Bible literacy class in public school

[americanwoman]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20060125/ts_usatoday/publicschoolslookingatbibleliteracyclass

The textbook does have critics, including Americans United for the Separation of Church and State.
"There has been an effort underway for many years to try to do an end run around the Supreme Court's rulings on religion in the schools, and we see this as the latest move," says Joseph Conn, a spokesman for the group.


The textbook has generated no lawsuits, says Sheila Weber, a spokeswoman for the Bible Literacy Project. Jeremy Gunn, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Program on Freedom of Religion and Beliefs, also says he hasn't heard of any litigation.


"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."

I for one would have no problem with this as long as they would have an alternative class for understanding the writings of the jewish religion, hindu, or muslim, or anything else also to keep students mind open.

 

[Kandahar]

As long as the class is an elective, I think it's a great idea. It's ridiculous for public schools to pretend that religion doesn't exist, because it's such a big part of our history and culture.

However, this kind of class is only acceptable in public schools if the teacher TEACHES rather than PREACHES.

 

[jallman]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20060125/ts_usatoday/publicschoolslookingatbibleliteracyclass

I for one would have no problem with this as long as they would have an alternative class for understanding the writings of the jewish religion, hindu, or muslim, or anything else also to keep students mind open.

Ouch, this one is a hard call. First off, its an elective course so there is no pressure to take the class if you dont want. On the other hand, I think you have a strong point...equivalent courses should be offered. With public school systems under such a tight strain with budgeting as it is though, I feel that rather than introducing courses of any religion in schools, we should be re-vamping the courses already available and focus on teaching biblical, vedic, Torah, and Koran influence on literature as part of the literature class itself.

 

[Busta]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20060125/ts_usatoday/publicschoolslookingatbibleliteracyclass

I for one would have no problem with this as long as they would have an alternative class for understanding the writings of the jewish religion, hindu, or muslim, or anything else also to keep students mind open.

I see no need to have an alternative class for every other religious writing, just because there may be one for the bible. That's like saying "I have would have no problem with a class that taught Spanish, so long as there were alternative classes for French, German, Chinese, Mongolian, Korean, Klingon, Japanese, Russian, Ebonics, Sandscript, Egyption, Romulan, C++.......".

Ultimately, any such bible class would be an elective, and if the minimum number of students could not be found for attendance, it would be dropped from availability.

If you also wish to include a wide variety of classes for every other religious text, be my guest. Let the students decide.

As for keeping a student's mind "open", an open mind is realized outside of religion, and certainly outside of any writing. The idea that a book can controle someone so completely is preposterous.

Take bible thumpers, for example. That which makes them predisposed to clinging onto every word of the bible, taking everything literally and using the bible as a weapon, happened outside and independent of the bible.

One must *first* be predisposed to a closed mind.

 

[jallman]

That's like saying "I have would have no problem with a class that taught Spanish, so long as there were alternative classes for French, German, Chinese, Mongolian, Korean, Klingon, Japanese, Russian, Ebonics, Sandscript, Egyption, Romulan, C++.......".

Umm, most schools already do offer choices of language classes (barring your absurd star trek examples)and maths, and social studies electives. A course focusing on religion should be no different and in fact, should be held to a higher standard of fairness.

Ultimately, any such bible class would be an elective, and if the minimum number of students could not be found for attendance, it would be dropped from availability.

And ultimately, by not offering alternatives, you are endorsing one religion over the others. If you are attending a Christian private school, then no need for the alternatives...but we are talking about public schools here.

If you also wish to include a wide variety of classes for every other religious text, be my guest. Let the students decide.

Being Catholic, I probably would decide to take a Muslim influence course or something mind expanding rather than sticking to what I know.

As for keeping a student's mind "open", an open mind is realized outside of religion, and certainly outside of any writing. The idea that a book can controle someone so completely is preposterous.

Okay, well you tell that to the victims of the Crusades, the Inquisitions, the Salem witch trials, the burning of the Anabaptists, to the Branch Davidians, the Guyana victims...shall I continue?

Take bible thumpers, for example. That which makes them predisposed to clinging onto every word of the bible, taking everything literally and using the bible as a weapon, happened outside and independent of the bible.

One must *first* be predisposed to a closed mind.

