Texas School District approves Bible class

[losman]

Someone get Michael Newdow and the ACLU


http://www.herald-zeitung.com/story.lasso?wcd=15080


New Braunfels trustees approve elective Bible class

By Jessica Sanders
The Herald-Zeitung

Published January 17, 2006
A Bible course will be offered at New Braunfels High School next semester despite protest from some community members.

New Braunfels Independent School District trustees voted 6-1 in favor of adopting an elective course based on the textbook "The Bible and Its Influence" during Monday's board meeting. Trustee Paul Fisher voted against the decision.

"I respect every opinion that has been presented tonight," Fisher said. "I view this as a subject that, if we address it in public schools, should be in the form of comparative religion."


Rule 4 breach

[Ducky]

That's a pretty blatant violation of the seperation clause.

[Jon.]

Everything I've heard shows this presentation shows the curriculum is solid, positive and something that would enhance what students are learning," he said. "This is not a course to teach the Bible but to teach the connection between the Bible and the great literary works of our time."

Teaching the Bible as literature would be fine with me, as would teaching how it influenced other great literary works. There are biblical references all through literature from the Canterbury Tales to the modern day. The Bible is undoubtedly a very influential piece of literature.

Of course, the teacher would have to be very careful to teach it as literature and not as truth.

[Bri]

Trustee Jorge Maldonado reminded audience members that the course is meant to teach about religion, not teach religion.

"The intent and purpose of the course is clearly defined and already established to be in compliance with the First Amendment," he said. "The goal of the course is to teach religion in a way that is purely academic and not devotional."

(bold mine)

-Bri

[TragicMonkey]

I'm sure colleges will be delighted that Suzy Applicant got an A in Bible class. Too bad she didn't have any geometry, because the school district couldn't even manage the core classes. Maybe you should give up on engineering, Suzy, and go to a seminary?

[slingblade]

Teaching the Bible as literature would be fine with me, as would teaching how it influenced other great literary works. There are biblical references all through literature from the Canterbury Tales to the modern day. The Bible is undoubtedly a very influential piece of literature.

Of course, the teacher would have to be very careful to teach it as literature and not as truth.

I fully agree, and I am a teacher of English, and an atheist who frankly has issues with religion in schools. But as long as they teach it as literature, or even as mythology, I'm fine with it.

[T'ai Chi]

Maybe you should give up on engineering, Suzy, and go to a seminary?


Learning about the Bible's influence doesn't mean your hypothetical student would have to give up anything, since "elective" doesn't mean it is a required class.

Newton comes to mind as an example of a student who studied the Bible (heck, most of his writing is on the Bible) and turned out pretty good (understatement of the century) in math related subjects.

[LawnOven]

Hmm part of me wants to agree with the last couple of posts. Part of me wants to say "hmm, yeah that could be an interesting learning experience if it is kept secular".

Then the other part of me is saying, "Come on people... it's Texas".

[TragicMonkey]

Learning about the Bible's influence doesn't mean your hypothetical student would have to give up anything, since "elective" doesn't mean it is a required class.

Newton comes to mind as an example of a student who studied the Bible (heck, most of his writing is on the Bible) and turned out pretty good (understatement of the century) in math related subjects.

Some of the audience members felt the board's money would be better spent on other subjects. Terry Hull, a Texas State University professor and New Braunfels parent, said she was concerned that the needs of core courses and other electives were being pushed aside in favor of a special-interest class.

"I find it difficult to justify offering an elective that requires special training and an extra teacher when they don't have enough resources for the required core classes," she said.

This is a public school. They don't generally have a lot of money, teachers, or resources. If they're going to be teaching this class, they're going to have to not teach something else. And it's hard to think what could be more irrelevant to a public high school education than religion.

Especially considering that every college in the country, public or private, offers plenty of religion classes. Which is where it should be: on the college level, where the students have supposedly reached the age and maturity to debate, discuss, and decide for themselves the merits of the material. A subject like religion, any religion, is not suitable on the high school level.

Unless they're prepared to make it a college-level class and pay for someone with a post-graduate degree in the subject (NOT a degree in education) to teach it.

[Ducky]

This is a public school. They don't generally have a lot of money, teachers, or resources. If they're going to be teaching this class, they're going to have to not teach something else. And it's hard to think what could be more irrelevant to a public high school education than religion.

Especially considering that every college in the country, public or private, offers plenty of religion classes. Which is where it should be: on the college level, where the students have supposedly reached the age and maturity to debate, discuss, and decide for themselves the merits of the material. A subject like religion, any religion, is not suitable on the high school level.

