E-N: Study shows Texas high school Bible courses as sectarian, not academic [Archive]

View Full Version : E-N: Study shows Texas high school Bible courses as sectarian, not academic

boutons_

09-12-2006, 10:06 PM

September 12, 2006

Study shows Texas high school Bible courses as sectarian, not academic

Lisa Sandberg
Express-News Austin Bureau

AUSTIN — The majority of Bible courses offered as electives in Texas high schools are devotional and sectarian in nature, not academic, as required by a host of rulings from the U.S. Supreme Court on down, a study says.

"With a few notable exceptions, the public school courses currently taught in Texas often fail to meet minimal academic standards for teacher qualifications; curriculum, and academic rigor; promote one faith perspective over all others; and push an ideological agenda that is hostile to religious freedom, science and public education," states the yearlong study by the Austin-based Texas Freedom Network that will be made public Wednesday.

The 76-page report, titled "Reading, Writing and Religion: Teaching the Bible in Texas Public Schools," is one of the most ambitious looks ever at the Bible courses that have sprouted up in the nation's public high schools.

The report was a joint effort by Mark Chancey, a biblical studies professor at Southern Methodist University, and the Education Fund of the Texas Freedom Network, or TFN, a group that works to counter the religious right. The report was endorsed by at least eight mostly religious scholars from around the country.

The findings are sure to re-ignite a culture war as officials of some districts vowed to stick with their Bible courses as is, regardless of outside criticism.

"When do you stop asking the same questions," said Mike Adkins, spokesman for the Ector Independent School District, which includes the city of Odessa and which this year added a Bible elective based on the much disputed National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools.

"We're comfortable with the curriculum. Our board of trustees have heard the arguments," he added.

Over the course of the year, TFN surveyed the 1,000-plus school districts in Texas to learn which offered Bible electives. Chancey then analyzed the curriculums, going back five years, from 25 districts — roughly 3 percent of the total — that offered them as electives in 2005-2006.

Among the findings:

The vast majority of Texas Bible courses, despite their titles, do not teach about the Bible in a historical or literary context, as required under state law. Instead, the electives tend to be explicitly devotional in nature and reflect an almost exclusively Christian (usually Protestant) perspective.

The Bible is often presented as being divinely inspired and biblical stories treated as literal history.

Most Bible courses in Texas are taught by teachers who have no academic training in biblical, religious or theological studies and, it appears, little familiarity with separation of church-state issues. Some districts bring in local clergy to teach their Bible courses and fund them with private money.

The report cited three exceptions: San Antonio's North East Independent School District and the Leander and Whiteface independent school districts, all of which presented material in a far more neutral manner.

Kathy Miller, TFN's president, said her group did not initiate its yearlong project because it opposed the teaching of the Bible in schools. On the contrary, she said.

"We stand with parents who believe that the Bible is a great way to teach students about the importance of religion in history and literature. But we think pressure groups have hijacked a good idea and the end result is that these courses can betray families' faith in our public schools by teaching courses with a narrow religious perspective above all others," Miller said.

Courts have been consistent on the issue of religion in the public schools, legal experts say: public schools can teach about religion, but they can't offer religious instruction.

But few seem to be monitoring how the Bible is presented in the nation's public schools.

Texas officials don't know which districts offer Bible electives and do not monitor content, said Debbie Ratcliffe, spokeswoman for the Texas Education Agency. Texas schools can offer Bible courses only as electives and must avoid proselytizing, Radcliffe said. To count toward state graduation credit, the course must either be taught as a special topic in social studies or in literature.

TFN's study includes urban, suburban and rural districts, from West Texas' Big Spring, which began offering its bible course in 1932 — pretty much unchanged, officials there have said — to Brazosport, outside Houston, which began offering its course in 1999.

Officials in some districts contacted stood their ground. Others were more guarded.

Stuart Dornburg, spokesman for the Brazosport Independent School District, said he couldn't comment other than to say the district was offering a Bible studies course.

Brady Independent School District Superintendent Steve McCarn said: "This does not serve as a proselytizing course," and added that no one locally had expressed any concerns.

Miller said she knew of no lawsuits pending over the teaching of Bible classes in Texas schools. She hoped the TFN report would give districts the opportunity to avoid them.

[email protected]

http://www.mysanantonio.com/specials/weblogs/breaking/2006/09/study_shows_texas_high_school.html

boutons_

09-12-2006, 10:24 PM

Where are the equal-opportunity elective courses Judaism, Hinduism, Mohammedism, Catholicism?

PixelPusher

09-12-2006, 11:23 PM

I've never subsribed to the strident ACLU position of "no bibles allowed, period", since the bible is a piece of literature worth some measure of acknowledgement, if not study, simply for it's long standing influence on western culture, but this does validate their slippery slope theory about religion in schools.

Phenomanul

09-12-2006, 11:33 PM

Key word...

...Elective.... NO one is forced into taking it.

boutons_

09-12-2006, 11:47 PM

Public, secular school taxes should not be paying for religious teaching.

The churches have enough money and their own responsbility for teaching their sect's teachings.

Phenomanul

09-12-2006, 11:54 PM

Public, secular school taxes should not be paying for religious teaching.

The churchs have enough money and their own responsbility for teaching their sect's teachings.

Predictable...

OK so divy up the percentage of those funds that are coming from 'religious' people... Oh what? You can't... that's right, the public is composed of an amalgamate heterogeneous mixture of beliefs and credences... and hence public funds, excised indescriminantly on all, including people of faith like myself, end up funding a mixture of programs...

You aren't entitled to get any madder than someone like myself, for believing that our 'portions' in said funds are going into programs that don't fall in line with our respective beliefs....

Phenomanul

09-12-2006, 11:56 PM

the username which shall not be repeated?

Sssssshhhhhhhhh. I'm trying to keep a low profile lest people from work stumble on to the site and assume that I'm slacking off.

I happen to multi-task very well.

PLEASE remove the reference... thanks.

boutons_

09-12-2006, 11:58 PM

Phenomanul

09-13-2006, 12:06 AM

coming from 'religious' people

the public schools teach non-religious subjects and have NO responsiblity for also paying for religious teaching at religous schools.

if you want religious teaching, start your own fucking school and teach whatever the fuck you want. Cathoics have been doing that forever AND paying property taxes to pay for school their kids don't attend.

SO rather than address the establishment clause double standard... your response, "deal with it, and pay up".

For all your lobbying, and ranting about the unfairness of this and that... baloney!!... you're nothing more than a hypocrite extremist. You can't have it both ways.

BTW there are several evangelical schools out there as well. The point was that the classes were "electives"... you do realize what electives are, yes? The government can't be imposing religion on anybody if that person has been given the right to choose...

ChumpDumper

09-13-2006, 02:54 AM

MannyIsGod

09-13-2006, 03:24 AM

A class being an elective is irrelevant.

boutons_

09-13-2006, 05:15 AM

johnsmith

09-13-2006, 07:09 AM

Since you benighted Bible-thumpers interpret the Bible whichever way your pastor/faux prophet pleases, I can interpret "Render unto Caesar... " as a clear definition of separation of Church and State, right from the Horse's mouth.

So much hostility towards organized religion. I've never understood this. Yes, damn near every war throughout the history of the world was either fought soley because of a religion or at least had some religious undertones to it, but where would we be without religion? There would have been/would be utter chaos. Humans would not hold themselves responsible for their actions, science would not progress at the rate at which it has (since many science advancements and theories exist for the sole purpose of disproving religion), communities would falter, etc.
I agree, religion has no place being taught at public schools, that's why we have private religious institutions, but who the fuck cares if someone chooses to have faith or not? You throw around "bible thumpers" to describe people that have a faith in something that can't be proven and you call them close-minded (or at least you imply this) and you act as if they are immoral or wrong because they believe in something. I find this hilarious since you offer only one side of the story on every issue you "discuss" and you refuse to listen or even acknowledge that the other side of the story has merit and value as well. In the end, whether there is a God or not, it's how you lived your life that matters, were you open to ideas and the interpretation of these ideas or were you close-minded and only believed in yourself? You must be a lonely guy Boutons to only have yourself in the end.

Phenomanul

09-13-2006, 07:59 AM

The point was that the classes were "electives"

The point is you're a dumbfuck. Not forcing students, the course being elective, doesn't change that public tax money (teachers, classrooms,etc) is being spent to teach courses of a single sect. The school is favoring a single sect. The "Christian" taxpayers wouldn't be figting so hard, nor be so unconcerned, to hire and pay teachers of Muslim, of even "Christian" FDLS, or Catholicism.

If you don't like the laws, get the Constitution changed.

Since you benighted Bible-thumpers interpret the Bible whichever way your pastor/faux prophet pleases, I can interpret "Render unto Caesar... " as a clear definition of separation of Church and State, right from the Horse's mouth.

I would address the fallacy of your last comment, and your inherent misunderstanding of Jesus' quote.... but frankly, your posts are all beginning to look like:

Blah blah blah.... blah blah... blah... blah!!! Blah %#%$& blah....

It's tiring trying to have a sane discussion with someone who is acutely bitter. You don't have to agree with my views, in fact the discussion doesn't require it; but you have shown to be incapable of temperance and respect... electing instead to resort to your typical hate-filled rants....

Mr. Peabody

09-13-2006, 08:08 AM

but where would we be without religion? There would have been/would be utter chaos. Humans would not hold themselves responsible for their actions, science would not progress at the rate at which it has (since many science advancements and theories exist for the sole purpose of disproving religion), communities would falter, etc.

Bullshit. Just because teachings regarding morality have traditionally been delivered in the form of religion does not necessarily mean that there wouldn't/couldn't have been morality in the absence of religion. Some form of morality is a necessary component of society and would have developed regardless of of the existence of religion.

johnsmith

09-13-2006, 08:09 AM

Bullshit. Just because teachings regarding morality have traditionally been delivered in the form of religion does not necessarily mean that there wouldn't/couldn't have been morality in the absence of religion. Some form of morality is a necessary component of society and would have developed regardless of of the existence of religion.

But morality didn't develop without the existence of religion, therefore your point is mute.

Mr. Peabody

09-13-2006, 08:12 AM

But morality didn't develop without the existence of religion, therefore your point is mute.

That's irrelevant. You are equating "did not" with "could not."

johnsmith

09-13-2006, 08:13 AM

Look, I'm not trying to argue the necessity of religion, if that's the way I came across, then I didn't mean too. What I was trying to get across is my confusion on the topic of people like Boutons and there hatred of people with faith. Even the phrase "people with faith" makes me cringe a little because every one has faith in something, it doesn't have to be religion. I may agree or disagree with certain religions, or all religions, but I don't find anything wrong with any of them.

johnsmith

09-13-2006, 08:15 AM

That's irrelevant. You are equating "did not" with "could not."

