Dems want to have some Bible classes in schools...GOP cries foul.

[madfloridian]

I started to scream when I first read this, but when I saw the GOP calling them Pharisees and read some of the quotes...well, I realized this was really getting their goat. The Democrats are blatantly taking their issue from them, Dean says it is good idea...and they don't like it. IMHO, perhaps studying the Bible would lead to more understanding of it...lead to seeing the better more sensible parts instead of all the hatred.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/27/politics/27religion.html?_r=1

"WASHINGTON, Jan. 26 — Democrats in Georgia and Alabama, borrowing an idea usually advanced by conservative Republicans, are promoting Bible classes in the public schools. Their Republican opponents are in turn denouncing them as "pharisees," a favorite term of liberals for politicians who exploit religion.

Democrats in both states have introduced bills authorizing school districts to teach courses modeled after a new textbook, "The Bible and Its Influence." It was produced by the nonpartisan, ecumenical Bible Literacy Project and provides an assessment of the Bible's impact on history, literature and art that is academic and detached, if largely laudatory.

The Democrats who introduced the bills said they hoped to compete with Republicans for conservative Christian voters. "Rather than sitting back on our heels and then being knocked in our face, we are going to respond in a thoughtful way," said Kasim Reed, a Georgia state senator from Atlanta and one of the sponsors of the bill. "We are not going to give away the South anymore because we are unwilling to talk about our faith."

...."In an interview, Howard Dean, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, promised that Democrats would do a better job talking about values to religious voters. "We have done it in a secular way, and we don't have to," he said, adding, "I think teaching the Bible as literature is a good thing."

Some of the comments from Republicans make me laugh at the irony:

"This is election-year pandering using voters' deepest beliefs as a tool."

"It should also be noted that the so-called Bible bill doesn't use the Bible as the textbook, and would allow teachers with no belief at all in the Bible to teach the course."

And the very best comment is from an Alabama Republican:

"Democrats, she argued, had adopted a new strategy: "Let's just wrap ourselves in Jesus."

What's the matter, Republicans...hitting too close to home?

[Wickerman]

1. This is great! a kick and a nomination!

[greyl]

113. Upon examination, this sucks! a kick and a nomination! :)

Just kidding, seriously. My first reaction was positive like yours.

[KingFlorez]

2. Beat them at their own game

I'm all for it

[HornBuckler]

3. I think it's a good idea

I have no problem with this being taught in schools as an elective. Part of me says NO - HELL NO - but I think I would have elected for it in high school. I can see it now - Classroom filled with the usual high-school elective riff-raff busting on Jesus. Yeah, I like that reality.


edit : I think every alternate thinking high-school kid would take this course JUST to bust on religion. Sure there will be the truly curious, but just like Home Ec - there will be those to coast and bust on the curriculum

[NYCGirl]

4. HA HA! They like bible classes as long as you're teaching their brand of

the bible.

[madfloridian]

5. Amazing, isn't it?

That Alabama Republican saying we are wrapping ourselves in Jesus just made me laugh out loud. Our good Christian president and all that stuff, you know.

[NYCGirl]

6. If hypocrisy was a mortal sin, the Republicans would be doomed for

all eternity.

:evilgrin:

[CHORONZON]

131. Actually...

If you read Dante he has them in circle 8 of inferno, and Jesus himself spoke out against the hypocrisy of the Pharisees of his day. Maybe the republicans aren't in as enviable a position as they imagine... :rofl:

[OnionPatch]

143. Me too in fact, I actually did this:

:spray:

Just when you thought they couldn't be more hypocritical!! :rofl:

That said, the term "New Pharisees" is a perfect meme for the religious right and I think we should use it often and loudly.

[Chiyo-chichi]

129. Exactly.

This is too nonpartisan and ecumenical for them.

[Ian David]

167. Christians agree on everything. That's why there's only 1 Christian church

ONE Christian Bible, and why Christians have never waged war against other Christians based upon their religious beliefs.

So, what's the problem in teaching "The" Bible in school?

I say, put them all into a room to argue about it, and which ever Christian emerges alive gets to teach their version of "The" Bible at their kid's public school.

Watching Fundamentalist Christians eating their own is more fun than throwing them to the lions anyway!

[and-justice-for-all]

189. What Xtians and other bible cults need to do....

..Is keep their religion in their churches, out of Politics and out everyone lives. They all have this attitude that if you dont TURN your gonna burn, if you dont do it our way you must be below us. I cant stand those people, they all make me ill...Now that I know the TRUTH about their religion, I really dont have any respect for them. I do feel kinda sad for them though, how so many have been manipulated and lied to by this bogus religion...its a tragedy.

[JAbuchan08]

168. They only like teaching from the bible if you treat it as a textbook

if you just treat it as a book with a great impact on history you're not teaching it correctly. One has to teach it the right way - an exclusively christian perspective.

[Zinfandel]

7. This is absolutely a necessity for the Dems! Bravo!!!!!

Especially in the South, were it becomes very necessary.

[bigjohn16]

8. Using tax payer funds to teach religion is a violation...

... of the First Amendment. If you want your kids to learn about the bible take them to church.

[Zinfandel]

9. Shhhhhhh....

The Dems just might win something in the South!!!

[madfloridian]

10. Not teach religion, teach it as a study of the Bible.

Think about it. Did you see the statement by the person who said that the classes they were proposing could be taught by a non-Christian teacher? Feel the hypocrisy of the religious right in that article.

Think about it.

[madfloridian]

12. And then you could introduce study of "other" religions.

Follow that thought.

[Pirate Smile]

16. That would be great. This entire country would be soo much better

off if people took a comparative religion class. I did but it was a Catholic School.

It just showed that all the great religions are after the same thing, trying to answer the same questions, etc.

It really would build a greater understanding and appreciation as opposed to fear and hatred of the "different".

[madfloridian]

23. And learn about each religion's view of the creation.

Now that would be a good thing. It would open some eyes.

[SoCalDem]

116. Yep.. we have to "briar patch" THEM for a change

they ahve been doing this for ages..

the Bible could be taught as literature, BUT then it would be open for active discussion..not blind faith./. That's what scares the "fundo-christists".. Children who read the bible at the breakfast table, just might get a slightly different slant at school when their peers start to interject differing thoughts in "class"...and it would also relegate the Bible to a "library-book/textbook" status.

[bigjohn16]

14. Yeah I get it...

we waste badly needed public school funds to score political points, thats a great idea.

[stickdog]

136. No, you don't get it. Comparative religion is a wonderful idea.

Do you think teaching ethics, anthropology, philosophy and history is also a waste of time?

[bigjohn16]

159. There are many subjects and topics...

... that would make great elective classes including a comparative religions class but time and funding are limited at public schools and I don't think that class should be given priority.

[Pirate Smile]

11. It is studying the Bible as literature, not teaching it as a religion.

edit to add - Ok, it is more then just literature, also history and art, but it isn't as religion.

"Democrats in both states have introduced bills authorizing school districts to teach courses modeled after a new textbook, "The Bible and Its Influence." It was produced by the nonpartisan, ecumenical Bible Literacy Project and provides an assessment of the Bible's impact on history, literature and art that is academic and detached, if largely laudatory. "

[bigjohn16]

22. It's a class using public funds based around one religious book.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

[madfloridian]

26. It is already done in some schools....study of...not preaching.

You are misunderstanding.

[bigjohn16]

81. Then those classes need to be removed and the funds better utilized.

[madfloridian]

86. No, you are wrong and refusing to understand.

It irritates me when people do that.

[bigjohn16]

89. The main subject of the class would be the bible.

I have no doubt that it's unconstitutional.

[Maru Kitteh]

102. I'm sure you have no doubt

But doubt assumes understanding.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

125. So why can't this be included as a Literary Arts elective? There are

many influential written works in the world, of which this one is one of the biggest. MKJ

[bigjohn16]

154. Because you can't give more weight to the bible over other religious...

... text, its unconstitutional. There are many private schools that teach the history of the bible but since a public school can't give just one religion center stage we leave that up to the individual. If you're talking about a painting or a piece of literature and you discuss the influences for the artist there is nothing wrong with that but when you take one religion and say out of the thousands in the world this ones the most important so lets focus on it, you're violating the first amendment.

Just because the bible was influential to some in our country does not mean it was to us all. We are a country of many religions and no religion so to keep public schools fair and best use public funds lets keep religion out of the schools.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

171. I'm not saying it's the most important, just acknowledging it's artistic

influence.

Sort of like Shakespeare's work. Influential in arts and literature. MKJ

[bperci108]

163. You are wasting you time trying to explain it...

There are none so blind as those who refuse to see.

Sadly, there are "fundamentalists" in the atheist community, too. :(

You get the same reaction from them when you mention the subject of religion as you get when you mention evolution to a Fundie.