Unless they're prepared to make it a college-level class and pay for someone with a post-graduate degree in the subject (NOT a degree in education) to teach it.


I agree 100% with this post. Spot on.

[eri]

I'm again' it. But look at it this way - I didn't have any major problems with religion until I took theology at my (admittedly Catholic) high school. 'We're supposed to believe WHAT?' That was the end of religion for me.

[slingblade]

This is a public school. They don't generally have a lot of money, teachers, or resources. If they're going to be teaching this class, they're going to have to not teach something else. And it's hard to think what could be more irrelevant to a public high school education than religion.

Especially considering that every college in the country, public or private, offers plenty of religion classes. Which is where it should be: on the college level, where the students have supposedly reached the age and maturity to debate, discuss, and decide for themselves the merits of the material. A subject like religion, any religion, is not suitable on the high school level.

Unless they're prepared to make it a college-level class and pay for someone with a post-graduate degree in the subject (NOT a degree in education) to teach it.

Oh, I agree with that, as well. But I think there are a couple of questions we're commenting on here.

Is it permissible or acceptable to teach the bible as literature or mythology?
I feel it is both. The same should be accorded to any other religion, and often is.

Should a school suffering under a financial crunch be teaching a non-essential or non-core subject at the expense of core subjects it is not teaching?
No; it doesn't properly serve the students, who have other venues for Bible exposure, if they desire it, but have only the school to serve them in math or science, etc.

Does such a class violate separation of church and state?
Not if it's offered as a free-choice elective, and also not taught as dogma or fact, but only as literature or mythology, or from a historic perspective.

[Pauliesonne]

only in Texas...

[Loon]

The only issue I see is that it's taking funding away from more important classes. You can't just say "well, it mentions the bible, so it's a violation of the separation clause." A great variety of the stuff we teach in our literature classes draws from the bible. It's even had some effect on history, or so I'm told.

[Bone_Vulture]

only in Texas...

Texas.

And that is all I have to say about that. ;)

[rharbers]

Texas.

And that is all I have to say about that. ;)

Don't mess with Texas.

[Darat]

There is some indication in the article that they are struggling to provide "core courses" so to create a new course that requires a new teacher for an elective course seems to be a strange way to prioritise funding BUT that's the only thing I can see wrong with this.

[rharbers]

When I went to school in Texas, we studied, however slightly, every religion on the planet except the Christian religion. Surprisingly, this was in World History class.

[ceo_esq]

That's a pretty blatant violation of the seperation clause.

Due to a likely oversight by the Framers, we have no Separation Clause. We only have the Free Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause.


Of course, the teacher would have to be very careful to teach it as literature and not as truth.

Perhaps "not as fact" would be nearer the point. I daresay most literature teachers probably think of great literary works as indispensable sources of truth, and their task involves facilitating students' encounter with such truth.


And it's hard to think what could be more irrelevant to a public high school education than religion.

A subject like religion, any religion, is not suitable on the high school level.

I wonder if most college religious studies professors - or indeed in many areas of the humanities - would agree. A quick and non-scientific poll of two English professor friends of mine suggests that many of their students, despite having gotten into prestigious universities, have woefully inadequate familiarity with the Bible or with the major religious themes and narratives of Western thought. And these are the English majors.

Both of these professors (one at least semi-religious, one nonreligious) opined that, from their perspectives, it would be a boon for high school students to take a properly administered Bible-as-literature course.

And they have a point. As has often been noted in this forum, and as I specifically wrote (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1014903#post1014903) in a similar thread last year, "the vast majority of the Western artistic tradition is in some way responsive to the Bible. Indeed, the Bible has had such a profound influence on Western civilization - art, literature, history, philosophy, jurisprudence - that it's unrealistic to aspire to any comprehensive understanding of such things in the absence of a deep familiarity with the Bible." And someone who shows up at university with a good grounding in the subject - whether gleaned from a high school course or independently - will certainly be better off than many of the poor students in my friends' English courses.

There's no doubt that a potentially serious cultural literacy problem has been identified; query whether courses of the sort proposed by the New Braunfels school district are the best way to address it.

[Skeptical Greg]

It would be a great opportunity to show young impressionable minds, what a bunch of crap it is..

But that probably won't happen...


Imagine the outrage if little Johnny came home talking about all the raping, pillaging and disemboweling of those disgusting Philistines...

Or maybe that hilarious story about Jesus getting pi$$ed at a fig tree..

[CFLarsen]

Learning about the Bible's influence doesn't mean your hypothetical student would have to give up anything, since "elective" doesn't mean it is a required class.

