Georgia Close to Approving Bible Classes in Public Schools

[Just Me 2]

FOXNews.com - Georgia Close to Approving Bible Classes in Public Schools - Local News | News Articles | National News | US News

ATLANTA — Georgia is poised to introduce two literature classes on the Bible in public schools next year, a move some critics say would make the state the first to take an explicit stance endorsing — and funding — biblical teachings.
The Bible already is incorporated into some classes in Georgia and other states, but some critics say the board's move, which makes the Bible the classes' main text, treads into dangerous turf.
On a list of classes approved Thursday by the Georgia Board of Education are Literature and History of the Old Testament Era, and Literature and History of the New Testament Era. The classes, approved last year by the Legislature, will not be required, and the state's 180 school systems can decide for themselves whether to offer them.
The school board's unanimous vote set up a 30-day public comment period, after which it is expected to give final approval.

I think it should be taught. It is a significant part of history.

 

[UtahBill]

I was raised in the south, and I can tell you that most of the deep southern protestants wouldn't know Christianity if it bit them on the butt. I don't want any religion taught in schools, not even disquised as literature of psuedo science, not any form of it.
Save it for college.....hopefully by then our kids will have discovered that Mom and Dad and Preacher don't have it all in one sack. We are creatures of our past, and our past is in lock step with ignorance and stupidity. Each generation has a chance to breathe just a bit freer of those who would control us in their own ways....

 

[OKgrannie]

FOXNews.com - Georgia Close to Approving Bible Classes in Public Schools - Local News | News Articles | National News | US News

I think it should be taught. It is a significant part of history.

Since it is proposed to be an ELECTIVE class, why can't those students desiring to study the Bible in depth ELECT to do so at their local churches? Why should the state, or any level of government, pay for teachers, facilities, supplies, etc. to teach ONE religion? How will schools find teachers who are able to teach Bible classes without imposing their own sectarian view?

 

[Jerry]

Before we get to deep into the hype and emotional appeals so often related to these issues, let's look at some facts:

Literature and History of the Old Testament Era

(3) The courses provided for in this Code section shall:
(A) Be taught in an objective and non-devotional manner with no attempt made to indoctrinate students as to either the truth or falsity of the biblical materials or texts from other religious or cultural traditions ;
(B) Not include teaching of religious doctrine or sectarian interpretation of the Bible or of texts from other religious or cultural traditions; and
(C) Not disparage or encourage a commitment to a set of religious beliefs.

Literature and History of the New Testament Era

(3) The courses provided for in this Code section shall:
(A) Be taught in an objective and non-devotional manner with no attempt made to indoctrinate students as to either the truth or falsity of the biblical materials or texts from other religious or cultural traditions ;
(B) Not include teaching of religious doctrine or sectarian interpretation of the Bible or of texts from other religious or cultural traditions; and
(C) Not disparage or encourage a commitment to a set of religious beliefs.

Given the fact that these courses are elective and the instructors are forbidden from attempting indoctrination, disparaging or encouraging the students regarding a commitment to a set of religious beliefs, there is clearly no violation of the first amendment and these elective courses are constitutional.

 

[jfuh]

FOXNews.com - Georgia Close to Approving Bible Classes in Public Schools - Local News | News Articles | National News | US News

I think it should be taught. It is a significant part of history.

How about teaching the Koran? If there's a state decision to teach the Koran, than by the 1st amendment of the constitution all the religious texts of other religions must also be taught - otherwise it's unconstitutional.

 

[rathi]

This is not violating the separation of church and state. The bible is useful for understanding many literary references of American culture. However, given the state of our current educational system, the elective is not worth its cost.

 

[Jerry]

How about teaching the Koran? If there's a state decision to teach the Koran, than by the 1st amendment of the constitution all the religious texts of other religions must also be taught - otherwise it's unconstitutional.

Thus far I have found no provision in George statutes which would forbid the teaching of, for example, "The Literature and History of the Koran Era".

There simply isn't an interest, apparently, but so far as I can tell it would be allowed.

