Texas Public Schools now *required* to teach the bible

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
There is something wrong with teaching *just* christianity

Like what? Is it better to know almost nothing about a lot of things or much more about something? Don't businesses hire people who specialize is something, like English Literature, not because they want people who know that subject, but because they have demonstrated a capacity to master subject matter reflecting both discipline and a capacity to learn?

The 'something wrong' he refers to in my mind doesn't mean knowledge of christianity in general, but refers to the unconstitutional context of a public school board requiring the teaching of a particular religion. As public school boards are gov't bodies, this lends the appearance of gov't endorsement/sanctioning/stamp of official approval, on a particular religion. This is explicitly not allowed under current constitutional law.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
RPS: They are both religiously motivated theories (one removes the need for a creator and the other acknowledges a creator).

Unfortunately true...many wrongly think that evolution precludes the existence of a Creator and many others wrongly think a Creator precludes the existence of evolution....and therein lies the rub.

I was quoting RyanPS. He tried to maintain that both are religious positions because they are motivated by a belief or a desire to deny God. I disagree. Evolution has nothing at all to do with God. It is a scientific theory explaining how life evolves by natural selection. It was created or invented to explain change, not to affirm or deny God. Those are motives imputed by idiots who do not understand that truth is open to any mind, religious or otherwise and unrelated to religion or non religion.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
There is something wrong with teaching *just* christianity

Like what? Is it better to know almost nothing about a lot of things or much more about something? Don't businesses hire people who specialize is something, like English Literature, not because they want people who know that subject, but because they have demonstrated a capacity to master subject matter reflecting both discipline and a capacity to learn?

The 'something wrong' he refers to in my mind doesn't mean knowledge of christianity in general, but refers to the unconstitutional context of a public school board requiring the teaching of a particular religion. As public school boards are gov't bodies, this lends the appearance of gov't endorsement/sanctioning/stamp of official approval, on a particular religion. This is explicitly not allowed under current constitutional law.

I already explained, as did a number of other people, this claim you make in nonsense. There is nothing unconstitutional that I can see in teaching Bible history in a secular way. I believe you are wrong.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
There is something wrong with teaching *just* christianity

Like what? Is it better to know almost nothing about a lot of things or much more about something? Don't businesses hire people who specialize is something, like English Literature, not because they want people who know that subject, but because they have demonstrated a capacity to master subject matter reflecting both discipline and a capacity to learn?

The 'something wrong' he refers to in my mind doesn't mean knowledge of christianity in general, but refers to the unconstitutional context of a public school board requiring the teaching of a particular religion. As public school boards are gov't bodies, this lends the appearance of gov't endorsement/sanctioning/stamp of official approval, on a particular religion. This is explicitly not allowed under current constitutional law.

I already explained, as did a number of other people, this claim you make in nonsense. There is nothing unconstitutional that I can see in teaching Bible history in a secular way. I believe you are wrong.

Oh, I agree there's nothing wrong with teaching a class on the bible or religion, or even a particular religion. In fact, SCOTUS already spoke to that over 40 years ago:

"It might well be said that one's education is not complete without a study of comparative religion or the history of religion and its relationship to the advancement of civilization. It certainly may be said that the Bible is worthy of study for its literary and historic qualities. Nothing we have said here indicates that such study of the Bible or of religion, when presented objectively as part of a secular program of education, may not be effected consistently with the First Amendment."

However, that's not the ONLY thing happening here. The full context of what is happening is that the government has required the elective instruction of one and only one religion, christianity. That very act of requiring a class only on christianity elevates that religion to some higher plateau. It creates the perception that the govt is advancing a particular religion. Constitutionally speaking, that is not going to fly.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
RPS: They are both religiously motivated theories (one removes the need for a creator and the other acknowledges a creator).

Unfortunately true...many wrongly think that evolution precludes the existence of a Creator and many others wrongly think a Creator precludes the existence of evolution....and therein lies the rub.

I was quoting RyanPS. He tried to maintain that both are religious positions because they are motivated by a belief or a desire to deny God. I disagree. Evolution has nothing at all to do with God. It is a scientific theory explaining how life evolves by natural selection. It was created or invented to explain change, not to affirm or deny God. Those are motives imputed by idiots who do not understand that truth is open to any mind, religious or otherwise and unrelated to religion or non religion.