Newton comes to mind as an example of a student who studied the Bible (heck, most of his writing is on the Bible) and turned out pretty good (understatement of the century) in math related subjects.

What do you think should be tossed out in favor of a Bible class?

A biology class? A physics class? A math class?

You have X classes during a semester. When you add a class, you have to take another out.

Something's gotta go. What class did you have in mind?

[rharbers]

What do you think should be tossed out in favor of a Bible class?
Something's gotta go. What class did you have in mind?

Study Hall.

[Pyrrho]

The textbook was specifically planned for such courses.

http://www.bibleliteracy.org/Site/index2.htm

Watch the tail wag the dog.

[CJW]

I'm again' it. But look at it this way - I didn't have any major problems with religion until I took theology at my (admittedly Catholic) high school. 'We're supposed to believe WHAT?' That was the end of religion for me.

Hey, me too! Although the final straw for me was the World religions class. I figured they can't all be true, so none of them are.

Chris

[Jon.]

Hmm part of me wants to agree with the last couple of posts. Part of me wants to say "hmm, yeah that could be an interesting learning experience if it is kept secular".

Then the other part of me is saying, "Come on people... it's Texas".

Aye, there's the rub.

Ifit's kept secular, it's fine. But I doubt very much that it will be. I will follow the story with interest.

[TragicMonkey]

I wonder if most college religious studies professors - or indeed in many areas of the humanities - would agree. A quick and non-scientific poll of two English professor friends of mine suggests that many of their students, despite having gotten into prestigious universities, have woefully inadequate familiarity with the Bible or with the major religious themes and narratives of Western thought. And these are the English majors.

Both of these professors (one at least semi-religious, one nonreligious) opined that, from their perspectives, it would be a boon for high school students to take a properly administered Bible-as-literature course.

And they have a point. As has often been noted in this forum, and as I specifically wrote (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1014903#post1014903) in a similar thread last year, "the vast majority of the Western artistic tradition is in some way responsive to the Bible. Indeed, the Bible has had such a profound influence on Western civilization - art, literature, history, philosophy, jurisprudence - that it's unrealistic to aspire to any comprehensive understanding of such things in the absence of a deep familiarity with the Bible." And someone who shows up at university with a good grounding in the subject - whether gleaned from a high school course or independently - will certainly be better off than many of the poor students in my friends' English courses.

There's no doubt that a potentially serious cultural literacy problem has been identified; query whether courses of the sort proposed by the New Braunfels school district are the best way to address it.

Oh, I agree that a critical study of the religion is necessary to an understanding of Western Civ, both history and literature, and also art, and certainly philosophy.

But I think it's not appropriate for the high school level because in high school, academic freedom is not championed. Professor A can tear up Christ all he wants: he's a college professor, and has tenure, and in college that sort of thing is expected. High School Teacher B, however, would find herself in a hellstorm of controversy, suspended from her job, and a media feeding frenzy surrounding school board denunciations, town hall meetings, threats of violence, and politicians and lawyers and parents rioting in the streets.

And that's just the teachers. High school does not encourage students to challenge the status quo, argue with the teacher, or even to really think critically. It should, but it doesn't. High school is about passing classes, getting the important things on your transcript, and scoring high on standardized tests so you can get into a college where you'll finally be free to actually take an active role in your education, rather than sit there and parrot back what the teacher and the text book say. If a high school student challenges the teacher's interpretation of anything, he's liable to be disciplined as well as earn failing grades, and that would jeopardize his future chances of college admission and scholarship money.

And, of course, since public high schools are run by the government, and attendance is compulsory unless you're in a private school, you run the whole obstacle course of state (and now federal, how did that happen?) oversight and regulations and control and observation. It would be a thousand times the pain to attempt such a course in a public high school, whereas it's as easy as Joan Collins in college.

eta: As for the college professor complaining about the quality of education in high schools, well, the college admissions policies are what drives that. If Pretentious University wants critical thinkers and not just grade-grubbers, why the hell does their admissions board care for nothing but SAT scores and the GPA? They're getting what they ask for. If they don't think the students are properly educated, well, isn't it their job to fix that?

[Renfield]

What do you think should be tossed out in favor of a Bible class?

A biology class? A physics class? A math class?

You have X classes during a semester. When you add a class, you have to take another out.

Something's gotta go. What class did you have in mind?

I vote for science or math classes. Everyone hates those anyway. And the asians can take care of science and innovation from here. they've beeon outdoing us for a while now anyway.

and its not like most of them will ever use that stuff.