Then your argument is also irrelevant in those terms because you are expressing an impossible to prove theory, that without religion, morality would have developed.

johnsmith

09-13-2006, 08:15 AM

Then your argument is also irrelevant in those terms because you are expressing an impossible to prove theory, that without religion, morality would have developed.

But see, there I go back to that, everyone has faith in something.

johnsmith

09-13-2006, 08:16 AM

I'm throwing around too many commas.

Mr. Peabody

09-13-2006, 08:16 AM

But morality didn't develop without the existence of religion, therefore your point is mute.

Also, you haven't really stated what you mean by religion. In the East, their religion is more of a philosophy than an organized religion and I don't think you can say that they are immoral.

Mr. Peabody

09-13-2006, 08:18 AM

Then your argument is also irrelevant in those terms because you are expressing an impossible to prove theory, that without religion, morality would have developed.

Also, you haven't really stated what you mean by religion. In the East, some the "religion" is more of a life philosophy than an organized religion (as the west thinks of religion) and again, I don't think you can say that they are immoral.

johnsmith

09-13-2006, 08:18 AM

In the East they have "philosophies" for the most part and yes, they are not really considered religion. They are in fact extremely organized however and I think one could easily characterize them in the same category as a religion. However, for arguments sake, you are correct, they are not religions, so from here on out, I'll categorize everyone as a philosophy rather then a religion so as not to offend anyone. Besides, that's essentially what they all are, philosophies.

Mr. Peabody

09-13-2006, 08:21 AM

Mr. Peabody

09-13-2006, 08:22 AM

But see, there I go back to that, everyone has faith in something.

I agree. But I don't think that the faith needs to be in a deity. It could be that you have faith in your community and that's why you adhere to moral tenets.

Anyway, I think we are arguing the same point from different angles. If I misunderstood your orginal argument and seemed hostile, I apologize.

Phenomanul

09-13-2006, 08:23 AM

Sure it's an elective, but if it's not teaching the way the Supreme Court determined it should teach, it needs to change. Offering only Judeo-Christian courses is pretty small-minded in itself.

Could it be that maybe the students have chosen to want to learn from that specific subject?

I wanted to take thermodynamics in High School... was it available, No.

I wanted to take a course on organic chemistry in High School... was it available, No.

Not enough demand and no one to teach them.

So people want to take a course on the History of the Bible... big deal? right. Nevermind the fact that our history curriculae is filled with many misrepresented facts (when regarding Christianity)... nevermind the historical omissions of how certain Christians have positively impacted our world... No, we musn't show that; it doesn't jive with everybody's beliefs. Well guess what? Nothing jives with everybody's beliefs anymore... America is comprised out of a myriad of beliefs. Yet somehow Christianity is always the target of systematic eradication policies...

So what would happen if someone sparked a movement to eliminate the undue and unfair 'public school' tax that is levied on all property owners without regard for their beliefs? Why should I pay taxes to fund curriculae that I find incomplete and inaccurate? Would people like boutons_ accept that fight as a logical one? Probably not, his above inclinations have already proven his very one sided stance.

A comparative course showing Christianity isn't the only game in town would be much more useful for schoolkids.
I agree. Eitherway, study of the other world's religions is not on demand around here.

johnsmith

09-13-2006, 08:27 AM

Well, if your argument is that without some form of moral philosophy society would collapse, then I agree with you. As I stated, I think morality is necessary to a society.

I think we are in more of an agreement then we thought then. The only way that mine differs is that I think it was religions/philosophies that this morality was born from. Whether or not that is true is obviously damn near impossible to prove but if I could go back in time to college and research and write a thesis on it, I would........who am I kidding, I would still just drink a lot.

Really, my point in the end is that I don't think there is anything wrong with religion and I don't understand why people without, ooh, here's a good one that covers all bases, "religious philosophies" think so negatively about it. I personally am not all that religious, I go to church on Sundays, believe what I choose to believe but I acknowledge that there are a whole lot of "flaws" in the system, but it doesn't make all those around me on Sundays bad people as Boutons would have one believe.

johnsmith

09-13-2006, 08:28 AM

I agree. But I don't think that the faith needs to be in a deity. It could be that you have faith in your community and that's why you adhere to moral tenets.

Anyway, I think we are arguing the same point from different angles. If I misunderstood your orginal argument and seemed hostile, I apologize.

No, I think my original argument said some things I hadn't really intended. And I fully agree, "faith in your community" is something that is highly underrated.

Mr. Peabody

09-13-2006, 08:30 AM

So people want to take a course on the History of the Bible... big deal? right. Nevermind the fact that our history curriculae is filled with misrepresentation of the facts (when regarding Christianity)... nevermind the omissions of how certain Christians have positively impacted our world... No, we musn't show that; it doesn't jive with everybody's beliefs. Well guess what? Nothing jives with everybody's beliefs anymore... America is comprised out of a myriad of beliefs. Yet somehow Christianity is always the target of systematic eradication policies...

I agree. I think a "History of the Bible" or "Bible as Literature" course would be beneficial to students. As another poster said, the Bible is one of the most influential literary works in the world, so why not teach it. However, when you have teachers that can't approach the subject from a purely "academic" mindset, and evidently, many of them cannot, then the courses become a sermon and we can't have that in public schools.

johnsmith

09-13-2006, 08:32 AM

Oh, and Boutons is a douche bag.
That is the first subject I've ever thought of that I will absolutely never change my mind on, Boutons is definately a douche bag.

Extra Stout

09-13-2006, 08:35 AM

"It is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. . . . Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects? That the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for the support of any one establishment, may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?" --James Madison

Phenomanul

09-13-2006, 08:39 AM

Extra Stout

09-13-2006, 08:46 AM

Is that all the context of the quote ES?

To the Honorable the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia

Memorial and Remonstrance

We the subscribers, citizens of the said Commonwealth, having taken into serious consideration, a Bill printed by order of the last Session of General Assembly, entitled "A Bill establishing a provision for Teachers of the Christian Religion," and conceiving that the same if finally armed with the sanctions of a law, will be a dangerous abuse of power, are bound as faithful members of a free State to remonstrate against it, and to declare the reasons by which we are determined. We remonstrate against the said Bill,

1. Because we hold it for a fundamental and undeniable truth, "that religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence." The Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate.

This right is in its nature an unalienable right. It is unalienable, because the opinions of men, depending only on the evidence contemplated by their own minds cannot follow the dictates of other men: It is unalienable also, because what is here a right towards men, is a duty towards the Creator.

It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage and such only as he believes to be acceptable to him. This duty is precedent, both in order of time and in degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society. Before any man can be considered as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governor of the Universe: And if a member of Civil Society, do it with a saving of his allegiance to the Universal Sovereign.

We maintain therefore that in matters of Religion, no man's right is abridged by the institution of Civil Society and that Religion is wholly exempt from its cognizance. True it is, that no other rule exists, by which any question which may divide a Society, can be ultimately determined, but the will of the majority; but it is also true that the majority may trespass on the rights of the minority.

2. Because Religion be exempt from the authority of the Society at large, still less can it be subject to that of the Legislative Body. The latter are but the creatures and vicegerents of the former. Their jurisdiction is both derivative and limited: it is limited with regard to the co-ordinate departments, more necessarily is it limited with regard to the constituents.

The preservation of a free Government requires not merely, that the metes and bounds which separate each department of power be invariably maintained; but more especially that neither of them be suffered to overleap the great Barrier which defends the rights of the people. The Rulers who are guilty of such an encroachment, exceed the commission from which they derive their authority, and are Tyrants. The People who submit to it are governed by laws made neither by themselves nor b y an authority derived from them, and are slaves.

3. Because it is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. We hold this prudent jealousy to be the first duty of Citizens, and one of the noblest characteristics of the late Revolution. The free men of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entagled the question in precedents. They saw all the consequences in the principle, and they avoided the consequences by denying the principle. We revere this lesson too much soon to forget it.

Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects? that the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for the support of any one establishment, may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?

4. Because the Bill violates the equality which ought to be the basis of every law, and which is more indispensable, in proportion as the validity or expediency of any law is more liable to be impeached. If "all men are by nature equally free and independent," all men are to be considered as entering into Society on equal conditions; as relinquishing no more, and therefore retaining no less, one than another, of their natural rights.

Above all are they to be considered as retaining an "equal title to the free exercise of Religion according to the dictates of Conscience." Whilst we assert for ourselves a freedom to embrace, to profess and to observe the Religion which we believe to be of divine origin, we cannot deny an equal freedom to those whose minds have not yet yielded to the evidence which has convinced us.

If this freedom be abused, it is an offence against God, not against man: To God, therefore, not to man, must an account of it be rendered. As the Bill violates equality by subjecting some to peculiar burdens, so it violates the same principle, by granting to others peculiar exemptions. Are the quakers and Menonists the only sects who think a compulsive support of their Religions unnecessary and unwarrantable? can their piety alone be entrusted with the care of public worship? Ought their Religions to be endowed above all others with extraordinary privileges by which proselytes may be enticed from all others?

We think too favorably of the justice and good sense of these denominations to believe that they either covet pre-eminences over their fellow citizens or that they will be seduced by them from the common opposition to the measure.

5. Because the Bill implies either that the Civil Magistrate is a competent Judge of Religious Truth; or that he may employ Religion as an engine of Civil policy. The first is an arrogant pretension falsified by the contradictory opinions of Rulers in all ages, and throughout the world: the second an unhallowed perversion of the means of salvation.

6. Because the establishment proposed by the Bill is not requisite for the support of the Christian Religion. To say that it is, is a contradiction to the Christian Religion itself, for every page of it disavows a dependence on the powers of this world: it is a contradiction to fact; for it is known that this Religion both existed and flourished, not only without the support of human laws , but in spite of every opposition from them, and not only during the period of miraculous aid, but long after it had been left to its own evidence and the ordinary care of Providence.

Nay, it is a contradiction in terms; for a Religion not invented by human policy, must have pre-existed and been supported, before it was established by human policy. It is moreover to weaken in those who profess this Religion a pious confidence in its innate excellence and the patronage of its Author; and to foster in those who still reject it, a suspicion that its friends are too conscious of its fallacies to trust it to its own merits.

7. Because experience witnesseth that ecclesiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of Religion, have had a contrary operation.

During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution. Enquire of the Teachers of Christianity for the ages in which it appeared in its greatest luster; those of every sect, point to the ages prior to its incorporation with Civil policy.

Propose a restoration of this primitive State in which its Teachers depended on the voluntary rewards of their flocks, many of them predict its downfall. On which Side ought their testimony to have greatest weight, when for or when against their interest?

8. Because the establishment in question is not necessary for the support of Civil Government. If it be urged as necessary for the support of Civil Government only as it is a means of supporting Religion, and it be not necessary for the latter purpose, it cannot be necessary for the former. If Religion be not within the cognizance of Civil Government how can its legal establishment be necessary to Civil Government? What influence in fact have ecclesiastical establishments had on Civil Society?

