blackangst1
Lifer
- Feb 23, 2005
- 22,902
- 2,359
- 126
I am with ya! I have been on a crusade for the last year to have the following added to my states science textbooks about other so called "theories".
"This textbook asserts that gravity exists. Gravity is a force that cannot be directly seen. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered. "
I have found that fighting the good fight against the state cramming their theories down the throats of impressionable children is not without cost and being that you and I have a common goal I hope I can count on you to contribute to our fund. Anything will help but if you donate over $50 we will send you dozens of stickers to put on the inside of your childrens science books. Shall I PM you my paypal info?
Originally posted by: blackangst1
And teaching is not promoting
It is if it's mandatory and it isn't part of a course in a balanced course on comparative religions. The Texas law requires only a course on the one Christian bible to be offered.
Of course, since there are many versions, it then gets down to WHICH Christian bible. And ithen, there's this question of what to do about imposing this course on the children of those of other faiths and of non-believers.
This is wrong in so many ways. :thumbsdown:
blackangst1
Lifer
- Feb 23, 2005
- 22,902
- 2,359
- 126
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: blackangst1
And teaching is not promoting
It is if it's mandatory and it isn't part of a course in a balanced course on comparative religions. The Texas law requires only a course on the one Christian bible to be offered.
Of course, since there are many versions, it then gets down to WHICH Christian bible. And ithen, there's this question of what to do about imposing this course on the children of those of other faiths and of non-believers.
This is wrong in so many ways. :thumbsdown:
I agree with you. And since it isnt mandated the course be taken, its a moot point.
LunarRay
Diamond Member
- Mar 2, 2003
- 9,993
- 1
- 76
It is settled law that it is NOT unconstitutional to teach the Bible in Public Schools.
It is appropriate for the various school districts to set the curriculum in their schools so long as it does not violate some previous court decisions on the particular course and the content of it and/or the way it is taught.
In Moreno v Ector County Board of Ed.. we find the ACLU gaining a settlement but also acknowledging the right to teach the bible in public schools... their argument went to the content (mostly). ACLU blurb on Moreno v ECBofE
Regardless of all the Religious or non Religious folks or Constitutional Scholars in the making... we do have pretty good insight as to what is Constitutional regarding Education and the rights of the people to decide what that curriculum should be... Sometimes someone stretches the envelope and they get slammed... as in Moreno...
EDIT: For those interested on other Supreme Court Religious Cases...
Interesting quote for the gnashing of teeth and it is from the above linked aclu article "It's important to remember that the Bible could be taught constitutionally in schools," says Gunn. "Bible education per se is not unconstitutional if the course is designed to be objective." But according to Gunn, it's hard to learn anything about the classes in the first place, because the NCBCPS is incredibly secretive its course materials..."
It is appropriate for the various school districts to set the curriculum in their schools so long as it does not violate some previous court decisions on the particular course and the content of it and/or the way it is taught.
In Moreno v Ector County Board of Ed.. we find the ACLU gaining a settlement but also acknowledging the right to teach the bible in public schools... their argument went to the content (mostly). ACLU blurb on Moreno v ECBofE
Regardless of all the Religious or non Religious folks or Constitutional Scholars in the making... we do have pretty good insight as to what is Constitutional regarding Education and the rights of the people to decide what that curriculum should be... Sometimes someone stretches the envelope and they get slammed... as in Moreno...
EDIT: For those interested on other Supreme Court Religious Cases...
Interesting quote for the gnashing of teeth and it is from the above linked aclu article "It's important to remember that the Bible could be taught constitutionally in schools," says Gunn. "Bible education per se is not unconstitutional if the course is designed to be objective." But according to Gunn, it's hard to learn anything about the classes in the first place, because the NCBCPS is incredibly secretive its course materials..."
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: blackangst1
And teaching is not promoting
It is if it's mandatory and it isn't part of a course in a balanced course on comparative religions. The Texas law requires only a course on the one Christian bible to be offered.
Of course, since there are many versions, it then gets down to WHICH Christian bible. And ithen, there's this question of what to do about imposing this course on the children of those of other faiths and of non-believers.
This is wrong in so many ways. :thumbsdown:
harvey
Why wouldn't you teach the one book that has had more influence of the US than any other?
