Texas Public Schools now *required* to teach the bible

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: sapiens74
So we are to ignore the biggest literary work in history?

To teach what?


Theory?

Why not just teach:

Reading, writing, arithmetic, science, history, geography, foreign language? What's wrong with that?

Who says that the Bible is the "biggest literary work in history"? What if Aristotle's works are really the biggest literary work in history since his work is the foundation of Western Civilization? (It was Aristotle's legacy and reason that gave us electricity and computers, not the Bible. The Bible gave us the Dark Ages and the Inquisition. The rediscovery of Aristotle gave us the Renaissance and modern society.)

The bible is part of history.

Why teach Shakespeare or Steinbeck or Hemingway etc etc?

 

[LunarRay]

" literature of the Bible and history of that era" (From the OP quote)

That bit sorta bothers me...

The bible as a primary text on the history of the era seems a bit far fetched to me. I have never heard that the bible was used to verify some archaeological find but, rather, the reverse. I'm also not too sure I can agree with the time frame of certain, or any for that matter, 'books' of the bible in context with what one might expect to be historical... I've always felt that other analysis was used to fix the timing of Biblical events, assuming they happened.

Now literature in a sense can be ascribed to the bible... Aside from the 'New Testament' I don't think there exists many manuscripts authored contemporaneously with the events described... I won't call it fiction but it can't be easily defined as biographical... The 'New Testament' can be somewhat biographical in that many of the manuscripts were written before 70AD after which the deaths ( or execution) of the main players occurred and would have been depicted.. So 40 yrs after the alleged trial of Jesus and Death... Eye balls on site as it were.

Additionally, the content - by and large - is to do with the faith of the Jew and Christian... their Religion... omitted are most all the historically significant events that don't directly tie to the faith aspect.
So, what then is the benefit derived from the bible in an academic way? From my POV it seems that to ordain one and not all the significant publications similarly instructive tends to be supportive of one Religious offering of history and literature over another possibly contrary one. And that seems to be State sponsored instruction of Religion...

I am a Christian but also have a mind.. and do separate God from Earther delights.

 

[monovillage]

Originally posted by: CallMeJoe

Originally posted by: monovillage

Originally posted by: guyver01

Originally posted by: monovillage
Sorry, but i'm still looking for someplace in the U.S. Constitution that allows the Feds any say in public schools whatsoever. I can find the 10TH Amendment which seems to give Texas the Right to include what they want in their curriculum.

The phrase "separation of church and state" is derived from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson in 1802 to a group identifying themselves as the Danbury Baptists. In that letter, referencing the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, Jefferson writes:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.

Part of what Jefferson meant in using the term ?separation of church and state? is that church would be protected from interference by the government. The Establishment Clause is, however, a two way street. And it?s not so much that the government needs protection from the church either. It?s that the governed need protection from churches attempting to work through government to promote religious agendas. In other words, separation of church and state is guaranteed in order to protect the freedom of conscience of each individual as well as each church

It is entirely beside the point that the phrase ?separation of church and state? doesn?t appear in the Constitution or Bill of Rights. It doesn?t have to. Jefferson used the term to describe what the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment did. That?s also what James Madison, the guy who actually wrote the Establishment Clause, was doing when he used the same phrase a couple years after Jefferson. This was a great thing those founding fathers put their lives on the line for. It gave everyone the same kind of protection from what Madison called ?the tyranny of the majority? in matters of freedom of conscience. It provided a level playing field where all ideas on religion can compete freely for the hearts and minds of people. It is an idea in which the United States will forever be the first nation in history to enshrine in law. It is worth celebrating. It is worth being thankful for.

I don't agree with it, although i see your point. Now just show me where it says the Fed Gov has any say in State schools.

The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, Section 1:
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.

Through the interpretation of the Supreme Court known as the Incorporation Doctrine, this Amendment applies the Rights specified in the Bill of Rights at the state level.

Again, sorry, but i see nowhere in the 14th Amendment that allows the Federal Government any say in how a State runs its schools. That is a very broad interpretation of the 14th Amendment, you may as well quote the Commerce Clause as giving the Feds the power to regulate schools.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: CallMeJoe

Originally posted by: LunarRay
How or rather, in what way are you presenting Gideon v. Wainwright regarding the post you quoted? Gideon does not empower the Federal Government to do anything but rather restricts the States in the manner the BoR restricts the Federal Government...
I'm asking cuz I don't understand the use of Gideon to the post quoted - not in disagreement.

