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

[Spurminator]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Extra Stout]

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]

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]

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. Cons ution?

If push comes to shove which "do ent" 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?

Matt 19 - Let the children come to me and forbid them not, for the Kingdom of Heaven belongs to ones like these. -Jesus-

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

“All authority hath been given unto me in heaven and on earth. Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I commanded you: and lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world” (Mt. 28:18-20

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

[Spurminator]

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. Cons ution?

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

If push comes to shove which "do ent" 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]

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. Cons ution?

If push comes to shove which "do ent" 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 Cons ution 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]

[QUOTE]

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 Cons ution.

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]

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.

[FromWayDowntown]

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]

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]

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]

[QUOTE=Extra Stout]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.

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 ? I don't believe so.

That means you respect the Cons ution 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 Cons ution 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 Cons ution 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?

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 pea 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]

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 ? 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 Cons ution 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 Cons ution 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 do ented 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 ins ution 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 e enical 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 uncons utional.

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 Cons ution 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]

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.

Worst analogy ever.

The "feast" is available to the "starving" whenever they want it outside of school. Why is that not enough for you?

[jochhejaam]

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]

[QUOTE]

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]

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 Cons ution. 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 Cons ution 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]

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 Cons utional framework.

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

Christian Reconstructionists: seek to overthrow the existing Cons utional 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]

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 Cons ution. 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 Cons ution 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 en led 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]

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