[FreedomAngel82]

24. Bingo, that's what happened at my alma mater

Nobody made you take it and you didn't fail if you didn't. It'd be an optional class. I'm all for that and enjoyed it when I took it. It would be different if they were making the kids take the classes (which is issentially I think what people like Jerry Fallwell and Pat Robertson want) but they aren't this.

[greyl]

97. No it isn't, the textbook used is bullshit. nt

[Inland]

15. They've got to be careful......

but in some sense, I realize that if the course is unconstitutional, it's probably the least unconsitutional option that Alabama will accept. It may be an inoculation against some really sectarian or push for conversion or witnessing.

[FreedomAngel82]

20. Not what they're talking about

This is an OPTIONAL class. It wouldn't be against the first amendment. Now it would be if they made you take the class which is what the republicans want for their fundie voters. This is optional and nobody has to take it. Heck, they could have the class and only a small handful of people be in there. This isn't against the first amendment.

[bigjohn16]

25. It's using public school funds that could good to better things.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

[FreedomAngel82]

29. What's better for you isn't for someone else

[bigjohn16]

31. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

Go to church if you wish to learn about the bible don't waste public funds on it.

[Maru Kitteh]

49. Broken record broken record broken record broken record broken record brok

en record. Is that all you've got? You're categorical rejection of this via repetitious unthinking and unreasoned responses puts you in snug company with the fundamentalist whackos who reject it as well.

I DARE you to assert that an accurate and complete view or history can be attained without a reasonable understanding of religions including Christianity. Religions have been taught in schools for millennia. Smart people study many of them. The Bible has had the greatest impact (in the last 300+ years anyway) on our continent and that impact is worthwhile of study.

It does not teach any "brand" of Christianity - it is an ACADEMIC STUDY of THE IMPACT of a book. It is not a Bible study, it is a study of the IMPACT of the Bible. See the difference yet? Need pictures? It is an ELECTIVE. If it were some kind of proselytism tool the fundies wouldn't hate it like they do. Relax, take an Aspirin and try again in the morning.

[bigjohn16]

71. I'm a broken record because that facts haven't changed.

It's a public school using public funds on a class that teaches one religions "holy" book and it's effects on our society. There have been thousands of religion in the history of the human race all of which have had an impact on our society in one way or another. To choose one and use public funds to teach about just its impact is again a violation of the first amendment. We could never have a class that would be all inclusive so thats why we keep religion out of public schools.

You're fooling yourself if you truly believe that this class will be used to turn a critical eye toward the bible.

If you'd like to review the bible and its effect on our society there are many churches and religious schools in this country for you or your children to attend.

I don't understand how you can say it doesn't teach any "brand" of christianity its the bible what other religions would be involved in a class about the bible?

Just because its and elective doesn't change the fact that it will be using public funds to reinforce one religion, one.

Here's a list of the major religions

We can't teach them all and according to the first amendment we cant teach just one. So thats why we let the individual make religious decisions not the state.

[magellan]

73. Keep saying it, BigJohn

Seems to me if we want to teach our kids about something influential and uniquely American, a class devoted to the US Constitution wouldn't go amiss right about now. And make it mandatory. It's clearly wanting....

[bigjohn16]

75. Self Deleted

[magellan]

77. I think you misread me

I'm agreeing with you!!

[bigjohn16]

78. I apologize, this thread is making me a little jumpy. nt

[magellan]

90. That's okay, it terrifies me

...to see the support this cockamamie idea is garnering here. And the justifications are nauseating. I should think that after five years of Bush** every one of us has had quite enough "Influence of the Bible" to last us several lifetimes.

This is the LOW ROAD, folks.

[Maru Kitteh]

94. Your refusal to give any quarter is a fundamentalism in itself

Your lack of knowledge about religions is betrayed in your post. You do not understand the complex twists and turns of how 3 major religions have shaped the human history of the planet. Is it a lack of education, or choice? Judaism, Muslims and Christians share great portions of THIS ONE BOOK.

I have found that even if you care not for any religion the Bible is still fascinating. If you have any academic appreciation for history, the faith of the players is always a factor. Be it controversial, the Bible is worth academic study.

[bigjohn16]

108. I agree just not in a public school with public funds. nt

[Maru Kitteh]

110. Do you suggest ( it would only be fair )

that no mention of any religion should be studied in world history?

[bigjohn16]

111. I have no problem with that but...

... the class in question is not a world history class. Its a class that focuses on the Bible.

[cfield]

140. It's not to teach people The Bible

It's to teach the historical impact of the bible. It's no different than teaching the history of the Civil War or WWII. Believe it or not, there are classes dedicated to teaching the history of _just_ the Civil War. Should all the other wars feel left out? No. Because there are classes that teach the history of _only_ Viet Nam, or WWI/II. There are also those that study all of the wars in one class. Same with religion. Same with historical contexts. That's what this will be. A class on the history of the Bible and it's influence. Not a class on Christianity. That's the difference and why Repukes are so pissed about it. That's also why it's not unconstitutional.

[jsamuel]

67. so can we not have a class on Greek or Roman mythology either

Tell that to all the English classes that teach the Iliad and the Odyssey.

[bigjohn16]

72. a public school class thats centered around them, no.

You were in an English class.

[madfloridian]

87. Yes, you can. You can most definitely have courses like that.

Not if they are are preaching, but teaching comparative religions is a very good thing. I hate when someone gets a whole thread messed up by refusing to understand.

[bigjohn16]

91. This isn't a comparative religions class its one religion.

It's a class based around the bible.

[greyl]

106. Exactly. And it's no Joseph Campbell treatment of The Bible either.

Because of the textbook used, "The Bible and Its (positive)Influence", its clear that this is an effort to market Christianity to minors in public schools.

We never should have let the Pepsi machines in.

[jsamuel]

128. An "English" class centered around Greek and Roman mythology is the exact

same thing as a "literature" class centered around Christian lore or the Bible.

[Maru Kitteh]

64. Exactly - as in I think a bowling class is a waste of tax money

some people think art is a waste
maybe you think German language classes are a waste or fencing
etc....

[bigjohn16]

158. When theres a Seperation of Bowling and State we can talk about that.nt

[holboz]

130. The historical impact of the Bible is undeniable...

I think studying the Bible's impact on world history, culture, and societies is a GREAT idea, particularly in the over-zealous spiritual south where churches tend to cherry-pick their favorite passages to create a distorted version of the Bible. And I think there would be a lot of interest in a course like this. Apart from the historical analyis you can look at the philosophy aspect of it as well as the psychological element of it. Not everyone in the south is a fundie zealot who wants to keep schools in the dark ages. I applaud any progressive effort that will encorage students to broaden their view, look at something from a different angle, and to critically analyze a piece of work. And don't stop at the Bible. Continue with the Koran, religious teachings of Buddah, etc.

I was raised in a Southern Baptist church but quit when I was 16 because I was sick of the hypocrisy. Several of my friends gave me grief for it but I told them I was tired of the Sunday school teachers telling me to not to question, just to accept what they were saying.

[bigjohn16]

156. If you think that parents in the south are going to allow...

the schools to turn a critical eye toward the bible you're wrong. There are to many religions and to many versions of those religions for one elective class to give them all fair and equal time. We don't all agree that one needs religion to be a well rounded person so we allow the individual to make that decision on their own time. There are many subjects and topics that wound make great elective classes including a comparative religions class but time and funding are limited at public schools and I don't think that class should be given priority.

[bigjohn16]

157. Self Deleted

[Squatch]

135. Still unconstitutional...

unless this class is to be taught by a robot, there is no way to guarantee that the teacher (representative of the state) will not try to advance some sort of religious agenda, and that is expressly prohibited.

[bigjohn16]

145. Thank you. nt

[iamjoy]

35. But It's Not Really Religion, Is It?

I mean, let's say we're discussing American slavery. Is using different bibilical quotes to demonstrate how each side (slaveholders and abolitionists) used the supposed word of God to justify their views teaching religion?
To understand many great works of literature, it helps to understand religion. Is it teaching religion to read and discuss "Paradise Lost" or "Inferno"? Ever read Uncle Tom's Cabin? Seems like every few pages is a sermon. What about that ranting Puritan, Jonathan Edwards? How much literature would we eliminate if we completely shied away from religion?

To better learn history. It helps to understand that since the dawn of civilization, men (and women) have believed that there was a divine power (or powers) interceding in their lives. The fact is, though, we live in a Western (largely European descent) society and this civilization has been more strongly influenced by Christianity (which has roots in Judaism) than by other religions. If we were studying certain Asian literature, of course, it may help to understand Buddhism. And it certainly may increase understanding of Indian (sub-Asian) culture if we better understood Hinduism.

It's a very fine line, though, isn't it?

[bigjohn16]

38. The class is centered around one religions "holy" book...

... if thats not a violation of the first amendments the I'm not really sure what is.