In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the Civil authority; in many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny: in no instance have they been seen the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty, may have found an established Clergy convenient auxiliaries.

A just Government instituted to secure & perpetuate it needs them not. Such a Government will be best supported by protecting every Citizen in the enjoyment of his Religion with the same equal hand which protects his person and his property; by neither invading the equal rights of any Sect, nor suffering any Sect to invade those of another.

9. Because the proposed establishment is a departure from the generous policy, which, offering an Asylum to the persecuted and oppressed of every Nation and Religion, promised a luster to our country, and an accession to the number of its citizens. What a melancholy mark is the Bill of sudden degeneracy? Instead of holding forth an Asylum to the persecuted, it is itself a signal of persecution.

It degrades from the equal rank of Citizens all those who see opinions in Religion do not bend to those of the Legislative authority. Distant as it may be in its present form from the Inquisition, it differs from it only in degree. The one is the first step, the other the last in the career of intolerance. The magnanimous sufferer under this cruel scourge in foreign Regions, must view the Bill as a Beacon on our Coast, warning him to seek some other haven, where liberty and philanthrophy in their due extent, may offer a more certain respose from his Troubles.

10. Because it will have a like tendency to banish our Citizens. The allurements presented by other situations are every day thinning their number. To superadd a fresh motive to emigration by revoking the liberty which they now enjoy, would be the same species of folly which has dishonored and depopulated flourishing kingdoms.

11. Because it will destroy that moderation and harmony which the forbearance of our laws to intermeddle with Religion has produced among its several sects. Torrents of blood have been split in the old world, by vain attempts of the secular arm, to extinguish Religious disscord, by proscribing all difference in Religious opinion. Time has at length revealed the true remedy. Every relaxation of narrow and rigorous policy, wherever it has been tried, has been found to assuage the disease.

The American Theater has exhibited proofs that equal and complete liberty, if it does not wholly eradicate it, sufficiently destroys its malignant influence on the health and prosperity of the State. If with the salutary effects of this system under our own eyes, we begin to contract the bounds of Religious freedom, we know no name that will too severely reproach our folly. At least let warning be taken at the first fruits of the threatened innovation.

The very appearance of the Bill has transformed "that Christian forbearance, love and charity," which of late mutually prevailed, into animosities and jealousies, which may not soon be appeased. What mischiefs may not be dreaded, should this enemy to the public quiet be armed with the force of a law?

12. Because the policy of the Bill is adverse to the diffusion of the light of Christianity. The first wish of those who enjoy this precious gift ought to be that it may be imparted to the whole race of mankind. Compare the number of those who have as yet received it with the number still remaining under the dominion of false Religion s; and how small is the former! Does the policy of the Bill tend to lessen the disproportion?

No; it at once discourages those who are strangers to the light of revelation from coming into the Region of it; and countenances by example the nations who continue in darkness, in shutting out those who might convey it to them. Instead of Leveling as far as possible, every obstacle to the victorious progress of Truth, the Bill with an ignoble and unchristian timidity would circumscribe it with a w all of defense against the encroachments of error.

13. Because attempts to enforce by legal sanctions, acts obnoxious to go great a proportion of Citizens, tend to enervate the laws in general, and to slacken the bands of Society. I f it be difficult to execute any law which is not generally deemed necessary or salutary, what must be the case, where it is deemed invalid and dangerous? And what may be the effect of so striking an example of impotency in the Government, on its general authority?

14. Because a measure of such singular magnitude and delicacy ought not to be imposed, without the clearest evidence that it is called for by a majority of citizens, and no satisfactory method is yet proposed by which the voice of the majority in this case may be determined, or its influence secured.

The people of the respective counties are indeed requested to signify their opinion respecting the adoption of the Bill to the next Session of Assembly." But the representatives or of the Counties will be that of the people. Our hope is that neither of the former will, after due consideration, espouse the dangerous principle of the Bill. Should the event disappoint us, it will still leave us in full confidence, that a fair appeal to the latter will reverse the sentence against our liberties.

15. Because finally, "the equal right of every citizen to the free exercise of his Religion according to the dictates of conscience" is held by the same tenure with all our other rights.

If we recur to its origin, it is equally the gift of nature; if we weigh its importance, it cannot be less dear to us; if we consult the "Declaration of those rights which pertain to the good people of Virginia, as the basis and foundation of Government," it is enumerated with equal solemnity, or rather studied emphasis.

Either then, we must say, that the Will of the Legislature is the only measure of their authority; and that in the plenitude of this authority, they may sweep away all our fundamental rights; or, that they are bound to leave this particular right untouched and sacred:

Either we must say, that they may control the freedom of the press, may abolish the Trial by Jury, may swallow up the Executive and Judiciary Powers of the State; nay that they may despoil us of our very right of suffrage, and erect themselves into an independent and hereditary Assembly or, we must say, that they have no authority to enact into the law the Bill under consideration.

Conclusion:

We the Subscribers say, that the General Assembly of this Commonwealth have no such authority: And that no effort may be omitted on our part against so dangerous an usurpation, we oppose to it, this remonstrance; earnestly praying, as we are in duty bound, that the Supreme Lawgiver of the Universe, by illuminating those to whom it is addressed, may on the one hand, turn their Councils from every act which would affront his holy prerogative, or violate the trust committed to them: and on the other, guide them into every measure which may be worthy of his [blessing, may re]bound to their own praise, and may establish more firmly the liberties, the prosperity and the happiness of the Commonweath.

Phenomanul

09-13-2006, 08:51 AM

Thanks...

RandomGuy

09-13-2006, 09:17 AM

Perhaps we should have a muslim teach the Bible studies course.

Or better yet, offer a similar course tought by a muslim about the Q'uran.

That would be cool.

RandomGuy

09-13-2006, 09:19 AM

Or, we could let a scholar at the Vatican write the course on the bible. They are experts on the bible, so that would be a good way to get a good syllabus for our kids.

Extra Stout

09-13-2006, 09:19 AM

Perhaps we should have a muslim teach the Bible studies course.

Or better yet, offer a similar course tought by a muslim about the Q'uran.

That would be cool.
A literary/historical course about the Qu'ran and about Islam would be intensely helpful. In fact, I think it should be compulsory remedial material for President Bush.

Extra Stout

09-13-2006, 09:22 AM

Or, we could let a scholar at the Vatican write the course on the bible. They are experts on the bible, so that would be a good way to get a good syllabus for our kids.
No, my sectarian views should be the ones taught in school! I know, let's fight a war about it!

Oh sorry, I was channeling European history from 1500-1750.

Spurminator

09-13-2006, 09:22 AM

I'd be interested in learning more about the details of the study and how they measured their findings, but if the results are accurate then I do think it is a legitimate concern. The Bible, as with any religious document, should be taught from an academic perspective only. The history of Judeo-Christianity has plenty of material for a non-sectarian curriculum. Elective or not.

When I was in school, my Bible elective was Bible School on Sundays.

johnsmith

09-13-2006, 09:28 AM

Perhaps we should have a muslim teach the Bible studies course.

Or better yet, offer a similar course tought by a muslim about the Q'uran.

That would be cool.

Took this class in college during the same semester in which 9/11 occurred, Very thankful for that one.

spurster

09-13-2006, 09:30 AM

A class on the Bible is a good thing. Ideally, a class should have a mixed group of students who learn to understand and tolerate each other. I thought there were good texts that avoided the proselytizing. Teachers who bring in their own views are ok as long as all students are free to bring in their views and taught to question them.

ChumpDumper

09-13-2006, 09:37 AM

Could it be that maybe the students have chosen to want to learn from that specific subject? Could it be that the school board decided what to offer without really giving much of a shit about anything else?

Mr. Peabody

09-13-2006, 09:41 AM

Could it be that the school board decided what to offer without really giving much of a shit about anything else?

:lol

boutons_

09-13-2006, 09:52 AM

RandomGuy

09-13-2006, 09:56 AM

No, my sectarian views should be the ones taught in school! I know, let's fight a war about it!

Oh sorry, I was channeling European history from 1500-1750.

My point exactly.

Let's be honest about this.

The people who want to teach about the Bible in public schools don't want it taught in an acedemic fashion.

They want a doorway into the school system to preach their version of the bible.

Common sense, backed by this study, tells us as much.

I am all for learning about the contributions the Bible, Q'uran, what-have-you have contributed to history and literature. A good understanding of how the bible has shaped western culture and philosophy is, in my opinion, vital to cultural literacy.

BUT

In practice, it would seem, that classes that deal with the Bible become simply a way for zealots to use the power of the state to force their particular viewpoint onto students.

I would say keep the classes, but a good audit sampling to make sure that the spirit and letter of the law is upheld is a must.

Extra Stout

09-13-2006, 10:01 AM

The report's executive summary had four findings:

1) Most Bible courses taught in Texas public schools fail to meet even minimal standards for teacher qualifications and academic rigor.

What this means is that the Biblical content of the classes often is mundane and non-stimulating, offering nothing but regurgitation of Bible passages and minor factual details, and some videos. This is criticizing the academic value of the curriculum, rather than the issues of religious freedom.

2) Most Bible courses are taught as religious and devotional classes that promote one faith perspective over all others.

While the Biblical content of the classes may be trivial, there is plenty being taught. Basically, most of the time the Bible class is simply an exercise in indoctrination towards fundamentalist evangelicalism, rife with teaching about creation science and about current events implying the imminent return of Jesus.

That sort of thing makes me extremely angry. That is exactly the kind of thing the Founding Fathers argued against. There is no doubt this is prohibited in our form of government. I cannot view this as anything but hostility to even the narrowest notions of the Establishment Clause, and that proponents to this kind of sectarian instruction be seen as enemies to our American notions of freedom.

3) Most Bible courses advocate an ideological agenda that is hostile to religious freedom, science and public education itself.

The study points out materials from the Creation Science Museum and WallBuilders, among other ideological groups being presented in class. It also demonstrates instances where students were taught that the different races can be traced to Noah's sons (anybody know what that theory was used to justify about "Ham's descendants" in the 18th and 19th centuries???).

4) A handful of Texas school districts show that it is possible to teach Bible courses in an objective and nonsectarian manner appropriate to public school classrooms.

This details the three school districts whose curriculum was legally and academically sound.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It appears that a wide swath of posters agree that there is considerable academic value in teaching students about the Bible. It also appears that fundamentalists in the public schools are incapable of teaching the Bible in a way that is anywhere near being remotely consistent with our laws, or the basic tenets of religious freedom upon which our country was founded.

So, we are left with either auditing these curricula to ensure compliance, or doing away with these electives altogether.

