Reply With Quote
Where are the equal-opportunity elective courses Judaism, Hinduism, Mohammedism, Catholicism?
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, led "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 les, 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...gh_school.html
Where are the equal-opportunity elective courses Judaism, Hinduism, Mohammedism, Catholicism?
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.
Key word...
...Elective.... NO one is forced into taking it.
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.
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 en led 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....
Last edited by Phenomanul; 09-13-2006 at 12:14 AM.
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.
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 ing school and teach whatever the 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...
Last edited by Phenomanul; 09-13-2006 at 12:11 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. A comparative course showing Christianity isn't the only game in town would be much more useful for schoolkids.
A class being an elective is irrelevant.
The point was that the classes were "electives"
The point is you're a dumb . 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 Cons ution 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.
Last edited by boutons_; 09-13-2006 at 07:10 AM.
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 ins utions, but who the 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.
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....
Bull . 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.
That's irrelevant. You are equating "did not" with "could not."
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.
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.
I'm throwing around too many commas.
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.
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.
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.
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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