My bad....I see now. Agree with you...many don't understand that evolution has absolutely nothing to do with the liklihood of whether God exists or not...and it sheds zero light on the age-old question of whether or not we were created for purpose...or just accidents....random warts on the ass of a meaningless universe.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
There is something wrong with teaching *just* christianity

Like what? Is it better to know almost nothing about a lot of things or much more about something? Don't businesses hire people who specialize is something, like English Literature, not because they want people who know that subject, but because they have demonstrated a capacity to master subject matter reflecting both discipline and a capacity to learn?

The 'something wrong' he refers to in my mind doesn't mean knowledge of christianity in general, but refers to the unconstitutional context of a public school board requiring the teaching of a particular religion. As public school boards are gov't bodies, this lends the appearance of gov't endorsement/sanctioning/stamp of official approval, on a particular religion. This is explicitly not allowed under current constitutional law.

I already explained, as did a number of other people, this claim you make in nonsense. There is nothing unconstitutional that I can see in teaching Bible history in a secular way. I believe you are wrong.

Oh, I agree there's nothing wrong with teaching a class on the bible or religion, or even a particular religion. However, that's not the ONLY thing happening here. The full context of what is happening is that the government has required the elective instruction of one and only one religion, christianity. That very act of requiring a class only on christianity elevates that religion to some higher plateau. It creates the perception that the govt is advancing a particular religion. Constitutionally speaking, that is not going to fly.

When the vast majority of the country are Christians, it's fine. Unless you're prepared to mandate that we teach every possible religion known to man or none at all. As long as the class isn't pushing Christianity and it's just teaching about it I have no problem with it. It's no different than a "US History" class IMO.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
There is something wrong with teaching *just* christianity

Like what? Is it better to know almost nothing about a lot of things or much more about something? Don't businesses hire people who specialize is something, like English Literature, not because they want people who know that subject, but because they have demonstrated a capacity to master subject matter reflecting both discipline and a capacity to learn?

The 'something wrong' he refers to in my mind doesn't mean knowledge of christianity in general, but refers to the unconstitutional context of a public school board requiring the teaching of a particular religion. As public school boards are gov't bodies, this lends the appearance of gov't endorsement/sanctioning/stamp of official approval, on a particular religion. This is explicitly not allowed under current constitutional law.

I already explained, as did a number of other people, this claim you make in nonsense. There is nothing unconstitutional that I can see in teaching Bible history in a secular way. I believe you are wrong.

Oh, I agree there's nothing wrong with teaching a class on the bible or religion, or even a particular religion. However, that's not the ONLY thing happening here. The full context of what is happening is that the government has required the elective instruction of one and only one religion, christianity. That very act of requiring a class only on christianity elevates that religion to some higher plateau. It creates the perception that the govt is advancing a particular religion. Constitutionally speaking, that is not going to fly.

When the vast majority of the country are Christians, it's fine.

And that's where SCOTUS disagrees with you. The make-up of the country is 100% irrelevant. If the law required an elective class on the koran be taught it would be equally unconstitutional.

And what if hypothetically the country massively converted to some other religion, that would have the effect of changing whether the law is constitutional or not? Such variables are not taken into account in constitutional analysis.

 

[sactoking]

Originally posted by: jonks
Oh, I agree there's nothing wrong with teaching a class on the bible or religion, or even a particular religion. However, that's not the ONLY thing happening here. The full context of what is happening is that the government has required the elective instruction of one and only one religion, christianity. That very act of requiring a class only on christianity elevates that religion to some higher plateau. It creates the perception that the govt is advancing a particular religion. Constitutionally speaking, that is not going to fly.

Not true at all. The school district I attended offered only Spanish and French as elective language courses. Nobody assumed that was an implicit endorsement of either language in any way shape or form.

The voters of Texas have decided that it is important to them that a context for understanding the bible text be offered. You can guess at their motives if you want, but the fact is that the act of offering is no different than the act of offering a foreign language.

Hell, they might have said that instead of teaching the bible text, they'd teach the qu'ran text. Do you think that Texas would be endorsing Islam in that circumstance? No, the most likely explanation would be that they were trying to understand complex international issues through education.

Is this, explicitly, any different just because it's Texas and the bible text?