Phenomanul

09-13-2006, 10:01 AM

Could it be that the school board decided what to offer without really giving much of a shit about anything else?

Lately that has not been the case... you should know that.

Phenomanul

09-13-2006, 10:02 AM

ChumpDumper

09-13-2006, 10:04 AM

Lately that has not been the case... you should know that.:lol It is still the case, even moreso now. You should know that. Trying to pretend school board members don't have agendas is completely disingenuous.

Phenomanul

09-13-2006, 10:06 AM

It appears that a wide swath of posters agree that there is considerable academic value in teaching students about the Bible. It also appears that fundamentalists in the public schools are incapable of teaching the Bible in a way that is anywhere near being remotely consistent with our laws, or the basic tenets of religious freedom upon which our country was founded.

So, we are left with either auditing these curricula to ensure compliance, or doing away with these electives altogether.

I don't disagree with correcting how these classes should be taught...

But there is a difference between that concern and the abolishment of the right for that class to exist in the first place.

Also realize that the language is far more hostile than would be generated by an objective study. Consider the source.

ChumpDumper

09-13-2006, 10:10 AM

But there is a difference between that concern and the abolishment of the right for that class to exist in the first place.Since examples of acceptable classes were given, I fail to see a call for an outright ban.
Also realize that the language is far more hostile than would be generated by an objective study. Consider the source.I'd be glad to read the findings of a similarly thorough study from the other side, if one exists.

boutons_

09-13-2006, 10:11 AM

"in teaching students about the Bible."

I'm all for academc courses like "history of (all) religion", "comparative religion", "In search of the Historical Jesus", "metaphysics", "philosophy of religion", but these courses are usually college level, probably because HS level and below kids are mostly adhering blindly to their parents religion, and the parents may not want the under-18 kids to learn that their sect of Christianity is just one of many approaches to Truth.

Phenomanul

09-13-2006, 10:12 AM

:lol It is still the case, even moreso now. You should know that. Trying to pretend school board members don't have agendas is completely disingenuous.

You misunderstood me. I know about the existence of school board agendas... What I was saying was that most of these agendas are anti-religious in nature not the other way around.... this shift has occurred to appease the 'politically correct' crowd that lobbies solely on a misinterpretation of the 'separation of church and state' clause while ignoring the 'establishment' principle...

ChumpDumper

09-13-2006, 10:16 AM

You misunderstood me. I know about the existence of school board agendas... What I was saying was that most of these agendas are anti-religious in nature not the other way around.... this shift has occurred to appease the 'politically correct' crowd that lobbies solely on a misinterpretation of the 'separation of church and state' clause while ignoring the 'establishment' principle...The very existence of these Bible courses that ignore legal guidelines indicates otherwise. It depends on the locality.

Phenomanul

09-13-2006, 10:16 AM

In either case....

The class instruction methods should be regulated.

Extra Stout

09-13-2006, 10:17 AM

I don't disagree with correcting how these classes should be taught...

But there is a difference between that concern and the abolishment of the right for that class to exist in the first place.

Also realize that the language is far more hostile than would be generated by an objective study. Consider the source.
Ideally, the class should exist.

I don't know if it has a "right" to exist, other than in the general rights of the states to conduct their business under the Tenth Amendment. If the constituents want this sort of thing, then the states have the authority to institute it --- until it runs up against the Establishment Clause. If a state decides that the pervasive abuse of the curriculum by fundamentalist zealots is more trouble than it is worth, then it also should have the authority not to allow these electives, or not to allow them without rigorous vetting.

And from my reading of the report, if anything, their langauge is understated relative to the flagrant disregard of even the narrowest notions of religious freedom as conceived by the Founding Fathers being perpretrated by people I can only describe as virulently theocratic.

Phenomanul

09-13-2006, 10:19 AM

The very existence of these Bible courses that ignore legal guidelines indicates otherwise. It depends on the locality.

You realize how small the percentage was of school districts that even offered the elective.

That's more telling to me.

Spurminator

09-13-2006, 10:19 AM

Extra Stout

09-13-2006, 10:20 AM

You misunderstood me. I know about the existence of school board agendas... What I was saying was that most of these agendas are anti-religious in nature not the other way around.... this shift has occurred to appease the 'politically correct' crowd that lobbies solely on a misinterpretation of the 'separation of church and state' clause while ignoring the 'establishment' principle...
I would disagree with your characterization; most of the secularist pressure has come from the top down through the courts. The counterattack by the religious right has been to elect sympathetic candidates onto school boards.

ChumpDumper

09-13-2006, 10:24 AM

You realize how small the percentage was of school districts that even offered the elective.

That's more telling to me.The word "elective" is telling to me. Besides, the article doesn't make clear if the 25 districts are the complete total of schools offering the class or just the sample they used.

Extra Stout

09-13-2006, 10:25 AM

It takes a very good teacher to give a secular course on religion and manage the curriculum in a way that the main focus is historical. I'm not sure many of my HS teachers could have handled it... you'd have to balance the inevitable discussions about student/teacher personal beliefs and the primary historical objective of the class.
Teachers rarely develop their own curricula. they teach what the district tells them, occasionally with some latitude to freelance. If a school district is looking to offer a Biblical elective class, there are several theocratic organizations with talented salesman employing a slick marketing scheme to present their well-packaged theocratic curriculum.

Does anything analogous exist for balanced, literary/historical curricula? I doubt it.

Mr. Peabody

09-13-2006, 10:26 AM

The word "elective" is telling to me. Besides, the article doesn't make clear if the 25 districts are the complete total of schools offering the class or just the sample they used.

The report says that only 25 of over 1000 Texas school districts offered Bible courses.

Report (http://www.tfn.org/files/fck/TX%20Bible%20Report%20FINAL.pdf)

johnsmith

09-13-2006, 10:26 AM

The Jews are best authority on the OT, probably the best ( since they actually wrote it for their own people, and haven't stopped analyzing it for 2000+ years). I find highly presumptious that Christian Bible-thumpers think they have any right to dispute OT with Jews.

Very intelligent........yes, only jews can analyze the OT, and only Christians can analyze the NT, and only Muslims can analyze the Qur'an........etc......... :rolleyes you are an idiot. Why would you even throw this into this discussion?

Mr. Peabody

09-13-2006, 10:30 AM

You realize how small the percentage was of school districts that even offered the elective.

That's more telling to me.

How many of the school districts offer an elective on Chaucer or astronomy or philosophy? With so many worthy subjects out there, it's not hard to see how this one particular subject could be left out of the curriculum.

ChumpDumper

09-13-2006, 10:32 AM

The report says that only 25 of over 1000 Texas school districts offered Bible courses.

Report (http://www.tfn.org/files/fck/TX%20Bible%20Report%20FINAL.pdf)

Thanks for the link. I actually thought there would be more.

Mr. Peabody

09-13-2006, 10:34 AM

Thanks for the link. I actually thought there would be more.

I was surprised at how many small school districts offered such a course. I'd be interested in seeing what courses are not being offered in these schools that should have been offered instead of a Bible class.

Spurminator

09-13-2006, 10:35 AM

Teachers rarely develop their own curricula. they teach what the district tells them, occasionally with some latitude to freelance. If a school district is looking to offer a Biblical elective class, there are several theocratic organizations with talented salesman employing a slick marketing scheme to present their well-packaged theocratic curriculum.

True, but inevitably the teacher will find herself/himself in situations where the class discussion (or student essays, etc.) goes beyond the directed curricula. The teacher will need to find a balance that doesn't repress or undermine the students' personal beliefs, but also keeps the focus historical.

Phenomanul

09-13-2006, 10:41 AM

The word "elective" is telling to me. Besides, the article doesn't make clear if the 25 districts are the complete total of schools offering the class or just the sample they used.

Didn't the article say it looked at 1000 districts (unless I misread it)???

Edit: Nevermind... already been answered.

Mr. Peabody

09-13-2006, 10:44 AM

True, but inevitably the teacher will find herself/himself in situations where the class discussion (or student essays, etc.) goes beyond the directed curricula. The teacher will need to find a balance that doesn't repress or undermine the students' personal beliefs, but also keeps the focus historical.

It could very well be the case that students at this level are not mature enough to handle an academic discussion of religion. Hell, there are college freshman and sophmores that aren't mature enough to handle discussion about religion without getting offended or offending others.

Extra Stout

09-13-2006, 10:46 AM

Thanks for the link. I actually thought there would be more.
According to the report, other districts have attempted to offer the class, only to cancel it for lack of interest.

Spurminator

09-13-2006, 10:48 AM

It could very well be the case that students at this level are not mature enough to handle an academic discussion of religion. Hell, there are college freshman and sophmores that aren't mature enough to handle discussion about religion without getting offended or offending others.

I don't know, I think they can handle it... especially if it's an elective. Of course, all I have to go on are my classmaes from 8-10 years ago. But I'm not sure if the average public HS teacher can juggle such sensitive responsibilities while also engaging the students.

Extra Stout

09-13-2006, 10:48 AM

It could very well be the case that students at this level are not mature enough to handle an academic discussion of religion. Hell, there are college freshman and sophmores that aren't mature enough to handle discussion about religion without getting offended or offending others.

From my own personal experience, in high school my World History class in 10th Grade included a unit on the five major world religions (C, J, I, H, B), and British Literature in 12th Grade included a unit on the KJB.

Phenomanul

09-13-2006, 10:50 AM

I would disagree with your characterization; most of the secularist pressure has come from the top down through the courts. The counterattack by the religious right has been to elect sympathetic candidates onto school boards.

Again, the small percentage of schools that actually have this elective to begin with would dictate otherwise. Let's not forget both sides have their proponents; but of late it only takes one anti-religious parent to stir up a storm and do away with such a class. The same can't be said for the 'other side' -- (with exceptions of course.... there's always exceptions to everything).

Spurminator

09-13-2006, 10:53 AM

From my own personal experience, in high school my World History class in 10th Grade included a unit on the five major world religions (C, J, I, H, B), and British Literature in 12th Grade included a unit on the KJB.

If I recall correctly we devoted equal time over a month or so to those five plus Taoism and Confucianism.

Spurminator

09-13-2006, 10:55 AM

but of late it only takes one anti-religious parent to stir up a storm and do away with such a class.

If taught appropriately the hope is that this parent would not have a case.

Extra Stout

09-13-2006, 10:56 AM

I don't know, I think they can handle it... especially if it's an elective. But I'm not sure if the average public HS teacher can juggle such sensitive responsibilities while also engaging the students.
Some of this isn't so hard:

Clue... if your lesson is about why students should accept the Bible as literal truth... you're over the line.

If your lesson is about the use of literary devices in the Psalms, or about Biblical allusions in Western culture, or how a Biblical event fits into the context of Near Eastern history, you're probably OK.

A video about modern Israel being a Jewish birthright... not OK.

