Quote :

"Plus, does it stand a snowballs chance in hell in the courts? "

Of course it does, F. Lee. There is really no question about that.

3/21/2006 8:35:00 PM

for real. have you SEEN the supreme court?

3/21/2006 8:37:33 PM

JonHGuth

Quote :

"the bible isnt all miracles and crazy things, theres lots of history in there"

supplanter

Quote :

"they could just as easily have ancient history class that used the bible as one of their sources for the non "crazy things" part of history"

JonHGuth

Quote :

"not everyone is afraid of knowledge"

I wasn't suggesting people were afraid of knowledge, I was suggesting that if history is actually your goal then the bible should only be one of many sources you use to study the non supernatural goings on of the time period. If learning about the bible is your goal then having it as your only source is more acceptable. I thought from the "theres lots of history in there" you were saying the bible is a good history source enough to justify it being used as the focus of a history class.

3/21/2006 8:55:11 PM

not to mention that it's debatable whether the ratio of myth to historical fact leans towards one side or the other

3/21/2006 9:00:08 PM

ok, have it your way. a bible class that does nothing but shoot down everything it says, thus destroying the faith of every one of these kids who goes in there believing it.


such a compassionate person.

3/21/2006 9:01:24 PM

Look dude

Just because beliefs are religious doesn't make them any more important or holy than regular old beliefs

Religious beliefs can be stupid. It's true. Teaching kids to doubt and question idiotic beliefs is the epitome of compassion.

Push it to the limit.

3/21/2006 9:18:01 PM

and if it's done correctly, i don't have a problem with that


but it opens the door to anti-religious assholes with an axe to grind who want to push their non-belief on people through interpreting the Bible (or any religious text) in an unfair, pessimistic manner.

[Edited on March 21, 2006 at 10:05 PM. Reason : i have only done this once before]

3/21/2006 10:05:16 PM

I've noticed a disproportionate amount of posts containing the word shit in this thread.

I just wanted to point that out to anyone else who finds the elitist vernacular interesting.

3/21/2006 10:37:29 PM

Religion in general is a very difficult subject to teach, especially in public schools, because no matter how it's taught, someone is going to complain.

The biggest issue will be the parents. There are very few parents that get involved with teachers past the high school level, but there are a lot of parents that will get involved until their kids graduate from high school. They'll be the ones most likely to complain.

If the class focuses on the supernatural more often than the history - parents complain that the school is promoting Christianity over the others.

If the class tries to be neutral and focus on the history - bible beater parents complain that the school doesn't teach "the most important" parts of the bible.

No matter how a teacher may teach the class, they'll probably be subject to a lot of unnecessary criticism and complaints.

3/21/2006 10:44:40 PM

Quote :

"ok, have it your way. a bible class that does nothing but shoot down everything it says, thus destroying the faith of every one of these kids who goes in there believing it. such a compassionate person."

that's not what I'm saying at all, but I'm sure you know that. All I'm saying is that you HAVE to make it clear, if you're going to teach it "non-religiously" (if that's even really possible) that some of the bible is myth. If the school is teaching that a man actually was born of a virgin and was the son of god and rose from the dead, I'd say that is unconstitutional.

Also, after hearing a few of the georgia lawmakers speak on npr today, I'm (unsurprisingly) quite sure that their point was to preach to these kids. At least two of them made it very clear that they wanted it taught because "many young people have no experience with the scriptures," and most or all of them said that the bible would be used "as a historical text," not at all mentioning that most of the bible is NOT historical

3/22/2006 8:48:07 AM

"I was suggesting that if history is actually your goal then the bible should only be one of many sources you use to study the non supernatural goings on of the time period."

When I said this earlier I was kind of getting at the point that while the idea of using it as a historical document is nice, it is definitely going to fall through. The aim of the people pushing it doesn't seem to be to use it as a historical document... and even if it was, once you tell teachers in the bible belt that the law says its okay to teach the bible now, what do you think they are going to actually do?