[T'ai Chi]

A subject like religion, any religion, is not suitable on the high school level.


I think high-school students are quite intelligent enough to study religion and related topics.

From http://msnbc.msn.com/id/7656551/


In Big Spring, Texas, about 50 miles from Odessa, the public high school has offered elective Bible studies classes for more than six decades.


and


The Bible class will be taught as a history or literature course elective.


and


Vasquez also added that the class is likely to focus on the Bible’s impact on America’s founding fathers. It will also instruct on the influence of the Bible in art and culture. Geography of Middle Eastern countries could also be taught.


and


...over 1,100 public high schools in the United States currently use the councils’ developed curriculum for the study of the Bible at the high school level.

[Ducky]

Due to a likely oversight by the Framers, we have no Separation Clause. We only have the Free Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause.



Due to a likely oversight on my part I posted before checking to see if the word in my head was the correct one.

I apologise.

[TragicMonkey]

I think high-school students are quite intelligent enough to study religion and related topics.

It's not just a question of intelligence. It's also environment, training, experience, maturity, and skill.

[ceo_esq]

Due to a likely oversight on my part I posted before checking to see if the word in my head was the correct one.

I apologise.

Not to worry. If the Framers had included a Separation Clause, though, it might have saved some trouble later on.

[CFLarsen]

T'ai Chi,

What do you think should be tossed out in favor of a Bible class?

A biology class? A physics class? A math class?

You have X classes during a semester. When you add a class, you have to take another out.

Something's gotta go. What class did you have in mind?

[LawnOven]

T'ai Chi,

What do you think should be tossed out in favor of a Bible class?

A biology class? A physics class? A math class?

You have X classes during a semester. When you add a class, you have to take another out.

Something's gotta go. What class did you have in mind?

Maybe the biology class and this new religion class should be merged together to form some sort of new class; then everyone will be happy.

[CFLarsen]

Maybe the biology class and this new religion class should be merged together to form some sort of new class; then everyone will be happy.
In which case, you have acknowledged that Intelligent Design has scientific merit.

[LawnOven]

In which case, you have acknowledged that Intelligent Design has scientific merit.

What are you saying it doesn't?!

It was a joke :)



With this post I am halfway to evil! 333

[CFLarsen]

What are you saying it doesn't?!

It was a joke :)

I should hope so. :p

With this post I am halfway to evil! 333

Now that you mention it: Yes. :)

[LawnOven]

Seriously though, I think you have a point. Given the nature of the public school system, something would probably have to be cut. Quite frankly in light of that, 'religion class' can probably wait for college (and again this is Texas we are talking about, call me skeptical but...).

[LW]

The textbook was specifically planned for such courses.

That supposedly non-religious textbook is more Christian that the textbooks that we had in high school for our supposedly Lutheran religion classes.

A textbook about Bible as literacy without a mention of the question of its authorship? Non-religious? Yeah, right.

[Skeptical Greg]

Saw something in the news last night about some schools in Georgia looking at this same option..

I'll try to find a direct source...


I can't believe the Bible is even allowed in school libraries, with all the porn and violence in it.

[ceo_esq]

I can't believe the Bible is even allowed in school libraries, with all the porn and violence in it.

Ah, but now you're applying Georgia-style book-banning standards of the sort that result in challenges to Toni Morrison novels and such in public school libraries. Somehow the Bible gets a pass. In fairness, "porn" is too strong a term (and yes, I believe I'm familiar with the relevant passages).

[Skeptical Greg]

In fairness, "porn" is too strong a term (and yes, I believe I'm familiar with the relevant passages).

Well to paraphrase " I know it when I see it.. ", I know it when I read it ..


Substituting ' knew ' for f***ed , might move some to give it a pass though...

[Melendwyr]

How shall we characterize the Song of Solomon? If the language used is sufficiently flowery and elegant, does that change it from verbal porn to literature?

What if I expressed desire for my love's delectable breasts? What if I just said I wanted to feel her melon-sized gabongas?

Song of Solomon contains *both* kinds of writing. Is it literature or porn?

[slingblade]

T'ai Chi,

What do you think should be tossed out in favor of a Bible class?

A biology class? A physics class? A math class?

You have X classes during a semester. When you add a class, you have to take another out.

Something's gotta go. What class did you have in mind?


There are two types of classes in high school: required and elective. Room is always made in each student's schedule for a certain number of elective courses, usually one or two per semester. But the student has no choice about the required classes; he or she must take them in order to graduate.