Total disagreement with this assertion. One can be kept in a sheltered environment and not shown any better. Children are impressionable and can have their minds closed by home influences and live their lives that way. Public schools are forums of inclusion, pluralism, and expanded horizons. If the majority of Americans are Christians like the right tend to claim, then there should be a push to include comparative courses on other religions...because if Christian values and tradition is so important, then most kids are getting that learning at home already.

 

[Busta]

Umm, most schools already do offer choices of language classes (barring your absurd star trek examples)and maths, and social studies electives. A course focusing on religion should be no different and in fact, should be held to a higher standard of fairness.

"Absurd", aye?
Check this out.
And I didn't even include any of the very real languages from The Lord of The Rings.

***
The coarse, itself, does not have to be fair. Not at all.
Those who wish for a class which reviews a different collection of works are free to select that class.
If I take a class on wrestling, I should not be required too endure basball as a part of that class.
If I take a class on Italian cuisine, I should not be required to also review Chinese cuisine. If I want to learn about Chinese cuisine, I'll take that class.
If I wish to take a class on Global Cuisine, learning a little about many, yet specializing in none, I can take that coarse.

If I want to take a class on Poker, I should not be required to learn Blackjack also. If I want to learn Blackjack, I'll take that class.
If I want to learn of all cardgames, learning a little about many, yet specializing in non, then I will take that class.

And ultimately, by not offering alternatives, you are endorsing one religion over the others. If you are attending a Christian private school, then no need for the alternatives...but we are talking about public schools here.

Even if that were so (perhaps it would be the student's, through their enrollment and class choices, who would be expressing this "endorsement"), since endorsement is not establishment, and it would not be Congress passing a law from which this endorsement would come, it would be perfectly Constitutional.

Public endorsement of religion is protected by the 1st. Amendment.

Never said anything about not offering other alternatives.........quite the opposite really. I tier at the notion that any one religion must be met with every-other religion. It simply is not necessary.

Being Catholic, I probably would decide to take a Muslim influence course or something mind expanding rather than sticking to what I know.

I would've taken a coarse on Runes or the Angelic Script.......or perhaps a coarse on the Dead-Sea Scrolls.

Okay, well you tell that to the victims of the Crusades, the Inquisitions, the Salem witch trials, the burning of the Anabaptists, to the Branch Davidians, the Guyana victims...shall I continue?

Proves my point.
The only difference between radical Christians and radical Muslims is their chosen flavor of religion.
Inside, they are the same type of person.

Total disagreement with this assertion. One can be kept in a sheltered environment and not shown any better. Children are impressionable and can have their minds closed by home influences and live their lives that way.

That's how the predisposition to having a closed mind can divelop, yes......

Public schools are forums of inclusion, pluralism, and expanded horizons. If the majority of Americans are Christians like the right tend to claim, then there should be a push to include comparative courses on other religions...because if Christian values and tradition is so important, then most kids are getting that learning at home already.

The flavor of those courses would be "Do not be ignorant of Satan's devises".

However, the church is one such divice.....hence the division of peoples.

 

[Kandahar]

And ultimately, by not offering alternatives, you are endorsing one religion over the others. If you are attending a Christian private school, then no need for the alternatives...but we are talking about public schools here.

I disagree. As long as the teacher is teaching the material neutrally, how is that endorsing it? There's nothing wrong with providing objective historical facts or subjective interpretations of religion in public schools, as long as the teacher isn't telling his students that one belief is correct and all others are wrong.

History teachers teach about the Vietnam War, but that doesn't mean they're telling their students to feel a certain way about it. Economics teachers teach about government monetary policy, but that doesn't mean they're telling their students to feel a certain way about it. Similarly, why would a religion teacher automatically be assumed to be preaching to his students? The subject CAN be taught objectively, and IS taught objectively at many universities.

Even if that were so (perhaps it would be the student's, through their enrollment and class choices, who would be expressing this "endorsement"), since endorsement is not establishment, and it would not be Congress passing a law from which this endorsement would come, it would be perfectly Constitutional.

Public endorsement of religion is protected by the 1st. Amendment.

That's not true. Establishment and endorsement are synonymous in this context.

 

[jallman]

"Absurd", aye?
Check this out.
And I didn't even include any of the very real languages from The Lord of The Rings.

When such "languages" become worthy of scholarly pursuit and public funding for such pursuit, then I am sure we will hear about it. Until then, klingon, elvish, romulan, and the teaching of any other fanciful fabrication of an author or screenwriter is absurd.