A Biblical atlas showing where Biblical events took place in modern Israel and Palestine... OK.

Presenting a biblical commentary in a lesson about interpreting works critically... OK.

Presenting a biblical commentary as the true interpretation of the Bible... not OK.

Extra Stout

09-13-2006, 10:57 AM

Again, the small percentage of schools that actually have this elective to begin with would dictate otherwise. Let's not forget both sides have their proponents; but of late it only takes one anti-religious parent to stir up a storm and do away with such a class. The same can't be said for the 'other side' -- (with exceptions of course.... there's always exceptions to everything).
The study suggests that the relative lack of student interest is the primary reason for the low number of classes offered, and not political opposition.

One of the exceptions is the NEISD class, which is relatively popular, and as the study noted, has one of the best curricula.

Phenomanul

09-13-2006, 10:58 AM

If taught appropriately the hope is that this parent would not have a case.

Think boutons_......

yeah.

Would he reason with that logic?

Extra Stout

09-13-2006, 11:01 AM

Think boutons_......

yeah.

Would he reason with that logic?
In order to carry your point, you would need to demonstrate a case where a parent successfully caused the discontinuation of a Biblically-related class which complied with legal and academic standards.

Spurminator

09-13-2006, 11:02 AM

Extra Stout

09-13-2006, 11:07 AM

It's not about keeping them from complaining. But their complaints would be empty if the course was shown to be objective and non-sectarian. Nothing would happen.

If boutons argued against one of the classes outlined in this study, even if he was the only parent concerned, he'd have a point.
Parents complain about things like not being able to sit in the parking lot in a parking space close to the building, because teachers have filled up the faculty lot with their personal cars.

Phenomanul

09-13-2006, 11:07 AM

It's not about keeping them from complaining. But their complaints would be empty if the course was shown to be objective and non-sectarian. Nothing would happen.

If boutons argued against one of the classes outlined in this study, even if he was the only parent concerned, he'd have a point.

Which brings me back to the point that I agree with the fact that these classes need to be restructured if they have shown to be theocratically biased.

jochhejaam

09-13-2006, 09:52 PM

Spurminator

09-13-2006, 10:02 PM

Is it God's desire that the Bible be taught purely from an Academic standpoint?

It is God's desire that Christians spread His word to the World. Nowhere in the Bible is the message of Christ spread by force or coersion. Christians have limitless opportunities to share The Good News without needing their government to force it upon nonbelievers for them. That's lazy evangelism.

Yes or No; Does God want the Gospel of Jesus Christ taught to his creation?

Yes.

Is God a respecter of the U.S. Constitution?

I believe God was directly involved in the crafting of the US Constitution.

If push comes to shove which "document" should Christians defer to?

Push hasn't come to shove, thankfully.

Are Christians supposed to follow the paths of least resistance that have been erected by those that are in opposition to the teachings of Christ?

No. As I see it, none of this qualifies as opposition to the trachings of Christ.

Final Question:
Would God want his Word taught in Public Schools? Let's keep it simple and answer with a Yes or a No.

Not in the way you would have it be taught, no.

^^^Are there Christians in this forum that disagree with this "commisson" or that are ashamed of it?

Not these particular findings, no.

Extra Stout

09-13-2006, 10:22 PM

Teaching the Bible from an Academic standpoint? That's like taking starving people on a sight seeing tour of a feast. In both cases you are exposing people to something they are in great need of, only to deny them access to it's essential and intended purpose.

I'm probably addressing the following question to those that have publicly stated their Christianity (Of course, anyone can respond).

Is it God's desire that the Bible be taught purely from an Academic standpoint?

Yes or No; Does God want the Gospel of Jesus Christ taught to his creation?

Is God a respecter of the U.S. Constitution?

If push comes to shove which "document" should Christians defer to?

Are Christians supposed to follow the paths of least resistance that have been erected by those that are in opposition to the teachings of Christ?

Final Question:
Would God want his Word taught in Public Schools? Let's keep it simple and answer with a Yes or a No.

^^^Are there Christians in this forum that disagree with this "commisson" or that are ashamed of it?
NO.

If push comes to shove:

Romans 13:1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.

13:2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.

That means you respect the Constitution of the United States and the people who have fought and died to protect the freedoms it guarantees! You do not try to gnaw them out from the root so that they topple! How dare you come in here and claim that Christians who love this country and believe in its freedoms are "ashamed" of Christ!

History is rife with nations who try it out the way you say. They devolve into religious wars -- Christian against Christian, wars this nation has never had the curse to experience. In which nations has the church flourished, those whose governments subsidize it as in Europe, or those in which God's people are separated from the corrupting power of the state, like the United States?

Why do you think Christianity alone among the monotheistic faiths has no civil code? Why does it teach to distinguish the earthly powers from the heavenly ones?

And whose Christianity would you teach in the public schools? Fundamentalism? Calvinism? Reformed? Lutheranism? Orthodox? Catholic? Dispensationalist? Coptic? Do you think all the other Christians are going to smile and nod while you cram your own dogma down their throats? Have you no idea why Christians in this country have been able to live at peace for so long, and embrace one another in brotherhood, when so many of our ancestors in Europe slaughtered one another for centuries? Were you born yesterday?

If cannot recognize the good that government non-interference has done for Christianity in this country, then you are a fool -- a dangerous fool. You are deeply in error if you think God would be pleased by your actions.

Theocracies devolve into tyranny. I can't believe I have to explain this to you. When you put the coercive force of government behind religious teaching, it always becomes corrupted. Human rulers always abuse that authority. Are you completely ignorant of the tyranny the European settlers of this nation escaped? Do you understand nothing about freedom of religion?

I guess I was so naive not to realize how widespread this sectarian zeal to overthrow the United States of America is. Ladies and gentlemen, in jochhejaam, we have a bona fide Dominionist, the furthest among the far right. You are opposed to the beliefs upon which this nation was founded.

Read that James Madison treatise I posted.

jochhejaam

09-13-2006, 10:36 PM

[QUOTE=Spurminator]It is God's desire that Christians spread His word to the World. Nowhere in the Bible is the message of Christ spread by force or coersion. Christians have limitless opportunities to share The Good News without needing their government to force it upon nonbelievers for them. That's lazy evangelism.
Nice thought Sp but the question was; "Is it God's desire that the Bible be taught purely from an Academic standpoint"?
YOu failed to answer that.
(And I agree that it's not to be spread by by force or coercion, are you insinuating that I did)?

I believe God was directly involved in the crafting of the US Constitution.
Directly involved? How so?

Push hasn't come to shove, thankfully.
Okay, you avoided an direct answer and that's your prerogative.

Not in the way you would have it be taught, no.
Oh, and how do I want it taught? (Find a quote from me that addresses the question. Thanks)

And how would God want it taught?

scott

09-13-2006, 10:41 PM

Some of this isn't so hard:

Clue... if your lesson is about why students should accept the Bible as literal truth... you're over the line.

If your lesson is about the use of literary devices in the Psalms, or about Biblical allusions in Western culture, or how a Biblical event fits into the context of Near Eastern history, you're probably OK.

A video about modern Israel being a Jewish birthright... not OK.

A Biblical atlas showing where Biblical events took place in modern Israel and Palestine... OK.

Presenting a biblical commentary in a lesson about interpreting works critically... OK.

Presenting a biblical commentary as the true interpretation of the Bible... not OK.

Nice summary. :tu

FromWayDowntown

09-13-2006, 10:42 PM

Oh, and how do I want it taught? (Find a quote from me that addresses the question. Thanks)

Does it have to be something you actually said, or does the "This is what I think President Jefferson said" standard apply?

Extra Stout

09-13-2006, 10:59 PM

That students would be in an elective Biblical studies class sort of implies that they have an interest in reading the Bible. We have churches just about on every corner that the interested Bible reader can walk into freely. The country is teeming with Christians ready, willing, and able to answer the interested Bible reader's questions.

We have a Holy Spirit working in the interested Bible reader's heart and enlightening him unto its truth and its mysteries.

But that is not enough for jochhejaam. He insists upon state-funded coercive indoctrination.

Perchance it is not a coincidence that the NEISD class, one of the few that was not centered around sectarian indoctrination, also was one of the few that was very popular? Maybe the Holy Spirit does a better job than the State does?

I mean, what part of "My kingdom is not of this world" do you not understand? Would you have had Jesus take the earthly throne of Israel and overthrow the Romans so as to use the power of the state to further the kingdom of God?

Spurminator

09-13-2006, 11:22 PM

Nice thought Sp but the question was; "Is it God's desire that the Bible be taught purely from an Academic standpoint"?
YOu failed to answer that.

If your question proposes that I chose whether God would want the Bible taught academically or theologically, then it's a needlessly narrow and irrelevant question. Because we are proposing it be taught both ways. Academically in schools, theologically in church and at home.

(And I agree that it's not to be spread by by force or coercion, are you insinuating that I did)?

If your wish is that the Bible be taught theologically in public schools, then yes I am insinuating that.

Directly involved? How so?

Same way He is involved in everything else that happens in the world. This is a whole other discussion.

Okay, you avoided an direct answer and that's your prerogative.

Fine. If "push comes to shove" (which it hasn't) then I choose the Bible. For example, if a new form of government was established that would put me to death for practicing my Christianity, then I would face the sword.

Oh, and how do I want it taught? (Find a quote from me that addresses the question. Thanks)

Okay, how about this from earlier tonight?

Teaching the Bible from an Academic standpoint? That's like taking starving people on a sight seeing tour of a feast.

Would you care to rephrase?

And how would God want it taught?

See above.

jochhejaam

09-13-2006, 11:39 PM

NO.

[QUOTE]If push comes to shove:

Romans 13:1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.

13:2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
There were most certainly Christians in Germany when Hitler was in power. I believe most reasonable Christians would say that he was aligned with Satan rather than God. So the ultimatum would be to follow the rule of Hitler or be damned to Hell? I don't believe so.

That means you respect the Constitution of the United States and the people who have fought and died to protect the freedoms it guarantees! You do not try to gnaw them out from the root so that they topple!
Respect certain interpretations of the Constitution that are arguable and that a large portion of Christians believe has been misinterpreted? Obedience to it? Yes. Respect for it? No!
Suggesting that the Constitution will topple because of the disagreement over the interpretation of a part of it will cause it to topple? Let's first get through (we won't) the interpretation of it, there's hardly a concensus regarding this matter. (Separation)

How dare you come in here and claim that Christians who love this country and believe in its freedoms are "ashamed" of Christ!
That's a ridiculous and false charge, quite uncharacteristic of you. Other than a misunderstaning on your part I have no idea how in the World you came up with that diatribe over the Final Question, quote from Scripture and my follow-up question to the Quote. An explanation would be great!

