Bible literacy class in public school

[tryreading]

I am a deeply religious, Bible believing, person. I feel that religious teaching is outside of the role of public education. Only churches, synagogues, temples, and mosques are qualified to teach our children our religious values and beliefs. Religious teaching is strictly the domain of the church.

Yes, for the church, and also the parents. Not the public schools.

I brought up something on another thread, that it would be very positive and informative if parents would occasionally take their kids to church services of religions other than their own. Is this a good idea? Would you do it?

 

[Jerry]

Not good enough. A course on the Bibles is being taught in American public schools, and if you don't like it, don't take it. Its like sex-ed? Where is sex-ed addressed in the Constitution? Religion is. And teaching the history/influence of one religion in a class set aside for it is establishment, in my humble opinion. Its the next step, creationism, then ID, now 'Bible Literacy Class.' I don't think this class will make it through the courts.

Its very easy to say teach an individual class on each religion, but the classes that don't achieve minimum enrollment be dropped. Seems fair when you say it fast. Wouldn't the majority religion have a class everywhere, but the others have a course only in limited areas? And when you get into New Testament, you've excluded the other religions anyway.

Like Busta said:

*Congress would not be passing a law.
*If a bible study class were proffered by the student body, thus forcing the school district to eliminate most or all others due to lack of enrollment, that is not establishment, because no national religion forms from the academic study, and no church is given municipal power/authority.

If the issue is put to the community, and the community only shows enough intrest in a bible study class to warrant the increased financial funding, that is endorsement, and not establishment.

A bible study class in the public school does not violate the first amendment because 1) it is not Congress passing a law, and 2) no national religion forms from it and no church is given municipal power or authority.

It's teaching a Humanities or Ancient Lit., not a religion.

Follow your slippery-slope and evolution can not be included in the schools either, because that is a humanist/Scientology's belief.

You are right to be concerned about certan groups trying to establish a national religion, however. If you could identify these groups and show how they are the driving force behind putting this bible study class in public school, I may be more persuaded to your view.

 

[tryreading]

Like Busta said:

A bible study class in the public school does not violate the first amendment because 1) it is not Congress passing a law, and 2) no national religion forms from it and no church is given municipal power or authority.

By law, kids have to go to school up to a certain age. If public schools teach the Bible, religion is being promoted in taxpayer funded venues, and students are taught about a monotheistic church. With the New Testament, the class is even worse, promoting a specific religion. If Congress does not illegalize this, the courts will based on un-Constitutionality. If the public schools started teaching a course called "The Qu'ran Literacy Class," implemented like the 'Bible Literacy Class' may be, and didn't offer any other religious courses at the same time, would your opinion change? Please don't use the 'majority' argument.

Follow your slippery-slope and evolution can not be included in the schools either, because that is a humanist/Scientology's belief..

Evolution is science, as taught in the science classes, not a belief system.

You are right to be concerned about certan groups trying to establish a national religion, however. If you could identify these groups and show how they are the driving force behind putting this bible study class in public school, I may be more persuaded to your view.

You don't know anything about the course, but you are arguing for it. This subject is national news, so you could read a newspaper.

 

[Jerry]

By law, kids have to go to school up to a certain age. If public schools teach the Bible, religion is being promoted in taxpayer funded venues, and students are taught about a monotheistic church. With the New Testament, the class is even worse, promoting a specific religion. If Congress does not illegalize this, the courts will based on un-Constitutionality. If the public schools started teaching a course called "The Qu'ran Literacy Class," implemented like the 'Bible Literacy Class' may be, and didn't offer any other religious courses at the same time, would your opinion change? Please don't use the 'majority' argument.

You could make electives for the Torah, Koran, Satanic bible, whatever. It's all good.

Nope, no problem.

Evolution is science, as taught in the science classes, not a belief system.

Exactly. Just as the science teacher can teach the student body about evolution with out preaching Scientology or whatever, so could a teacher teach bible litericy without preaching any religion.

You don't know anything about the course, but you are arguing for it. This subject is national news, so you could read a newspaper.

A "newspaper"? What's that?
I read the article quoted in the first post, so if you have some actual information which you believe is important to your argument, you could try posting that instead of attempting too call doubt to my level of litericy.