[Maru Kitteh]

51. First "amendments"? OK, well first of all it's not congress

and second of all, it's about the historic, political and cultural impact of a book. It does not in any way establish any religion. I remember when the freeps came UNGLUED because a Chapel Hill NC professor REQUIRED his students to study the Koran and it's history for his class. Your reaction reminds me of their closed-minded knee-jerk reaction.

[bigjohn16]

74. Its a class based on one religions impact on our society...

and its using public funds. Thats a violation of the first amendment. It's not that hard to understand.

[greyl]

80. and it uses a textbook that is MUCH too friendly to the Bible.

It's not objective at all and by errors of omission isn't suited for any public school in this country.

http://www.bibleliteracy.org/Site/PressRoom/Press20050922/Press050922SamplePages.htm

It is legal to teach about the Bible as literature in public schools, but this class and its textbook cross way over the line.

[Maru Kitteh]

88. It has no more constitutional protection than Greek studies as a class

in any public institution of learning. You are wrong. It's not that hard to understand. Get over it.

[bobbieinok]

79. IMHO, you are deliberately misunderstanding what the course content

would be

[bigjohn16]

82. If its a class based around one religions impact on our society...

... then I understand completely. Thats against the first amendment.

[greyl]

84. It's just as possible that you are misunderstanding.

Check out the ToC:
http://www.bibleliteracy.org/Site/PressRoom/Press20050922/Press050922SamplePages.htm

Look at how the 'scholars' used to advertise the book talk about it:

http://www.bibleliteracy.org/Site/PressRoom/Press20050922/Press051130Endorsements.htm#Scholars

I think I'm with you in that Bible as Lit classes are ok, but this looks like a different case to me.

[Maru Kitteh]

39. It's an ACADEMIC study. That's the beauty of it, dontcha see?

I learned about Judaism, Indigenous American religions, the Shinto religion and Roman and Greek religions in regular old public school and that was back in the stone age. We learned a good deal about their basic structures and I remember in particular learning the order and functions of the Greek and Roman gods. The point was to teach us about these religions roles in history and to broaden our horizons.

This course is not designed to teach kids Christianity, it's designed to teach them about the role of the bible in established history including art, war, literature and politics. Do you object to kids learning in school how many innocent people have died by the hands of religious zealots? Do you object to kids learning how many wars have been waged using the bible as an excuse?

[greyl]

85. That's what the conservative group behind it wants you to believe.

The book is no pinnacle of academic study of the influence of the bible in the world. Not by a long shot.

[Maru Kitteh]

101. Yuh-hu. That's why they're accepting it with open arms

:crazy:

[greyl]

104. Read the OP again.

Some Democrats stole the Republican issue, that's why the repubs are pissed. (or at least acting pissed)

Got that?

To put it in perspective for you, I disagree with the Dems who "stole the Republican issue" about the invasion of Iraq, too

[Maru Kitteh]

109. Tell me exactly what is wrong with stealing the right issiue in the

left way?

Where are your loyalties? If you have none, are you brave enough to explain your tendancies?

To put in perspective for you, I don't recall a single Republican denouncing Hillary or Lieberman's stance on Iraq

[greyl]

114. They aren't denouncing the Dems stance, they say they are playing

politics, that the Dems aren't being real.

"Tell me exactly what is wrong with stealing the right issiue in the left way?"

I'm not sure what definition of "right" you're using, so no comment yet.

"Where are your loyalties? If you have none, are you brave enough to explain your tendancies?"

I can't make reliable sense of that either.

[KnaveRupe]

118. As an atheist, I tend to agree. However,

the bible IS literature, and has arguably had a greater impact on western civilization than any other piece of literature. Teaching the bible as the unerring literal word of god is a violation. Examining the bible's influence upon 1500 years or so of western civilization is not, IMHO, a bad idea.

Church is a place to learn about god. School is a place to learn about literature, and history, and world cultures, and current events, all of which are impacted by the bible. Pretending it doesn't exist and doesn't influence our nation's politics seems stupid. This is one of the few contexts in which I think it is beneficial to discuss religion and the bible in the public schools. Is anyone shocked that it was democrats who came up with it?

[RaleighNCDUer]

150. It seems to me the fundies would be upset about any real

discussion of the bible - such as the evidence that the "5 books of Moses" were written by at least 3 different authors; the fact that there are two distinct creation myths, and two different lists of the "10 Commandments" which put together make it 12 commandments -- all hard to explain if you believe in the literal inerrancy of the bible.

The mission of our schools is more than imparting information or job preparation. Schools are supposed to teach students how to think. Exposing the inconsistancies of the bible to a thinking teen is a very dangerous thing.

As a hard-core atheist, I don't have a problem with it.

[Occulus]

185. I took a course in college called

"Religions of the World". It covered Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Shaka Zulu, and Christianity. Fascinating course.

State school, too, but definitely not being taught from the standpoint of belief. I have no problem with that, or with the course in the OP.

[bigjohn16]

187. College is a whole different animal. You're dealing with adults.

The bible gets its power from belief and believe it or not by giving it more weight over other religious text and their impact on our history is proselytizing. This class will not be used to look objectively at the bible, theres nothing in the history of religion in public schools that would prove that to me.

[Inland]

13. Repugs will scream if dems favor an American history class

How dare they try to pretend to not hate America, they'll say.

[FreedomAngel82]

17. LOL

Oh how funny. They don't like it when the tables are turned. So they're the only ones who can talk about religion? I live in the east side of Tennessee and the high school I went to we had a Bible course. It was Bible History and it was basically like a US History class only with the Bible. The class was optional to take if you wanted and you didn't like art or band. I really enjoyed it personally and learned a lot and now I can debate really well with the freepers and fundies where it concerns the Bible. The teacher told us on the first day she couldn't preach to us because of the law. There were lots of people who took the course from religious people to non. There was one guy who wasn't religious and he did very well in the course and seemed to enjoy it.

[madfloridian]

19. I taught in a school where such a course was available.

It was a pretty good course, no preaching, just analyzing the Bible.

[FreedomAngel82]

28. Exactly

That's what this class was. I learned a lot more about the Bible and about the period of time(s) it was supposivley all written in and all that. I think I still have a lot of the old notes around and stuff I wrote in my Bible too (footnotes). And as noted before nobody would make you take the class either since it'd be optional. It wouldn't be like "Intelligent Design" in science class (now that would be against the first amendment).

[EC]

18. Reverse pshycology always seems to work with children

doesn't it? :rofl:

[hopeisaplace]

21. Forget about it...Jesus is Canadian, eh :)

[EC]

27. Actually, much of my Art History classes were this type of study

since most of the Renaissance was religious art and much of the German art...(as well as most other schools of art too)

[Maru Kitteh]

30. sounds like it could be a very informative class - and they hate it -

which is just icing on the cake imho. My favorite line? "It should also be noted that the so-called Bible bill doesn't use the Bible as the textbook, and would allow teachers with no belief at all in the Bible to teach the course."

Who's bible exactly would be officially sanctioned New King James? Catholic? New Life? American Standard?

And as for ALLOWING teachers with no belief to teach the course, let's examine that thought.

Does that mean all teachers who discuss Judaism MUST be Jewish? Buddhism? Etc?

I say KUDOS. Let THEM be the ones saying NO to the Bible. What are they so afraid of? :shrug:

[madfloridian]

32. "allow teachers with no belief at all in the Bible to teach the course."

That is really making them angry. That teachers could teach it who would not be Christian.

[mykpart]

43. So what? I learned about Greek & Roman & Norse mythology from

a nun! Christian mythology can be taught by anyone. We're not talking about defending it, just giving information.

[madfloridian]

46. Uh.....aren't we saying the same thing? Are you misreading me?

I think maybe so.

[Maru Kitteh]

54. *falling on knees* OH LORD, please don't let the EVILDOERS AND UNBELIEVERS

teach about your word! :silly:

These people are messed UP.

[madfloridian]

59. LOL

You hit the nail on the head.

[mykpart]

63. I was agreeing with you by illustrating your point.

At least that was my intention. No offense meant.

[madfloridian]

66. No offense taken, just clarifying.

It is a touchy subject and I was not offended. Maybe we can show them how to not misuse this issue.

[NMMNG]

53. That is the problem

They want to put religion into the schools. Then they want to make sure that the people teaching it are "the right type" of people. And of course they are already working to get sex-ed ousted (at least anything having to do with actual sex), as well as gay rights/sensitivity, etc. They just want full control of everything in the public schools, just like they do of the government.

[Maru Kitteh]

57. Yes that's the problem but this takes it OUT of their hands - hence

they HATE it. I don't know who thought of this but I find it EFFING BRILLIANT. :thumbsup:

[madfloridian]

60. Right, they want Christians teaching Christian things...no objective stuff

Exactly.