I've not read every post in this thread in detail, so I'm not sure where Gideon v. Wainwright comes into it; I do know that it is through the Incorporation Doctrine that the First Amendment (among others) is applied at the state level, preventing actions that comprise an Establishment of Religion at the State as well as Federal level.

Right... I don't disagree at all.. I was only trying to follow the logic of the quoted post and Gideon either to refute or agree...
Sorry to have bothered you... I'll go back to sleep now...

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: monovillage

Originally posted by: CallMeJoe

Originally posted by: monovillage

Originally posted by: guyver01

Originally posted by: monovillage
Sorry, but i'm still looking for someplace in the U.S. Constitution that allows the Feds any say in public schools whatsoever. I can find the 10TH Amendment which seems to give Texas the Right to include what they want in their curriculum.

The phrase "separation of church and state" is derived from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson in 1802 to a group identifying themselves as the Danbury Baptists. In that letter, referencing the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, Jefferson writes:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.

Part of what Jefferson meant in using the term ?separation of church and state? is that church would be protected from interference by the government. The Establishment Clause is, however, a two way street. And it?s not so much that the government needs protection from the church either. It?s that the governed need protection from churches attempting to work through government to promote religious agendas. In other words, separation of church and state is guaranteed in order to protect the freedom of conscience of each individual as well as each church

It is entirely beside the point that the phrase ?separation of church and state? doesn?t appear in the Constitution or Bill of Rights. It doesn?t have to. Jefferson used the term to describe what the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment did. That?s also what James Madison, the guy who actually wrote the Establishment Clause, was doing when he used the same phrase a couple years after Jefferson. This was a great thing those founding fathers put their lives on the line for. It gave everyone the same kind of protection from what Madison called ?the tyranny of the majority? in matters of freedom of conscience. It provided a level playing field where all ideas on religion can compete freely for the hearts and minds of people. It is an idea in which the United States will forever be the first nation in history to enshrine in law. It is worth celebrating. It is worth being thankful for.

I don't agree with it, although i see your point. Now just show me where it says the Fed Gov has any say in State schools.

The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, Section 1:
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.

Through the interpretation of the Supreme Court known as the Incorporation Doctrine, this Amendment applies the Rights specified in the Bill of Rights at the state level.

Again, sorry, but i see nowhere in the 14th Amendment that allows the Federal Government any say in how a State runs its schools. That is a very broad interpretation of the 14th Amendment, you may as well quote the Commerce Clause as giving the Feds the power to regulate schools.

I understand that he was simply posting the restriction on the States to be the same as on the Feds..
I wish I could remember Justice Jackson's majority opinion.. thing it was Cantwell or like that.. 1940 or so case.. he said the 1st and 14th make the Feds and States INCOMPETENT to make law regarding the exercising of religious belief... (a criminal case as I recall)

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Zeppelin2282
You should start reading here.

The quotes on that page only give half the story.

For every bad quote from Jefferson on religion you can find multiple good ones:

"All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately, by the grace of God."

"The God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time; the hand of force may destroy, but cannot disjoin them."

"And they believe rightly; for I have sworn upon the altar of god, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."

Jefferson's view on religion are complicated and change throughout his life. He was most likely a Christian, but one who was against organized religion. He would fit right in with a LOT of modern Americans who have spiritual beliefs, but who do not attend church.

