social studies and/or history? I sure don't. It's just a cover for their real agenda: pushing Jesus and Christianity as the correct theology. The Bible doesn't need it's own class, its covered quite well in the classes you mentioned.

[Bob Klase]

And that's your error. I posit them using the money for other ends. You portray my position as profit as its own end.

I portrayed your position as profit for other ends. But it's clear that when you say 'money' you are talking about the 'profit' so your claim that you didn't actually say 'profit' is a meaningless red herring since profit is the money you were talking about. Had I actually quoted you using the word 'profit' you might have a point, but I didn't and you don't.

Less mental replacement and more dealing with my actual words.

More mental effort in using the correct words.

[boloboffin]

And I disagree with the innocence of the Templeton Project. They talk a good talk, but their statement on the Intelligent Design hypothesis (pdf) (http://www.templeton.org/newsroom/Intelligent_Design/Statement_Anti_Evolutionism.pdf) descends into such gobblety-gook that I don't know exactly what they are anymore. In fact, since that document is described as one to "help potential grantees (http://www.templeton.org/newsroom/Intelligent_Design/)," it reads more like "tell us stuff like this so we can give you money and still pretend to forswear intelligent design."

And their grant to something like the Bible Literacy Project speaks more clearly.

[boloboffin]

I portrayed your position as profit for other ends. But it's clear that when you say 'money' you are talking about the 'profit' so your claim that you didn't actually say 'profit' is a meaningless red herring since profit is the money you were talking about. Had I actually quoted you using the word 'profit' you might have a point, but I didn't and you don't.



More mental effort in using the correct words.

Goodbye, Mr. Tro... Klase.

[Bob Klase]

I submit this breaks their oaths of office, assuming it has language about not taking the position with any hidden agendas. They know full well the Constitution forbids this. Therefore they took the oath with their fingers crossed behind their backs.

Texas Oath of office: (http://www.sos.state.tx.us/statdoc/statforms.shtml)

IN THE NAME AND BY THE AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF TEXAS, I, , do solemnly swear (or affirm), that I will faithfully execute the duties of the office of of the State of Texas, and will to the best of my ability preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States and of this State, so help me God.

Nothing there about not having hidden agendas.

[leftysergeant]

I may have misread something, but didn't the description of the course say that the focus would be on the NEW Testiment?

It would be illegal and academicly lame. Two good reasons to take it to the compost heap.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Do you really think what they are trying to do with this bill is help teach literature, social studies and/or history? I sure don't. {snip because I agree with you

Oh hell no. I don't either. The intent of this legislation and class is totally transparent to me and has been since Bible classes became an issue a few years ago.

It's just me, but I have a peeve about counter arguments that don't carry the weight that they might seem to at first. There is no significant literary or historical influence on Western Civilization over time that Scientology, Satanism or Disney films has exerted like Christianity has. Whether that warrents a specific elective class, I'm going to say no but that's just my bias and I make no claim to Solomonic wisdom*.

As happens with me far to often on this forum, I don't disagree with your conclusion, but your arguments in favor of it. :)


* Note Bible reference that people might not get if they have no familiarity with it.

[Darth Rotor]

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/4831635.html

(Upon further reading, I think "mandatory" refers to forcing Texas schools to offer the class, not forcing students to take it.)
Maybe Even Mandatory

No fear mongering here, move along ... :rolleyes:

[KingMerv00]

Maybe Even Mandatory

No fear mongering here, move along ... :rolleyes:

I don't think it is fear mongering. The article says that the statute uses both "may" and "shall" in its language. The confusing nature of the bill means that "Maybe even mandatory" seems the perfect phrase to use.

[Darth Rotor]

I don't think it is fear mongering. The article says that the statute uses both "may" and "shall" in its language. The confusing nature of the bill means that "Maybe even mandatory" seems the perfect phrase to use.
I forgot I was on the Chicken Little forums.

My bad.

(On the other hand, the Texas legislature could screw up a wet dream ... )

[Towlie]

Maybe Even Mandatory

No fear mongering here, move along ... :rolleyes:No, I don't think the Houston Chronicle was deliberately engaging in fear mongering either. It's just that the first paragraph was unintentionally vague:The Senate easily passed and sent to the governor a bill Wednesday to teach Bible classes to high school students, but lawmakers immediately disagreed on whether the measure would make the courses mandatory.In fact, that was the very reason I added my comment:(Upon further reading, I think "mandatory" refers to forcing Texas schools to offer the class, not forcing students to take it.)