***
The coarse, itself, does not have to be fair. Not at all.

But it does need to meet academic requirements and accreditations.

Those who wish for a class which reviews a different collection of works are free to select that class.

Yes, its called a survey and they are usually prerequisites for more specialized classes.

If I take a class on wrestling, I should not be required too endure basball as a part of that class.

Unless of course one has any influence on the other.

If I take a class on Italian cuisine, I should not be required to also review Chinese cuisine. If I want to learn about Chinese cuisine, I'll take that class.

Except when they cover pastas and noodles or the history of how pizza developed from Marco Polo's influence from oriental cuisine and brought back the idea of topping pastries with sauces and vegetables.

If I wish to take a class on Global Cuisine, learning a little about many, yet specializing in none, I can take that coarse.

Again, its called a survey.

If I want to take a class on Poker, I should not be required to learn Blackjack also. If I want to learn Blackjack, I'll take that class.

Except where learning scoring systems and card values is influence from the history of one game and passed on to another...

If I want to learn of all cardgames, learning a little about many, yet specializing in non, then I will take that class.

Might I suggest a local bridge club then?

Even if that were so (perhaps it would be the student's, through their enrollment and class choices, who would be expressing this "endorsement"), since endorsement is not establishment, and it would not be Congress passing a law from which this endorsement would come, it would be perfectly Constitutional.

Except where the one minority student wants to learn how his religious text influenced history and literature but doesnt get to because the funding is offered for the christian influence class and not for anyone else.

Public endorsement of religion is protected by the 1st. Amendment.

Except where state provided tax money pays for the endorsement...

I would've taken a coarse on Runes or the Angelic Script.......or perhaps a coarse on the Dead-Sea Scrolls.

I have an excellent book on Enochian script that I could refer you to if you are interested. Would definitely feed your fascination with the Nephilim as a side effect.

The flavor of those courses would be "Do not be ignorant of Satan's devises".

However, the church is one such divice.....hence the division of peoples.

I have no clue what you are saying here, buddy.

 

[Busta]

That's not true. Establishment and endorsement are synonymous in this context.

*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.

 

[Busta]

When such "languages" become worthy of scholarly pursuit and public funding for such pursuit, then I am sure we will hear about it. Until then, klingon, elvish, romulan, and the teaching of any other fanciful fabrication of an author or screenwriter is absurd.

But I hear so much static over the national Christmas tree......and it's not just the general idea of allowing other religions to express their seasonal holiday at the same time, at the same place, but when I hear people saying that absolutely any religion and any belief (like invisible pink elephants and invisible-intangible monkey army's) must be granted equal quarter as the Christmas tree.

It is that sentimit which I picked up on when I read this tresd.

If we must make room for invisible elephants and monkey army's, then we must make room for Kingonese.

But it does need to meet academic requirements and accreditations.

Yes, its called a survey and they are usually prerequisites for more specialized classes.

Unless of course one has any influence on the other.

Except when they cover pastas and noodles or the history of how pizza developed from Marco Polo's influence from oriental cuisine and brought back the idea of topping pastries with sauces and vegetables.

Again, its called a survey.

Except where learning scoring systems and card values is influence from the history of one game and passed on to another...

Might I suggest a local bridge club then?

Studying other texts (like the Kolbrin, Asian texts telling what Jesus did while in Tibet, etc.) may be relevant if they have a clear connection with the bible; but if they do not, then they are irrelevant.

I would no sooner mandate a technical study Spanish history in a U.S. history class unless there was a clear connection between the texts.

If I'm taking a class on power-point, I shouldn't have to also learn how too build a cpu unless it is totaly relivent to power-point.

A bible study class may have room for footnotes or movie clips on another culture's interpretation of an event, but unless Wicca has a clear text which is relevant to the texts within bible, it is irrelevant.

Except where the one minority student wants to learn how his religious text influenced history and literature but doesn't get to because the funding is offered for the Christian influence class and not for anyone else.

Ya, I wanted to take Japanese in highschool......it was canceled due to lack of enrollment.

Later I moved, and wanted to take Lattin at my new school. Since I started there in the middle of the year, I had too wait for the next year too enroll in it. Guess what, the following year, Lattin was canceled due too lack of enrollment.

Pedro can cry me a river.

Except where state provided tax money pays for the endorsement...

Not even then.
People endorsing the study of the bible over any other is not establishment, it is academic preference.