 

[Moonbeam]

Some provisions of the bill:

The purpose of the course would be to teach students biblical content,
characters, poetry, and narratives that are prerequisites to understanding
HB 1287
House Research Organization
page 2
contemporary society and culture, including literature, art, music, mores,
oratory, and public policy. The course would familiarize students with, as
applicable, the contents, history, and literary style of the Hebrew scriptures
or New Testament of the Bible, as well as their influence on law, history,
government, literature, art, music, customs morals, values, and culture.
A student would not have to use any specific translation of the Bible as the
sole text and could use, as the basic textbook, a different translation from
that chosen by a school board or the course teacher.
A course teacher would be required to hold a minimum of a high school
composite certification in language arts, social studies, or history with,
where practical, a minor in religion or bi blical studies. A teacher selected
to teach the course would be required to complete training designed by the
Texas Education Agency (TEA), which would provide:
· expertise in the appropriate Bible course curriculum;
· understanding of applicable U.S. Supreme Court rulings and
current constitutional law regarding how Bible courses are to be
taught with objectivity as part of a secular program;
· understanding of how to present the Bible in an objective and
academic manner that would neither promote nor disparage
religion;
· proficiency in instructional approaches that present course material
in a manner that respects all faiths and religious traditions, while
favoring none; and
· expertise in how to avoid devotional content or proselytizing in the
teaching of the course.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Some provisions of the bill:

The purpose of the course would be to teach students biblical content,
characters, poetry, and narratives that are prerequisites to understanding
HB 1287
House Research Organization
page 2
contemporary society and culture, including literature, art, music, mores,
oratory, and public policy. The course would familiarize students with, as
applicable, the contents, history, and literary style of the Hebrew scriptures
or New Testament of the Bible, as well as their influence on law, history,
government, literature, art, music, customs morals, values, and culture.
A student would not have to use any specific translation of the Bible as the
sole text and could use, as the basic textbook, a different translation from
that chosen by a school board or the course teacher.
I'd say Attica Greek would be in order to give the flavor of the original...
A course teacher would be required to hold a minimum of a high school
composite certification in language arts, social studies, or history with,
where practical, a minor in religion or bi blical studies. A teacher selected
to teach the course would be required to complete training designed by the
Texas Education Agency (TEA), which would provide:
· expertise in the appropriate Bible course curriculum;
· understanding of applicable U.S. Supreme Court rulings and
current constitutional law regarding how Bible courses are to be
taught with objectivity as part of a secular program;
· understanding of how to present the Bible in an objective and
academic manner that would neither promote nor disparage
religion;
· proficiency in instructional approaches that present course material
in a manner that respects all faiths and religious traditions, while
favoring none; and
· expertise in how to avoid devotional content or proselytizing in the
teaching of the course.

Guess they will import their Ph.D and J.D. teachers in the event someone wants to avail themselves of the course and avoid the content...

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Zeppelin2282
You should start reading here.

The quotes on that page only give half the story.

For every bad quote from Jefferson on religion you can find multiple good ones:

"All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately, by the grace of God."

"The God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time; the hand of force may destroy, but cannot disjoin them."

"And they believe rightly; for I have sworn upon the altar of god, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."

Jefferson's view on religion are complicated and change throughout his life. He was most likely a Christian, but one who was against organized religion. He would fit right in with a LOT of modern Americans who have spiritual beliefs, but who do not attend church.

How many times have I told you you need to stop just making crap up to fit the argument you are in the mood for making?

You do it again here - for example, Jefferson was 'probably' a Christian, you say. Too bad there's no way to find out anything about his position on the issue.

Oh ya but that would take effort and might not fit your desired point, so forget that.

Thomas Jefferson, for a taste of his Christianity, literally cut out of his bible every reference to Jesus' divinity, and left only his moral teachings.

Not exactly the traditional Christian faith.

But what do you care, it doesn't fit the argument you are in the mood for making.

Of course, we can also look at something like his view of the core of Christianity, the Holy Trinity:

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus."

But even your own quote, that you claim is 'good' for religions is the opposite - here's the fuller context, it was about the clergy opposing him for the presidency:

"The returning good sense of our country threatens abortion to their hopes, & they [the clergy] believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly; for I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me: & enough too in their opinion, & this is the cause of their printing lying pamphlets against me. . ."

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: Craig234
Thomas Jefferson, for a taste of his Christianity, literally cut out of his bible every reference to Jesus' divinity, and left only his moral teachings.

Not exactly the traditional Christian faith.

Granted, we have more recently found early fragments of the Gospels which prove at least some of the claims to divinity were edited in later. So, perhaps Jefferson was a better student of Jesus's teachings than most who have claimed Christianity as their faith.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: Craig234
Thomas Jefferson, for a taste of his Christianity, literally cut out of his bible every reference to Jesus' divinity, and left only his moral teachings.