 

[Jerry]

Man, I've got no problem with the idea of teaching the bible in school on principle, it's obviously an important text regardless of faith, but we have to prioritize what we teach in public schools, and although I'm supportive of teaching a general course on ethics, considering the **** that's being cut as is, teaching children the bible is not up there, elective or no, any one class dedicated to teaching the bible is one class that is not dedicated to teaching any of the wide variety of neccesary subjects that are neglected in our public education.

What has Georgia cut from its curriculum recently that you would like to see reinstated in place of these courses?

 

[Just Me 2]

How about teaching the Koran? If there's a state decision to teach the Koran, than by the 1st amendment of the constitution all the religious texts of other religions must also be taught - otherwise it's unconstitutional.

Sure if it is taught from a history aspect and not a religious one.

 

[OKgrannie]

Before we get to deep into the hype and emotional appeals so often related to these issues, let's look at some facts:

Given the fact that these courses are elective and the instructors are forbidden from attempting indoctrination, disparaging or encouraging the students regarding a commitment to a set of religious beliefs, there is clearly no violation of the first amendment and these elective courses are constitutional.

How many instructors are CAPABLE of avoiding indoctrination, disparaging or encouraging students regarding a committment to a set of religious beliefs? Who is going to monitor each class to make sure those guidelines are followed?

 

[jfuh]

Sure if it is taught from a history aspect and not a religious one.

But then therein lies the problem. It's impossible to teach of a religion without teaching the religion.
ie, Pilgrims fled GB to escape religious prosecution. Ok, then the question lies, what religious prosecution, why was there religious prosecution, to which then we must examine the variances between the two beliefs of the Church of England and protestants. To which then arises another round of whys to which then it's really just teaching the religion itself. Or all together becoming "hence this nation was founded by Christian beliefs" to which we all know, that is hardly the case; but rather founded on the logical principles of freedom and preservation of freedom.

 

[Just Me 2]

But then therein lies the problem. It's impossible to teach of a religion without teaching the religion.
ie, Pilgrims fled GB to escape religious prosecution. Ok, then the question lies, what religious prosecution, why was there religious prosecution, to which then we must examine the variances between the two beliefs of the Church of England and protestants. To which then arises another round of whys to which then it's really just teaching the religion itself. Or all together becoming "hence this nation was founded by Christian beliefs" to which we all know, that is hardly the case; but rather founded on the logical principles of freedom and preservation of freedom.

I don't believe so. I think you can tell a story without promoting the religion.

 

[Alex]

It all looks fine to me. The courses are not mandatory, so nothing is being forced on anyone. Although I believe that if one religion is going to be taught, then the state had better be prepared to teach any, and possibly all, religions (as an elective).

I went to a Catholic elementary school where I was taught Evolution and Christianity side by side. When I weighed the evidence, I choose the science of Evolution. I believe that when people are given theories with tons of evidence verses a theory with none at all, they will choose the one with evidence.

Let them teach religion in schools, it will only hurt it.

 

[jallman]

I see absolutely nothing wrong with teaching a survey of Bible literature on principle. Hell, I was required to read the book of Ruth in a world literature class as a high schooler. However, I have to agree with Galenrox when he says that the public school system is under funded as it is. To teach a class on Bible literature specifically is as absurd as teaching a class on Japanese haiku. It is too specific and something that should be left for college educations. As long as we are falling behind in the maths and sciences, introduction of new material should be in these areas or in more general humanities studies that will raise the bar and give students a greater edge in college.

 

[jallman]

Let them teach religion in schools, it will only hurt it.

That's a rather cynical and bitter rationale. :shock:

 

[Jerry]

How many instructors are CAPABLE of avoiding indoctrination, disparaging or encouraging students regarding a committment to a set of religious beliefs? Who is going to monitor each class to make sure those guidelines are followed?

Oh yee of little faith....quiet your mind and come back to your senses.

 

[Alex]

That's a rather cynical and bitter rationale. :shock:

You're right, I realized that and came back in here to change it.