[Towlie]

(On the other hand, the Texas legislature could screw up a wet dream ... )Why do you think they call them the "Texas Taliban"? ;)

[Monketey Ghost]

The foundation has also funded critics of the movement.

I could send five bucks to the GOP, for example, and say I've funded them.

[Chaos]

Texas Oath of office: (http://www.sos.state.tx.us/statdoc/statforms.shtml)



Nothing there about not having hidden agendas.

I don´t see anything in there that explicitly says they´re not allowed to turn the country into a Christian fundamentalist theocracy - yet somehow people assume that it implicitly says so. Does this tell you something about what it means that it does not explicitly say hidden agendas are not allowed?

[Bob Klase]

I could send five bucks to the GOP, for example, and say I've funded them.

You could. You could probably even find other people to say you've funded them, but that would be a little more difficult.

[Bob Klase]

I don´t see anything in there that explicitly says they´re not allowed to turn the country into a Christian fundamentalist theocracy - yet somehow people assume that it implicitly says so.


I guess some people would be wrong. Attempting to turn the country into a Christian fundamentalist theocracy would not violate an oath of office unless the oath specifically says that. If someone runs for office on a platform of changing the first amendment to allow a Christian fundamentalist theocracy they haven't violated any law or oath. If they were to actually get the constitution amended to invalidate the 1st amendment they wouldn't have broken any law. If they attempt to overthrow the government by force to create a Christian fundamentalist theocracy then they're breaking the law.

But you'll have a hard time finding cases of people prosecuted for "breaking their oath of office". You'll find them prosecuted for breaking laws and then perhaps removed from office for violating the oath. I think that's generally the only penalty for violating an oath of office- being removed from that office.

An oath of office doesn't have to specifically outline in detail everything you can and can't do- if it did then no one would ever live long enough to finish taking the oath. Detailed specifics are covered by laws, not the oath. So if you want to claim that the oath has been violated then you either have to find the law that was violated or you have to find that violation actually in the oath.

Does this tell you something about what it means that it does not explicitly say hidden agendas are not allowed?


Yes. It tells me that if having the hidden agendas doesn't violate a law then it's not breaking the part of the oath that demands you uphold or protect the law. In that case it would have to violate some other part of the oath and it's clear that no other part of the Texas oath covers hidden agendas.

[Darth Rotor]

Why do you think they call them the "Texas Taliban"? ;)
"They" are apparently idiots, I guess.

That Taliban are organized. :cool:

[Ausmerican]

I can give an academic justification for including a Bible course in the cirriculum as an elective (and I oppose them on priciple). Can you do the same for those on your list?.

Academic justification? Might be fun to try.
Let's see;
Scientology and Mormon Fundamentalism could both be under History as they are both homegrown American made religions so are surely more relevant historically to Americans than a Middle Eastern one from a couple of thousand years ago.
Satanism; isn't eeryone always saying to teach both sides of the debate? Well if you are teaching Christianity this is the other side.
Disney contains elements encompassing everything from science, film-making, psychology, and again, American history.
I am guessing pupperty is supposed to be puppetry and that is covered under craft class and drama.
And lastly there is Astrology.... wait a minute? Astrology?!? In SCHOOL!? That's just crazy talk!

[KingMerv00]

I forgot I was on the Chicken Little forums.

My bad.

OK then, how is the "maybe even mandatory" wrong? Personally, I'm not afraid of the sky falling. Even if it became mandatory, there is an excellent chance it would be shot down on Constitutional grounds.

[Darth Rotor]

OK then, how is the "maybe even mandatory" wrong? Personally, I'm not afraid of the sky falling. Even if it became mandatory, there is an excellent chance it would be shot down on Constitutional grounds.
Most likely, on the latter, and I think you underestimate the reaction by Texans to the "mandatory" issue. So which church's version of the BIble are we using/teaching?

Baptist? UMC? RCC? Lutheran? Which of fifty current versions of ...