I have an excellent book on Enochian script that I could refer you to if you are interested. Would definitely feed your fascination with the Nephilim as a side effect.

Sure.
I have so many book to catch-up on........

 

[kal-el]

I think it is a frivolous concept to teach bible literacy in high school. When I was a Christian, I felt like I was forced, or felt an obligation to attend church, or read the bible. It wasn't till I became an atheist, or at least till I no longer was indulged in religion, that I took interest in the bible. What I'm saying is, we shouldn't force bible literacy on kids, if they want to learn about the bible, it's not hard to find.

 

[Laternater]

I think this is a very interesting topic. I have always believed in a well rounded education and students should know about how religion effects us on a daily basis. To be honest, I'm not really sure that a religious class is what is needed in this case. Individual teachers should have the freedom in their classes to discuss such things, but not as a one sided study. Is it possible that a single class which teaches the world religions is more appropiate. This class could embrace them all as a whole and show the diffences in belief systems. I further believe that a class such as this would open the student's eyes to the world around them. This could in effect desolve many of the diversity issues that our schools are facing today.

 

[americanwoman]

I think it is a frivolous concept to teach bible literacy in high school. When I was a Christian, I felt like I was forced, or felt an obligation to attend church, or read the bible. It wasn't till I became an atheist, or at least till I no longer was indulged in religion, that I took interest in the bible. What I'm saying is, we shouldn't force bible literacy on kids, if they want to learn about the bible, it's not hard to find.

I couldn't agree more. I went to a catholic school for the first 8 years of my schooling and it was like totally forced to believe in only catholic ways. We went to church 6 times a week and I really can't say I ever really paid attention to really anything. I can remember once asking a teacher when I was in about 5th grade, "Where do the dinosaurs fit into the bible?" and she actually said that they were just make believe. seriously. That particular teacher didn't like me much because I was full of what if's.

I also pursued the bible more when I was out of school and into the real world. Unfortunately by then I was old enough to read through all the hypocrisy and complete distortion that it is.
If you disagree that the bible is hypocritical then explain the difference between, "An eye for an eye" and "Thou shall not kill" -just one example.

On a another note, coincidentally, I am reading 'The Red Tent' which is a biblical story of Dinah, daughter of Jacob. It's very interesting and although it is fiction it is a very captivating story.

 

[Busta]

I think it is a frivolous concept to teach bible literacy in high school. When I was a Christian, I felt like I was forced, or felt an obligation to attend church, or read the bible. It wasn't till I became an atheist, or at least till I no longer was indulged in religion, that I took interest in the bible. What I'm saying is, we shouldn't force bible literacy on kids, if they want to learn about the bible, it's not hard to find.

I agree with you here, K. A bible litericy class should not be forced. It should be optional.

As it is, bible litericy is being considered as an elective coarse.

Also, I can identify with what you said about feeling an obligation to go to church, read the bible, fear God, etc. It wasn't until I became a Wiccan that I took an honest intrest in the bible. This intrest lead me to my choice of faith in Jesus and God.

 

[Busta]

I think this is a very interesting topic. I have always believed in a well rounded education and students should know about how religion effects us on a daily basis. To be honest, I'm not really sure that a religious class is what is needed in this case. Individual teachers should have the freedom in their classes to discuss such things, but not as a one sided study. Is it possible that a single class which teaches the world religions is more appropiate. This class could embrace them all as a whole and show the diffences in belief systems. I further believe that a class such as this would open the student's eyes to the world around them. This could in effect desolve many of the diversity issues that our schools are facing today.

Well, as an elective, the student is free to take it or leave it.

"World Belief Systoms" is not the same as a bible study coarse, and would not serve the same purpose.

I don't believe that the elective bible study coarse would turn public schools to that of Catholic schools any more than an elective class of wrestling would turn the public schools into W.W.E.

Just because there is a biblically oriented textbook on campus does not mien that a schoolbus full of Nuns with rulers come with it.
The coarse does not require the student too believe in God, pray, etc.

 

[Busta]

If you disagree that the bible is hypocritical then explain the difference between, "An eye for an eye" and "Thou shall not kill" -just one example.

One thing you have to love about atheists is their extreme appreciation for the King James Version (KJV) translation. The KJV was translated in the early 17th century using an archaic form of modern English. In the last 400 years, English has changed significantly.