Students are not allowed to substitute electives for core requirements. So what you're actually "giving up" is only some other elective course. There are far too many elective courses for any student to take them all, so you'll always be "missing" something, no matter what you choose.

[slingblade]

How shall we characterize the Song of Solomon? If the language used is sufficiently flowery and elegant, does that change it from verbal porn to literature?

What if I expressed desire for my love's delectable breasts? What if I just said I wanted to feel her melon-sized gabongas?

Song of Solomon contains *both* kinds of writing. Is it literature or porn?

My church(es) always taught that SoS was a song of religious devotion, and all the things about breasts and pretty rear-ends and such were just allegorical references to God.

Riiiiiiiight.

[Darat]

I thought most protestant bibles excluded The Wisdom of Solomon form the OT?

[drkitten]

Students are not allowed to substitute electives for core requirements. So what you're actually "giving up" is only some other elective course. There are far too many elective courses for any student to take them all, so you'll always be "missing" something, no matter what you choose.

Wrong end of the stick. It's not a question of fitting the courses in to the students' schedules, it's a question of fitting the courses into the teachers' schedules and the available resources.

The faculty is limited and so are the classrooms and textbooks. If Mrs. Throatwarbler-Mangrove is teaching "The Bible as Literature" during second period, she's obviously NOT teaching "Contemporary Film Studies" or "Geosciences" or "European History" during that time. Which means that students who are interested in European History don't get to take it at all, unless you hire another teacher, which costs money that most school districts don't have.

Every stupid elective you put into a curriculum is one less available intelligent elective. Of course, that cuts the other way, too -- every intelligent elective you put in is one less available stupid elective. That's the question being asked. What course are you willing to give up -- what would Mrs. T-W be teaching otherwise -- in order to offer "the Bible as Literature"?

[UnrepentantSinner]

The textbook was specifically planned for such courses.

http://www.bibleliteracy.org/Site/index2.htm

Watch the tail wag the dog.

I read an excerpt from the text in the Dallas Morning News. It was discussing the Bible and the Founding period and read like a cut and paste from David Barton's "Wallbuilders" website. I have problems with this with regard to the content, but I can't really object to it for legal reasons - despite the fact that I know it's a back door effort at evangelism, etc.

[geetarmoore]

Due to a likely oversight by the Framers, we have no Separation Clause. We only have the Free Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause.

I believe that the establishment clause is, in effect, the separation clause. Without separation, you have the beginnings of establishment. The framers were so serious about this issue that it was the very first thing in the bill of rights. If they just would have added that ONE friggin’ word, none of this craziness would even be possible…….:boggled:

As for this particular matter...

I am all for a historic study and evaluation of the bible in school.

The more people who study its development and history, the fewer Christians we will have as a result.....

I would not like to see a class that revolved around a non-secular text like the one shown above, however. Just a textbook with the facts, containing no spiritual bias.

The Georgia senate has just introduced a bill for the same type of class... I'd post a link to the news story, but I can't because I don't have enough posts yet... ;) You'll have to cut and paste, adding the www, change dot to .


macon dot com/mld/macon/news/politics/13657916.htm

[slingblade]

Wrong end of the stick. It's not a question of fitting the courses in to the students' schedules, it's a question of fitting the courses into the teachers' schedules and the available resources.

The faculty is limited and so are the classrooms and textbooks. If Mrs. Throatwarbler-Mangrove is teaching "The Bible as Literature" during second period, she's obviously NOT teaching "Contemporary Film Studies" or "Geosciences" or "European History" during that time. Which means that students who are interested in European History don't get to take it at all, unless you hire another teacher, which costs money that most school districts don't have.

Every stupid elective you put into a curriculum is one less available intelligent elective. Of course, that cuts the other way, too -- every intelligent elective you put in is one less available stupid elective. That's the question being asked. What course are you willing to give up -- what would Mrs. T-W be teaching otherwise -- in order to offer "the Bible as Literature"?

I know. There were (at least) two ways to look at the question, so I picked one: the student's schedule.

Talking about the school's curriculum, I still stand by the position that one can't teach everything, so as long as core classes aren't threatened, I'm not much concerned if Bible Lit is taught as an elective. I take exception to the notion that teaching the Bible as literature is stupid.

Without an understanding of the Bible, including its history and "sources," students cannot fully understand (comprehend, relate to, connect with, etc.) much classic western literature. I defy one to "get" Dante without ever having encountered the Bible, much less Chaucer, Shakespeare, Milton, etc.

To me, not having a Bible as Literature class is a lot like not teaching mythology just because those myths used to be someone's religion.