No, unless I miss my guess, even the wet dream screwing Texas legislature isn't that stupid. Our OP wanted to believe the worst, however, and so attempted to frame the conversation. Blame it on the original article? Riiiiiiight, our skeptical posters here always get respect when they buy stuff like that in the press.

You care to bet me a fifty dollar donation to the JREF, loser pays, that this mandatory ain't gonna happen? I say it ain't, and that making the series of assumptions it takes to presume that is indeed chicken little making another appearance.

DR

[Towlie]

Our OP wanted to believe the worst, however, and so attempted to frame the conversation.What? :confused:

[GreNME]

I am so glad I'm already saving up to leave this state.

[Skeptic Ginger]

It seems to be one of those back door church-in-public-school laws that meets Constitutional muster on the surface (http://www.news-journal.com/news/content/region/legislature/stories/2009/08/08/0808bible.html): All Texas public school districts for the first time this fall must offer instruction in the literature and history of the Bible under the 2007 law.

Many school districts, including Austin and most other Central Texas districts, say their current high school curriculum already satisfies the requirement because it addresses world religions in history and geography courses.

Many other school districts — there is no definitive count of how many — say they plan to launch a new elective on the Bible if there is enough student demand. The teachers say they are working hard to ensure the course is done right and within the legal constraints

I say back door church-in-public-school because there's no other reason to specify "the Bible" must be included in school curricula, elective or not. Why require it? They could have said electives in world religion were required, or they could have said world religions must be included in world history or geography or something to that effect. But the very Christian religious Texas legislature clearly had the Bible in mind here, not just religion per se.

[linusrichard]

Wait, am I really the first in this thread who gets to point out that this was signed into law by the Texas governor over two years ago?

History. (http://www.legis.state.tx.us/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=80R&Bill=HB1287)

And here's the text (http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/80R/billtext/html/HB01287F.htm) of the law, so that we can see whether this is "mandatory" or not.

And we can look at the Texas AG's opinion (http://texinfo.library.unt.edu/texasregister/html/2008/sep-12/attorney-general/attorney-general.html) (scroll down about halfway).

Now, my free access to Westlaw has done run out, but Merv, can you check TX EDUC § 28.011 and see if it's been subject to any challenges? If not, it could be that no school has yet developed a Bible course, and the lawsuit(s) will begin after they are offered. Not sure.

[dudalb]

The point I was trying to make is, since when do we allow students to decide school curriculum, which was implied in the OP?

I can think of no academic justification for including a Bible course as a high school elective, and I've been teaching about the Bible for 15 years....in a Social Studies Global Studies class. Am I missing something here?

The problem I have is with it being a "Bible" class. If it was a class covering all the world's major religons and their texts in a objective matter it might be a good idea. But I doubt that is what the people pushing this have in mind.
On the other hand, I think there is a "all evangelicals are dangerous religious fanatics" school of though which shows up here.

[KingMerv00]

Now, my free access to Westlaw has done run out, but Merv, can you check TX EDUC § 28.011 and see if it's been subject to any challenges?

Actually, I can't. I've been having trouble with my access lately.

[linusrichard]

Actually, I can't. I've been having trouble with my access lately.

Check PMs. Might not help.

[steve s]

If they want kids to know what the bible says, then maybe we could help them out by putting up some billboards near the schools.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_81544a8cd946ac26a.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17359)

Steve S

[UnrepentantSinner]

Academic justification? Might be fun to try.
Let's see;{snip}

:roll:

[thaiboxerken]

A bible study class would be ok, as long as it goes into the actual facts about who wrote the various books and how it came to be. It could also point out all of the contradictions in the bible, both internally and externally. Kids need to know that the bible is simply mythology.

[Shadowdweller]

I can't say as this bothers me overmuch, provided that the course is 1) an elective, and 2) handled appropriately. The bible, I think, has had at least as much cultural and historic influence upon western society as say Latin - a dead language which, if I understand correctly, is still considered worthy of study at high schools in some locales.

I would, of course, hope that high school graduates have some basic knowledge of ALL the world's major religions.

[leftysergeant]

All the snippets I have heard on the radio from defenders of the program claim that they rammerd it through because "One cannot have a true understanding of American political traditions without an understandinmgh of Christian principles upon which America was founded."