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: sactoking

Originally posted by: jonks
Oh, I agree there's nothing wrong with teaching a class on the bible or religion, or even a particular religion. However, that's not the ONLY thing happening here. The full context of what is happening is that the government has required the elective instruction of one and only one religion, christianity. That very act of requiring a class only on christianity elevates that religion to some higher plateau. It creates the perception that the govt is advancing a particular religion. Constitutionally speaking, that is not going to fly.

Not true at all. The school district I attended offered only Spanish and French as elective language courses. Nobody assumed that was an implicit endorsement of either language in any way shape or form.

The Constitutional line of cases on the first amendment states that there can be no implicit endorsement of religion by the gov't. I'm unaware of any such line of cases on endorsing languages.

The voters of Texas have decided that it is important to them that a context for understanding the bible text be offered. You can guess at their motives if you want, but the fact is that the act of offering is no different than the act of offering a foreign language.

Hell, they might have said that instead of teaching the bible text, they'd teach the qu'ran text. Do you think that Texas would be endorsing Islam in that circumstance? No, the most likely explanation would be that they were trying to understand complex international issues through education.

Is this, explicitly, any different just because it's Texas and the bible text?

As I said above, it would be equally impermissible if it required only the Koran be taught. And your comparison to language is again completely without merit as the constitution makes no claim as to what languages are permitted. It does however speak to religion.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: miketheidiot
There is something wrong with teaching *just* christianity

Like what? Is it better to know almost nothing about a lot of things or much more about something? Don't businesses hire people who specialize is something, like English Literature, not because they want people who know that subject, but because they have demonstrated a capacity to master subject matter reflecting both discipline and a capacity to learn?

The 'something wrong' he refers to in my mind doesn't mean knowledge of christianity in general, but refers to the unconstitutional context of a public school board requiring the teaching of a particular religion. As public school boards are gov't bodies, this lends the appearance of gov't endorsement/sanctioning/stamp of official approval, on a particular religion. This is explicitly not allowed under current constitutional law.

I already explained, as did a number of other people, this claim you make in nonsense. There is nothing unconstitutional that I can see in teaching Bible history in a secular way. I believe you are wrong.

Oh, I agree there's nothing wrong with teaching a class on the bible or religion, or even a particular religion. However, that's not the ONLY thing happening here. The full context of what is happening is that the government has required the elective instruction of one and only one religion, christianity. That very act of requiring a class only on christianity elevates that religion to some higher plateau. It creates the perception that the govt is advancing a particular religion. Constitutionally speaking, that is not going to fly.

When the vast majority of the country are Christians, it's fine.

And that's where SCOTUS disagrees with you. The make-up of the country is 100% irrelevant. If the law required an elective class on the koran be taught it would be equally unconstitutional.

And what if hypothetically the country massively converted to some other religion, that would have the effect of changing whether the law is constitutional or not? Such variables are not taken into account in constitutional analysis.

If the country massively converted to some other religion I'd have no problems with schools teaching about that religion. Christianity is much more relevant to our country's history than any other religion. It makes sense that they'd teach about it.

 

[JD50]

A class about religion is not endorsing that religion any more than a class about European history is endorsing Europe.

 

[ElFenix]

wow, the person with the blog post at the start of this linked to the wrong thing. guess what? that bill didn't get signed by the governor. this one did. notice there is a significant change from 'shall offer' to 'may offer.'

 

[ProfJohn]

How about a less biased source than THe Dallas Atheism Examiner...

From KLTV

WHITEHOUSE, TX (KLTV) - The school year is almost here, and if literature of the Bible is not already offered in your child's school, it will be this fall.

Books are a common sight in classrooms around the nation, but the Bible is one book that is not. Come this fall, a Texas law says all public schools must offer information relating to the Bible in their curriculum.

"By the end of the year, what they begin to realize is that it is pervasive. You can't get away from it. The kids came back and were like 'It's everywhere,'" said John Keeling, the social studies chair at Whitehouse High School. Whitehouse already offers a Bible elective. "The purpose of a course like this isn't even really to get kids to believe it, per se, it is just to appreciate the profound impact that it has had on our history and on our government."

The law actually passed in 2007, but this will be the first school year it is enforced because the bill says, "The provisions of this act pertaining to a school district do not take effect until the 2009-2010 school year."

This has gained mixed reactions from East Texans.

"I think it is a good thing because a lot of kids don't have that experience, and they already want to take prayer out of school as it is, and you see where our kids are ending up!" said Tyler resident Laura Tucker.