I mentioned this thread to one of my colleagues who is also atheist, and she informed me that our (non-Texas) school could also teach Bible as Literature if it desired, and that she wished it would. It would make her job generally easier, because she would no longer have to teach Bible as Literature while teaching classic literature.

IOW, it's already being done quietly in many HS classrooms, and some folks simply aren't aware.

[geetarmoore]

www.macon.com/mld/macon/news/politics/13657916.htm

I have over 15 posts now, so here is the link I talked about above.....:)


I have since downloaded the text book sample in PDF - what an absolute JOKE! If they tried to put this POS class in my local high school, I'd initiate the lawsuit myself. It's not even a thinly veiled attempt at evangelistic enterprises in public schools........It's right out in the open :mad:

[slingblade]

I thought most protestant bibles excluded The Wisdom of Solomon form the OT?

The Song of Solomon and the Wisdom of Solomon are two different books, aren't they? At any rate, the SoS is in every Prot Bible I've ever seen, but WoS isn't.

[Darat]

The Song of Solomon and the Wisdom of Solomon are two different books, aren't they? At any rate, the SoS is in every Prot Bible I've ever seen, but WoS isn't.

Of course - my mistake.

[slingblade]

Of course - my mistake.

:)

Say, totally OT, is your cat laughing at a joke you told, or one of his own? I hate it when my cat laughs harder at his own jokes than at mine. And his are always about dogs...it gets so old.

[Kopji]

The study resource that Pyrro linked to is a little over the top sometimes. The pdf does not allow quoting, but toward the end it has an odd paragraph about the Bible containing secret keys to meaning, and resulting in higher college entrance scores.

There are some things mentioned in the introduction I would call "religious". They come across as sort of "pay no attention to that man behind the curtain" statements. The comments on date reckoning are typical.

Otherwise I'm happy with kids knowing about the Bible. I worry a little about future unbelievers not knowing anything. The more the better. :)

[Achán hiNidráne]

What if I expressed desire for my love's delectable breasts? What if I just said I wanted to feel her melon-sized gabongas?

I'll be in my bunk.

[François Lesueur]

I fully agree, and I am a teacher of English, and an atheist who frankly has issues with religion in schools. But as long as they teach it as literature, or even as mythology, I'm fine with it.
Then you must also take issues with the secularism that is taught in our school system, for secularism is a religion also known as a belief system.

[TragicMonkey]

Then you must also take issues with the secularism that is taught in our school system, for secularism is a religion also known as a belief system.

No it's not.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=secularism

[slingblade]

Then you must also take issues with the secularism that is taught in our school system, for secularism is a religion also known as a belief system.

I must, must I?

I teach English. My main concern is that my students understand grammar, spelling, and punctuation, and that they can write reasonably well in both fiction and non-ficiton genres.

I don't teach religious skepticism or indifference. I don't have time, for one thing, and I'm not really allowed to teach religion pro or con, except as it occurs in mythology, which I also teach, along with American literature.
Today in Am Lit we begin Upton Sinclair's The Jungle.

I don't give a hang what my students or fellow teachers believe. As long as they don't try to force me to believe it, I'm happy to leave them in peace.

However, I am required by my district to teach critical thinking skills. I use Sagan's Baloney Detection Kit. My personal experience shows that critical thinking can possibly lead to a questioning of religious concepts. So would your suggestion be instead to teach them not to think?

Oh, dear, dilemmas and decisions.....

[FredFlash]

Freedom of religion is the total absence of any type of attempt by a human (as opposed to divine) authority, such as the government, to influence our opinions regarding the manner and methods we employ to discharge the duties that we owe to our Creator.

Fred

[Skeptic]

I'm sorry, but this is just the sort of thing that makes skeptic look aloof, elitist, and full of themselves.

The course is specifically aimed at teaching the bible as literature and history. I think it's an excellent idea because, among other things, it's perfectly clear that most fundamentalists are unaware of what the bible (both OT and NT) actually says. Having actually read the bible cover to cover, I discovered that virtually every famous bible story is far more detailed, complicated, and interesting than the "PG" version everybody knows about.

So what do people here say? Well, the first reaction is that a). It just has to take time and effort from really important stuff like math and science, and b). It's surely just a cover for religious indoctrinization, since it will be taught in Texas, and we know what those sort of people are like. All this without the slightest bit of evidence for either propostion.

Imagine, for a moment, that somebody said: "It's nice they want to teach science to kids in the inner city, but that will just take time away from things they really need to learn, like home economics and car repair; and besides, it will be taught by black people, and we all know they'll just use the science class to preach their belief in voodoo--you know what they're like!".