Unfortunately, the vast majority those who read the KJV (both believers and unbelievers) are unqualified to know what the text means in many instances because of word meaning changes. In attempting to demonstrate the contradiction of God's commands to Israel and the sixth commandment, atheist cite the KJV translation, "Thou shalt not kill."

However, like English, Hebrew, the language in which most of the Old Testament was written, uses different words for intentional vs. unintentional killing.

The verse translated "Thou shalt not kill" in the KJV translation, is translated "You shall not murder" in modern translations - because these translations represents the real meaning of the Hebrew text.

The Bible in Basic English translates the phrase, "Do not put anyone to death without cause."

The Hebrew word used here is ratsach, which nearly always refers to intentional killing without cause (unless indicated otherwise by context).

Hebrew law recognized accidental killing as not punishable. In fact, specific cities were designated as "cities of refuge," so that an unintentional killer could flee to escape retribution.

The Hebrew word for "kill" in this instance is not ratsach, but nakah, which can refer to either premeditated or unintentional killing, depending upon context.

Other Hebrew words also can refer to killing. The punishment for murder was the death sentence. However, to be convicted, there needed to be at least two eyewitnesses.

Source

 

[kal-el]

I couldn't agree more. I went to a catholic school for the first 8 years of my schooling and it was like totally forced to believe in only catholic ways. We went to church 6 times a week and I really can't say I ever really paid attention to really anything. I can remember once asking a teacher when I was in about 5th grade, "Where do the dinosaurs fit into the bible?" and she actually said that they were just make believe. seriously. That particular teacher didn't like me much because I was full of what if's.

Yes, I was a born-again Christian my entire childhood, into my early teens. I always didn't like the feeling of a man in the clouds watching over me, waiting for me to mess up, so he could punish me. I thought I was a bad person simply because I did not want to attend church on Sundays. When you are young, you don't have a strong sence of denial, so I blindly believed in all the abstruse stories in the bible. I believed it was the infallible word of god. I eventually became of age (18) and decided not to participate in church anymore. A couple years went by, and I really didn't become interested in the bible until I was 21. Being on house arrest for a D.U.I. charge, I had nothing to do, so I read the entire bible. Wow, it felt like a huge weight was lifted off my shoulders. No more did I believe in a white-bearded skydaddy, lying in a cloud, casting judgement on all his creation, or a red-skinned, serpent-devil, sitting in a burning abyss, plucking up sinners with a pitchfork. It seemed like the bible was filled with absurdities, killings, anomalities, intolerance, and it seemed like this loving god fellow, castigated those who didn't adulate him. All the contradictions in this fellow's "word" practically jumped out at me.

I also pursued the bible more when I was out of school and into the real world. Unfortunately by then I was old enough to read through all the hypocrisy and complete distortion that it is.

As did I. I don't think it's right to force the bible on young people, you know how the saying goes, "if you build it, they will come" Well, this isn't quite the same, but if a youth is interested, he will find faith/religion/whatever if/when he sees fit.

If you disagree that the bible is hypocritical then explain the difference between, "An eye for an eye" and "Thou shall not kill" -just one example.

See, that's 1 quirk I have about it. Here's another verse where god admits he does bad things:

Jeremiah 18:11
Now therefore say to the people of Judah and those living in Jerusalem, "This is what the lord says: Look! I am preparing a disaster for you and devising a plan against you."

Originally posted by Busta

I agree with you here, K. A bible litericy class should not be forced. It should be optional.

As it is, bible litericy is being considered as an elective coarse.

I don't even know if it should be optional, in school at all. Why just have the bible in school teaching, and not the Torah, Koran? And kids don't need another person acting as a preacher.

Also, I can identify with what you said about feeling an obligation to go to church, read the bible, fear God, etc. It wasn't until I became a Wiccan that I took an honest intrest in the bible. This intrest lead me to my choice of faith in Jesus and God.

Yea, I have a friend that's a wictch. He claims that when he dies, he's going to some place called summerland or neverland, or something?:doh

 

[Laternater]

Well, as an elective, the student is free to take it or leave it.

"World Belief Systoms" is not the same as a bible study coarse, and would not serve the same purpose.

I don't believe that the elective bible study coarse would turn public schools to that of Catholic schools any more than an elective class of wrestling would turn the public schools into W.W.E.

Just because there is a biblically oriented textbook on campus does not mien that a schoolbus full of Nuns with rulers come with it.
The coarse does not require the student too believe in God, pray, etc.