You don't have to teach it as religion, but more history
xj0hnx
Diamond Member
- Dec 18, 2007
- 9,262
- 3
- 76
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: blackangst1
And teaching is not promoting
It is if it's mandatory and it isn't part of a course in a balanced course on comparative religions. The Texas law requires only a course on the one Christian bible to be offered.
Of course, since there are many versions, it then gets down to WHICH Christian bible. And ithen, there's this question of what to do about imposing this course on the children of those of other faiths and of non-believers.
This is wrong in so many ways. :thumbsdown:
I agree with you. And since it isnt mandated the course be taken, its a moot point.
"Elective" must have disappeared from the text that many of the posters have read.
Citing?
- Mar 20, 2000
- 102,407
- 8,595
- 126
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: blackangst1
And teaching is not promoting
It is if it's mandatory and it isn't part of a course in a balanced course on comparative religions. The Texas law requires only a course on the one Christian bible to be offered.
Of course, since there are many versions, it then gets down to WHICH Christian bible. And ithen, there's this question of what to do about imposing this course on the children of those of other faiths and of non-believers.
This is wrong in so many ways. :thumbsdown:
a) the law requires discussion of religious texts, specifically including the christian bible, and the impact of the religious literature on history and literature, to be part of the curriculum. that doesn't even require a separate class from the usual survey of history that is given to everyone 10 times between first and 12th grades.
b) the 28.011 course does not have to be the one offered, so that the requirement in a) could be satisfied by a survey course. as we've not been given anything showing how it's being implemented we're arguing over nothing at the moment.
c) no course specially discussing religious texts as its subject needs to be given for the curriculum requirement to be met.
d) the 28.011 course allows the student to use any version of the christian bible, not just the one the district or teacher uses.
so far it appears that the State Board of Education has not gotten an opinion from the Attorney General as to the curriculum of the 28.011 class, as the statute requires. so, while being taught about the cultural and literary implications of religious texts is required, it looks like as of yet there is no separate study the bible class under 28.011 yet available.
if you add narnia to the 6th grade reading list it would satisfy the curriculum requirement.
blackangst1
Lifer
- Feb 23, 2005
- 22,902
- 2,359
- 126
Originally posted by: ElFenix
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: blackangst1
And teaching is not promoting
It is if it's mandatory and it isn't part of a course in a balanced course on comparative religions. The Texas law requires only a course on the one Christian bible to be offered.
Of course, since there are many versions, it then gets down to WHICH Christian bible. And ithen, there's this question of what to do about imposing this course on the children of those of other faiths and of non-believers.
This is wrong in so many ways. :thumbsdown:
a) the law requires discussion of religious texts, specifically including the christian bible, to be part of the curriculum. that doesn't even require a separate class from the usual survey of history that is given to everyone 10 times between first and 12th grades.
b) the 28.011 course does not have to be the one offered, so that the requirement in a) could be satisfied by a survey course. as we've not been given anything showing how it's being implemented we're arguing over nothing at the moment.
c) no course specially discussing religious texts as its subject needs to be given for the curriculum requirement to be met.
d) the 28.011 course allows the student to use any version of the christian bible, not just the one the district or teacher uses.
so far it appears that the State Board of Education has not gotten an opinion from the Attorney General as to the curriculum of the 28.011 class, as the statute requires. so, while being taught about the cultural and literary implications of religious texts is required, it looks like as of yet there is no separate study the bible class under 28.011 yet available.
if you add narnia to the 6th grade reading list it would satisfy the curriculum requirement.
Hey Narnia was part of my 7th grade curriculum
So was LOTR
jonks
Lifer
- Feb 7, 2005
- 13,918
- 20
- 81
Originally posted by: xj0hnx
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: blackangst1
And teaching is not promoting
It is if it's mandatory and it isn't part of a course in a balanced course on comparative religions. The Texas law requires only a course on the one Christian bible to be offered.
Of course, since there are many versions, it then gets down to WHICH Christian bible. And ithen, there's this question of what to do about imposing this course on the children of those of other faiths and of non-believers.
This is wrong in so many ways. :thumbsdown:
I agree with you. And since it isnt mandated the course be taken, its a moot point.
"Elective" must have disappeared from the text that many of the posters have read.
Citing?
take your pick. lemon v kurtzman, o'connor's "endorsement" concurrance.
Gov't cannot create a perception that it endorses or promotes a particular religion over other religions, or endorses or promotes religion over secularism (or vice versa). A state law that requires an elective class teaching only one particular religious text "carries the imprimatur" of the state, tacitly approving or setting that religion above others.