Not exactly the traditional Christian faith.

Granted, we have more recently found early copies of the Gospels which prove at least some of the claims to divinity were edited in later. So, perhaps Jefferson was a better student of Jesus's teachings most who have claimed Christianity as their faith.

Your comment about him is accurate:

The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, January 24, 1814

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Zeppelin2282
You should start reading here.

The quotes on that page only give half the story.

For every bad quote from Jefferson on religion you can find multiple good ones:

"All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately, by the grace of God."

"The God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time; the hand of force may destroy, but cannot disjoin them."

"And they believe rightly; for I have sworn upon the altar of god, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."

Jefferson's view on religion are complicated and change throughout his life. He was most likely a Christian, but one who was against organized religion. He would fit right in with a LOT of modern Americans who have spiritual beliefs, but who do not attend church.

I don't see how anyone can define Jefferson as being a Christian at any point in his life. I think he accepted there is a supreme being floating about but one who never lived on earth... His comment that Bacon, Locke and Newton were the three best persons who ever lived on this Earth sort of makes his point that to him the Christ may have existed but was not a diety... and ergo, Christianity is best left to the priests and their flock of disinformed.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Zeppelin2282
You should start reading here.

The quotes on that page only give half the story.

For every bad quote from Jefferson on religion you can find multiple good ones:

"All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately, by the grace of God."

"The God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time; the hand of force may destroy, but cannot disjoin them."

"And they believe rightly; for I have sworn upon the altar of god, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."

Jefferson's view on religion are complicated and change throughout his life. He was most likely a Christian, but one who was against organized religion. He would fit right in with a LOT of modern Americans who have spiritual beliefs, but who do not attend church.

I don't see how anyone can define Jefferson as being a Christian at any point in his life. I think he accepted there is a supreme being floating about but one who never lived on earth... His comment that Bacon, Locke and Newton were the three best persons who ever lived on this Earth sort of makes his point that to him the Christ may have existed but was not a diety... and ergo, Christianity is best left to the priests and their flock of disinformed.

just wow....you really are judging people based on what they believe???
Those dis informed as you would call them would call you disinformed and would pray for your soul day and night.....

 

[kylebisme]

Difference being; he doesn't cling to an obviously altered book as if were the pinnacle of Truth.

 

[Mr. Lennon]

Originally posted by: Modelworks
All those quoting the founding fathers, do you realize that they would be appalled at the way the subject of religion is treated in modern society ? I doubt they could even comprehend that people would move so far from belief in God to even consider what people are proposing they meant. It would be comparable to them considering gay marriage a right in 1800. That they were advocating the complete removal of God in every form from the government is absurd.

Emotional outraged fundie.....Check

Ignorant...Check

His knowledge about our founding fathers limited to what he has learned from other fundies....Check

Such a terrible post. I suggest that you read a little bit more about our founding fathers. There was a reason why our founding fathers were so adamant towards separation of church and state. It only made it into our constitution....

 

[lupi]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: lupi
wow, vic on the side of reason for a change.

I'm always on the side of reason, it's you who consistently lets partisanship cloud your judgment. I could make that exact same logical argument on an entirely different issue and you would disagree if that's what your partisanship told you to do.

If describing yourself that's an excellent post.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan

Originally posted by: ElFenix
i'm trying to figure out where it says a district has to offer the class.

SECTION 3. Section 28.002(a), Education Code, is amended to read as follows:
(a) Each school district that offers kindergarten through grade 12 shalloffer, as a required curriculum:
(1) a foundation curriculum that includes:
(A) English language arts;
(B) mathematics;
(C) science; and
(D) social studies, consisting of Texas, United States, and world history, government, and geography; and
(2) an enrichment curriculum that includes:
(A) to the extent possible, languages other than English;
(B) health, with emphasis on the importance of proper nutrition and exercise;
(C) physical education;
(D) fine arts;
(E) economics, with emphasis on the free enterprise system and its benefits;
(F) career and technology education; [and]
(G) technology applications; and
(H) religious literature, including the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) and New Testament, and its impact on history and literature.

OMG!!!! We are teaching them about the free enterprise system too!!!!

This means they will grow up to be capitalists!!!!