Tyler resident, Havis Tatum, disagrees with Tucker.

"I don't want anybody teaching their religious beliefs to my child unless they want to send their child to my house and let me teach them my religious views," said Tatum. "There is no difference."

School officials said schools have not enforced the law because of confusion over the bill's wording and lack of state funding.

For now, each school district must find a way to fill the requirement before the seats are filled with students.

Sounds like a good idea as long as they stay away from teaching it as a class on religion.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: sactoking

Originally posted by: jonks
Oh, I agree there's nothing wrong with teaching a class on the bible or religion, or even a particular religion. However, that's not the ONLY thing happening here. The full context of what is happening is that the government has required the elective instruction of one and only one religion, christianity. That very act of requiring a class only on christianity elevates that religion to some higher plateau. It creates the perception that the govt is advancing a particular religion. Constitutionally speaking, that is not going to fly.

Not true at all. The school district I attended offered only Spanish and French as elective language courses. Nobody assumed that was an implicit endorsement of either language in any way shape or form.

The Constitutional line of cases on the first amendment states that there can be no implicit endorsement of religion by the gov't. I'm unaware of any such line of cases on endorsing languages.

The voters of Texas have decided that it is important to them that a context for understanding the bible text be offered. You can guess at their motives if you want, but the fact is that the act of offering is no different than the act of offering a foreign language.

Hell, they might have said that instead of teaching the bible text, they'd teach the qu'ran text. Do you think that Texas would be endorsing Islam in that circumstance? No, the most likely explanation would be that they were trying to understand complex international issues through education.

Is this, explicitly, any different just because it's Texas and the bible text?

As I said above, it would be equally impermissible if it required only the Koran be taught. And your comparison to language is again completely without merit as the constitution makes no claim as to what languages are permitted. It does however speak to religion.

Google Koran taught in public schools" and "islam taught in public schools" and read the results. It already is.

 

[sactoking]

Originally posted by: jonks
The Constitutional line of cases on the first amendment states that there can be no implicit endorsement of religion by the gov't. I'm unaware of any such line of cases on endorsing languages.

As I said above, it would be equally impermissible if it required only the Koran be taught. And your comparison to language is again completely without merit as the constitution makes no claim as to what languages are permitted. It does however speak to religion.

That's where you're flat wrong. The language comparison is perfectly valid. The two issues have the same STRUCTURE. In both cases, the existence of education is not the endorsement of the material being taught.

In your mind, the existence of education IS endorsement of the material. That is a logical fallacy. If that were true, the existence of Spanish language education would be an endorsement of the Spanish language. We know that is not true b/c Spanish is not the official language.

In your mind, the absence of education (in this case, other religious texts) is an endorsement of the material of which education exists. That is a logical fallacy. If that were true, the lack of education in Farsi would be an endorsement of the education of French. We know that is not true b/c French is not the official language.

You're so mentally caught up in "Texas + bible + school = BAD!!!!!!" that you can't see the huge logical mistakes that you're making. You're so emotionally invested in the false notion of 'separation of church and state' that you're tilting at windmills.

 

[frostedflakes]

Originally posted by: guyver01

Originally posted by: Fenixgoon
since the course is elective, separation still exists. though i'd say it'd be better to make the course a survey class (ie, survey of world religions) or to have multiple electives setup to teach about different religions

Separation does not exist, because they are using STATE and possibly Federal funding to create the course. .. it may be elective but the law is REQUIRING them to create it.

Remove the "you are required to create a course on the bible" part...

and make it "you can create a course on world religions" and i'd have NO issue with it.

Originally posted by: Fenixgoon
the torah is part of the bible

i'm not talking about the Pentateuch... i'm talking about the full blown scroll.. the entirety of Judaism's founding legal and ethical religious texts.

Does having this elective course in any way interfere with students' ability to practice the religion of their choice? Does it in any way force a particular religion on the students? If the answer to both is no, it's constitutional. Look up the free exercise and establishment clauses, as these are what's used to determine constitutionality in situations like this. There is absolutely nothing about "separation of church and state" in the US Constitution. The Constitution does not guarantee a secular government (this seems to be a common misconception), it simply prevents the government from persecuting citizens for their religious beliefs.

I'm about as atheist as they come, but stuff like this is a non-issue IMO. Surely there are better things we can get upset about.