What I meant to say was, "If they teach religion in schools, it may hurt it more than help."

Thanks for pointing that out.

 

[Jerry]

But then therein lies the problem. It's impossible to teach of a religion without teaching the religion.
ie, Pilgrims fled GB to escape religious prosecution. Ok, then the question lies, what religious prosecution, why was there religious prosecution, to which then we must examine the variances between the two beliefs of the Church of England and protestants. To which then arises another round of whys to which then it's really just teaching the religion itself. Or all together becoming "hence this nation was founded by Christian beliefs" to which we all know, that is hardly the case; but rather founded on the logical principles of freedom and preservation of freedom.

Believe it or not, you can teach a child science without trying to turn him into a Scientologist, a Humanist or an Atheist.

No really, it's true.

 

[Jerry]

I went to a Catholic elementary school where I was taught Evolution and Christianity side by side. When I weighed the evidence, I choose the science of Evolution. I believe that when people are given theories with tons of evidence verses a theory with none at all, they will choose the one with evidence.

I would dare say that the moment you chose physical evidence and observation over revelation as your method of comparison, your decision was made before you made it.

You will note that there is no science of Christianity nor is there a religion of evolution. One is an apple, one is an orange.

 

[Just Me 2]

I see absolutely nothing wrong with teaching a survey of Bible literature on principle. Hell, I was required to read the book of Ruth in a world literature class as a high schooler. However, I have to agree with Galenrox when he says that the public school system is under funded as it is. To teach a class on Bible literature specifically is as absurd as teaching a class on Japanese haiku. It is too specific and something that should be left for college educations. As long as we are falling behind in the maths and sciences, introduction of new material should be in these areas or in more general humanities studies that will raise the bar and give students a greater edge in college.

I'm not a big fan of public schools so I am probably not the best person to be talking about this. I agree 100% that we are falling behind in math and science and I think we should fund that before this but not art/music over this.

 

[jfuh]

Believe it or not, you can teach a child science without trying to turn him into a Scientologist, a Humanist or an Atheist.

No really, it's true.

Scientiologist is quite different from scientist. Science in itself does not require faith but rash logic is all. Deductive reasoning.
Religion on the other hand requires blind faith, you can not deduce it you can not reason it, it just is. The variance that I'm pointing out here is that there is a variance of religious studies - about the religions, vs bible studies.
What Georgia is doing here is not a religious study session but rather a bible study - specific to only one single religion. Bible studies have no place within the school classroom and are far better suited at sunday school or some other religious institution.
The argument that this thread has missed thus far is that this is now taking public funding for a bible study class. It's not that it's "well it's only an elective" situation, but that tax payer dollars are being spent for the teaching of religion. That's as clear a day a violation of separation of church and state as any. Why should my tax dollars (if I lived in GA) go towards the funding to teach religion if I were an atheist? Or if I were muslim why should my tax dollars go to fund the teaching of christianity? Why is ID not taught but evolution is? Simple, one is religious faith the other is science. ID got slaughtered at the courts because it was religion and not science (which it claimed it was).
If this were an after school or all out of school course, I have no beef with it. If this were a religious studies course, I'd have no beef with it, but this is clearly a bible studies course, therein I have a big problem with.

 

[jfuh]

I don't believe so. I think you can tell a story without promoting the religion.

You can tell a story without promoting the religion - clearly, just as the documentary lost tomb of Jesus did.
But that's not what this course is. It's a bible studies course focused on the bible.
Here's my quid pro quo, if this class were a purly religious studies course as is in colleges nation wide, I'd have no problem with it whatsoever, in fact contrarily I'd be highly supportive of it. But this "course" is a bible studies course, nothing else. The proponents of which fully intend for this to be a bible studies course and the only reason that it's getting a pass through the separation of church and state is because the dominant majority of the nation and these particular states are christian. Imagine for a moment if this were a muslim community trying to get the Koran taught at a public school the out rage that would stem from the rest of the nation from that.

