http://www.wral.com/bill-would-create-bible-study-elective-for-high-schools/12155972/

Quote :

"Bill would create Bible study elective for high schools RALEIGH, N.C. — Students at public high schools would be able to take a Bible study elective under a bill filed Tuesday by Sen. Stan Bingham, R-Davidson."

I wonder if there will be electives to study holy books of other religions, or to study explicitly anti/non-religious texts? Seems to be Bible-only based on the info in the link.

2/27/2013 11:48:17 AM

Quote :

"I wonder if there will be electives to study holy books of other religions, or to study explicitly anti/non-religious texts? Seems to be Bible-only based on the info in the link."

If they're going to pass this stupid fucking bill there certainly should be. Furthermore, this:

Quote :

"Bingham said that, if his bill passes, it would likely be up to students and parents to ask a local school system to develop an elective. School systems would have the option of whether to implement the course or not."

is pretty much how it should happen if someone is interested in this.

2/27/2013 11:53:47 AM

My posts in the other thread:

Quote :

"SECTION 1. G.S. 115C-81 is amended by adding a new subsection to read: "(g4) Bible Study Elective. – Local boards of education may offer to students in grades nine through 12 elective courses for credit on the Hebrew scriptures (Old Testament), the New Testament, or a combination of the two subject matters. A student shall not be required to use a specific translation as the sole text of the Hebrew scriptures or New Testament and may use as the basic textbook a different translation of the Hebrew scriptures or New Testament approved by the local board of education or the principal of the student's school. A course offered by a local board of education in accordance with this subsection shall (i) follow federal and State law in maintaining religious neutrality and accommodating the diverse religious views, traditions, and perspectives of the students of the local school administrative unit and (ii) not endorse, favor or promote, or disfavor or show hostility toward any particular religion, nonreligious faith, or religious perspective. Courses may include the following instruction: (1) Knowledge of biblical content, characters, poetry, and narratives that are prerequisites to understanding contemporary society and culture, including literature, art, music, mores, oratories, and public policies. (2) Familiarity with the contents, history, style, structure, and societal influence of the Hebrew scriptures or the New Testament." SECTION 2. This act is effective when it becomes law and applies beginning with the 2013-2014 school year."

for reference

2/27/2013 11:54:13 AM

Quote :

"It's basically one of the units from my high school's honors or AP World History classes turned into a full class. They call it a Bible study, but the description is more of a religion study. I think this is a good class, but I don't think it will be effective at the high school level. Religion drives so many things in society, we should want more people to understand it. I think the class would be a lot stronger though if it included other world religions, but a lot of schools already have that class."

2/27/2013 11:54:40 AM

If you want a class that just teaches the bible, go to fucking Sunday school.

2/27/2013 12:03:07 PM

did you read the bill? its not sunday school.

[Edited on February 27, 2013 at 12:08 PM. Reason : sunday]

2/27/2013 12:07:46 PM

I find this an odd thing to be put into a bill. It'd be a little better if it just created "religion" as an elective, not "bible study". But it'd still be a weird thing to put into a bill.

[Edited on February 27, 2013 at 12:24 PM. Reason : ]

2/27/2013 12:17:13 PM

It's like the constitution doesn't even matter to these legislators.

2/27/2013 12:20:00 PM

^ did you read the bill?

Quote :

" (i) follow federal and State law in maintaining religious neutrality and accommodating the diverse religious views, traditions, and perspectives of the students of the local school administrative unit and (ii) not endorse, favor or promote, or disfavor or show hostility toward any particular religion, nonreligious faith, or religious perspective."

its a religious studies class, we already have those in public high schools. the biggest question is why they need a bill to allow that classes may be offered, it just seems unnecessarily redundant and purposefully inflammatory.

2/27/2013 12:23:22 PM

Quote :

"not endorse, favor or promote, or disfavor or show hostility toward any particular religion, nonreligious faith, or religious perspective.""

the fact that this bill offers the opportunity for a class for "bible study" only (including the new testament), and not other religious studies kinda favors and promotes christianity, doesn't it?


[Edited on February 27, 2013 at 12:33 PM. Reason : ]

2/27/2013 12:25:35 PM

Quote :

"the biggest question is why they need a bill to allow that classes may be offered, it just seems unnecessarily redundant and purposefully inflammatory."