Sorry guys, but you're simply showing you are prejudiced snobs, that's all.

[Silly Green Monkey]

Actually, skeptic, if you'll read the thread you can see where posters have LOOKED at the book chosen for the class and found that it does not treat the Bible as a literary work.

Also, you might note that many APPROVE of the concept, excluding the religious textbook, because the Bible IS literature and classical literature teachers already teach it.

[ChristineR]

Who has looked at the textbook and found it did not treat the Bible as a literary work? I read the sample chapter and thought it was superficial. I doubt if the text will discuss Yahweh's place in the Babylonian pantheon and the evolution of monotheism, or Paul's co-opting the Messianic myths with Greek mysticism. Instead they'll be feel-good references to the symbolism of the rainbow and discussion of the conventions of the parable.

[drkitten]

I read the sample chapter and thought it was superficial. I doubt if the text will discuss Yahweh's place in the Babylonian pantheon and the evolution of monotheism, or Paul's co-opting the Messianic myths with Greek mysticism. Instead they'll be feel-good references to the symbolism of the rainbow and discussion of the conventions of the parable.

Well, let's be fair here. It is a high school class. I don't think I've seen any literature discussions in high school curricula that weren't superficial.

[BJQ87]

Trustee Jorge Maldonado reminded audience members that the course is meant to teach about religion, not teach religion.

"The intent and purpose of the course is clearly defined and already established to be in compliance with the First Amendment," he said. "The goal of the course is to teach religion in a way that is purely academic and not devotional."

Bri- If it is purely academic and not devotional, then it is teaching about religion. They are the same statement worded differently.

[Zbu]

I'm sorry, but this is just the sort of thing that makes skeptic look aloof, elitist, and full of themselves.

The course is specifically aimed at teaching the bible as literature and history. I think it's an excellent idea because, among other things, it's perfectly clear that most fundamentalists are unaware of what the bible (both OT and NT) actually says. Having actually read the bible cover to cover, I discovered that virtually every famous bible story is far more detailed, complicated, and interesting than the "PG" version everybody knows about.

So what do people here say? Well, the first reaction is that a). It just has to take time and effort from really important stuff like math and science, and b). It's surely just a cover for religious indoctrinization, since it will be taught in Texas, and we know what those sort of people are like. All this without the slightest bit of evidence for either propostion.

Imagine, for a moment, that somebody said: "It's nice they want to teach science to kids in the inner city, but that will just take time away from things they really need to learn, like home economics and car repair; and besides, it will be taught by black people, and we all know they'll just use the science class to preach their belief in voodoo--you know what they're like!".

Sorry guys, but you're simply showing you are prejudiced snobs, that's all.

Or we're just not good at showing our distrust, or we simply don't have the guts to say 'I don't trust these people at all because so far all they've done is to promote Christianity and would like any foothold at all--even outright lying--to get us to go along with their mental crutch.'

The black people reference you make is not wholly accurate: we know there are several people in the Southern United States who want to promote Christianity at any cost. This is not a stereotype, this is a known fact. If anything, you have us on terms of phasing. Generalization about skin color is one thing, and this is merely pointing out that a lot of people who like conning other people into religion under the guise of something else isn't exactly.

[Renfield]

I fully agree, and I am a teacher of English, and an atheist who frankly has issues with religion in schools. But as long as they teach it as literature, or even as mythology, I'm fine with it.
What are the chances of that really happening, in the bible belt especially?

[Renfield]

I'm sorry, but this is just the sort of thing that makes skeptic look aloof, elitist, and full of themselves.


Sorry guys, but you're simply showing you are prejudiced snobs, that's all.

No, you sound like a dupe (if you consider yourself a skeptic, that is).

This whole thing is coming from the Christian right. Do you really think they want students studying the bible from a comparative religion perspective, or as mythology. The whole goddammed thing is going to be an apologetics course, with some lip service to impartiality thrown in there in order to get it past the courts.

[geetarmoore]

No, you sound like a dupe (if you consider yourself a skeptic, that is).

This whole thing is coming from the Christian right. Do you really think they want students studying the bible from a comparative religion perspective, or as mythology. The whole goddammed thing is going to be an apologetics course, with some lip service to impartiality thrown in there in order to get it past the courts.


Truth!.

Just read the sample PDF of the textbook.

It isn't study of the bible. It's bible study. Yes, there is a difference.

[FredFlash]

What is "an establishment of religion?"

Fred

[geetarmoore]

What is "an establishment of religion?"

Fred


That seems pretty clear to me.