[FreedomAngel82]

68. Yep

Of course. It's really sad honestly. They want it to where every student has to take the course as a mandatory class and be forced with religion. That's not what this Bible class will more than likely be like with the class I had. It was just studying the Bible like you would a US History book. :) And again it wouldn't be an optional class like the fundies like Jerry Falwell want done.

[CornField]

33. Here's the scoop behind the ruckus

Most schools which offer a "Bible" class do so with curriculum produced and developed by the National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools. That organization is an extremely conservative Christian group based in North Carolina which advocates using the Bible itself as the primary textbook. Their curriculum has been endorsed by Dr. D. James Kennedy, David Barton of WallBuilders, and Liberty Counsel president Mat Staver.

This semi-new Bible curriculum offered by the Bible Literacy Project, although endorsed by Christian, Jewish, Muslim, and secular groups, is being labeled as "liberalized Christianity" or a "liberal reinterpretation" of the Bible.

Those who oppose the BLP curriculum argue "inclusions of revisionist theology" may lead young people to treat the Bible as mythology.

[madfloridian]

36. Dr. D. James Kennedy....yes, that is the difference.

He is such a nut, and many schools are using his curriculum.

[bigjohn16]

34. With our public schools failing...

... I can't believe anyone on this board would be for spending public funds on a program like this.

[madfloridian]

37. Don't you see the implications? You don't seem aware of what is happening

Don't you know that in Florida they are using public funds for private religious schools? They are doing it many places using a rigid right wing curriculum....so if we introduce a sensible one it will be a way to counteract or call them on it.

The right wing is trying to end the public school system as we know it....it is no holds barred from now on.

Now read what we have written and think about it.

[bigjohn16]

41. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

It's a violation of the first amendment and a waste of public funds. I read what you wrote but that doesn't change either of those two facts.

[madfloridian]

45. Well, then you have made your point 3 times now.

There are so many bigjohns around DU now that I have trouble keeping up with all of you.

[bigjohn16]

47. Well thank you for that very condescending reply...

... I guess the conversation is over.

[madfloridian]

48. Condescension was not my purpose.

Just trying to clarify.

[Maru Kitteh]

65. since you feel fee to repeat yourself: Broken record broken record broken

Broken record broken record broken record broken record broken record broken record.

Is that all you've got? You're categorical rejection of this via repetitious unthinking and unreasoned responses puts you in snug company with the fundamentalist whackos who reject it as well.

I DARE you to assert that an accurate and complete view or history can be attained without a reasonable understanding of religions including Christianity. Religions have been taught in schools for millennia. Smart people study many of them. The Bible has had the greatest impact (in the last 300+ years anyway) on our continent and that impact is worthwhile of study.

It does not teach any "brand" of Christianity - it is an ACADEMIC STUDY of THE IMPACT of a book. It is not a Bible study, it is a study of the IMPACT of the Bible. See the difference yet? Need pictures? It is an ELECTIVE. If it were some kind of proselytism tool the fundies wouldn't hate it like they do. Relax, take an Aspirin and try again in the morning.

[CornField]

40. It is legitimate

The Bible has been a driving cultural force. The ripple effects (both negative and positive) are seen everywhere, especially in American culture. The parables are mirrored in both classical and modern literature, in music, in art. It is a presence that cannot be ignored when students begin to study culture and the arts. Religion, myth and all such forces should be studied so that students can have a better understanding of the subject being presented.

[KitSileya]

186. I once took a class in college where the professor's premise

was that the American culture's obsession with body/sex and the horror genre stems from its puritanical roots - ever read Jonathan Edwards' "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God"? Michael Wigglesworth's "The Day of Doom"? Couldn't have done it without bringing religion into it, but it sure gave us a clearer understanding of American culture and present events.

The professor, by the way, was a Fulbright professor from Georgetown, and, as you might have guessed, did have S.J. after his name as well as Ph.D.....

[applegrove]

42. Pharisees? Yeah - I'm anti-Hellenic. Down with Hellentics!

[mykpart]

44. Wonder why these "Christians" don't have more faith

in the power of their Lord's written word, regardless of whether it's taught as literature or fact. What hypocrits!

[FreedomAngel82]

83. Personally with me

my faith is fine. I don't have any problems. In the class I took the kids asked question's and the teacher answered them as best as she could. I really enjoyed it and it wasn't in the religious sense. We did watch some video's but we didn't watch the whole thing because she was a very careful teacher to not preach to us and all that stuff. The teacher was Baptist but she didn't put in any of her religious beliefs into the curriculum or anything either.

[greyl]

50. It's all about the text book used: "The Bible and Its Influence".

The book appears to be sectarian, which disqualifies it as a proper study guide for a "Bible as Lit" class in a public school. I haven't seen the book myself, but what I know raises some concern.

Here's a cnn transcript about the controversy from Aug2 2005, at which time this particular curriculum was being taught in 37 states already:

PHILLIPS: Kathy, can you give me some specifics of where this is not academically rigorous, where there is strictly sectarian, as you say? And I know you believe there is definitely an agenda within this curriculum. Can you give me some examples specifically that I can get Mike to respond to?

MILLER: I can give you several specific examples. First with respect to it being sectarian, that is essentially very simple. If a curriculum (says) Christians believe the Bible to be the word of God, that is a fact and it is perfectly allowable in a public school classroom. If a curriculum says a Bible is the word of God, that is a statement of faith and it's perfectly acceptable in a Sunday school classroom, but not a public school classroom.

This curriculum goes far beyond that and it elevates as a respected scholar a person who has been -- who has made claims to have found documents of the lost civilization of Atlantis in the great pyramid of Giza. And that, in fact -- that pyramid was used to transmit radar signals to the Grand Canyon. That's a little frightening for me and it certainly advocates -- it was used to advocate a sectarian position that would document scientific evidence in the Bible.
http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0508/02/lol.03.html

I think Bible as Literature classes are ok, but that it depends on the specific curriculum.
My jury is out till I know more about the book.

edit: added "(says)"

[madfloridian]

52. See Cornfield's post above.

Makes some points about which ones are being used now. Made good comments.

[greyl]

55. Read the link in my post for comprehension.

My post is about the same book in Cornfield's post.

[madfloridian]

62. But sounds like a different description. Don't know enough yet....

to discuss, but Kyra Phillips was guiding the CNN conversation, so I will do research on my own.

[madfloridian]

58. From the article I posted....here is what they say.

"For the last dozen years, most efforts to promote teaching the Bible in public schools have come from the National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools, a conservative Christian group based in Greensboro, N.C., that advocates using the Bible as the primary textbook. The group says about 320 school districts in 37 states offer its curriculum.

Skip to next paragraph

Rob Carr/Associated Press
But its curriculum often draws attacks from civil liberties groups. Democratic sponsors of the Bible class bills say their efforts would help shield local school districts from First Amendment lawsuits, in part by recommending a more neutral approach.

The textbook they endorse was the brainchild of Chuck Stetson, a New York investment manager and theologically conservative Episcopalian who says he was concerned about public ignorance of the Bible.

Mr. Stetson helped produce "The Bible and Its Influence" as the centerpiece of a course that seeks to teach about the Bible and its legacy without endorsing or offending any specific faith."

[greyl]

69. Right: curriculum already in 37 states, and brand new textbook

called "The Bible and Its Influence" produced by the Bible Literacy Project. Here's an article from May 2005 about it:

The "Bible Literacy Report" underscored the educational need with a Gallup poll of scriptural knowledge among 1,002 U.S. teens (margin of error: plus or minus 3 percentage points). Only 8 percent of the public school pupils said their schools offer Bible courses, which seemed obvious from these results:

* 17 percent thought "the road to Damascus" was where Jesus was crucified.

* 22 percent thought Moses was either one of Jesus' 12 apostles, Egypt's pharaoh or an angel, rather than the man who led Israel out of bondage.

* 68 percent couldn't identify who asked "am I my brother's keeper?" (Cain, after he murdered Abel).

* 28 percent didn't realize that "do not divorce" isn't among the Ten Commandments.

* 53 percent couldn't say what biblical event occurred at Cana (Jesus turned water into wine).

Besides fears of legal trouble, lack of qualified teachers and crowded curriculums, many schools hesitate to offer Bible courses because adequate textbooks acceptable to various religious groups are lacking.

That's the Bible Literacy Project's next phase. In the Fall of 2005 it will release a textbook, "The Bible and Its Influence," currently being tested in schoolrooms. The organization says it's the first such textbook in 35 years to benefit from thorough scholarly review.
http://www.bibleliteracy.org/Site/News/bibl_news050509APWire.htm

btw, I get your point about Phillips, but I didn't give a crap was she was saying during the CNN transcript, only Miller and Johnson. :)

[madfloridian]

70. It appears the one now being used is a brainchild of Dr. James Kennedy.

He is the guy from South Florida...is it Coral Ridge? Not sure. Very righteous and pious and outrageous.