I think you totally missed what I was saying here. A singular study of the Bible adds nothing to anyones knowledge or awerness. I graduated from a Christian college which forced each student to have biblical studies to advance. I, as well as many others, recieved more useful understanding of the bible and our world through knowing about the world religions. World Belief Systems, is not what I was saying at all. I was refering to giving our children a well rounded education and not just an "American Education."

 

[tryreading]

I don't even know if it should be optional, in school at all. Why just have the bible in school teaching, and not the Torah, Koran? And kids don't need another person acting as a preacher.

It should not be there, optional or not.

Creationism, ID, now this. Doesn't anybody here wonder why its a Bible course? Shouldn't it be a religion course? Why automatically the Bible? Anything familiar about this?

And no, you can't have this course and offer 'alternative' courses that study the other religious books. Somebody said below that if there aren't enough takers for the alternatives, then they should be dropped, and at least the system tried to be fair. Not good enough. Teach comparative religion courses, the good, bad, and ugly, and don't focus on the Bible. Better yet, teach this course in church, so my tax dollars don't pay to teach the Bible class disguised as something else.

Kal-el, you are right about the kids not needing another preacher. Their relatives, friends, and preachers can preach to them, outside of public schools.

I don't have any respect for people who continually try to force their religion into public schools.


(By the way, I am deeply sorry for the loss of your father last night).

 

[tryreading]

Well, as an elective, the student is free to take it or leave it.

Lets teach a course in public schools called 'Malevolent Design.' It will help kids understand the influence of Satan on their country. It will not teach them to be evil or kill anybody or swear or masturbate. Strictly historical.

As an elective, they can take it or leave it.


If you're really interested in teaching history, start with the James Madison quote below.

 

[kal-el]

It should not be there, optional or not.Creationism, ID, now this. Doesn't anybody here wonder why its a Bible course? Shouldn't it be a religion course? Why automatically the Bible? Anything familiar about this? And no, you can't have this course and offer 'alternative' courses that study the other religious books. Somebody said below that if there aren't enough takers for the alternatives, then they should be dropped, and at least the system tried to be fair. Not good enough. Teach comparative religion courses, the good, bad, and ugly, and don't focus on the Bible. Better yet, teach this course in church, so my tax dollars don't pay to teach the Bible class disguised as something else.

Kal-el, you are right about the kids not needing another preacher. Their relatives, friends, and preachers can preach to them, outside of public schools.

I don't have any respect for people who continually try to force their religion into public schools.

Yep, public schools should only teach facts, not mystical bullshit. If youths are interested in mythology, they know where to seek it out- church.

(By the way, I am deeply sorry for the loss of your father last night).

Haha, yea according to the mythos, he had to be written off, it was just a matter of when it was going to happen.

 

[ChristopherHall]

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.

 

[kal-el]

I am a deeply religious, Bible believing, person.

Sorry to hear that.:2razz:

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.

I completely agree.

 

[Jerry]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20060125/ts_usatoday/publicschoolslookingatbibleliteracyclass

I for one would have no problem with this as long as they would have an alternative class for understanding the writings of the jewish religion, hindu, or muslim, or anything else also to keep students mind open.

It's like sex-ed: offer it as an elective, and if you don't like it, don't take it.
You could make electives for the Torah, Koran, Satanic bible, whatever. It's all good. Any such elective which does not acheve the minimum enrolment would likely be droped by the school anyway. It's an elective.....no one is being "forced" to do anything.

Like Kandahar said:

As long as the teacher is teaching the material neutrally, how is that endorsing it? There's nothing wrong with providing objective historical facts or subjective interpretations of religion in public schools, as long as the teacher isn't telling his students that one belief is correct and all others are wrong.

This event does not meet the description of 'abridgment', so it's legal.

Yea, I have a friend that's a wictch. He claims that when he dies, he's going to some place called summerland or neverland, or something?

If he were a follower of Odin, he would be going to either Visguard, Asgard or Valhalla.....which is really nothing more than another culture's interpretation of Hell, Purgatory and Heaven.

 

[tryreading]

It's like sex-ed: offer it as an elective, and if you don't like it, don't take it.
You could make electives for the Torah, Koran, Satanic bible, whatever. It's all good. Any such elective which does not acheve the minimum enrolment would likely be droped by the school anyway. It's an elective.....no one is being "forced" to do anything..

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.