It's when the Government outlays funds for or creates policy that has anything to do with religions view. Putting 'In God we Trust' on a coin is establishment.

The framers found it pretty important too, as It is the first thing in the bill of rights, article 1.

Before freedom of speech, before free press, before assembly and petition, etc.

[ChristineR]

Yeah, Bible study with the emphasis on the fact that people quote the Bible all the time without even knowing it. They go out of their way to say that non-Christians still can read and understand the Bible. The problem I have with it all is that I'm sure they aren't going to be giving the whole thing context, or rather, they will be giving the selective context of modern American fundamentalist Christianity.

For instance, I assume they will read the ten commandments story. Will they discuss why the Israelites felt the need to build a golden calf? Will they discuss why they had a ritual orgy? Will they point out the various and sundry ways violations of the ten commandments are built into Christian practice? Will they discuss the revised ten commandments, which basically say "Stop worshipping calves!" and have no moral worth at all?

[FredFlash]

[QUOTE=geetarmoore;1512892]That seems pretty clear to me.

It's when the Government outlays funds for or creates policy that has anything to do with religions view.

What is "religions view?"

Fred

[geetarmoore]

[QUOTE=geetarmoore;1512892]That seems pretty clear to me.

It's when the Government outlays funds for or creates policy that has anything to do with religions view.

What is "religions view?"

Fred


What is anything, really, Fred? :confused:

[FredFlash]

[QUOTE=FredFlash;1513006]

What is anything, really, Fred? :confused:

So when you said, "It's when the Government outlays funds for or creates policy that has anything to do with religions view" you really meant "...policy that has anything to do with anthing"

Are you an anarchist?

Fred Von Flash

[geetarmoore]

[QUOTE=geetarmoore;1513011]

So when you said, "It's when the Government outlays funds for or creates policy that has anything to do with religions view" you really meant "...policy that has anything to do with anthing"

Are you an anarchist?

Fred Von Flash

:rolleyes:

[slingblade]

<poke, poke> Ask him if he still beats his wife. G'head, ask him.

[FredFlash]

The United States Was Founded As A Heathen Nation That Disowned God

The evildoers who got the motto IN GOD WE TRUST impressed on the United State’s coins despised the men who established our system of government and considered men like James Madison to be heathens who disowned God. The evil ones were successful largely because of the increase in Counterfeit Christian sentiment that existed during and after the Civil War.

A Rev. M.R. Watkinson, who was part of a larger campaign waged by a coalition of eleven Protestant denominations, disenchanted with the exemption of religion from the cognizance of government and hoping to make some changes, wrote a letter to the Secretary of the Treasury Samuel P. Chase in 1861. Secretary Chase was an advocate of government authority over religion and received other appeals from Counterfeit Christians throughout the country, urging that the United States recognize the Deity on United States coins. Rev. Watkinson’s letter dated November 13, 1861 read:

Dear Sir:

You are about to submit your annual report to the Congress respecting the affairs of the national finances. One fact touching our currency has hitherto been seriously overlooked.

I mean the recognition of the Almighty God in some form on our coins.
You are probably a Christian. What if our Republic were not shattered beyond reconstruction? Would not the antiquaries of succeeding centuries rightly reason from our past that we were a heathen nation? (He just accused the noble men who established our system of government of being heathens)

What I propose is that instead of the goddess of liberty we shall have next inside the 13 stars a ring inscribed with the words PERPETUAL UNION; within the ring the allseeing eye, crowned with a halo; beneath this eye the American flag, bearing in its field stars equal to the number of the States united; in the folds of the bars the words GOD, LIBERTY, LAW.

This would make a beautiful coin, to which no possible citizen could object. (It was with a kiss that Judas betrayed his divine Master; and we should all be admonished -- no matter what our faith may be -- that the rights of conscience cannot be so successfully assailed as under the pretext of holiness)


This would relieve us from the ignominy of heathenism. (He again charges the founding fathers of heathenism) This would place us openly under the Divine protection we have personally claimed. From my hearth I have felt our national shame in disowning God (Separating civil authority from the duty that we are to render only to God, as we wre directed to do by the Savior in the holy scriptures, is distorted by this evil pervert into a disowning of God) as not the least of our present national disasters.

To you first I address a subject that must be agitated.

The United States was deprived of any right to claim it was a genuine Christian Nation when the American people did not take up the terrible swift sword and extirpate the wicked government stooges who passed the 1860's bill that authorized the government to declare the people’s trust in God on the nation’s coins. The people might just as well have sworn allegiance to the Devil and worshiped in the Temple of Satan.

FVF