[greyl]

93. To be clear, Kennedy is advisor on the competing textbook to

"The Bible and Its Influence".

http://www.oaoa.com/news/nw122005b.htm

[madfloridian]

96. Yes, I said that....the one being used now is by Kennedy and ilk.

So this way would have to be better.

[greyl]

100. They're both in classrooms now,

and its not necessary to believe that we must choose the lesser of two evils here.

[magellan]

56. If you can't fight 'em, join 'em

Why should the Dems stand for being bested by the Repubs when it comes to shredding the Constitution? The low road is so much easier.

[AuntiBush]

61. Republicans have a TON of Nerve!

Go Howard!

[greyl]

76. Table of contents and sample pages here:

http://www.bibleliteracy.org/Site/PressRoom/Press20050922/Press050922SamplePages.htm

I'll go ahead and paste the Table of contents. This doesn't look at all like an objective, non-sectarian, suitable for public schools textbook at all. Unless George Carlin taught the class, that is.

#

Unit One: Introductions

* Chapter 1 Why Study the Bible?
* Chapter 2 Introduction to the Hebrew Bible
* Unit Feature: Biblical Allusions

Unit Two: Genesis—Origins

* Chapter 3 In the Beginning
* Chapter 4 From the Garden to the Tower
* Unit Feature: Milton and the Bible

Unit Three: Genesis—Call and Promise

* Chapter 5 Abraham and Sarah
* Chapter 6 Ancestors
* Unit Feature: Literary Views of Abraham and Isaac

Unit Four: Exodus and the Land of Promise

* Chapter 7 Out of Slavery
* Chapter 8 The Wilderness and the Law
* Chapter 9 The Promised Land
* Unit Feature: Exodus and Emancipation

Unit Five: Kingdom and Exile

* Chapter 10 David the King
* Chapter 11 The Kingdom Falls
* Unit Feature: Exile and Return

Unit Six: The Prophets

* Chapter 12 Warning and Comfort
* Chapter 13 Called to Account
* Unit Feature: Thirst for Justice

Unit Seven: Writings and Wisdom

* Chapter 14 Songs and Poetry
* Chapter 15 Bits of Wisdom
* Chapter 16 More Wisdom
* Chapter 17 The Problem of Suffering
* Chapter 18 Women of Valor
* Chapter 19 Visions of the Future
* Chapter 20 Renewed Commitment
* Unit Feature: The Bible and Shakespeare


# Section Two: The New Testament

Unit Eight: Another Covenant

* Chapter 21 Living Tradition
* Chapter 22 Other Jewish Texts in the Christian Bible
* Chapter 23 New Testament
* Unit Feature: A Summary of Literary Genres in the Bible

Unit Nine: The Four Gospels

* Chapter 24 Mark
* Chapter 25 Matthew
* Chapter 26 Luke
* Chapter 27 John
* Unit Feature: Parables of Mercy

Unit Ten: The Early Christian Community

* Chapter 28 The Birth of the Church
* Chapter 29 The Church Grows
* Chapter 30 The Journeys of Paul
* Unit Feature: A Death with Meaning

Unit Eleven: The Letters of Paul

* Chapter 31 Grace and Faith
* Chapter 32 The Power of Love
* Chapter 33 The Christian Community
* Chapter 34 Social Order
* Unit Feature: Augustine

Unit Twelve: Other Letters

* Chapter 35 The Fulfillment
* Chapter 36 General Letters
* Unit Feature: The Legacy of the Reformation

Unit Thirteen: Revelation

* Chapter 37 Crisis and Persecution
* Chapter 38 A Great Battle
* Chapter 39 A New Jerusalem
* Unit Feature: Dante’s Purgatorio

Unit Fourteen: Epilogue

* Chapter 40 The Bible and Literacy
* Unit Feature: Freedom and Faith in America

[shanti]

92. sa-weet!

go howard go! i love the way he thinks! :loveya:

[madfloridian]

95. In the words of the right wing...to those who call this illegal here..

it is not. I believe the Liberty Counsel was given birth from Jerry Falwell, or was it Pat Robertson. They have established it is ok to teach it in a certain way, but they have been going beyond it. Here is their own ruling, and our Democrats are apparently using this ruling as well. Might not be a bad idea at all. They are hypocrites, saying we are wrapping ourselves in Jesus when they have been doing so all along.

http://www.lc.org/Resources/teachers_rights_0900.html

"The Supreme Court has interpreted the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to essentially mean that government must remain neutral in matters of religion. In other words, government may neither actively promote, nor affirmatively oppose, religion. In the context of a public school teacher, to be neutral is to be objective. To be objective, a teacher must present all facets of a subject, both secular and religious. So long as a teacher presents both secular and religious aspects of a subject matter in an objective manner, the teacher may bring religion into any topic. For example, while a student may actively advocate another student to have a saving faith in Jesus Christ, a public school teacher would be prohibited from doing so during class time. However, a public school teacher may objectively teach the Bible and discuss the life of Jesus during history, literature, geography, sociology, or other similar class curriculum."

"While a teacher may not use the classroom to indoctrinate students, a teacher may disseminate information in an objective manner so long as the information is reasonably related to the curriculum. Indeed, no subject can be thoroughly taught without some discussion of religion.

The Supreme Court recognized that the study of the Bible or religion when presented objectively as part of a secular program of education is consistent with the First Amendment.4 For example, a teacher may objectively teach the Bible in a history of religions class or study the Bible as part of a literature course.5 The Bible is an excellent literary source. The Bible contains acrostic poems,6 parallelisms,7 meter,8 prose and comedy.9 When discussing evolution, the teacher may also objectively overview competing viewpoints such as creation science or abrupt appearance.10 The teacher may also overview various religious viewpoints regarding the origin of the universe. To ignore one viewpoint to the exclusion of the other is pure censorship and disserves the student. (Wait till they learn about the way other religions have their own creationism...will blow their minds.)

Similarly, when studying art or music, a teacher may objectively discuss, perform, critique, and overview religious music, composition, and history.11 Geography, sociology, mathematics, physics, science, English, spelling, history, and any other topic cannot be adequately discussed without also objectively overviewing religion and religious influences."

IMHO what is sauce for the goose and all that....it may be the very thing we need right now to counteract what is going on in the public schools already. I was a teacher for over 30 years, so I know what was going on.

[madfloridian]

98. Ruled legal by Supreme Court.

Maybe our Democrats can moderate the extreme types like Kennedy.

[greyl]

103. Please don't miss my point.

I know it's legal to teach about the Bible in public schools, under the conditions of objectivity explained in the laws. I don't mind sufficiently objective teaching about The Bible in public schools.

The textbook "The Bible and Its Influence" is not objective, and I think a winning case for that point can be made in the same courts that ruled that objective teaching about The Bible is legal.

Again, it's not about the legality of teaching objectively about The Bible.
It's about this damn underhanded textbook, "The Bible and Its Influence".

[bigjohn16]

105. The Supreme Court recognized that the study of the Bible or religion...

... when presented objectively as part of a secular program of education is consistent with the First Amendment.

The class revolves around one religions impact on our society and thus isn't a secular class.

The teacher may also overview various religious viewpoints regarding the origin of the universe. To ignore one viewpoint to the exclusion of the other is pure censorship and does a disservice the students.

Theres no way to give every religion fair and equal time in one class and you can't have a class that teaches about just one without violating the first amendment. This is reason enough to keep public schools secular.

We may never agree but thanks for the debate and helping me get my post count up. :hi:

[greyl]

107. Oh yeah, and welcome to DU, btw. :) nt

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

177. ignore posted in the wrong place

"The bible is a book with some beautiful poetry, a bloodstained history, a wealth of obscentiy, and upwards of 10,000 lies."

Other than that, the Dems in Georgia should brush up on the 1st Amendment.

[greyl]

99. The textbook on slavery:

The story of Exodus provided light for one of the
darkest corners of American history—slavery. From
the years when slaves were held captive in the South,
through the time of abolition, and on to the ongoing
struggle for civil rights, the Exodus story has provided
inspiration, metaphor, and support to African
Americans in their struggle for freedom. Just as the
Hebrews who were slaves in Egypt escaped with
God’s help, and just as they eventually crossed the
river Jordan into the Promised Land, so the African
American slaves eventually were freed and have
slowly struggled for civil rights.

Even though some Americans used the Bible to
support slavery and segregation, the influence of the
Book of Exodus on the struggle for emancipation and
rights drowns out that use of the Bible. The echoes of
the Exodus story can be heard in African American
spirituals; abolitionist writings such as those the former
slave Frederick Douglass; the life of Harriet
Tubman, called “the Moses of her people”; and the
speeches of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., who noted a
parallel between his mission and that of Moses.

So much for the power of African culture, huh? Not important, the Bible was the chief inspiration for the emancipation of slaves and for black cultural leaders. Right. That's not biased at all.