As Fenix pointed out, no specific course is required, the guidelines are fairly vague. The Texas AG even stated that he couldn't guarantee the courses designed to implement the statute would be constitutional. There will certainly be a court challenge so I guess we'll get some in depth legal analysis soon.
LunarRay
Diamond Member
- Mar 2, 2003
- 9,993
- 1
- 76
Within the guildlines set forth in Court Decisions...
Take the High Church of the Exalted Moonbeam for instance... In that Church the religion being taught deals with the Reflected Illumination of the Mind... It points to the needs of the human to find a source of inspiration and in that a Supreme Being. And it reasons that the human hates itself to such an extent that only something far greater than it can possibly ease the suffering it contains.
Now then... In order to teach the HCotEM religion to the State of California public schools it must first be deemed edifying and of interest to a liberal art curriculum - this step provided by the BoE who ultimately are the voice of the people... as well as it being a religion based on some finding if it is to be listed in that category. It would be hard to list it under behavioral sciences, for instance.
Some would now take issue with this even offered let alone mandated and complain that it is a cult and anti this or that... generally also a religion or anti religion yell... but at the end of the day... the folks charged with deciding stuff must look to the relative merits of the course and how it may advance the student...
It is axiomatic that the blind do not see nor does their perception of the vison imagined change the content of the object sought to be seen...
Damn right! We mustn't even let kids even know of the mere existence of such a book. To do so would destroy the fabric of this nation!
The bible was part of one of my high school classes in a *gasp* public school :Q Oh The HORRORS!!!!
The Bible played a major role in history whether or not you agree with what it says. Deal with it. And if any school deviates and uses it as an evil brainwashing course, we'll be against it if it happens, where it happens. But until then, this whole thread is pretty slim pickings against this.
Think about it for a minute, with as lawsuit crazy as this entire country is, do any of you seriously think the plan is to covertly convert all children to Christianity? I don't even have to delve deep into this, their goal is not to sponsor Christianity.
monovillage
Diamond Member
- Jul 3, 2008
- 8,444
- 1
- 0
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.
Modelworks
Lifer
- Feb 22, 2007
- 16,240
- 7
- 76
I don't have an issue with this as long as they keep it elective. Like religion or not it has influenced history more than any other single thing . People graduate high school without ever knowing of historical figures like King Solomon, Moses, Pontius Pilate, how Christianity began , how Catholicism was started, Islam , why Israel and Palestine fight, or other religions just because people are afraid of discussing religion in public schools. It is absurd to not teach something because of personal bias.
You can discuss the bible and its effect on history as well as what people believe about it just like you can any other book. They study Shakespeare, to me it is a waste of time and most students hate it and will never use anything learned from it, but that doesn't mean I am going to dare schools to talk about it. We need more schools to follow their lead. Maybe then we wouldn't have kids walking around calling everyone from the middle east a terrorist and religions like Islam being vilified as promoting mass murder.
If you hate religion and never want to hear anything about it again, I suggest you become an astronaut and leave the planet , as what you want will never exist on this planet in any of our or our kids lifetimes, possibly never.
You can discuss the bible and its effect on history as well as what people believe about it just like you can any other book. They study Shakespeare, to me it is a waste of time and most students hate it and will never use anything learned from it, but that doesn't mean I am going to dare schools to talk about it. We need more schools to follow their lead. Maybe then we wouldn't have kids walking around calling everyone from the middle east a terrorist and religions like Islam being vilified as promoting mass murder.
If you hate religion and never want to hear anything about it again, I suggest you become an astronaut and leave the planet , as what you want will never exist on this planet in any of our or our kids lifetimes, possibly never.
- Mar 20, 2000
- 102,407
- 8,595
- 126
how many times do i have to mention that class does not need to be given at all? i think i've done so about 10 times so far in this thread. does anyone bother to read posts anymore?
and before anyone tries to correct me, the narnia bit is somewhat facetious.
JD50
Lifer
- Sep 4, 2005
- 11,928
- 2,919
- 136
Because religion has had a far greater impact on this world than just about anything else. It seems pretty reasonable to teach a class about religion. Some of you people (not referring to you) are so obsessed with objecting to anything that comes even remotely close to religion it's laughable.
elective courses on the religions of the world are very incite-full and help you understand the culture of those places far better. I have no problem with them.
- Sep 25, 2000
- 22,135
- 5
- 61
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.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter