To be honest, I don't have any problems with the advancement of religious education in schools. More to the point, I would actively encourage it. Religion is an important part of people's lives and I think it's important that people of all religious beliefs (or non-beliefs) understand what drives the beliefs of others. If these "Bible classes" were about discussing the beliefs and attitudes held by people of different faiths (including Christianity) than I would find it difficult to oppose such a move. However, when religious interest groups try to move in under the guise of religious education to proselytise to indistinguishing children freely in schools, then I begin to take exception.

From my experiences, I had to take four years of "religious education" at high-school, 3 and three quarters of which was taken up with Christian indoctrination (I had two young earth creationists during this time and had to witness a series of videos and read a series of texts explaining what a great guy Jesus was and why the Bible must - given all the evidence supporting it - be completely infallible) and half a semester taken up with brief lip-service to the other half or dozen or so major global religions. Although I was an atheist during this entire period, I also had an interest in learning about religion and - suffice to say - the education I received at school on the subject was completely useless.

My point? If these people want to educate childen about religion, then they should be quite welcome to do so. If they want to teach children about Christian texts (and Islamic texts, Hindu texts, Jewish texts, Buddhist texts etc.) then they should be encouraged. If, however, as seems to be the case here, they just want to indoctrinate children, uncritically (wonder if they're going to mention the factual / historical / inconsistency errors within the Bible for instance?), with the Christian message, then they can get fucked quite frankly. If they allowed atheists but a tenth of the time in classrooms to discuss the Humanist Manifesto that they provide to Christians to discuss the Bible then I may be singing a different tune, but as it stands, these people are only out to indoctrinate others into their own narrow-minded world-view, spitting on the wall of separation in the process, and it is the responsibility of the courts to stop them at every opportunity.

Let's hope, for the sake of Odessa and the rest of the US, that this plan never comes to fruition.

___________________
http://eschatonnow.blogspot.com/

I had to take religion classes in high-school in order to graduate. I don't remember bitching and moaning on any message boards about broadening my knowledge of different cultures. I mean, fuck, it's in Odessa for god's sake. They eat, drink, and sleep football and God for chrissakes! From the article, it doesn't sound like they're teaching the kids christianity, rather they are explaining the bible to them. Plus, this doesn't sound like any sort of government mandate, rathe rit sounds like the schools/students are mostly open to the idea. Opus, you card!

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Deep in the heart of Texas!:

*quickclap* *clap* *clap* *clap*

BTW, the Texas House also recently passed a bill banning homosexual marriages and civil unions in the State.

We do are best to keep you happy Opus

___________________
SAVE ZIONIST MUSTARD: BUY ZIONIST KETCHUP!


Click here to support the free mustard alliance.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka From the article, it doesn't sound like they're teaching the kids christianity, rather they are explaining the bible to them.

If they were "explaining" the Bible to the students - including factual errors, myths clearly borrowed from other faiths etc. - then I don't think people would have a problem with it. Do you think that's really going to happen though? Also, why should the Bible receive preferential treatment over other religious texts as though it had any more basis in truth than the others?

quote:

Plus, this doesn't sound like any sort of government mandate, rathe rit sounds like the schools/students are mostly open to the idea.

But if it's a government funded school then it doesn't make any difference. The government would still be seen to be giving preferential treatment to a specific religious faith and I shouldn't need to tell you why this would be unconstitutional.

___________________
http://eschatonnow.blogspot.com/

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade Do you think that's really going to happen though?

No. Not anymore than you know the opposite may happen.

quote:

Also, why should the Bible receive preferential treatment over other religious texts as though it had any more basis in truth than the others?

No. Why don't you make a motion to teach other religious texts as well? Who said it was getting preferential treatment? From the article it doesn't sound like any other texts are relevant to this argument. I have no problem learning them all, but this debate is strictly about explaining the Bible--and there are many versions of that book on its own. It is also not clear from the article whether or not this class would be mandatory, just that it would be added to the curriculum. Anyone ever heard of an elective?

quote:

Johnson said students in the elective class would learn such things as the geography of the Middle East and the influence of the Bible on history and culture.

Gasp! For shame! You mean the Bible has actually had influence on history and culture, given that it is one of the oldest and best selling "books" in modern history?! Somebody pinch me!

quote:

But if it's a government funded school then it doesn't make any difference. The government would still be seen to be giving preferential treatment to a specific religious faith and I shouldn't need to tell you why this would be unconstitutional.

I don't disagree. This sounds like a state's rights issue though. Maybe it's just me, but I have been somewhat conditioned to believe that whenever Opus says God and Texas in the same thread, he's trying to blame something on the Bush administration.

Let me clarify my stance on this as I've done in the past. I completely agree with Renegade that a religous studies course would be perfectly suitable, if not actually MANDATORY for high school graduation.

Now I think there are stipulations that must be involved here. For example, no one religion should receive additional time or preference above any other religion, and this included equal time to those non-religious beliefs of agnosticism and atheism.

I think a healthy dose of world cultures is a vital necessity to our education, considering we here in the States are about as isolationist as they come nowadays.

Unfortunately, this is clearly not the case here for this class. Now let’s also be clear – this class is not mandatory, and it is an elective, at least for now. But what’s also clear, Shakka, is that under the separation of church and state laws, you cannot “explain” any religious text, especially in what certainly appears as a preference over another text. Unless, of course, they plan to add a Buddhist course, a Muslim course, an ancient Hebrew course, a Hindu course, and so on.

You thinkin’ those football lovin’ cowboys will take such a course of action?

Yeah, neither do I.

I do find their arguments completely disingenuous, and I call complete “bullshit” on their intentions. For example:

quote:

Johnson said students in the elective class would learn such things as the geography of the Middle East and the influence of the Bible on history and culture. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...5042700407.html

Geography of the Middle East? Hmm, I guess if their world geography class doesn’t cover it, right?

And I believe I covered my particular gripes about the “influence of the Bible on history and culture”. You really think they will talk about this historical “influence” IN FULL CONTEXT?

Yeah, neither do I.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Now I think there are stipulations that must be involved here. For example, no one religion should receive additional time or preference above any other religion, and this included equal time to those non-religious beliefs of agnosticism and atheism.

Fuck it, that would just cost too much. You can please some of the people all of the time and you can please all of the people some of the time, but you can't please all of the people all of the time.

Seriously though, I don't disagree with your contention, though it reeks of PC, IMO. If we can't do it "all encompassingly", then we shouldn't be able to do it at all because we're leaving people out. I guess that's a general hang up with government funded schools is that they're chock full of beaurocratic BS. We shouldn't be able to teach fishing without also teaching riflery, etc, etc, etc...

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Now I think there are stipulations that must be involved here. For example, no one religion should receive additional time or preference above any other religion, and this included equal time to those non-religious beliefs of agnosticism and atheism.

Its not a course about religion or philosophy, its a course about the bible, its literature, its influence on history and today's world.

Obviously the bible has a lot more to do with American culture, history, and philosophy than hinduism or atheism. Just like the Americans have US History (and Texans learn Texas History) but don't have Canadian History or Mexican History (who say's those nations are any less important? aside from me of course ).

I'm not saying lets not make course on all the other fun stuff, but devote equal time?! Come on. What hippie PC BS is that?! What I'm saying theres a limited amount of students, time, and resources, juet like you don't have one course for French History in High School but you do say for Texas History, I wouldn't expect them to have Hindu Sacred Texts. You learn whats most applicable and directly influential to your surrondings.

Its not a freakin 40,000+ student strong university.

quote:

I think a healthy dose of world cultures is a vital necessity to our education, considering we here in the States are about as isolationist as they come nowadays.

I believe Geography and World History are actually electives as well in some school systems in Texas....

quote:

Geography of the Middle East? Hmm, I guess if their world geography class doesn’t cover it, right?

Yup, geography of the middle east. See above comment.
Its no BS, you can go through high school and learn suprisingly little if you commit to it.

quote:

And I believe I covered my particular gripes about the “influence of the Bible on history and culture”. You really think they will talk about this historical “influence” IN FULL CONTEXT?

Look, just like every subject it can be good and bad according to the instructor. Why is teaching US government or Texas government any different? Or economics for that matter? If you have a teacher who wants to preach the republican line he will and you will be the lesser for it. If you hsve a teacher who wants to preach communism, he will and you will be the lesser for it. If you have a teacher who wants to preach christianity he will and you will be the lesser for it. Every teacher is going to natrually bring with him bias to how he teachs, most teachers are good and will try and teach you despite their bias about a whole specturm of things from different perspectives. But just because some rabid pot-smoking, hybrid-driving, tree-hugging, wishy-washy liberal teachs you his politics or a red blooded communist teach you his economics doesn't mean we should ban those classes from the high school ciriculium.

Why must the 'bible' be special?

You are as bad as those you accuse if you are to ban discussion of any religious topic in school as you will be preaching a religion. the religion of no religion.

___________________
SAVE ZIONIST MUSTARD: BUY ZIONIST KETCHUP!


Click here to support the free mustard alliance.

+1


Wow. Always wanted to do that. Feels so satisfying.

Q: Why don't churches pay taxes?

A: Seperation of church & state!

Churches in Odessa better start paying taxes if the public schools are going to teach religion.

Why do I have huge problems with this whole scenario? Well how does one define in the class what the Bible is? Government is going to provide a curriculum with a definition? It has quite a difference between Protestants (which I'm sure is what is favored in Odessa) and Catholics. Right there you already have a major conflict and I don't want government deciding which one to teach. That Mohler guy from good ol' Judicial Sunday recently said my religion is false and he's been a huge influence on this ccause nationwide! Or better yet, what if the school approved curriculum says something that a church has a disageement with? Well now government just got to take a stance on a religious issue! The only religion courses should be comparative ones taught objectively, teaching "the Bible" cannot possibly be objective.