According to the article, "...the textbook, which is promoted as an examination of the Bible's influence on literature, art, history and culture,successfully keeps religion out of public schools."

I for one am going to buy The Bible and Its Influence and read it for myself.

 

[Engimo]

Exactly. Just as the science teacher can teach the student body about evolution with out preaching Scientology or whatever, so could a teacher teach bible litericy without preaching any religion.

Hahaha. I don't think Scientology is what you think it is.

 

[Jerry]

Hahaha. I don't think Scientology is what you think it is.

Hay thanks for the link.
Scientology is exactly what I thought it was.
Just as you can have a Science teacher teach Science absent of Scientology, so can you have Bible Litericy teacher teach Bible Litericy absent of Judeo-Christianity.

 

[Engimo]

Hay thanks for the link.
Scientology is exactly what I thought it was.
Just as you can have a Science teacher teach Science absent of Scientology, so can you have Bible Litericy teacher teach Bible Litericy absent of Judeo-Christianity.

But science has absolutely nothing to do with Scientology. Scientology is just a nutty religion.

 

[tryreading]

Nope, no problem.


According to the article, "...the textbook, which is promoted as an examination of the Bible's influence on literature, art, history and culture,successfully keeps religion out of public schools."

I for one am going to buy The Bible and Its Influence and read it for myself.

There is not enough time or assets to offer separate courses for each religion in public schools. Teach them all in the same class, objectively, the good and bad.

Whenever people attempt to place their religion in public schools, lately, there is always denial that its actually religion. The sentence you quoted above continues that trickery:

"...the textbook, which is promoted as an examination of the Bible's influence on literature, art, history and culture,successfully keeps religion out of public schools."

The above is a riddle. A textbook teaches the Bible's influence, but successfully keeps religion out? If I could lie like this, I'd be president.

(The other guys here already schooled you on your science/scientology error, so there's no need for me to pursue that).

 

[Jerry]

But science has absolutely nothing to do with Scientology. Scientology is just a nutty religion.

Ya, you'd like too believe that.....

Scientology followed on the heels of Dianetics, an earlier system of self-improvement techniques laid out by Hubbard in his 1950 book, Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health

. By the mid-1950s, Hubbard had relegated Dianetics to a sub-study of Scientology.[/quote]
Now, there may be debate over Dianetics validity, but the fact of the matter is, Scientology does involve itself in science and thus does, in fact, have 'something to do with science'.

Studying how the bible has influenced culture is not establishment or endorsement.

 

[tryreading]

Studying how the bible has influenced culture is not establishment or endorsement.

We will see. After the course begins somewhere, someone, not a Christian, will file suit to have it stopped. Then we'll see.

 

[Engimo]

Ya, you'd like too believe that.....
. By the mid-1950s, Hubbard had relegated Dianetics to a sub-study of Scientology.

Now, there may be debate over Dianetics validity, but the fact of the matter is, Scientology does involve itself in science and thus does, in fact, have 'something to do with science'.

Studying how the bible has influenced culture is not establishment or endorsement.[/QUOTE]

And you have no idea what you are talking about. Hubbard bases his book Dianetics on what is at best pseudo-science, but is very very obviously religion.

Look at the claims of it:

Some central beliefs of Scientology:
A person is an immortal spiritual being (termed a thetan) who possesses a mind and a body.
The thetan has lived through many past lives and will continue to live beyond the death of the body.
A person is basically good, but becomes "aberrated" by moments of pain and unconsciousness in his life.
What is true is what is true for you. No beliefs should be forced as "true" on anyone. Thus, the tenets of Scientology are expected to be tested and seen to either be true, or not, by Scientology practitioners.
Scientology claims to offer an exact methodology to help a person achieve awareness of their spiritual existence and better effectiveness in the physical world. Exact methods of spiritual counseling are taught and practiced which are designed to enable this change. According to the church, the ultimate goal is to get the soul (thetan) back to its native state of total freedom, thus gaining control over matter, energy, space, time, thoughts, form, and life. This freed state is called Operating Thetan, or OT for short.

Basically, it tries to pass itself off as a science, but it is really just nutty sci-fi turned into a religion.

If Scientology were actually a science, there would be at least one peer-reviewed paper published that advocates it - there isn't.

 

[Jerry]

There is not enough time or assets to offer separate courses for each religion in public schools.