How can we let this happen? We must also teach them communism and socialism and all the wonderful benefits of those systems too.

What's the reason for such a nonsensical emotional outburst about something that has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of discussion?

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: sapiens74
So we are to ignore the biggest literary work in history?

To teach what?


Theory?

Why not just teach:

Reading, writing, arithmetic, science, history, geography, foreign language? What's wrong with that?

Who says that the Bible is the "biggest literary work in history"? What if Aristotle's works are really the biggest literary work in history since his work is the foundation of Western Civilization? (It was Aristotle's legacy and reason that gave us electricity and computers, not the Bible. The Bible gave us the Dark Ages and the Inquisition. The rediscovery of Aristotle gave us the Renaissance and modern society.)

The bible is part of history.

So was Greek Mythology, would you be OK if the Bible was taught alongside it?

Why teach Shakespeare or Steinbeck or Hemingway etc etc?

Again would you be OK if the Bible was included in a Literature Course under the context of Fiction?

 

[ProfJohn]

A lot of the bible is fiction and a lot of it is not.

The problem is deciding which is which.

The book is allegorical so much of what is said in the book that may seem fiction could also be considered fact.

Example: Is Jesus the son of god? Well if god created us then we are all the children of god and thus Jesus IS the son of god etc etc.

 

[halik]

ACLU will sue, they will drop this crap and life moves on.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
The book is allegorical so much of what is said in the book that may seem fiction could also be considered fact.

Example: Is Jesus the son of god? Well if god created us then we are all the children of god and thus Jesus IS the son of god etc etc.

Perhaps you did not realise, but the Bible claims Jesus was God's "only begotten Son". Also, while I agree with your assessment of the the Bible being allegorical, many people take it all quite literally, likely including the people who who pushed though the requirement to teach the Bible in schools.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Zeppelin2282
You should start reading here.

The quotes on that page only give half the story.

For every bad quote from Jefferson on religion you can find multiple good ones:

"All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately, by the grace of God."

"The God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time; the hand of force may destroy, but cannot disjoin them."

"And they believe rightly; for I have sworn upon the altar of god, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."

Jefferson's view on religion are complicated and change throughout his life. He was most likely a Christian, but one who was against organized religion. He would fit right in with a LOT of modern Americans who have spiritual beliefs, but who do not attend church.

I don't see how anyone can define Jefferson as being a Christian at any point in his life. I think he accepted there is a supreme being floating about but one who never lived on earth... His comment that Bacon, Locke and Newton were the three best persons who ever lived on this Earth sort of makes his point that to him the Christ may have existed but was not a diety... and ergo, Christianity is best left to the priests and their flock of disinformed.

just wow....you really are judging people based on what they believe???
Those dis informed as you would call them would call you disinformed and would pray for your soul day and night.....

I'm not judging anyone... Seems he said what I said he said... it has been ascribed to him as such anyhow...
I personally am Christian and am fully at odds with Jefferson... I still don't see how anyone can call him a Christian at any point in his life... a Deist might even be stretching it..

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
A lot of the bible is fiction and a lot of it is not.

The problem is deciding which is which.

The book is allegorical so much of what is said in the book that may seem fiction could also be considered fact.

Example: Is Jesus the son of god? Well if god created us then we are all the children of god and thus Jesus IS the son of god etc etc.

Well... if you read Genesis 6, I think it is you'll see mentioned the 'Sons of Man' and 'Sons of God' .... I presume the big ones to be the Sons of God, Angels or what not... and the cause of much discord and even an Ark...

 

[CallMeJoe]

Originally posted by: monovillage
Again, sorry, but i see nowhere in the 14th Amendment that allows the Federal Government any say in how a State runs its schools. That is a very broad interpretation of the 14th Amendment, you may as well quote the Commerce Clause as giving the Feds the power to regulate schools.

Nothing in the Fourteenth Amendment gives the Federal government control of how a state runs its schools, but the amendment does restrict the states to actions within the scope of the United States Constitution. This possible establishment of a favored religion by the State of Texas school systems must pass First Amendment standards.

 

[seemingly random]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
A lot of the bible is fiction and a lot of it is not.

The problem is deciding which is which.
...

It's big of you to admit this.