Just go away, Bible-thumpers. Just go away.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Wait, am I really the first in this thread who gets to point out that this was signed into law by the Texas governor over two years ago?.....What's your point? The issue is the law takes effect now, not the law was signed into existence a couple years ago.

[dudalb]

A bible study class would be ok, as long as it goes into the actual facts about who wrote the various books and how it came to be. It could also point out all of the contradictions in the bible, both internally and externally. Kids need to know that the bible is simply mythology.


The last two sentences don't sound very objective to me.
People who want the public schools to push an anti Judiasm/Christianity message are just as bad as the other side.

[Darth Rotor]

All the snippets I have heard on the radio from defenders of the program claim that they rammerd it through because "One cannot have a true understanding of American political traditions without an understandinmgh of Christian principles upon which America was founded."

Just go away, Bible-thumpers. Just go away.
You know better than that. Bible thumpers are people too. I hear that a few decades ago, some people in Alabama fronted their governor into a third party presidential race based on black people, just go away. Remember Wallace/Lemay in 1968?

I do.

That the kind of company you want to keep, Lefty?

"America, love it the way I like it or leave it?"

Methinks not.

@ KingMerv: I hear chirping crickets on the bet. ;)

DR

[KingMerv00]

@ KingMerv: I hear chirping crickets on the bet. ;)

DR

What bet?

Edit: Oh this?

You care to bet me a fifty dollar donation to the JREF, loser pays, that this mandatory ain't gonna happen? I say it ain't, and that making the series of assumptions it takes to presume that is indeed chicken little making another appearance.

DR

I'm not taking that action. The odds of it becoming mandatory in any sense is slim.

"Chicken little" is a bit harsh though.

[leftysergeant]

You know better than that. Bible thumpers are people too. I hear that a few decades ago, some people in Alabama fronted their governor into a third party presidential race based on black people, just go away. Remember Wallace/Lemay in 1968?

Yeah, I remember watching it on live television. America told the stupid people to go away. Eventually, they did, to secret hiding holes full of weapons which they still dare not use to full effect. They need to build an army of easily-controlled sheep first.

That's part of what the Bible course is about.

Give the Bible more legitimacy as a source for political power, and whoever can best wield it will rule.

We don't need those people leading.

[thaiboxerken]

The last two sentences don't sound very objective to me.
People who want the public schools to push an anti Judiasm/Christianity message are just as bad as the other side.

It is objective. The bible has many internal and external contradictions AND it is mythology. Why is it ok to teach the ancient Greek Pantheon as if it's mythology, but not the bible?

[Robster, FCD]

This isn't about teaching the bible as literature or it's importance to western lit and history over the past several centuries (which I'd call valid), but about teaching a particular fundamentalist Xian viewpoint (http://www.tfn.org/site/PageServer?pagename=texascourses) in the public schools. Texas also employs Dave Barton (http://pubrecord.org/commentary/2686/idiocy-texas-threat-david-barton/) in this project. Barton is best known for fabricating quotes from founding fathers about how important Christianity was to the founding of the US and to a functioning society. He doesn't practice revisionist history from the legitimate position of taking an event and examining it from a set point of view, but rather completely rewriting history so that it fits his preconceived notion of what history should have been.

[King of the Americas]

15...15 people, actually 15 minors can change the courses offered in a given high school...

I guess it would be more accurate to say that they can "add" any given course...

I wonder how hard it would have been to convince 14 of my sports brethren to support an ESPN Studies class...?

[thaiboxerken]

This isn't about teaching the bible as literature or it's importance to western lit and history over the past several centuries (which I'd call valid), but about teaching a particular fundamentalist Xian viewpoint (http://www.tfn.org/site/PageServer?pagename=texascourses) in the public schools

This is obvious to any rational person that has been following the creationist vs intelligent people debate that has been going on in Texas. The evangelicals have a viewpoint that the bible is a historical documentation, with the stories contained withing being literal fact. They want to teach that the USA was created by christians for christians. It's just another tactic to Wedge their religion into the lives of all americans and into the government.

This is part of the reason why I believe we should give them what they want. Teach the bible in class rooms. Teach is and point out all of the logical inconsistencies, scientific absurdities and other nonsense. Compare it to the other mythologies of the world. Show it to be, simply, another set of beliefs with no evidence to support it.