Not surprising since those behind the textbook say "The Bible is the one book one needs to read to be an educated adult."
http://www.bibleliteracy.org/Site/PressRoom/thecase.htm

[jonnyblitz]

112. AHA...the DEMS are as bad as the wingnuts if they push this.

that is complete BULLSHIT !!

thanks for pointing this out. we lose all credibility on church-state issues if the DMES push this. that is all we need. how idiotic and shortsighted.

[greyl]

115. On this one issue, yes.

Maybe. ;)

They know more about playing politics than I do.

[Tsiyu]

117. Teaching the bible as literature is a fine idea

It is studied as a book then, and not as law. As such, the reality of how the Old and New Testaments were put together - based on research and modern knowledge - might knock the fire out of some of the fire and brimstoners.

There is certainly no doubt that this book has been an inspiration to the fields of writing, music, art, architecture, history. To avoid it completely in academic discussion or instruction is silly, and really would be a detriment to the truth.

I draw the line at using any religious text to teach science, however.


And even though I am no longer a Christian, I read and reread the bible when I was one. That knowledge comes in handy when dealing with fundies. Nothing shuts the wackjobs up like a well-placed "bobble" quote. :P

[No Exit]

119. Catholics have traditionally been supporters of democrats, and

EVERYONE who has gone to Catholic school has had religion class as part of their daily curriculum for 12 years.

In the early years, they teach Catholic doctrine. Then when you get to high school, they begin to include issues like, say, the Dead Sea scrolls, and then they start telling you about various philosophers, and they try to survey the beliefs of several of the world's other religions. The bible is, of course, studied. I remember detailed lectures about the origins and different forms of the word "yahweh".

Then you go out into the world, and you meet a bunch of "low church" Protestants who tell you things like, "Catholics are not Christians". And though you might have thought the Catholic church was dogmatic and domineering, you realize it's downright permissive compared to the mandates of some of these bizarre evangelical groups.

Just my opinion.

[Best_man23]

120. I would support having Bible studies as an elective in schools

If, and only if the deal comes with an iron clad agreement in each school district that institutes the class that there would be no attempts by repugs to foist that BullS*** Inteligunt Desin (intentional misspell here) in place of Science.

[pauldp]

121. Hey fine as long as they also teach about...

The Koran, The Talmud, The Buddhist Sutras, The Tibetan Book of the Dead, The texts of Zoroastrianism,
The Brahminist texts, The Native American Mythologies, The Polynesian Mythologies, Shamanism etc. - Oh and let's not forget
the Satanic texts.

[GreenPartyVoter]

122. All I have to say is

Teehee!
_____________________________________________
http://www.hostdiva.com/liberalchristians/">Would Jesus love a liberal? You bet!

[Bridget Burke]

123. Reality Check: There are ALREADY Bible classes in Public schools.

The Democrats are advocating a text that uses excerpts from several translations of the Bible, with much explanation. The course most schools are already using comes from the National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools--far more Fundamentalist. Students bring their OWN King James Version to class, to study "the true word of God."

Yes, it would be great if the schools were totally religion-free. Or if comparative religion classes, featuring all the world's faiths, were taught. But the Good Folk of these states (& many others) are already Hell-bent (heh heh) on teaching the Bible.

Bible Curriculum Demonstrates Public Schools Are End Time Battleground
By Bill Wilson, KIN Senior Analyst

Some say it's the start of teaching a one world religion, others say it's a harmless elective for high school students, but beginning next year, public schools will be offered a Bible curriculum developed under the influence of people who believe the needs of the citizenry should be subservient to the state, and whose standards are endorsed by such liberal organizations as the National Education Association and the National Association of Evangelicals.....

Dr. Dennis Cuddy, a former Education Department official and currently a commentator on education issues, reviewed both curriculums. He describes the Bible Literacy Project's textbook as the liberal's answer to the Bible-based approach of the National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools. He said the Bible Literacy Project's textbook could lead children to believe that parts of the Bible are mythology and cause them to question whether God is good. He said there are problems he has with the Bible Literacy Projects program that he does not have with that of the Council's.

First, Cuddy says, the BLP's textbook does not have a complete curriculum; second, he believes there are factual errors in the presentation of the Bible; and he strongly believes that the BLP's textbook does not teach the Bible as the inerrant word of God.

www.earnedmedia.org/kjos1130.htm

Kids are already learning--in Public Schools--that the Bible is "the inerrant word of God." These Democrats are trying to substitute a more reasonable text.

[madfloridian]

142. You got it....trying to substitute a more reasonable text.

Exactly.

[chat_noir]

124. "Lord of the Flies", "East of Eden", "Paradise Lost", "Apocalypse Now"

[droidamus]

126. Not quite the way fundies like it

The reason the fundies don't like it is that it examines religion without taking sides. If it isn't at least neutral, showing the good and bad influences, then I would be against the class. The fundies want religion in school not to indoctrinate their kids who are already heavily indoctrinated but to expose the children of the godless or those of other religions to their particular brand of close minded religiosity (? is that a word ?). I think an elective class that examines how the bible as a book came to be and its influence on the arts, politics, etc. would be useful. It might be helpful if some comparative religion was thrown in as far as where different religions i.e. Jewish, Muslim and their followers were influenced differently by the same writings. As long as it is elective and does not present the Bible and thus Christianity as the only religion or the best religion but truly presents a comprehensive look at the influence of the Bible as a literary work it wouldn't surprise me if it passed the constitutional test.

[CHORONZON]

127. Interesting strategy.

Personally I like it. Let them have religion in school but in a secular intellectualized way. This puts the republicans in the boat of either accepting a compromise or opposing a bill about religion. I think it is legitimate to teach the bible in school as literature anyway, because it has had a profound impact on our society, and biblical parallels and references abound in literature.

[Child_Of_Isis]

132. This is election-year pandering using voters' deepest beliefs as a tool."

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[pepperbear]

133. I am a 41 y.o, 29 year long VA resident who.....

vividly remembers when the prayer in school controversey was first entered into public debate. This was 1976 in my 8th grade year. the resulting decision was to enact the "moment of silence"...no big deal and a resonable compromise.

Then in my senoir year, I took an english course that was split into 2 sections. the first section was a clas called "The Bible as Literature".

SO WHAT HAPPENED ALONG THE WAY TO MAKE THESE COMPROMISES UNACCEPTABLE TO THE RIGHT WING?

[banana republican]

134. I remember when this started in Washington State

during the '60's. I was an ecumenical effort with the campus ministers at college. Washington State has a constitutional clause relating to "preaching" etc using state money.

The biggest problem we has was with the mormons who felt that the book of morman should be included in the class.

In any event, the class was taught and was very successful. No preaching, just history and literature.

[Sick_of_Rethuggery]

137. This all started a while ago...

and the first time I heard it, I went "the dems are sly ***s" :-)

Sly, but ultimately good too -- if people are going to use religion to divide, then it is only right that we set the record straight about religion and its underpinnings: concern for the poor and the downtrodden. There isn't a religion in the world that preaches what the thugs use it to do. We should call them on it and this is a very gentle and beneficial way to do that!

[On the Road]

138. What Plays into the Hands of Fundamentalists More than Anything

is the widespread ignorance of the Bible that exists today. This allows fundamentalists to claim the Bible as their own, and spread their interpretations of it unchallenged.

For example, nobody believed in the rapture followed by the Tribulation until the 18th century, for cryin' out loud. Listening to fundamentalists, you would get an idea that there were never any other options for the last 2000 years.

Fifty to 100 years ago, knowledge about the Bible was much more widespread. Christianity was just as likely to be invoked in support of liberal social causes as more narrow moralistic or jingoistic ones. Fundamentalists were not the only ones knowledgeable about the Bible, they had no monopoly on religion, and as a result fundamentalism tended to be an option for the less educated. Now many people perceive them as the only game in town.

The textbook is not the one I would use, but then I don't like the American History textbooks, either. Apparently some fundamentalists have complained about "revisionism", which is a good sign. The local schools can choose what they like as long as the book doesn't teach the religion.

[MadHound]

139. I don't care who is proposing this idea, Dem or 'Pug

It is a very, very bad one. Unless you are presenting it in a class of comparative theology, keep the Bible out of our schools. Way too many chances for abuse with this sort of class, waay too many.

And Lord knows, we absolutely don't need the Dems trying to out-theocratize the 'Pugs as this point in our history. Too much religion is intruding itself into our lives and government already, no need to add more.

Stupidity, just flat out stupidity.

[Bridget Burke]

144. The Bible is already in schools.

The Democrats are proposing a curriculum that's fairly moderate & acceptable to most Jews & a wide range of Christian denominations. The curriculum most schools are using now is hard-line Fundamentalist.

[bigjohn16]

147. That doesn't make is any less unconstitutional. nt

[MadHound]

149. It might be in your schools, but it certainly isn't in mine

And using the excuse that it's already being done is simply a cop-out. Like I said earlier, it doesn't belong in the schools period, unless it is a comparative theology class. And frankly I don't care if it's moderate or not, it is still putting religion in schools. You may find the class acceptable, a Jew may find it acceptable, but what about other religions? Islam is the fastest growing religion in this country, don't you think they would find it rather rude to have this going on?