History is rife with nations who try it out the way you say. They devolve into religious wars -- Christian against Christian, wars this nation has never had the curse to experience. In which nations has the church flourished, those whose governments subsidize it as in Europe, or those in which God's people are separated from the corrupting power of the state, like the United States?

All of that because of a series of questions that I didn't personally give answers too? Those questions pit Christian against Christan and develope into wars? :lol

It seems to me as if you're were a ticking time bomb waiting to go off. I have no idea how the questions I asked lit the fuse.

Why do you think Christianity alone among the monotheistic faiths has no civil code? Why does it teach to distinguish the earthly powers from the heavenly ones?
So nonviolent civil disobedience is a sin? Are there any current local, state or federal laws on the books which you disagree with? I'm betting there are. Shame on you for not respecting the laws of the land!

And whose Christianity would you teach in the public schools? Fundamentalism? Calvinism? Reformed? Lutheranism? Orthodox? Catholic? Dispensationalist? Coptic? Do you think all the other Christians are going to smile and nod while you cram your own dogma down their throats?
It seems that there's currently an Bible textbook that has interfaith support as well initial endorsements from experts in literature, religion and church-state law. That would suffice.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=1149616

Have you no idea why Christians in this country have been able to live at peace for so long, and embrace one another in brotherhood, when so many of our ancestors in Europe slaughtered one another for centuries?
You mean like during the civil war? I'm familiar with that, yes.

Were you born yesterday?
No.

If cannot recognize the good that government non-interference has done for Christianity in this country, then you are a fool -- a dangerous fool. You are deeply in error if you think God would be pleased by your actions.
I respect your opinions but the respect is tempered by name calling.
I'm not aware of any action I've taken. What actions are you referring too?

Theocracies devolve into tyranny. I can't believe I have to explain this to you.
Again you are in error Stout as I am not in support of a Theocracy.

I guess I was so naive not to realize how widespread this sectarian zeal to overthrow the United States of America is. Ladies and gentlemen, in jochhejaam, we have a bona fide Dominionist, the furthest among the far right. You are opposed to the beliefs upon which this nation was founded.
Nice grandstanding Stout. You must be proud as a peacock with your post that's rife with warrantless charges, misrepresentations, name calling, etc.

Read that James Madison treatise I posted.
I did Stout. I assume that you're familiar with Rehnquist's Dissent in Wallace v. Jaffree?

2 hours later here than in San Antonion and therefore time to hit the sack.

Extra Stout

09-14-2006, 01:08 AM

There were most certainly Christians in Germany when Hitler was in power. I believe most reasonable Christians would say that he was aligned with Satan rather than God. So the ultimatum would be to follow the rule of Hitler or be damned to Hell? I don't believe so.
Are you comparing the government of the United States to Nazi Germany?

The United States is a fair and just nation towards its citizens, as nations go. If Romans 13 applies to any earthly government, it applies to this one.

Respect certain interpretations of the Constitution that are arguable and that a large portion of Christians believe has been misinterpreted? Obedience to it? Yes. Respect for it? No!
Let's see... who wrote that First Amendment thingy... oh, yeah, James Madison. Did he misinterpret himself?

There are all sorts of areas where separation of church and state gets taken way beyond what the Framers intended. The prohibition of religious instruction in the public schools is not one of them.

If you don't agree, then at least be logically consistent: "I believe the Fourteenth Amendment is unbiblical and should be repealed." Because, the writer of the First Amendment made himself clear on the subject of religious indoctrination in schools as an establishment of religion, and the Fourteenth Amendment makes the First binding upon governmental authorities within the various States.

This isn't gray like Ten Commandments statues in parks. This is one of the basic religious freedoms. If lots of Christians in America are opposed to this concept, then they need to think twice about those flags they fly proudly and those "We Support Our Troops" bumper stickers, because that flag represents and those troops are fighting for freedoms those particular Christians do not believe Americans should have.

Suggesting that the Constitution will topple because of the disagreement over the interpretation of a part of it will cause it to topple? Let's first get through (we won't) the interpretation of it, there's hardly a concensus regarding this matter. (Separation)
State-supported religious indoctrination is not up for interpretation. Facts are troublesome things. You can sit there and say there is no "consensus" about whether James Madison actually did write down something that has been documented for over two hundred years. You could claim there is no "consensus" about whether the earth actually is round.

But see, Christians understand that there is such a thing as absolute truth, and that lack of consensus could just mean a bunch of people are wrong.

Religious instruction is one of the key things a church institution does. If the United States or one of them takes on tax-subsidized religious instruction, it has established a State religion. It is acting as a State church. If the Establishment Clause doesn't proscribe that sort of thing, then it has no meaning.

And if a whole bunch of Christians have no "consensus" upon whether the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment should be taken even in the narrowest possible sense, then I guess they just don't agree with the First Amendment.

So, joch, do we need to repeal the First Amendment to spread the kingdom of God?

I guess that's OK. A whole bunch of liberals want to repeal the Second Amendment.

That's a ridiculous and false charge, quite uncharacteristic of you. Other than a misunderstaning on your part I have no idea how in the World you came up with that diatribe over the Final Question, quote from Scripture and my follow-up question to the Quote. An explanation would be great!
Your post seemed to insinuate quite clearly that any Christian who does not agree with the idea that public schools should engage in Christian indoctrination either disagrees with Christ's Great Commission command or is ashamed of it. Did I read you wrong? If I did, I would like to know what you really meant. If I didn't, then you deserve as stern a rebuke as I can muster.

So nonviolent civil disobedience is a sin? Are there any current local, state or federal laws on the books which you disagree with? I'm betting there are. Shame on you for not respecting the laws of the land!
Indoctrinating other people's children is hardly "nonviolent." Would you like to have your children compelled by force of law to be taught the Catholic Catechism, and that the Roman Catholic Church offers the only true fellowship with God through Christ? Would you regard that as "nonviolent?"

In any system of government or law, there are some laws that are pillars, and some that don't bear much load. This isn't like red light cameras, or agribusiness subsidies. This is one of the core ideals of religious freedom. This is up there with due process of law, and freedom of the press, and freedom of speech. There is a reason the Bill of Rights is held is such high esteem as one of the pinnacles of human government in the world.

Are you going to claim next that there is no "consensus" about whether the slaves were supposed to be freed, or whether a defendant can be compelled to testify against himself?

It seems that there's currently an Bible textbook that has interfaith support as well initial endorsements from experts in literature, religion and church-state law. That would suffice.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=1149616
OK, either you didn't read this thread or you didn't read that article. That article describes a textbook that, in accordance with the law, presents the Bible in an academic light, which according to you...

Teaching the Bible from an Academic standpoint? That's like taking starving people on a sight seeing tour of a feast.

Yet now you're referencing it as something "that would suffice?" Do you see how that is inconsistent?

Pretty much everybody, including some of the harder-core lefties around here, agree that teaching the Bible academically is a really good idea. The liberal Supreme Court in 1963 agreed that teaching the Bible academically is a really good idea. If a book like "A Bible and its Influence" will "suffice" for you, then I don't really understand what it is you think you are opposing, or who it is you think is opposing that kind of curriculum.

Or, you didn't really understand that ABC article, and you're still against "academic" treatments of the Bible, so I say "good luck" in keeping the peace while the public schools set up to convert every Catholic in them to evangelical Protestantism.

There is no such thing as an ecumenical indoctrination. That is the crux of my point. Any indoctrination is necessarily sectarian, because orthodox Christians start to disagree once they get past the Nicene Creed. Therefore, any such indoctrination subverts rights of conscience, such that even the narrowest possible interpretation of the Establishment Clause would render it unconstitutional.

You mean like during the civil war? I'm familiar with that, yes.
The Civil War was a sectarian conflict?

Again you are in error Stout as I am not in support of a Theocracy.
Tell me, do you believe the Constitution can only be interpreted correctly in light of the Bible?

I did Stout. I assume that you're familiar with Rehnquist's Dissent in Wallace v. Jaffree?
His dissent is in complete agreement with me. He takes about as narrow a view of the Establishment as can be taken, and still manages to say that sectarian indoctrination is prohibited by the First Amendment.

I'm not even sure really why you brought that dissent up, since it is about a "prayer/meditation" moment in schools, as opposed to indoctrination.

joch, sometimes I think that you just have a simple evangelical impulse, and grab onto some of these political arguments without thinking through whether you actually agree with them. Sometimes I think you just read a Christian using a line of argument, figure he must be on the same side as you, and jump on, when your own views may be in fact far less extreme.

Because I've seen this in other threads, where you don't care so much about whether you are intellectually consistent about anything, or flexible to consider anyone's line of argument, but are rather just picking up whatever you can to see if it will push forward the cause of Christ a little bit.

At your core, if my hunch is true, it makes you sincere in your intentions, but very vulnerable to deception. You were parroting some core Dominionist tenets earlier. Dominionists are not very nice people.

ChumpDumper

09-14-2006, 02:39 AM

jochhejaam

09-14-2006, 06:19 AM

Worst analogy ever.

The "feast" is available to the "starving" whenever they want it outside of school. Why is that not enough for you?
Analogies should be taken at face value, you over analyzed. It was a "sight seeing" tour (food not available), not an invitation to the feast.

jochhejaam

09-14-2006, 06:43 AM

[QUOTE=Extra Stout]Are you comparing the government of the United States to Nazi Germany?

The United States is a fair and just nation towards its citizens, as nations go. If Romans 13 applies to any earthly government, it applies to this one.
Good morning there Stout. The impending start of the work day prevents me from anything more than skimming over your post (there's very little that I would take exception with) and offering a couple of hasty comments.

As far as comparing Nazi Germany with the U.S. (I wasn't), I would have thought that the point I was trying to make was clear. The scriptures you alluded to were meant for all Christians, regardless of Country in which they habitate. I do agree that with you that God is sovereign and place and removes rulers as he sees fit. But are you suggesting that the Christians in Germany during Hitler's rule were to follow (respect) him since God ordained his appointment? My point was that the scripture calls for obedience to the laws (unless it compels us to sin) but not respect.

I don't mind a stern rebuke (exhort, reprove and rebuke with all longsuffering and doctrine) but if it's given it should be done with an accurate understanding of my position. You're characterization of me throughout last nights post was not accurate. I've never seen you intentionally mischaracterize someone so I would say that you misunderstood the intent of my post.

I am not supportive of any type of indoctrination. I was raised as a Ministers son but my parents did not attempt to make a decision on my behalf as to whether or not I would follow their example and adhere to the teachings of Christ. My parents understood that it is a personal decision and one that I ultimately made with finality at the age of 22. No pressure from them or my Christian siblings. I was given the same unconditional love during a five year prodigal son type adventure that I was given when actively serving Christ.

Time to head to work, perhaps I can offer more in the way of the clarification of my postion later.