No one is studying any *religion* to begin with. The coarse focuses on the bible's influence on culture. The coarse does not focus on religion.

Teach them all in the same class, objectively, the good and bad.

That would be a different coarse. If that is what you would like, contact your local school board or Representative.

Whenever people attempt to place their religion in public schools, lately, there is always denial that its actually religion. The sentence you quoted above continues that trickery:

"...the textbook, which is promoted as an examination of the Bible's influence on literature, art, history and culture,successfully keeps religion out of public schools."

The above is a riddle. A textbook teaches the Bible's influence, but successfully keeps religion out? If I could lie like this, I'd be president.

You have yet to identify the people who are behind this elective, and you have yet to connect them through your conspiracy theory and show that these same people are attempting to place religion in the public school.

You have made your hypothosis, now back it up with some evidence.
Until you do so I can not except your paranoia as a possibility.

I say that this elective does not abridge Church and State.
1) Offering this elective is not Congress passing a law.
2) This elective does not establish a national religion.
3) This elective does not grant governmental power/authority to any church.
4) California, Oregon and Washington ran the coarse last year as a pilot program, under the watchful eye of Jeremy Gunn of the A.C.L.U. According too Gunn "If people were to actually implement this in a fair and neutral way, there wouldn't be any lawsuits," Gunn says. "If people are going to use this as a backdoor way to proselytizing in public schools, I would imagine there would be lawsuits."

Jeremy Gunn says he hasn't heard of any litigation, and I'm sure that if/when there were/is, it will make headline news.

(The other guys here already schooled you on your science/Scientology error, so there's no need for me to pursue that).

Keep telling yourself that, maybe one day you will be correct.

 

[Jerry]

We will see. After the course begins somewhere, someone, not a Christian, will file suit to have it stopped. Then we'll see.

On that point we agree.
If this elective is shown as an attempt to place religion in the public school, send me a copy of the e-petition too have it removed and I will sign it.

Religion has no place in the public school.
I see no problem with an *objective* study of the bible.

I think that we are @ 80-90% in agreement on this issue.

 

[tryreading]

No one is studying any *religion* to begin with. The coarse focuses on the bible's influence on culture. The coarse does not focus on religion.



That would be a different coarse. If that is what you would like, contact your local school board or Representative.



You have yet to identify the people who are behind this elective, and you have yet to connect them through your conspiracy theory and show that these same people are attempting to place religion in the public school.

You have made your hypothosis, now back it up with some evidence.
Until you do so I can not except your paranoia as a possibility.

I say that this elective does not abridge Church and State.
1) Offering this elective is not Congress passing a law.
2) This elective does not establish a national religion.
3) This elective does not grant governmental power/authority to any church.
4) California, Oregon and Washington ran the coarse last year as a pilot program, under the watchful eye of Jeremy Gunn of the A.C.L.U. According too Gunn "If people were to actually implement this in a fair and neutral way, there wouldn't be any lawsuits," Gunn says. "If people are going to use this as a backdoor way to proselytizing in public schools, I would imagine there would be lawsuits."

Jeremy Gunn says he hasn't heard of any litigation, and I'm sure that if/when there were/is, it will make headline news.




Keep telling yourself that, maybe one day you will be correct.

As Claude Rains said in Casablanca, 'Round up the usual suspects.'

Who do you think initiated this movement to teach the Bible? Very religious Christians who want the Bible's influence taught. Who else? They were backed by very rich Christian people, like John Templeton. I'm pretty sure the Jews didn't originate this. And I doubt the Muslims did. Pretty sure the pagans didn't. The Hindu...No, I don't think so. Lets see, who else is there?

Nothing wrong with being Christian, or being religious. But I don't trust people who want their religious Book taught in public schools, no more than I trusted the ID people.

 

[Jerry]

Now, there may be debate over Dianetics validity, but the fact of the matter is, Scientology does involve itself in science and thus does, in fact, have 'something to do with science'.

Studying how the bible has influenced culture is not establishment or endorsement.

And you have no idea what you are talking about. Hubbard bases his book Dianetics on what is at best pseudo-science, but is very very obviously religion.

Look at the claims of it:

Basically, it tries to pass itself off as a science, but it is really just nutty sci-fi turned into a religion.

If Scientology were actually a science, there would be at least one peer-reviewed paper published that advocates it - there isn't.