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/03/22/afghan.christian/index.html

Quote :

"In the days of the Taliban, those promoting Christianity in Afghanistan could be arrested and those converting from Islam could be tortured and publicly executed. That was supposed to change after U.S.-led forces ousted the oppressive, fundamentalist regime, but the case of 41-year-old Abdul Rahman has many Western nations wondering if Afghanistan is regressing. Rahman, a father of two, was arrested and is on trial for rejecting Islam. The Afghan constitution, which is based on Sharia, or Islamic law, says that apostates can receive the death penalty. "They want to sentence me to death, and I accept it," Rahman told reporters last week, "but I am not a deserter and not an infidel." "

This is why religon and gov shouldn't mix. The AfghanUS constitution, which is based on [s]Sharia, or IslamicChristian law so its okay to have it in gov buildings and teach it in schools.

3/22/2006 9:08:24 AM

but should you use it as a historical document? I was assuming this class was going to analyze the religious beliefs in the bible, not be a history class using the bible as a historical text, because IT'S NOT a historical text. It's a mythical text with some history, and it's very debatable what is and is not historical fact.

3/22/2006 10:50:00 AM

there are plenty of things that are very clearly historical facts, but anyways the article said exactly what the class would be; a class on the history and literature of the old testament and new testament eras. the class would focus on the law, morals, values and culture of the eras.

i dont see any arguments against that

3/22/2006 11:08:50 AM

in my class on ancient greek religion when we see Apollo miraculously controlling the weather to lead a ship of people to his new temple so their will be people to man it as a reflection on migrations of peoples and religion, and its pointed out that this probably wasn't a supernatural happening.

when we see the story of pscyhe & eros, or dionysus & seleme, we look at the supernatural events and point out why these stories were made up as a reflection of the family values of the time, and the concerns with proper governance, the laws on how the crown should be passed down through generations etc.

will this bible class on values go at is from the stand point of trying to see why a story about a man coming back to life was probably a reflection of values at the time?

3/22/2006 11:15:48 AM

let's hope so

Quote :

"there are plenty of things that are very clearly historical facts, but anyways the article said exactly what the class would be; a class on the history and literature of the old testament and new testament eras. the class would focus on the law, morals, values and culture of the eras. i dont see any arguments against that"

supposedly, but the lawmakers on npr sure didn't put it that way

3/22/2006 12:05:57 PM

Quote :

"Hi kids. Your teacher is "sick" today so I'll be filling in. Please allow me to introduce myself...I'm a man of wealth and taste...."

EarthDogg wins.

---

And from the article...

Quote :

"State Representative James Mills, the proposal's House sponsor, said the legislation would withstand a court challenge because it treats the Bible as an educational supplement. Under the proposal, the Old Testament and New Testament would be the primary text for each class and the local school board would decide which version of the text to use."

Hmm...

---

Quote :

"Sayer: So where on the spectrum do you fall?"

Generally opposed since the school is probably receiving No Child Left Behind money, which would amount to a federal endorsement of a single religion (as we've seen, no Islam/Judaism/Buddhism/Shinto classes). Demand be damned as far as that argument goes.

Quote :

"Sayer: Do you think this is gonna work and that it's a great idea?"

They already teach these classes: World Civ at our old high school, World Religion at other high schools, Religious Studies at still others. That's the forum for these types of classes; cover the spectrum, not individual religions. I think teaching that way is a better idea.

Teaching the Old and New Testaments as historical sources is a step above injecting ID into biology classrooms, but not exactly a giant leap. The Bible is loaded with historical inaccuracies, purely speculative information, and prejudices of the time, skewing its historical merit more than a bit.

So long as they properly differentiate between what constitutes literature and what constitutes history, it shouldn't be too much of a problem. Generally speaking though, this is a Pandora's Box.

It will run into difficulty because of enrollment by students with an axe to grind (who, IMHO have every right to enroll for that purpose), but that'll create the necessary debate to keep it from being a wholesale venue for proselytizing.

It'll probably work, though, because it's Georgia. Hell, Wolfpack2K (who, you'll notice, responded exactly as predicted ) has a good shot at being elected there. That should tell you something.

Quote :

"Sayer: Plus, does it stand a snowballs chance in hell in the courts?"

If the school receives federal funds, it shouldn't. If the school doesn't receive federal funds, it might.

3/22/2006 6:45:27 PM

why is this such a big deal...my high school has been offering a bible class for years

3/23/2006 3:32:59 PM

Was your high school private?

3/23/2006 3:41:23 PM

my HS offered a bible Lit class and still does.... and it was public, Why can we have classes on the Koran but not the Bible... Why is teaching Christian history and Literature illegal but Jewish and Islamic literature not?