 

[jallman]

Scientiologist is quite different from scientist. Science in itself does not require faith but rash logic is all. Deductive reasoning.
Religion on the other hand requires blind faith, you can not deduce it you can not reason it, it just is. The variance that I'm pointing out here is that there is a variance of religious studies - about the religions, vs bible studies.
What Georgia is doing here is not a religious study session but rather a bible study - specific to only one single religion. Bible studies have no place within the school classroom and are far better suited at sunday school or some other religious institution.

I firmly disagree. The Bible is full of rich cultural history, fables, parables, and legends. Further, there are codes of law and actual histories embedded in the text of the Bible that supply a wealth of literary material. I have taken plenty of classes that have used the Bible as source text that were objective and interesting from a purely academic point of view.

Are you sure you aren't virulent anti-religion POV cloud your judgment on this?

 

[jfuh]

I'm not a big fan of public schools so I am probably not the best person to be talking about this. I agree 100% that we are falling behind in math and science and I think we should fund that before this but not art/music over this.

Art and Music are very important if not more important than math and sciences. Why? IMO, if you do not understand the harmony and beauty of life and nature through art and music how can you understand the rational and harmony that is behind math and sciences? This is the exact reason why schools in Universities world wide are typically schools of art's and sciences.

 

[Jerry]

Scientologist is quite different from scientist.

A history teacher is quite different from an evangelical Christian.

Science in itself does not require faith but rash logic is all. Deductive reasoning.

Both require logic and reason. The difference is that science is all about physical evidence, where faith is all about revelation.

Religion on the other hand requires blind faith, you can not deduce it you can not reason it, it just is.

While it’s a given that I passionately disagree with your argument's display of gross ignorance on religion here, the schools are focusing on literature and history, with strict prohibitions of imposing or denying any faith at all.

The variance that I'm pointing out here is that there is a variance of religious studies - about the religions, vs bible studies.
What Georgia is doing here is not a religious study session but rather a bible study - specific to only one single religion.

This is an example of the ignorance on religion your argument presents:
One could only make such a claim about the New Testament.
The books composing the old testament are also the foundations of Islam and Judaism, so they are not all of one religion.

In any event, it is you who is trying to shift the focus from literature and history to revelation, not the school.

Bible studies have no place within the school classroom and are far better suited at sunday school or some other religious institution.

That is, of coarse, the point a disagree on.

The argument that this thread has missed thus far is that this is now taking public funding for a bible study class. It's not that it's "well it's only an elective" situation, but that tax payer dollars are being spent for the teaching of religion.

There is no establishment of religion so tax money is free to flow to it.

That's as clear a day a violation of separation of church and state as any.

It's not a violation at all.

Why should my tax dollars (if I lived in GA) go towards the funding to teach religion if I were an atheist?

Your question has a false premise, the schools are not teaching religion.

Or if I were muslim why should my tax dollars go to fund the teaching of christianity?

The schools are not teaching Christianity.
Did you not read my source?

(3) The courses provided for in this Code section shall:
(A) Be taught in an objective and non-devotional manner with no attempt made to indoctrinate students as to either the truth or falsity of the biblical materials or texts from other religious or cultural traditions;
(B) Not include teaching of religious doctrine or sectarian interpretation of the Bible or of texts from other religious or cultural traditions; and
(C) Not disparage or encourage a commitment to a set of religious beliefs.

Why is ID not taught but evolution is? Simple, one is religious faith the other is science. ID got slaughtered at the courts because it was religion and not science (which it claimed it was).

No one is looking to teach ID here.

If this were an after school or all out of school course, I have no beef with it.

That's in opposition to your cute lil "my tax dollars" rant, though.

If this were a religious studies course, I'd have no beef with it, but this is clearly a bible studies course, therein I have a big problem with.

First you try to argue that religion has no place in the public school, no you say that ALL religion is ok in the public school.

You simply have some bias against Christianity.

This country is ruled by law, not Atheism, and these classes do not violate the law.