You misunderstand my position.
I am not saying that Scientology is science. Quite the opposite, in fact. Scientology is a religion, I know that. That is why I said that a science teacher can teach science while leaving out Scientology.

It's a matter of sticking to the material, leaving out any belief systom.
I trust that any rational, logical teacher can do that.

In grade school my U.S. history teacher (a devote Jew) informed us that it was virtually imposable to examine history without mentioning religion; because religion has had such a major influence upon history.

He examined religion's influence on history in an objective, sterile, factual way. I suppose the reason why I do not sher as much of your concern on this issue is that I have observed it's equivalent first hand and know that it can be don.....even by "believers".

 

[Jerry]

As Claude Rains said in Casablanca, 'Round up the usual suspects.'

Who do you think initiated this movement to teach the Bible? Very religious Christians who want the Bible's influence taught. Who else? They were backed by very rich Christian people, like John Templeton. I'm pretty sure the Jews didn't originate this. And I doubt the Muslims did. Pretty sure the pagans didn't. The Hindu...No, I don't think so. Lets see, who else is there?

Nothing wrong with being Christian, or being religious. But I don't trust people who want their religious Book taught in public schools, no more than I trusted the ID people.

Name these "very religius Christians".
Show me their curent involvment within this elective.

These powers exist, and certanly their end run is to place religion in the public school........but is that what is happening here, now?

If you are correct then you must be ready to withstand scruteny.
Here's one good place to look: Vine & Fig Tree.....and don't turn your back on the terrorist group Army-of-God.

 

[tryreading]

On that point we agree.
If this elective is shown as an attempt to place religion in the public school, send me a copy of the e-petition too have it removed and I will sign it.

Religion has no place in the public school.
I see no problem with an *objective* study of the bible.

Maybe there is no problem with it, but I think there will be. Until 1963, teachers led prayer in our public schools, which was stopped. In 1954 'Under God' was illegally inserted into the Pledge, that was stopped. Judge Roy Moore's obviously illegal monument, installed in the nineties, was removed. These things that have been attempted lately to endorse religion have been challenged successfully, so I hope the Bible literacy thing, if it needs to be, will be removed too. But there is still an illegal motto on our money, mandated in 1908, which will be challenged shortly. If this suit is successful, we're being consistent, so there is hope that the Bible classes, if illegal, will be ended too.

 

[Jerry]

Maybe there is no problem with it, but I think there will be. Until 1963, teachers led prayer in our public schools, which was stopped. In 1954 'Under God' was illegally inserted into the Pledge, that was stopped. Judge Roy Moore's obviously illegal monument, installed in the nineties, was removed. These things that have been attempted lately to endorse religion have been challenged successfully, so I hope the Bible literacy thing, if it needs to be, will be removed too. But there is still an illegal motto on our money, mandated in 1908, which will be challenged shortly. If this suit is successful, we're being consistent, so there is hope that the Bible classes, if illegal, will be ended too.

I agree with you completely.

As a tangent....did you notice that "In God We Trust" was placed on our money by the same president who, mostly, took the U.S. Dollar off of the Gold Standard?

It makes me think that "In God We Trust" is an attempt to keep the People's trust in our curency/government/economy......since there has been little ells to place trust on economically since.

 

[Engimo]

You misunderstand my position.
I am not saying that Scientology is science. Quite the opposite, in fact. Scientology is a religion, I know that. That is why I said that a science teacher can teach science while leaving out Scientology.

It's a matter of sticking to the material, leaving out any belief systom.
I trust that any rational, logical teacher can do that.

In grade school my U.S. history teacher (a devote Jew) informed us that it was virtually imposable to examine history without mentioning religion; because religion has had such a major influence upon history.

He examined religion's influence on history in an objective, sterile, factual way. I suppose the reason why I do not sher as much of your concern on this issue is that I have observed it's equivalent first hand and know that it can be don.....even by "believers".

Ahh. I misunderstood what you were saying. I thought you were saying somehow that Scientology had some sort of legitimate scientific reasoning behind it. My mistake.

 

[Jerry]

Ahh. I misunderstood what you were saying. I thought you were saying somehow that Scientology had some sort of legitimate scientific reasoning behind it. My mistake.

I'm glad too see that we could reach common ground.