2/27/2013 12:29:49 PM

Quote :

"the biggest question is why they need a bill to allow that classes may be offered, it just seems unnecessarily redundant and purposefully inflammatory."

Because most of Stan Bingham's constituents jizzed their pants when they saw the story on the front page of the Lexington dispatch.

[Edited on February 27, 2013 at 12:31 PM. Reason : even if it doesn't change a thing, Thank god for Stan, a true warrior for truth]

2/27/2013 12:30:24 PM

Quote :

"the fact that they're creating a class for "bible study" only (including the new testament), and not other religious studies kinda favors and promotes christianity, doesn't it?"

it says bible study in the name (which is why i said is unnecessarily inflammatory) but the description is no different than classes we already offer at public schools. at my high school the description reads exactly how we covered it in my AP world history class, just stretched out to a full class. And some schools already have that class.

2/27/2013 12:33:41 PM

did your high school offer other religious classes that studied other religious texts beyond the bible? if not, sounds like your high school was promoting christianity.

2/27/2013 12:40:57 PM

a secular, literary study of the bible is not promoting Christianity. its only a problem if the teaching becomes devotional (which is a real concern in a lot of places).

2/27/2013 12:49:17 PM

Quote :

"did you read the bill? its not sunday school."

No shit?

If you want to learn about the characters and poetry and biblical content, you can go to Sunday school. Surely you'll be able to discern how the bible has influenced contemporary society.

2/27/2013 12:49:37 PM

Quote :

"a secular, literary study of the bible is not promoting Christianity."

I see your point, but when it's the only religous studies class, and it only focuses on the bible, it certainly is favoring Christianity.

2/27/2013 12:51:20 PM

This bill has an obvious purpose, one that I do not support, but given how much of our current domestic and national policy and politics are influenced or largely driven by religion, we should want people to have a better secular understanding of them. And telling people to go to sunday school to get that is a laughable idea.

2/27/2013 12:54:35 PM

Children already learn so many fairy tales; what's one more?

2/27/2013 1:11:40 PM

I mean, I don't mind them teaching it at school at all, if they teach it objectively. I'd think once people really started learning more about the bible and the religion, they'd appreciate it for it's literary and historical merits, but realize that most of the mythical parts are fiction.

It's funny that some people who go to church regularly and who are the most "religious" often don't know a whole lot about the bible. I have family member who constantly post religious things on facebook, but I'm positive that i know at least 10 times more about the bible than them. And I don't even know all that much.

but with that said, it's still a weird thing to write a bill about.

[Edited on February 27, 2013 at 1:26 PM. Reason : ]

2/27/2013 1:15:00 PM

Quote :

"This bill has an obvious purpose, one that I do not support, but given how much of our current domestic and national policy and politics are influenced or largely driven by religion, we should want people to have a better secular understanding of them. And telling people to go to sunday school to get that is a laughable idea. "

That's true, but does anything currently prevent schools from teaching this in existing classes? Why need a legislative mandate for bible-focused lessons?

And if they are leaving this up to schools to implement, you know that means more "conservative" school districts will probably just get a local pastor to come in and teach how the founding fathers wrote the constitution because of the Bible.

And the vast majority of people in this country already claim an affiliation with Christianity, is there a broader issue with people not understanding how prevalent the Bible is in our society?

This seems like a wedge for creationism in schools, similar to "teach all sides of a debate" type of legislation.

2/27/2013 1:19:35 PM

Quote :

"but does anything currently prevent schools from teaching this in existing classes? Why need a legislative mandate for bible-focused lessons?"

nothing that i know currently prevents this, but I could be wrong

but to clarify, this bill is not a mandate. this bill would not create a new class or require schools to do anything. it doesn't really do anything at all except say they may, its unnecessary and redundant. the only reason i can see for this is to be inflammatory.

Quote :

"but does anything currently prevent schools from teaching this in existing classes? Why need a legislative mandate for bible-focused lessons?"

even of people who self-associate as Christians, not many of them have a historical, contemporaneous understanding of the bible and how it effects global happenings and culture.