Extra Stout

09-14-2006, 08:42 AM

As far as comparing Nazi Germany with the U.S. (I wasn't), I would have thought that the point I was trying to make was clear. The scriptures you alluded to were meant for all Christians, regardless of Country in which they habitate. I do agree that with you that God is sovereign and place and removes rulers as he sees fit. But are you suggesting that the Christians in Germany during Hitler's rule were to follow (respect) him since God ordained his appointment? My point was that the scripture calls for obedience to the laws (unless it compels us to sin) but not respect.
Paul's exhortation was an answer to the question of whether Christians should be revolutionaries. It was not a question of whether they should stand up against genocidal tyrants. There is a clear difference between the two, so that I do not think one can draw a parallel between standing up to Hitler, and trying to revolutionize the government of the United States.

And by "respect," I mean submit. One need not hallow it. In this country, we have a mechanism to change the Constitution. As I outlined above, there is a de minimus interpretation of the First Amendment. If one cannot abide with at least that, then one should advocate repealing the amendment as opposed to trying to talk around it.

After reading through what you said, I don't think you want to repeal the First Amendment. I speculate you read the words of a slickster who was trying to argue the Establishment Clause out of existence, and thought he was being sincere.

Some people speaking as Christians will speak hallowingly about the Constitution on the one hand, while arguing to undermine it on the other.

I am not supportive of any type of indoctrination. I was raised as a Ministers son but my parents did not attempt to make a decision on my behalf as to whether or not I would follow their example and adhere to the teachings of Christ. My parents understood that it is a personal decision and one that I ultimately made with finality at the age of 22. No pressure from them or my Christian siblings. I was given the same unconditional love during a five year prodigal son type adventure that I was given when actively serving Christ.
OK, it's become clear that you were just seeing Bible classes in schools as an opportunity to evangelize people. The evangelistic impulse is admirable. Please go back through my argument, pluck through the angry stuff, and find my explanation about why that does more harm than good.

The Founding Fathers, many of whom were devoted Christians, drew from hundreds of years of history to arrive at the conclusion that religion best flourishes when people are allowed to follow the convictions of their own consciences, rather than having dogma thrust upon them by the state. And I believe the course of American history has proved them right.

Most likely you agree with that sentiment too. Just don't take for granted that everybody calling themselves Christians takes the same position.

Extra Stout

09-14-2006, 09:01 AM

OK, it maybe be helpful to delineate different types of Christian involvement in right-wing politics:

Christian conservatives: seek to align American government and laws to a conservative Christian moral sense through the existing Constitutional framework.

Christian nationalists (Dominionists): seek to establish American identity as an exclusively Christian nation. Hold that only Christians have the God-given authority to rule over political, social, and cultural institutions. Would keep the appearance of the existing Constitutional framework, but re-interpret it through the Bible.

Christian Reconstructionists: seek to overthrow the existing Constitutional framework and install a new framework based upon Old Testament civil law.

The Pat Robertsons and Jerry Falwells of the world fall in the Christian Nationalist camp.

Phenomanul

09-14-2006, 09:38 AM

Paul's exhortation was an answer to the question of whether Christians should be revolutionaries. It was not a question of whether they should stand up against genocidal tyrants. There is a clear difference between the two, so that I do not think one can draw a parallel between standing up to Hitler, and trying to revolutionize the government of the United States.

And by "respect," I mean submit. One need not hallow it. In this country, we have a mechanism to change the Constitution. As I outlined above, there is a de minimus interpretation of the First Amendment. If one cannot abide with at least that, then one should advocate repealing the amendment as opposed to trying to talk around it.

After reading through what you said, I don't think you want to repeal the First Amendment. I speculate you read the words of a slickster who was trying to argue the Establishment Clause out of existence, and thought he was being sincere.

Some people speaking as Christians will speak hallowingly about the Constitution on the one hand, while arguing to undermine it on the other.

OK, it's become clear that you were just seeing Bible classes in schools as an opportunity to evangelize people. The evangelistic impulse is admirable. Please go back through my argument, pluck through the angry stuff, and find my explanation about why that does more harm than good.

The Founding Fathers, many of whom were devoted Christians, drew from hundreds of years of history to arrive at the conclusion that religion best flourishes when people are allowed to follow the convictions of their own consciences, rather than having dogma thrust upon them by the state. And I believe the course of American history has proved them right.

Most likely you agree with that sentiment too. Just don't take for granted that everybody calling themselves Christians takes the same position.

Extra Stout,

I think you laid out your argument very well in the previous post (minus the namecalling of course) and I would tend to side and agree with pretty much every thing you advocated...

There is one tiny problem that is concerning for someone like myself though. I don't mind that curriculae in public schools challenges our growing beliefs (from the perspective of the student) and forces the student to question why it is he/she believes what they do. In fact, I feel it is a great test of our faith and allows for us to actually know more of GOD and an opportunity to understand His nature - should we seek Him.

The dilemma arises from school systems that indirectly undermine the validity of religious beliefs. To students of faith, this is just another challenge. To those with atheistic propensities it encourages them to falsely accuse the religious establishment of being ignorant brainwashed fodder. Either way, it is a sentiment they are rightly entitled to have and should be of no consequence to us.

The problem then surrounds religiously fringed students; those with little understanding of their own beliefs or those with no religious beliefs at all. Many of them grow up thinking that the science they were taught in school disproved the existence of GOD. These classes fortify the sentiment because they fail to establish that the prevailing theories are not full-proof or that they don't really address the question of GOD. They were never meant to address His existence.

Science should just be science; the naturalistic study of everything around us. But being that science is bound by naturalistic constraints, people shouldn't automatically assume that there is no room for the supernatural. Many unfortunately do; at least 90% of my advanced high-school courses failed to draw that distinction. Science cannot be used to disprove the existence of GOD anymore than it can be used to prove Him. Sure, it can clear things up... but our understanding of the Naturalistic attributes of GOD will be minimal... at best. GOD was meant to be experienced on a spiritual level at the proper venues (home, church, or through quiet meditation).

The question then arises; how should this be addressed, can it be resolved, should it? And that's where it gets really really gray.

Extra Stout

09-14-2006, 09:52 AM

The question then arises; how should this be addressed, can it be resolved, should it? And that's where it gets really really gray.
If the public schools are indoctrinating students on naturalistic atheism, that's just as bad as indoctrinating them in fundamentalist Protestantism.

Indoctrination in naturalistic atheism would be any language to the effect that "science is the only objective truth," "science disproves the Bible," "the observable natural world is all that is," etc.

Schools can and should encourage critical thinking. But they can not discriminate against religion in the curriculum.

This certainly does not mean that schools should not teach mainstream scientific theories if they happen to conflict with certain parts of sectarian religious dogma. It is up to the student to reconcile that information.

Teaching evolution -- OK
Teaching that evolution conflicts with Christianity -- not OK

Spurminator

09-14-2006, 09:55 AM

Extra Stout,

I think you laid out your argument very well in the previous post (minus the namecalling of course) and I would tend to side and agree with pretty much every thing you advocated...

There is one tiny problem that is concerning for someone like myself though. I don't mind that curriculae in public schools challenges our growing beliefs (from the perspective of the student) and forces the student to question why it is he/she believes what they do. In fact, I feel it is a great test of our faith and allows for us to actually know more of GOD and an opportunity to understand His nature - should we seek Him.

The dilemma arises from school systems that indirectly undermine the validity of religious beliefs. To students of faith, this is just another challenge. To those with atheistic propensities it encourages them to falsely accuse the religious establishment of being ignorant brainwashed fodder. Either way, it is a sentiment they are rightly entitled to have and should be of no consequence to us.

The problem then surrounds religiously fringed students; those with little understanding of their own beliefs or those with no religious beliefs at all. Many of them grow up thinking that the science they were taught in school disproved the existence of GOD. These classes fortify the sentiment because they fail to establish that the prevailing theories are not full-proof or that they don't really address the question of GOD. They were never meant to address His existence.

Science should just be science; the naturalistic study of everything around us. But being that science is bound by naturalistic constraints, people shouldn't automatically assume that there is no room for the supernatural. Many unfortunately do; at least 90% of my advanced high-school courses failed to draw that distinction. Science cannot be used to disprove the existence of GOD anymore than it can be used to prove Him. Sure, it can clear things up... but our understanding of the Naturalistic attributes of GOD will be minimal... at best. GOD was meant to be experienced on a spiritual level at the proper venues (home, church, or through quiet meditation).

The question then arises; how should this be addressed, can it be resolved, should it? And that's where it gets really really gray.

In my opinion, this responsibility falls mainly upon pastors and parents. Instead of spending so much time fighting scientific education out of fear that it will undermine their beliefs, they should explain how God and Science are compatable. It would be great if teachers could do this as well, but I don't think the responsibility is theirs.

I never found Science threatening when I was in school.

Mr. Peabody

09-14-2006, 09:59 AM

Extra Stout,

Science should just be science; the naturalistic study of everything around us. But being that science is bound by naturalistic constraints, people shouldn't automatically assume that there is no room for the supernatural. Many unfortunately do; at least 90% of my advanced high-school courses failed to draw that distinction. Science cannot be used to disprove the existence of GOD anymore than it can be used to prove Him. Sure, it can clear things up... but our understanding of the Naturalistic attributes of GOD will be minimal... at best. GOD was meant to be experienced on a spiritual level at the proper venues (home, church, or through quiet meditation).

The question then arises; how should this be addressed, can it be resolved, should it? And that's where it gets really really gray.

Wow. I have never heard any science teacher say that science disproves God's existence nor have I ever seen that statement in a science textbook. Now if want you want is some kind of disclaimer or statement by a teacher to the effect of "Now students it is important for you to realize that science does not necessarily disprove the existence of God," then I think you are being unreasonable.

boutons_

09-14-2006, 10:15 AM

Phenomanul

09-14-2006, 10:19 AM

In my opinion, this responsibility falls mainly upon pastors and parents. Instead of spending so much time fighting scientific education out of fear that it will undermine their beliefs, they should explain how God and Science are compatable. It would be great if teachers could do this as well, but I don't think the responsibility is theirs.

I never found Science threatening when I was in school.

I agree.... again though, the issue is not with Christians. They should know why they believe what they believe. 'Weak' Christians... well that's another issue.

The real issue however, is with creating a mass generation of people who assume that the Truth of Christianity has somehow been defeated by science -- an invalid statement and conclusion on many fronts. It is this generation that will soon shape the moral fabric of our future... it is a runaway train that will not be stopped nor am I clamoring for emergency brakes... I'm simply noting the fallacy of thinking that because Religion is not being addressed in schools that somehow this is solving all the issues...

The lack of discernment of what constitues religious teaching and what is demarcated by the bounds of science has been missing for a while.

boutons_

09-14-2006, 10:25 AM

"creating a mass generation of people who assume that the Truth of Christianity has somehow been defeated by science"

is this happening? who or what is doing it?