On the Texas civil union banning, good idea to not let them even be foster parents! Lord knows those heterosexual parents did such a better job the kids wound up in foster care. Nothing but bigotry. Apparently the only individual freedom that should be promoted is the right to not be progressively taxed if you earn more.

___________________
Download My Spring '08 Mix Here

Thurs May 15: Influence @ Tini Martini w/ Kris B. vs. Nosmo, Rikler & Mike Palmeri
Thurs June 5: Under the Influence @ Tini Martini w/Mathias Matthew, Jack Kim & more TBA

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus Its not a course about religion or philosophy, its a course about the bible, its literature, its influence on history and today's world.

I realize this. I was simply clarifying my stance on teaching a given religious course in high school. I wasn’t necessarily referring to this particular class.

quote:

Obviously the bible has a lot more to do with American culture, history, and philosophy than hinduism or atheism. Just like the Americans have US History (and Texans learn Texas History) but don't have Canadian History or Mexican History (who say's those nations are any less important? aside from me of course ).

I don’t deny this either. Nevertheless the line between it’s “influence”, right or wrong (slavery, genocide of native-Americans, etc.) and a religious context is a thin one, and it’s one that once again the separation of church and state is not very eager to cross.

Regardless of it’s influence on our history, and I think it’s certainly debatable as to how good that influence might be as well as whether or not the full context of that influence will be taught, one cannot allow one particular religion to have more footing over another in our education system. Simple as that.

quote:

I'm not saying lets not make course on all the other fun stuff, but devote equal time?! Come on. What hippie PC BS is that?!

Well fuck I don’t know, perhaps it’s fucking treating ALL religious beliefs equally? Last time I checked, the U.S. is a melting pot of religions and beliefs, and not one religion is sponsored in any way, shape, or form in our government or Constitution, so I guess it’s just a thorn in one’s side like yourself to either treat all religious beliefs equally or do not treat them at all.

quote:

What I'm saying theres a limited amount of students, time, and resources, juet like you don't have one course for French History in High School but you do say for Texas History, I wouldn't expect them to have Hindu Sacred Texts. You learn whats most applicable and directly influential to your surrondings.

You really think they’re going to teach in an objective manner how the influence of Christianity in full context has on our government? If so, what the hell is the point? That although we should treat our neighbors fairly, at one point we thought it appropriate by God to go over to African nations, take people from their homes, throw them on ships where often times they would die on the way, rape the fucking women in the process, and then throw them in the fucking cotton fields, making sure they did what they were commanded to do lest they get whipped to death?

What the hell is the point of teaching “Christian influence” on our country? And what exactly is “Christian influence” on our country IN FULL CONTEXT?

quote:

Its not a freakin 40,000+ student strong university.

They don’t have to be. My point is rather than favor one religion over all the rest, better to have no religious favorings at all.


I believe Geography and World History are actually electives as well in some school systems in Texas....

quote:

Yup, geography of the middle east. See above comment. Its no BS, you can go through high school and learn suprisingly little if you commit to it.

That’s a rather poor refutation to my argument.

quote:

Look, just like every subject it can be good and bad according to the instructor. Why is teaching US government or Texas government any different? Or economics for that matter?

It’s not, PROVIDED that they teach it in the most objective manner – teach ALL influences good AND bad.

But as I alluded to earlier – what the hell is the point in the first place? How should they OBJECTIVELY define this influence, and do you honestly think they will be objective about it?

quote:

If you have a teacher who wants to preach the republican line he will and you will be the lesser for it. If you hsve a teacher who wants to preach communism, he will and you will be the lesser for it. If you have a teacher who wants to preach christianity he will and you will be the lesser for it.

Preaching Christianity invokes crossing the separation of church and state. Teaching a bias in politics does not, unless you demonstrate otherwise.

Then again bias political teaching may be against local BOE rules, local school rules, state rules, etc. Honestly I don’t know, but to lump preaching Christianity in with political teaching is erroneous of you.

quote:

Every teacher is going to natrually bring with him bias to how he teachs, most teachers are good and will try and teach you despite their bias about a whole specturm of things from different perspectives. But just because some rabid pot-smoking, hybrid-driving, tree-hugging, wishy-washy liberal teachs you his politics or a red blooded communist teach you his economics doesn't mean we should ban those classes from the high school ciriculium.

I imagine most local governments and BOE’s likely do. I fail to see the point you’re making here.

quote:

Why must the 'bible' be special?

Because any religious texts being taught in a PUBLIC classroom paid for by FEDERAL money, i.e. money that I fucking give to the government is unconstitutional.

quote:

You are as bad as those you accuse if you are to ban discussion of any religious topic in school as you will be preaching a religion. the religion of no religion.

Guess what? That’s the law, sir – no religion in PUBLIC schools paid for by the taxpayers. The fact that they are willfully breaking this law is not surprising to me, but their excuses of “influence” that the Bible has on our history I don’t buy in the slightest, nor do I suspect it will be a very objective point of view on this particular “influence”.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...