2/27/2013 1:26:40 PM

Quote :

"but to clarify, this bill is not a mandate. this bill would not create a new class or require schools to do anything. it doesn't really do anything at all except say they may, its unnecessary and redundant. the only reason i can see for this is to be inflammatory. "

Pretty much this. And all the more reason to vote it down.

2/27/2013 1:36:08 PM

Quote :

"This seems like a wedge for creationism in schools, similar to "teach all sides of a debate" type of legislation."

And bingo was his name-o.

All the educators (and students) that would just love to have a class completely dedicated to their holy book know that if they tried to pull this shit without the state's explicit sanction it would get yanked.

It probably still will get yanked if the bill passes and some schools implement it, except now it'll take a Supreme Court case and cost the district and state a shit-ton of money.

What the fuck does this have to do with jobs?

Quote :

"even of people who self-associate as Christians, not many of them have a historical, contemporaneous understanding of the bible and how it effects global happenings and culture."

Nor the Quran, nor the Bhagavad Gita. If this was anything but a christian pandering circle jerk, it would include at least the Quran, if "the effects of global happening and culture" were truly the motivation.

2/27/2013 1:48:21 PM

But Muslims are terrorists and Himmler carried around a copy of the Bhagavad Gita!

2/27/2013 2:27:11 PM

If this class was offered in my school, I would have taken it just to troll the fuck out of the teacher make sure the content was presented in a secular fashion with clear emphasys on fictional nature of the book.

2/27/2013 3:31:45 PM

I grew up in a reasonably rural part of the state, and there is already more bible discussion in the classes than I expect a non-christian would have been comfortable with even without this bill.

No matter what the theory behind courses like this, I believe the in practice version of it will be predominately favoring one religion over others and over non-religious views. The last thing gay bullied kids need is their peers being subjected to selective readings of Leviticus.

Also, how much will this be taught like the way we teach Homer's works, from the point of view of literary works not religious texts, and how much credence will be given to some of the poor quality translations that have made their way down?

2/27/2013 4:11:31 PM

I also wonder (not really) why conservative parents wouldn't be in arms over their kids reading literature containing extremely graphic violence and genocide. If my kid were to write a story about a man offering up his daughters for an angry mob to rape so they wouldn't rape my male house guests, don't you think they'd have a problem?

2/27/2013 4:40:21 PM

Sorry, not relevant to the bill, but that post made me think of the Professor Brothers

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bar3GOzDNzg

2/27/2013 4:43:09 PM

Does anyone have any expectation that this hypothetical class would actually be taught from a secular point of view?

I doubt it. What happens the first time a teacher makes an actual attempt at a secular lesson about the bible?

"Ok kids, the bible is, best as we can tell given our current understanding of physics, geology, cosmology, biology, chemistry, astronomy, evolution, etc, a collection of fictional stories written by Bronze Age desert sand farmers."

That'll go over well. Teaching evolution is controversial for christ's sake! Can you image a secular lesson on the fucking BIBLE? In public school?!

[Edited on February 27, 2013 at 4:47 PM. Reason : .]

2/27/2013 4:44:32 PM

I think it could definitely be taught from a secular point of view, it was when we covered it in my World History class.

[Edited on February 27, 2013 at 4:48 PM. Reason : you know, since it already happens in public schools]

2/27/2013 4:47:37 PM

^^^lol

[Edited on February 27, 2013 at 4:49 PM. Reason : -]

2/27/2013 4:49:47 PM

^^were actual stories covered? like the ark, and jonah and the whale, and creation, and parting of the red sea? or jesus turning water to wine or wlaking on the water or feeding 5000 people with five loaves of bread and a couple fish? how could you possibly teach that from a secular point of view w/o recognizing it as complete fantasy?

[Edited on February 27, 2013 at 5:05 PM. Reason :^check out the other Professor Brothers if you found that amusing, good stuff ]

[Edited on February 27, 2013 at 5:08 PM. Reason : V Yeah, that's a good one too!]

[Edited on February 27, 2013 at 5:13 PM. Reason : ]

2/27/2013 5:04:59 PM

Oh ive been watching them for years. "Jesus Fucking Christ" is excellent too.