3/23/2006 4:07:42 PM

cause the idea that some people might want to voluntarily learn about the law, morals, values and culture of the new and old testament eras makes some liberals pissy, and that just makes me more sure this is a good idea

3/23/2006 4:11:33 PM

Quote :

"wizzkidd: Why can we have classes on the Koran but not the Bible..."

University != High School

Quote :

"wizzkidd (and by proxy, "oppressed minority Christians:" Why is teaching Christian history and Literature illegal but Jewish and Islamic literature not?"

IT'S NOT ILLEGAL. NEVER FUCKING HAS BEEN. STOP BELIEVING EVERYTHING YOU READ IN A CHURCH BULLETIN OR HEAR ON TALK RADIO. SHUT THE FUCK UP.

[Edited on March 23, 2006 at 5:30 PM. Reason : ...]

3/23/2006 5:10:24 PM

how the fuck did i get rolled in with the "oppressed minority christians"
i think those people are fucking retarded, christians aren't oppressed

3/23/2006 5:25:05 PM

fair enough

[Edited on March 23, 2006 at 5:30 PM. Reason : ...]

3/23/2006 5:27:26 PM

as a liberal, those types of liberals annoy me cause they make me look retarded by proxy

nothing in that should put me in the oppressed christian category

3/23/2006 5:28:52 PM

Quote :

"JonHGuth: cause the idea that some people might want to voluntarily learn about the law, morals, values and culture of the new and old testament eras makes some liberals pissy, and that just makes me more sure this is a good idea"

The idea that some people might not want public schools, which are most likely receiving federal funds, to promote religious ideals makes some conservatives pissy, and that makes me more sure that this is a bad idea.

3/23/2006 5:32:57 PM

they aren't promoting religious ideals
did you read at all what the class would be about or just read "bible" and freak the fuck out

apparently it wasn't the former

3/23/2006 5:35:39 PM

Quote :

"Generally opposed since the school is probably receiving No Child Left Behind money, which would amount to a federal endorsement of a single religion (as we've seen, no Islam/Judaism/Buddhism/Shinto classes). Demand be damned as far as that argument goes. "

I fail to see how an elective class, with an expressly stated topic ammounts to endorsement. I mean this isn't even like a choir class singing religious songs. It's a class who's primary focus is christianity. It's a voluntary class. How does that equal endorsement in any way shape or form?

Furthermore, just because there is no X religion class yet does not mean that there couldn't be one. It would be one thing if students had asked and were denied, it's another to say just because it hasn't been made that this is endorsement or illegal.

Lastly why should demand not be taken into consideration. The school has a limited number of resources at it's disposal, it would be folly to attempt to create multiple classes for 1 or 2 students each, regardless of the class subject.

3/23/2006 5:40:09 PM

I quoted the article. I'd assume you could deduce from that, I read it.

So, you assume it'll be a simple discussion of what values Christians held. Not an evaluation of them.

3/23/2006 5:41:07 PM

this isnt a theology course


[Edited on March 23, 2006 at 5:56 PM. Reason : .]

3/23/2006 5:41:38 PM

Quote :

"I fail to see how an elective class, with an expressly stated topic ammounts to endorsement. I mean this isn't even like a choir class singing religious songs. It's a class who's primary focus is christianity. It's a voluntary class. How does that equal endorsement in any way shape or form?"

Who pays for it?

Quote :

"Furthermore, just because there is no X religion class yet does not mean that there couldn't be one. It would be one thing if students had asked and were denied, it's another to say just because it hasn't been made that this is endorsement or illegal."

And what if I'm saying that those other classes would be illegal, too?

Quote :

"Lastly why should demand not be taken into consideration. The school has a limited number of resources at it's disposal, it would be folly to attempt to create multiple classes for 1 or 2 students each, regardless of the class subject."

Because the first amendment can't be vetoed by a majority of public opinion. This much should be obvious.

3/23/2006 5:53:30 PM

also just so you know, even the ACLU supports the Bible Literacy Project which uses “The Bible and Its Influence” as a textbook.

but if this is really an issue you want to go after, http://www.bibleinschools.net/sdm.asp has classes in 1100 high schools all over the country

Quote :

" Who pays for it? "

doesn't matter, this isn't endorsing a religion

Quote :

" And what if I'm saying that those other classes would be illegal, too?"

then you would be wrong there, too

Quote :

"Because the first amendment can't be vetoed by a majority of public opinion. This much should be obvious."

were my first amendment rights violated because i couldn't take a military history course in high school because there were only 5 of us that wanted it? no, thats just ridiculous

[Edited on March 23, 2006 at 5:59 PM. Reason : .]