"Religion is not being addressed in schools that somehow this is solving all the issues..."

... so your/evangelicals solution IS to address religion is schools? illegal

Just worry about YOUR kids, and quit worrying about the religiosity of everybody else's kids, because everybody else doesn't buy your flavor of religiosity.

Phenomanul

09-14-2006, 10:32 AM

"high-school courses failed to draw that distinction"

Why should these courses say ANYTHING about the super-natural at all, either pro-God or anti-God? both types of statements are illegitimate from public school teachers.

Teaching "evolution" DOES NOT EQUAL "God doesn't exist"

I agree... but you fail to see the linearity of that subject... what happens when the issue of origins is brought up. Evolution had to start somewhere no? Otherwise it has existed forever. And I'm pretty sure a student always brings it up.... Gray Gray Gray...

Or in physics class, what existed before the Big Bang? Gray Gray Gray...

Somehow telling the students, "I'm not allowed to address that question" would not suffice. My teacher instead went on to say that simple organic molecules gave rise to bigger ones until they formed DNA and then made the jump to micro cellular organisms. I was like whoaaa whooa whoaaaa. The textbook only suggests that as a possible path it doesn't state it as fact as it cannot be proven. He then answered, "that is the only route."

I knew where I stood. The rest of the class however took that as a given. Again no demarcation is made, and if taken to its source more than confusing people it makes it seem as if science were absolute truth.

Phenomanul

09-14-2006, 10:34 AM

Just worry about YOUR kids, and quit worrying about the religiosity of everybody else's kids, because everybody else doesn't buy your flavor of religiosity.

Don't worry, I will.

But ahemm.... don't worry about what I believe OK. Thanks.

Phenomanul

09-14-2006, 10:36 AM

Wow. I have never heard any science teacher say that science disproves God's existence nor have I ever seen that statement in a science textbook. Now if want you want is some kind of disclaimer or statement by a teacher to the effect of "Now students it is important for you to realize that science does not necessarily disprove the existence of God," then I think you are being unreasonable.

It doesn't need to be stated explicitly... don't let that technicality slip away.

boutons_

09-14-2006, 10:38 AM

"don't worry about what I believe OK"

I've said that many times here. Mix your own kool-aid and I'll mix mine. But neither of us has any right to pass out that kool-aid in a public school.

Phenomanul

09-14-2006, 10:52 AM

"don't worry about what I believe OK"

I've said that many times here. Mix your own kool-aid and I'll mix mine. But neither of us has any right to pass out that kool-aid in a public school.

I'm actually advocating for the laws that are in place now to admonish the brand of athiesm that is being taught in many of our public schools. Am I not entitled to that lobbying right? You are? Why should I be stripped of this right?

johnsmith

09-14-2006, 11:00 AM

George Gervin's Afro

09-14-2006, 11:03 AM

I'm actually advocating for the laws that are in place now to admonish the brand of athiesm that is being taught in many of our public schools. Am I not entitled to that lobbying right? You are? Why should I be stripped of this right?

Then the fair thing for you to do would be to lobby to teach all religions in public school. No one know's for sure who's religion is right.. Can't just lobby for one in order to be fair .. I don't get the impression your interested in being fair anyways..

Mr. Peabody

09-14-2006, 11:12 AM

I agree... but you fail to see the linearity of that subject... what happens when the issue of origins is brought up. Evolution had to start somewhere no? Otherwise it has existed forever. And I'm pretty sure a student always brings it up.... Gray Gray Gray...

Or in physics class, what existed before the Big Bang? Gray Gray Gray...

Somehow telling the students, "I'm not allowed to address that question" would not suffice.

How about stating "We don't know."? Because the truth is that we don't. Why is any further explanation needed?

johnsmith

09-14-2006, 11:18 AM

Then the fair thing for you to do would be to lobby to teach all religions in public school. No one know's for sure who's religion is right.. Can't just lobby for one in order to be fair .. I don't get the impression your interested in being fair anyways..

At least you threw an unnecessary cheap shot into that one.

Phenomanul

09-14-2006, 11:20 AM

How about stating "We don't know."? Because the truth is that we don't. Why is any further explanation needed?

That would be the perfect answer, and what would address my concern.

When the teacher attempts to address the question any other way, he's asking for trouble.

Phenomanul

09-14-2006, 11:23 AM

Then the fair thing for you to do would be to lobby to teach all religions in public school. No one know's for sure who's religion is right.. Can't just lobby for one in order to be fair .. I don't get the impression your interested in being fair anyways..

You would have had to read this thread from the start to know what my stance is. Your assesment in no way summarizes my line of thinking.

Mr. Peabody

09-14-2006, 12:20 PM

That would be the perfect answer, and what would address my concern.

When the teacher attempts to address the question any other way, he's asking for trouble.

I completely agree. Plus, he does a disservice to the student by giving the impression that these matters are settled when they most certainly are not.

smeagol

09-14-2006, 12:41 PM

The "Christian" taxpayers wouldn't be figting so hard, nor be so unconcerned, to hire and pay teachers of Muslim, of even "Christian" FDLS, or Catholicism.
Catholics are Christians, in case you were not aware.

johnsmith

09-14-2006, 12:46 PM

Where are the equal-opportunity elective courses Judaism, Hinduism, Mohammedism, Catholicism?

The post above me, and the quote above me here, offer further proof that Boutons has absolutely no fucking idea what to talk about when an article doesn't do his thinking for him. Two examples of his not knowing the fact that Catholics are Christians. That seems like common sense to me.

smeagol

09-14-2006, 01:11 PM

To boutons credit, some fringe Portestant denominations don't consider Cathiolics as Christians.

boutons_

09-14-2006, 01:13 PM

"Catholics are Christians"

But I don't see Protestant Bible-thumpers fighting for Catholic doctrines to be taught in public schols (nor do I see Catholics, Hindus, Jews, etc fighting to install their specific doctrines in public schools).

Christian is a useless definition. How many flavors of just Baptist "Christians" are there?

Then there is FLDS and LDS, "Christian" LDS itself being dreamt by a murderer, just the "Christian" Church of England was.

Christian? WHICH "Christian"?

Spurminator

09-14-2006, 01:19 PM

Protestantism vs. Catholicism would be irrelevant in a class on the Bible. They use the same one.

johnsmith

09-14-2006, 01:34 PM

Protestantism vs. Catholicism would be irrelevant in a class on the Bible. They use the same one.

:lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao

boutons_

09-14-2006, 02:16 PM

"the Bible. They use the same one."

false, the Bible-thumping "Christians" would insist on literal 6-day Creationism/ID which is not Catholic doctrine.

Extra Stout

09-14-2006, 02:28 PM

Protestantism vs. Catholicism would be irrelevant in a class on the Bible. They use the same one.
Ummm... actually, they don't. The Catholic Bible includes the Apocryphal books.

Phenomanul

09-14-2006, 02:56 PM

"the Bible. They use the same one."

false, the Bible-thumping "Christians" would insist on literal 6-day Creationism/ID which is not Catholic doctrine.

False... that is left up for the reader to decide whether or not the book was poetic..... The doctrine is not propagated from the top.

Now, now.... Don't overstep your bounds.

boutons_

09-14-2006, 03:00 PM

"left up for the reader to decide whether or not the book was poetic"

What sect let's, encourages?, the Bible reader come up with his own personal interpretation?

johnsmith

09-14-2006, 03:03 PM

"left up for the reader to decide whether or not the book was poetic"

What sect let's, encourages?, the Bible reader come up with his own personal interpretation?

Boutons is realizing that he knows nothing and now is just coming up with petty questions in response to everyone knowing more then him.........Quick Boutons, post an article.

velik_m

09-14-2006, 03:33 PM

(nor do I see Catholics, Hindus, Jews, etc fighting to install their specific doctrines in public schools).

maybe not in your country...

Spurminator

09-14-2006, 03:42 PM

Ummm... actually, they don't. The Catholic Bible includes the Apocryphal books.

I should have phrased it better (I'd call "The Stand" and "The Stand: Unabridged" the same book)... any academic course on the Bible would likely include a discussion of both. I had friends at UT who took a Bible course and the Apocryphal books were a part of the course.

Spurminator

09-14-2006, 03:46 PM

"the Bible. They use the same one."

false, the Bible-thumping "Christians" would insist on literal 6-day Creationism/ID which is not Catholic doctrine.

Any academic course on the Bible would include a discussion of the 6-Day Creation. There's no getting around that.

And I think you'll find that far fewer Protestants subscribe to a literal interpretation of Creation than you would like to believe.

Phenomanul

09-14-2006, 03:48 PM

"left up for the reader to decide whether or not the book was poetic"

What sect let's, encourages?, the Bible reader come up with his own personal interpretation?

Sect implies lead by a person or small group... I don't deal with them.

In my denomination, The Southern Baptists, leaders are elected; but they are nothing more than the administrative faces of the denomination. Every now and then they convene to determine their stance on certain issues, and yet the Southern Baptist Creed has been around and unchanged for quite some time...

And last time I looked it didn't claim to prescribe whether or not the Creation passages are to be interpreted as being poetic or literal. Either way, Creation is attributed to GOD. That would then follow that the choice was left up to the reader.

I for one am undecided but tend not to belittle the grandeur of Creation itself by sticking it into a box that is bound to naturalistic constraints. If Creation was supernatural, which I believe it was; then a 6 day model would not be bound by our logic. And if that was the case, so be it; if not... it wouldn't be a faith breaker.

boutons_

09-14-2006, 04:48 PM

sect: a separate group adhering to a distinctive doctrine or way of thinking or to a particular leader

Of course, US "Christian" sects will claim authenticity as well as separateness from and superiority to other Christian sects, fundamental to their political games and fund raising.

Since most US "Christian" sects have been invented by a leader or small group, and invented quite recently, their credibility as being authentic Christian groups is suspect, compared with the Apostolic succession of the original, authentic Christian religion, Catholicism.

Extra Stout

09-14-2006, 04:55 PM

Extra Stout

09-14-2006, 04:57 PM

Little did anybody realize that Martin Luther's endgame was political games and fundraising in the New World five centuries in the future! Thank you boutons for pointing this out! You know a lot about Christian history!

Phenomanul

09-14-2006, 05:39 PM

smeagol

09-14-2006, 06:07 PM

Since most US "Christian" sects have been invented by a leader or small group, and invented quite recently, their credibility as being authentic Christian groups is suspect, compared with the Apostolic succession of the original, authentic Christian religion, Catholicism.

Although I partially agree with you, especially with your statement of Catholicism, I wouldn’t go as far as saying that most US Christian denominations are sects.

When I think about sects, neither Methodists, Southern Baptists nor Lutherans come to mind. I would say Mormons, Seven Day Adventists, Jehova’s Witnesses, Scientologists, etc fit the bill better.