How about we put the Koran into a class, or better yet, use the Kama Sutra as a demonstration of how to achieve enlightenment through sex? See, this can go on and on, and once it starts, it is a long slippery slope to the bottom. Best that we not start at all. If you want your children to receive religious training, there are plenty of outlets to provide that, parents at home, the church, or if you really want to go whole hog, enroll your child in the religious school of your choice. But don't be trying to put religion in through the back door of the schoolhouse. Whether you're Democratic or Republican doesn't matter, it's still wrong.

[Bridget Burke]

153. It's not in MY schools. Besides, I don't have kids.

I totally agree that comparative religion would be the only suitable course for Public Schools. But--don't talk about "once it starts." It has already started & kids in Public School are already learning that the King James Version is the TRUE WORD OF GOD!

They are learning this from The National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools--whose course is taught in 37 states. Is your state one of them? What have you done, personally, to stop these Right Wing Yahoos? (I belong to the Texas Freedom Network, myself.)

Check out the NCBCPS site; by their links shall ye know them: www.bibleinschools.net/sdm.asp?pg=links

Let me repeat once again: It would be best to have NO Bible electives in Public Schools. Unfortunately, they are already there. These Democrats don't have a snowball's chance in August of removing the Bible from the schools, so they are trying to substitute a more reasonable curriculum.

[CHORONZON]

155. In my view the notable distinction

is the idea of establishment, or endorsement. There is an issue of focus here. If the Bible is being taught as scientific fact or as theological orthodoxy then that is clearly state endorsement of religion. Teaching the bible as literature and mythology is something else entirely though, because it stresses analysis rather than acceptance. The same is true for greco/roman mythology taught in school: if kids were being instructed to believe in the Olympian Deities then yes that would be unconstitutional, but they aren't. In my view the Koran should also be taught in schools, because it could help provide insight into a culture that we have been clashing with in recent times.

[justabob]

141. Reading the GOP quotes...The irony is lost on them. nt

[Ian David]

151. Let those who think this is a "Christian Nation" fight over WHICH KIND...

of "Christian Nation" it's supposed to be.

Let those who think "The" Bible should be taught in school fight over which bible and how it should be taught.

Then maybe they'll come to understand what that whole Separation of Church And State thing is supposed to be all about.

[madfloridian]

164. Excellent overview of what it is about.

It might be the only way to get attention to what the right wing religious groups are doing.

[Ian David]

166. Better still, let THIS guy give the opening prayer in the legislature

"THE NEW DEAL"
Jonathon "The Impaler" Sharkey
for Governor of Minnesota - 2006



Honesty is very seldom heard nowadays, especially
from a politician. So, I am going to break from
political tradition. My name is Jonathon “The
Impaler” Sharkey, Ph.D., L.D.D.D. I am a Satanic Dark
Priest, Sanguinarian Vampyre and a Hecate Witch.
My Magikal Path name is: Lord Ares.

I despise and hate the Christian God the Father. He
is my enemy.

However, it doesn't mean that I hate all his
followers. This Country was founded on religious
rights and freedoms. This is guaranteed under the
1st Amendment of our great constitution. This right
allows me to worship Lucifer and the Goddess
Hecate, just as it allows you to worship the
Goddess/God of your choice.

<snip>

I co-own two Covens: Kat's UnderWorld Coven and
J & J's UnderWorld Coven of Minnesota, along with a Luciferian Church:
The Church of the Followers of Lucifer. The members of the Covens
are: Vampires, Witches, Pagans, Wi cans, Satanists, Demons and Other
Kin. I preach about unity and protecting the US Constitution, and all the
beliefs our Founding Fathers fought and died for.

<snip>

I will not deny or try to cover the fact that in 2008, I am running for the
presidency. SEE: http://herndon1.sdrdc.com/cgi-bin/fecimg/P80002884
You may ask why you should vote for me, if in 2009 I could become the
President. The answer is simply this. During my first 2-years as your
Governor, I will work harder for you than most Governors do in 8-years.
My goal to become president can be achieved in part, by just how well I
serve Minnesota during my first 2-years.

More:
http://www.jonathonforgovernor.us/Home_page.html

[louis-t]

146. "They're stealing out thunder!"

once again was the cry from the religiously insane.

[jschurchin]

148. The Republican responses...

Made me LOL. They are truly pieces of work.:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[UrbScotty]

152. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Smart idea. I love it!

:rofl:

[Voltaire99]

160. Another step that will hasten a third party.

Some here are fooling themselves about "study" being discreet from endorsement. Imagine, if you will, a US class being critical of the Bible.

The morphing of the Democratic Party into a closer siamese of the GOP is all good, though. We really need a third party, and this will help.

[Goblinmonger]

161. Yeah! This is awesome

:sarcasm: So the repugs are getting milage out of this religion bullshit, so let's us do it instead. It is still religion. It is still NOT supposed to be taught in public schools. I have not read all of the posts (I am in my prep period between classes right now--I'll read them all after school), so I apologize if I am duping. But this is crap.

Unless it is going to be taught as mythology along with other mythologies, i.e. fairy tales that are used by a culture to dictate behavior. And taught only by atheists like myself. Then it is OK, but I doubt that is the approach that will be taken. Or, sadly, the approach that most of you here are advocating.

Otherwise, I'll stick with Jefferson and his WALL between church and state.

[Cats Against Frist]

162. Recommended -- these people are truly fucking delusional

I laughed my ass off at the comments. These people only prove that there's such a thing as evolution -- and it's apparently left their genes behind, a long time ago.

[VaYallaDawg]

165. Perfect strategy. It may be useful even beyond the south. n/t

[baby_mouse]

169. You know, I don;t think they could stop this one...

They're just going to look like losers...

The whining has already reached screeching levels...

[alarimer]

170. Which just proves that all the fundies are interested in

is their own version of religion. They do not want an academic, scholarly discussion but rabid brain washing.

[ulysses]

172. sorry, not a fan of this.

We've got enough to do in the schools without having to field this political football from *both* parties.

The repuke outrage is pretty rich, though. :D

[leftstreet]

173. Dumbest Idea Ever

They're competing with Republicans for "conservative Christian voters?"

Well, hell.
This way will take forever!

They should draft a Gay Marriage Ban, an Abortion Ban, and an Amendment to the State Constitution to enforce mandatory school prayer. That's the ticket! That'd surely wrap up the fundy vote by Nov 06.

I guess these Democrats agree with Bush when he claims the NSA laws written in the 1970s don't meet the needs of "surveillance" in the year 2006.

After all, the Constitution was written in 1787.
Yeah, it's too old.

:sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:

[madfloridian]

174. I like it, I think it will force a face-off on the issue.

I like it a lot. Now we can have a discussion of just whose religion is going to control the school systems....and it will wake a lot of people up.

It may be the only way to get attention to this.

I don't like the religion part, but it will most definitely not hurt for some with extreme religious views to learn more about the bible.

Learn about how extreme you have to be if you consider it the infallible word of God.

[RoveBlowsDogs]

182. Dumbest Idea Ever per Leftstreet

Leftstreet - you write concise wisdom.

[blossomstar]

175. Too bad that GWB's Jesus wrap is falling off!!!

These repugs can dish it out, but can't take it!

[Mr_Spock]

176. Oh, the Irony!!

It's a thing of beauty!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

178. Can they resurrect Mark Twain to teach the class? Quote follows.

"The bible is a book with some beautiful poetry, a bloodstained history, a wealth of obscentiy, and upwards of 10,000 lies."

Other than that, the Dems in Georgia should brush up on the 1st Amendment.

[madfloridian]

179. See my post above. The Supreme Court already ruled on it.

If it is done in the way they are suggesting. Yes, many parts of the Bible are disgusting. There is no way to reconcile all its parts with reality, yet a whole generation believes it is literal.

If by pushing this issue to the forefront, our Democrats can get more reasoned discussion going....then I accept it.

Besides I love the comments. That was their issue alone, how dare the Democrats get religion.

[jonnyblitz]

184. yeah if we cant beat them, lets stop to their low level of idiocy.

NOT.

[EST]

180. You mean...to counter hate and vitriol

with maturity , reason and understanding??!
What a novel and quaint idea! Give christians an excuse to act like Christians? Reach across the self-limiting divide and actually deal with people instead of at them? My, oh my, peace might break out and a bit of truth come leaking through. Surely we can't gave that! Whatever would we do? What about all the jobs that may be lost if we have no more use for peddlers of the vilest pornography man is capable of? I am THRILLED!

[RoveBlowsDogs]

181. This idea has no redeeming value at all

What is unclear about the absolute separation of religion and government? How is the Bible NOT religious?