[King of the Americas]

This is obvious to any rational person that has been following the creationist vs intelligent people debate that has been going on in Texas. The evangelicals have a viewpoint that the bible is a historical documentation, with the stories contained withing being literal fact. They want to teach that the USA was created by christians for christians. It's just another tactic to Wedge their religion into the lives of all americans and into the government.

This is part of the reason why I believe we should give them what they want. Teach the bible in class rooms. Teach is and point out all of the logical inconsistencies, scientific absurdities and other nonsense. Compare it to the other mythologies of the world. Show it to be, simply, another set of beliefs with no evidence to support it.

Do you have any notion as to what would happen to a teacher in Texas who portrayed the Bible to a bunch of kids who 'requested' the class, in any manner less than fitting for the "Word of God"...?

They'd lose their job within a week of the first of a malicious statement.

[leftysergeant]

Teach is and point out all of the logical inconsistencies, scientific absurdities and other nonsense. Compare it to the other mythologies of the world. Show it to be, simply, another set of beliefs with no evidence to support it.

Which is, of course, contrary to the objectives of every whackadoodle whom I have heard defend the bill.

This is also a jobs-creation project for religious thugs. Somebody has to be certified to teach the classes. That means they will have to add a religious department to any state college that does not have one already. There will need to be criteria established for curicula at all levels.

I have a better idea.

Let the churches teach the course in those buildings that are sitting empty in the evenings. The ones with the pointy faux bell towers scattered around the area.

[thaiboxerken]

Do you have any notion as to what would happen to a teacher in Texas who portrayed the Bible to a bunch of kids who 'requested' the class, in any manner less than fitting for the "Word of God"...?

They'd lose their job within a week of the first of a malicious statement.

Of course they would. This is why a bible class should not be an elective in public k-12 school. The intent of this bill is to indoctrinate children into christianity.

[King of the Americas]

Of course they would. This is why a bible class should not be an elective in public k-12 school. The intent of this bill is to indoctrinate children into christianity.

Agreed,...but it 'could' result in any number of 'new & desired' classes...

I think I could have wrangled together a dozen other kids who wanted or would be willing to study "Gaming, Yesterday & Today".

"Games" have been around as long as God...he IS the Ultimate GamER!

Getting the school to purchase a PS3, or a 360...or ALL of them! Now that seems like something I'd have tried to do, if I heard this was passed.

Was it? Did Governor Perry sign it?

---

Just read the now 2 year old bill...

Read the whole thing. It can't be more than 3 pages:

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/80R/billtext/html/HB01287I.htm

[thaiboxerken]

Yes, it says not to teach indoctrinate kids or show the falsity of the bible. Hmmm.. yea. I think that showing the history of it should include showing the inconsistencies and contradictions contained within as well as the theory or hypothesis as to why such contradictions are there. No apologetics. This class does have the potential of hurting the religion.

[dudalb]

This isn't about teaching the bible as literature or it's importance to western lit and history over the past several centuries (which I'd call valid), but about teaching a particular fundamentalist Xian viewpoint (http://www.tfn.org/site/PageServer?pagename=texascourses) in the public schools. Texas also employs Dave Barton (http://pubrecord.org/commentary/2686/idiocy-texas-threat-david-barton/) in this project. Barton is best known for fabricating quotes from founding fathers about how important Christianity was to the founding of the US and to a functioning society. He doesn't practice revisionist history from the legitimate position of taking an event and examining it from a set point of view, but rather completely rewriting history so that it fits his preconceived notion of what history should have been.

Exactly.

[dudalb]

This is obvious to any rational person that has been following the creationist vs intelligent people debate that has been going on in Texas. The evangelicals have a viewpoint that the bible is a historical documentation, with the stories contained withing being literal fact. They want to teach that the USA was created by christians for christians. It's just another tactic to Wedge their religion into the lives of all americans and into the government.

This is part of the reason why I believe we should give them what they want. Teach the bible in class rooms. Teach is and point out all of the logical inconsistencies, scientific absurdities and other nonsense. Compare it to the other mythologies of the world. Show it to be, simply, another set of beliefs with no evidence to support it.

I love the way you paint all evangelicals with such a broad brush.

[thaiboxerken]

I love the way you paint all evangelicals with such a broad brush.