 

[jonks]

blackangst & JD50 & sactoking:

You (and others?) are not understanding the argument. As posted on the prior page, SCOTUS already said secular teaching of religion or religious text is constitutional. I am not arguing this point, nor do I think studying the bible is worthless. It's clearly a very influencial text in western society and in english lit. So you can lay off the "jonks thinks looking at the bible is in public school is bad." Were talking about the structure of the curriculum here.

The question is whether a law that only requires one particular religion be studied passes the constitutional line of cases that do not allow implicit or explicit govt approval of one religion over other religions, or of religion over non-religion.

The texas law requires elective class on the Christian bible be the only required elective religion class. The law is saying "Christianity is more important than the other religions, and we want to make studying of christianity available". In this context, a group of students at a particular school who want to learn about the Koran/Islam or other religion can be denied, but they will not be denied if they want to learn about Christianity. This is favoritism of one religion, and as such its constitutionality is questionable.

 

[ahurtt]

Well they may be able to pass laws requiring the teaching but thank goodness our school children in Americas public schools today are not capable of learning.

 

[Red Dawn]

"Texas law says all public schools must offer information relating to the Bible in their curriculum. "

I think having a law forcing public schools to have it is bullshit. Resembles something you'd see in Afghanistan or Iran except with the Quran instead of the Bible.

 

[ProfJohn]

jonks, they are not teaching the religion of the bible. They are teaching the historical impact the bible has had one our country.

The impact of Christianity and the bible is all over our country. Our country would not exist as it does without these influences.

What is wrong with offering an elective that allows high school students the opportunity to study these influences??

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
jonks, they are not teaching the religion of the bible. They are teaching the historical impact the bible has had one our country.

The impact of Christianity and the bible is all over our country. Our country would not exist as it does without these influences.

What is wrong with offering an elective that allows high school students the opportunity to study these influences??

Allowing them to teach it in that context is one thing but forcing them to teach it is another.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Allowing them to teach it in that context is one thing but forcing them to teach it is another.

how is it any different than forcing districts to teach everything else districts are forced to teach?

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
"Texas law says all public schools must offer information relating to the Bible in their curriculum. "

I think having a law forcing public schools to have it is bullshit. Resembles something you'd see in Afghanistan or Iran except with the Quran instead of the Bible.

We force people to go to school. We make states provide education. Seems to follow we can say what will be taught, no?

 

[BlahBlahYouToo]

Originally posted by: guyver01
Texas public schools now required to teach the Bible

As of the 2009-2010 school year public schools in Texas are now required to offer a high school elective course on the literature of the Bible and history of that era. House Bill No. 1287 explains that the course ?must be taught in an objective and non-devotional manner that does not attempt to indoctrinate students as to either the truth or falsity of the Judeo-Christian biblical materials?. It goes on to say that schools can add courses on other religious texts if they would like, but only the one on the Bible is required.




Looks like the 1st amendment is now dead.
Any bets on which amendment is next?

elective, taught in objective, non-devotional manner.
nothing wrong here fatso.

 

[sactoking]

Originally posted by: jonks
blackangst & JD50 & sactoking:

You (and others?) are not understanding the argument. As posted on the prior page, SCOTUS already said secular teaching of religion or religious text is constitutional. I am not arguing this point, nor do I think studying the bible is worthless. It's clearly a very influencial text in western society and in english lit. So you can lay off the "jonks thinks looking at the bible is in public school is bad." Were talking about the structure of the curriculum here.

The question is whether a law that only requires one particular religion be studied passes the constitutional line of cases that do not allow implicit or explicit govt approval of one religion over other religions, or of religion over non-religion.

The texas law requires elective class on the Christian bible be the only required elective religion class. The law is saying "Christianity is more important than the other religions, and we want to make studying of christianity available". In this context, a group of students at a particular school who want to learn about the Koran/Islam or other religion can be denied, but they will not be denied if they want to learn about Christianity. This is favoritism of one religion, and as such its constitutionality is questionable.

Ok, I see your point better. You're saying it's a matter of access, basically. If a group of students want to learn about the bible text, there's a legally-mandated class for that. If a group of students want to learn about the qu'ran text, they can find an instructor, get a full enrollment, but still be (possibly) denied by the school. If a "full" class is 30 students and 29 want a class on the qu'ran, it's not going to happen. If 1 wants a class on the bible, it will happen. Does that sounds like I'm understanding your point better?