A class to be taught about the Bible, using a Christian Text book, is basically a class about one and only one religion. Said class in public schools is the state funding, and essentially endorsing, a religion. Even a truly broad and - if it was even possible - objective comparative religion class has NO place in public school, as NO religion has ANY place in our government.

Yes, this separation is violated all the time. Just like the prohibition about the President spying on US citizens. Just because people have done it and gotten away with it doesn't make it right!!!! (I sense agreement with the idea in the last sentence.)

If you don't like the Constitution, and most particularly the Bill of Rights, and most particularly right number ONE, then you have the right to leave this country. No kidding. Yes, this is constitutionally horrendous. Yes, I am being a fundamentalist when it comes to the Bill of Rights, do you have some kind of problem with that? Yes, there is such a thing as a slippery slope.

So, let us reason:

To those who think, "Ah good, beating the Repugs at their own game!" I ask you, why on earth would we want to debase ourselves that way? Do two wrongs make a right?

Ok, yes, I thought it was really really funny how the repugs got their undies in a bundle about democrats pandering to the religio-nutbars, as though the Repugnicants never did, or conversely, like the Repugs are the only ones fundie-fascist enough to push religion into public education - as a group, Democrats just aren't intolerant enough to be good Republican style bible-fundies.

I also really really liked the term "The New Pharisees", as a name for a really lousy head banging garage band. If I'm ever in one of those again, that's going to be the name I would want to use. (I think "Crib Death" is taken already.)

Also, I ask you this: Which version of the Bible do you want to use? Not only Old vs New testament - I mean the ancient Greek? The Aramaic? I mean, come on, if you're going to do it, do it right! Do you include the Apocrypha?

How about "Ken's Guide to the Bible" which mirrors, or might be the precursor to, "The Skeptics Guide to the Bible", a great online source which has icons showing you where there is internal inconsistency, violence, "family values" (like incest, or killing your family members or the like) and so on. That would be fun, but still, it is just a little too close to religion to pass the smell test.

To those who think that this proposed course, with it's proposed book by a group of many Christians isn't religion, replace "Bible" with "Koran", and then with "Torah" and then with "The Loose Canon of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster" and then with "The Book of Mormon" and then ask yourself if you honestly believe - in each and every case - you think that teaching an entire course about said book is is a good idea and non-religious enough to be taxpayer supported.

And then if that is the case, wouldn't it make more sense to actually use the Torah, since it was first of the aforementioned bunch? Yes, it certainly does.

Ok, how about an entire course based on a book about the Torah, written by many different Jews? Does that make it non-religious?

Why doesn't that idea seem to go over so good - oh, now suddenly, the religion problem becomes real. Changing the word "Bible" to "Torah" and "Christian(s)" to "Jew(s)" but otherwise leaving everything else in that idea intact, suddenly, I can see that people wouldn't like that so much. Even though, logically, the Torah is clearly more influential than whatever Bible you're considering for this course, because it is, after all, the progenitor - indeed, the Torah is the first 5 books of the bible, the 5 books of Moses if you will, but Bible people, especially Christians, seem to think of Bible as only being New Testament.

Suddenly, I bet this idea isn't so palatable, now is it? Suddenly, it seems like that would be religious, not somehow, non-religious like a course about "the bible." If you think that a course about "The Bible" is somehow less religious than a course about The Torah, or The Koran, then you've got your head up your anus. (Say hi to Karl Rove for me while you're there. And his little dog too.)

The Bible - any version - is first, last, and in between a religious book and nothing but. Literarily speaking, it's a dog. The style is ponderous at best - lousy is more like it - it rambles, contradicts itself, and is historically nearly useless. Pretty boring, although Revelations makes a stab at being sort of zippy. Clearly insane, as in lock up the author in a rubber room because someone is hallucinating big time, but it tries to be interesting. Literarily, it's no E. A. Poe or Sam Coleridge, that's for sure.

A book about the Bible by a bunch of Christians is a specifically Christian Religious book. It has no place in public education or in anything government sponsored. It certainly doesn't merit an entire course in a school supported by TAX DOLLARS.

In terms of books that had an influence on Western Civilization, there are many, and most of them don't get nearly the attention that the Bible does.

How about "Mein Kampf" (or however it's spelled?) That certainly had a lot of influence on the modern world - do you want to teach a whole class on that, using a textbook put together by a pan-nazi organization? That's not religious at all, and it certainly had an influence, didn't it? Ok, the Republicans would think it was swell, if you just changed the title to something like "My America" and said that the author was Ronald Reagan, but that is a question of political strategy, and that isn't what we want presented as American Values, now is it? Ok, so it isn't as bad as a beast with 7 heads and 10 horns and on each horn was 10 crowns and.... But it's still not so good.

And yes, that is a damn near perfect analogy.

Ok, so how about some books worth reading?

I have, as it happens, Britannica's collection of "The Great Books of the Western World" - aka "The Greats" - and there is no Bible among them; some of them do make passing reference to religious works, but let me repeat - there is NO bible in there. (Before you start giving me crap for being some know it all, let me admit that I have yet to crack the spine of a single one of them, ok? I really intend to, and soon. But my ignorance aside, I'm just saying that among real scholars, the Bible doesn't make it into the Greats. Also, on page 1 of the guide, the editors state that they know darn well that there are great books of the Eastern World, but that they aren't familiar enough with Eastern literature to be able to do it justice, and suggest the reader seek that collection elsewhere.)


Hell, if you want to offer one course on one book that had a significant influence on Western thought, how about Principia Mathematica (Russell and Whitehead); or for that matter, Newton's "Principia?" Those are actually about - deep gasp - actual thought! Thinking! Logic! What a concept! I think Isaac Newton probably had more influence on Western Civ than most, and a good influence at that. Nobody EVER started a crusade about the Law of Gravity. Nobody ever got into a religious war pushing F=MA down peoples' throats. There weren't hoards of people getting all worked up and shouting "Heretic!" and "Infidel!" when Einstein came up with relativity.

But these thinkers described REALITY. And their philosophy was based on logic, reason, and the search for TRUTH, not the political struggle to declare their dogma better than anyone else's.

Or, how about the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the writings of the founding fathers at the time regarding their thoughts about politics and government and so on. I mean, those things had an influence on this country, don't you think?

Sorry - while I like to laugh at the stupid and yet so predictable hypocritical reactions of the republicans, sneaking a book about the Bible into public education is like sneaking a little torture into some situations if the CIA needs it. Making an entire course of it is just plain un-american. It's the sort of interpretation of the Constitution that Antonin Scalia would really like, as a way of pushing his personal religious agenda.

As much fun as it is to watch the reactions of the Repugs, it still is the Wrong thing to do. I don't care what Howard Dean says, as much as I generally respect him and tend to agree with him, he's just plain wrong on this, OR he's pandering in the name of Realpolitik.

Let's try to keep this country on a constitutional path, shall we? And let's focus education on logic and reason, not ignorance and bigotry, ok?

[Zambero]

183. Ralph Reed must be livid over this

He's probably been compelled to take a breather from his favorite pastime of humping corporate accounts a-la Abramoff, which to put it lightly is hitting the dude in the pocketbook. Oh, the moral outrage of having an opposing political entity steal your outrageous moral issue!

[and-justice-for-all]

188. NO!

This is unacceptable and I strongly agree against this rubbish.
First, the truth about the bible needs to be brought to attention if they do this, what has been persecived as the word of God is truely NOT at all, but the word of man. If your going to teach ANYTHING about this book or anything related to it, you better bring up the HISTORY of this book (meaning its true origins)where all the stories came from, how and why it was assembled. The Koran should also be 'disgusted' in the same class...

The truth of the matter is this...The Bible is nothing more then stolen and altered writings from much older religions. Everything from Genesis to Jehova to the immaculate conception to the death of the Nazerene all the way down to Revelations, all can be found in religions that predate Jeudo/Christianity by hundreds of thousands of years. Any further teachings of this bible out side of the cults who follow it, I am strongly against. But if they are going to teach the REAL truth about this book then I will support it. This book was pieced together for Social control, nothing more and since its conception it has made society unstable and miserable due to its extremist followers who use it for their own gains. All you have to do is look at the organizations who use the bible/Xtianity as their foundations, all the hate groups that derive their ideals from it and the political leaders who claim to be Xtian....The people who follow them are nothing more then sheep and all of which have been deceived.

You can worship whomever and whatever you like. From my searching I have come to the comclusion that ALL religion is poison and to be truely free of brainwashing, hatered and cult leaders that want your money its better and safer to be a Free-thinker then a follower of any bogus faith, All of which I find to be bogus and void.

[Jamastiene]

190. Amazing. We use one of their very own tactics against them

and they are offended. It's about time we held up the mirror to them. Don't like what you see, repuke? Well, here's the mirror. Aha, we make head-way in some area. It's about time.