They all have the same goals, so why not?

[King of the Americas]

I have a good friend who I 'just' found out, is no longer a rational, accessible to reason, conservative. He was at one time, but he's definitely gone off the deep end now, even accepting the young earth creationist theory...

Can you 'save' someone from such non-sense, or is there a point that you have to cut them loose, to keep them from bringing down the ship?

He hasn't responded to my last e-mail:

"...FORCING high schools to offer a Biblical Studies course, that don't seek to understand the Bible in a religious or secular manner, is a WASTE. The 'reason' they wrote the bill in the manner they did, was to get around the Church & State issue.

The other problem with the bill is on Constitutional grounds because it 'excludes' other similar texts from being studied or compared. It's literally elevating this book over other ones similar in nature and scope.

But the main point is that the things they DO want studied/covered are completely irrelevant in today's society. This whole thing is a thin veiled attempt to get kids and Bibles together in high schools, to claim some moral victory over the God-hating liberals.

This bill puts the Bible back into high schools, but specifically says there'll be NO attempt to understand or explain it. Let that sink in for a second. It's the Bible, but it isn't read in a religious or secular manner. So, then what does it become?

Studying it as a historical document can ONLY lead to asking questions about it accuracy. How can you do that, without consulting other documents???

This whole thing is a practice in the waste of government resources for political expediency, and the complete watering down of a religious document from what it was 'intended' to be read for or as.

And you think this is good for the Constitution & Religion???..."

---

How has this thing NOT been challenged, yet?

[boloboffin]

How has this thing NOT been challenged, yet?

No actual classes as of yet. Nothing actionable.

[King of the Americas]

No actual classes as of yet. Nothing actionable.

Monday the 24th was the first day of school...I figured it wouldn't take more than one class, to 'create' something actionable.

[Brown]

In a related story, the town of Spencer, Iowa, will not conduct a class about the Bible. Link to the Des Moines Register (http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20090827/NEWS02/908270363/1001/NEWS&theme=/apps/pbcs.dll/section?Category=NEWS).

The story is that the Spencer school officials feared a lawsuit. Probably with some reason. And probably with considerable reason to believe that they would lose that lawsuit.

But the Superintendent said that they would try again, and would take a "second crack at the policy," which will be scrutinized "by attorneys, teachers and other groups" (one might suppose that "other groups" may include religious and non-religious groups).

According to the story: "Spencer is believed to be the first Iowa district to spell out religious freedoms in schools, a move that has caught on in Georgia, Texas and other states."

Any legitimate class about the Bible (assuming we're talking about the Christian Bible here, specifically, the protestant Christian Bible, presumably the protestant Christian Bible in one of the predominant accepted translations...) must include literary criticism of the work. Any course on Shakespeare includes criticism, as does any valid course dealing with the works of any noted author. The Bible ought to be no exception.

But right away, we run into trouble, don't we? In the eyes of many, the Bible is above criticism, having no errors, no inconsistencies, no anachronisms, no historical blunders, no questionable morality, no editing goofs, no mistranslations and no fiction or allegory. As a matter of fact, the Bible has all of these in quantity, but the religious beliefs of some require them to deny the facts about their own sacred documents. How dare the schools suggest that the Bible is NOT an infallible message from the Creator Of All That Is?

If you attend a Sunday School, or some forms of religious schools, the sacred documents get a "pass" from all forms of criticisms that every other literary work has had to endure. But in a public school, that sort of "pass" ought not to be given. If it is, then the public school is teaching religious dogma, not fact.

[King of the Americas]

(2) the board may not assign a person to teach a course
under this section based in whole or in part on any religious test,
profession of faith or lack of faith, prior or present religious
affiliation or lack of affiliation, or criteria involving
particular beliefs or lack of beliefs about the Old or New
Testament.

"Aheem, Teacher "X", you are going to be teaching this Bible class.", "But I am not religious." "Perfect, because...

(2) may not include teaching of a religious doctrine
or a sectarian interpretation of the Old or New Testament or of
texts from other religious or cultural traditions other than the
Judeo-Christian tradition; and"

---

Okay the teacher doesn't require qualification, because the course doesn't seek to understand anything...

And you still get credit for taking the class!?!?

This is simply crazy.