3/23/2006 5:56:43 PM

Quote :

"doesn't matter, this isn't endorsing a religion"

Not as a PURE history and literature class. That'd be a constitutionally-sanctioned secular purpose. But robots programmed to observe the 1st amendment will not be teaching the class.

I give it a matter of 5 years before it effectively does so and ends up in court. It clearly prefers one over the other, which is equally prohibited by First Amendment precedent.

Quote :

"then you would be wrong there, too"

Well, I mean, if you say so...

Quote :

"were my first amendment rights violated because i couldn't take a military history course in high school because there were only 5 of us that wanted it? no, thats just ridiculous"

Strawman, mean JonHGuth. JonHGuth, meet Strawman.

If public schools aren't allowed to reinstate prayer by a majority vote of the student body, what difference do you think their interest in an elective course on a single religion makes?

3/23/2006 6:17:24 PM

thats not a strawman
i gave an example to show why limiting courses based on resources an interests is not violating the first amendment

you made a stupid point and i countered it with another stupid point

3/23/2006 6:21:17 PM

Quote :

"Not as a PURE history and literature class. That'd be a constitutionally-sanctioned secular purpose. But robots programmed to observe the 1st amendment will not be teaching the class."

i guess the ACLU's endorsed course is in violation of the constitution

you should maybe write them an email to let them know

3/23/2006 6:22:19 PM

No. You presented a totally unrelated argument, and destroyed it.

I explicitly stated that the students of the school can't violate the first amendment by request or majority vote. You countered with some bullshit about a military history class some students requested, which I have to spell out for you apparently, IS NOT AT ALL RELATED TO NOR MENTIONED IN the first amendment; therefore, it was a strawman.

And Jesus Christ. You want a cookie? I'm allowed to disagree with the ACLU's positions. I make up my own mind, I don't let them do it for me.

3/23/2006 6:42:11 PM

someone said:

Quote :

""Generally opposed since the school is probably receiving No Child Left Behind money, which would amount to a federal endorsement of a single religion (as we've seen, no Islam/Judaism/Buddhism/Shinto classes). Demand be damned as far as that argument goes."

133t b4k4 said:

Quote :

"Lastly why should demand not be taken into consideration. The school has a limited number of resources at it's disposal, it would be folly to attempt to create multiple classes for 1 or 2 students each, regardless of the class subject."

gamecat said:

Quote :

"Because the first amendment can't be vetoed by a majority of public opinion. This much should be obvious."

it would be stupid to have a class for the koran if no one wants to take it, just as it would be stupid to have the military history class i wanted because only 4 other kids wanted it too. this is not a case of vetoing the first amendment. your claim is what is known as a straw man argument.

(what you were describing i did is a red herring)

3/23/2006 6:59:53 PM

Quote :

"Who pays for it? "

Irellevant as the money is not being used to endorse or prohibit the free exercise of any one religion.

Quote :

"And what if I'm saying that those other classes would be illegal, too? "

Then you would be nuts. I know a lot of students that would have killed for some real religion courses in highschool. There are a lot of facinating world religions out there and it is a shame that because of the stigmas associated with them, we can't actualy learn about them in school.

Quote :

"Because the first amendment can't be vetoed by a majority of public opinion. This much should be obvious."

How is it being vetoed?

Quote :

"If public schools aren't allowed to reinstate prayer by a majority vote of the student body, what difference do you think their interest in an elective course on a single religion makes?"

The argument against prayer in the schools is based around the belief that school sanctioned and sponsored prayer would leave students feeling left out or uncomfortable during said prayer sessions. Note however that students are allowed to engage in prayer and invite their friends and fellow students to do so of their own actions.

How does an elective course produce the same result or discomfort?

3/24/2006 1:50:39 PM

As long as it's only an elective, it can be a worship service for all I care.

That said, I wish I'd been able to have a class in my school where the Bible was studied in a historical context. It would have helped some of my classmates grow up not to be so Pentecostal.

3/24/2006 4:46:34 PM

interesting.

3/25/2006 2:03:06 AM

Nope, my high school was public. Offers a class on the new and old testaments.

3/25/2006 2:09:11 AM