2/27/2013 5:10:25 PM

^^ you talk about origin stories, how they parallel other origin stories they are adapted from and cultural references to them. but the origin story is a very small part of the old testament, and a much smaller part still of the bible.

in classes i experiences we covered origin stories in AP world history and a couple other classes/grades that i can remember. the context was a little different depending on the class but usually they would discuss similarities differences and give context to the culture that created them. they would talk about how they changed and spun out of each other.

and all of this in public schools, OMG!

[Edited on February 27, 2013 at 5:20 PM. Reason : .]

2/27/2013 5:18:10 PM

I hear you, makes sense. However, I don't think that's what the folks who drafted this bill and who will support this bill have in mind. I realize you've already recognized that though.

I don't remember ever learning anything about the bible through high school... but of course, I don't remember a lot about high school.

2/27/2013 5:22:52 PM

oh yeah, that's definitely not what the bills author wants to do. because you can already do all that.

2/27/2013 5:24:28 PM

My problem with a "Bible Study" class would be if they focused on teaching the Bible. What I mean is that how do you substantiate the history of the Old Testament or even a lot of the New? How do you make a comparative study between the Bible and other source materials? If anything, they should format it the way that NC State teaches (or at least taught) the Christianity class which focused on the development of the New Testament (you know, when Christianity actually started), but was more of a history class with no tinge of theology. Teach the history and people of the early Church, without painting them as victims. Teach about the schisms within the Church and the various doctrines that emerged. Teach about the main thinkers and their contributions. While most kiddies will find it boring as hell (lol?), it's about the most rational way of teaching a religion within a public forum. You may even *gasp* expand the kid's way of thinking and cause them to question whatever monolithic, and likely incorrect, information they were fed in church.

2/27/2013 7:54:15 PM

You and I both know that has nothing to do with how any NC high school teachers/administrators would run with this sanction. They'd just read passages and go "we're not saying this actually happened, wink, you make your own conclusions, wink wink."

2/27/2013 7:58:27 PM

Hahaha. Sadly, your believable representation is completely plausible.

2/27/2013 8:03:23 PM

That wasn't fair. I'm sure some teachers in Wake and Mecklenburg would be professional, but they should be teaching a comparative religions class instead anyway.

E-mail sent to my senate and house representatives.

(GOD DAMN IT, I STOPPED SURFING TWW TO WATCH THE GAME AND BC SCORES 8 IN A ROW)

[Edited on February 27, 2013 at 8:32 PM. Reason : .]

2/27/2013 8:23:04 PM

^^^^ Yeah, I took those classes at State and enjoyed them. Also took a couple of other religion classes, I always found them interesting.

2/27/2013 8:26:40 PM

Religion classes at the college level (for me at least) seemed to be hard as fuck.

The most amusing part were the people of course who toddle into those classes thinking that Sunday school prepared them.

Of course they end up getting into arguments with the professor and getting owned as fuck (then drop).

You see them in Biology classes later doing the same shit. Man, fuck those people.

2/27/2013 8:35:23 PM

Well, the biggest difference between someone like me, and those folks was that I was legitimately interested in learning about religion, the basic tenants of the ones I was not familiar with and the history of the one I had been exposed to my whole life. They didn't want to learn, they just wanted validation of what they already "knew."

It's sort of funny how many people who identify as "religious" have never actually read the religious text they so vehemently claim to believe is divinely inspired truth.

2/27/2013 9:04:56 PM

Quote :

"It's like the constitution doesn't even matter to these legislators."

don't construe this as defending the people pushing this bill, because i'll bet money they're total dipshits, but exactly what part of the Constitution are you talking about?

2/27/2013 10:22:06 PM

First Amendment:

Quote :

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1:

Quote :

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

By Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652 (1925), the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (bolded above) allows the First Amendment to apply to state legislatures too; by Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947), the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment (bolded above) does apply to state legislatures.

2/28/2013 6:33:39 AM

The class as described does not violate that

2/28/2013 6:58:35 AM

It fails the Lemon test spectacularly though, which would indicate that it in fact does violate the Establishment Clause.

2/28/2013 9:11:48 AM

no it doesn't

unless you are saying a secular study of the bible inhibits religion, then maybe

2/28/2013 10:32:16 AM

It's teaching a particular religion's holy text to the exclusion of all others. I mean, it'll be up to the court to decide, but it seems pretty clear to me.

2/28/2013 10:37:00 AM