[Brown]

Any legitimate class about the Bible (assuming we're talking about the Christian Bible here, specifically, the protestant Christian Bible, presumably the protestant Christian Bible in one of the predominant accepted translations...) must include literary criticism of the work. Any course on Shakespeare includes criticism, as does any valid course dealing with the works of any noted author. The Bible ought to be no exception.

But right away, we run into trouble, don't we? In the eyes of many, the Bible is above criticism, having no errors, no inconsistencies, no anachronisms, no historical blunders, no questionable morality, no editing goofs, no mistranslations and no fiction or allegory. As a matter of fact, the Bible has all of these in quantity, but the religious beliefs of some require them to deny the facts about their own sacred documents. How dare the schools suggest that the Bible is NOT an infallible message from the Creator Of All That Is?

If you attend a Sunday School, or some forms of religious schools, the sacred documents get a "pass" from all forms of criticisms that every other literary work has had to endure. But in a public school, that sort of "pass" ought not to be given. If it is, then the public school is teaching religious dogma, not fact.Huh. I just came across this post, which sounds awfully familiar:Any course that really teaches about the Bible must submit the Bible to criticism.

The Bible must not be presented as being without error. That is a purely religious belief--and a very foolish one at that.

The Bible must not be presented as the Word of God. That is a matter of faith, not a matter of fact.

The Bible must be presented as being written by people. The history, geography, ethics, consistency, primitive thinking, mythology and editing of the Bible all have to be fair game in such a study. Those who challenge the Bible on its morality or the validity of its stories cannot be penalized merely for that reason.

Many parents who support teaching the Bible in school might be under the delusion that the education will be of the "Sunday School" variety, in which criticism is often not tolerated, and the Bible has to be taken as the Word of God. These folks will reveal their true colors as soon as little Johnny comes home from school and mentions that teacher says that the Bible has contradictions, or that some of the passages in the Bible are ridiculous, or that some Bible stories never really happened, or that the Bible smiles favorably on some forms of monstrous immorality.

[King of the Americas]

My buddy finally got around to offering a defense...


*There are no "similar" texts to compare the Bible to. The Bible is unique. If you mean the writings of other religions, then I stand by my other suggestion to have other classes. But for now, Christianity is the predominant religion in our country and the Bible is the foundation of so much of our civilization and government. To study anything else would be ... well, trivial.

*This Bill is recognizing the Bible's importance in our civilization.

*God-hating liberals are a bane to our nation's motto "In God We Trust." Maybe some victory over them is justified. They have the right to hate God all they want to. But our government, from its very inception, always gave glory to God. Even if it's just lip service, we must acknowledge that the "seperation of church and state" our founders envisioned and the seperation now supported by liberal groups are two radically different visions. One advocates a seperation of ecclesiastical authority and government authority. The other pushes for a banishment of God from every facet of government. At one point, people saw God as an entity above and transcendent of religion and church. To seperate church and state was to acknowledge that God was above all. Today, like throwing the baby out with the bathwater, we've thrown the diety out with the holy water.

*You don't debate the Bible, in these classes, you leave it as-is. You say "this is what the Bible says about the Assyrian empire" and leave it at that. Leave the higher criticism up to seminaries, religious studies departments at colleges, etc. The Bible isn't going away anytime soon as a cultural influence, so giving those interested (it's an elective course, might I add) a chance to see how the Bible is arranged is an educational advantage.

*And the bill doesn't strictly forbid referencing other sources anymore than an Algebra class with only one textbook forbids the teacher from quoting other books or making xerox copies from articles, etc. It sets up the Bible as the primary text to keep liberals from copping out and turning it into a class on the Qur'an, or a watered down religious survey class.

*The Bible was intended to be read as several forms of literature. Maybe just telling students this is enough. And if they want more than a general survey class, maybe they can take seminary classes, read more online, go to church, or whatever suits them. But they should at least be taught about the Bible.

*Religion benefits by reducing the number of people who just blindly hate religion because they don't understand it and/or feel alienated by it. Government benefits by having a more well-rounded populous that understands the Book that guided so much of our civilization, and which affects those weird buildings with steeples on them on every street corner.

[UNLoVedRebel]

*There are no "similar" texts to compare the Bible to.

Uhhh....Ever heard of the Epic of Gilgamesh?