Trump backs push for Bible classes in schools

[TU Curmudgeon]

From CBS News

Trump backs push for Bible classes in schools
​

President Trump appeared to endorse efforts by legislators in several states to allow public schools to offer Bible classes.

"Numerous states introducing Bible Literacy classes, giving students the option of studying the Bible. Starting to make a turn back? Great!" Mr. Trump tweeted Monday morning after "Fox and Friends" ran a segment on the topic.

Christian lawmakers in six Republican-controlled state legislatures across the country are pushing for legislation that would allow public schools to offer elective classes on the New and Old Testaments.

The push by conservative legislators in Florida, Indiana, Missouri, North Dakota, Virginia and West Virginia has stirred some controversy. Critics of the proposals, including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), argue that public school classes on the Bible would jeopardize the separation of church and state enshrined in the First Amendment to the Constitution.

COMMENT:-

There is nothing wrong with teaching "what the Bible says" in school, in fact there is nothing wrong with teaching "what the Qu'ran says" or "what the __[fill in the blank]__ says" in school.

There is, however, something wrong with teaching "This is what the Bible says and since it is the actual revealed Word Of God it is 100% literally true.". If you couple that with "... and any religion that teaches anything else is the work of the Devil and has to be expunged." then it is wrong to several quanta higher levels.

Teaching "The Bible" is one thing, teaching "Religion" is another, and teaching that all other religions have to be wiped out is yet another.

PS - If the people who are pushing for elective courses that taught what was in the Old and the New Testiments were also pushing for elective courses that taught what was in the Torah and/or the Qu'ran and/or The Book of Mormon and/or even ONE other text that was fundamental to some religion other than Christianity I might be able to give them some credit for wanting to broaden student's minds. They aren't.

PPS - An interesting alternative is "High school class aims to bring students face-to-face with extremist viewpoints", but, of course, to "conservatives" those people simply aren't "REAL Christians".
​

 

[RabidAlpaca]

It's **** like this why evangelicals overlook all the horrible stuff he says and does and will never cross him. The reddest of meat for the base.

 

[HenryChinaski]

Must be feeding time for the bible thumpers.

 

[americanwoman]

Trump could use a bible class, just not from a public school.

 

[Praxas]

From CBS News

Trump backs push for Bible classes in schools
​

President Trump appeared to endorse efforts by legislators in several states to allow public schools to offer Bible classes.

"Numerous states introducing Bible Literacy classes, giving students the option of studying the Bible. Starting to make a turn back? Great!" Mr. Trump tweeted Monday morning after "Fox and Friends" ran a segment on the topic.

Christian lawmakers in six Republican-controlled state legislatures across the country are pushing for legislation that would allow public schools to offer elective classes on the New and Old Testaments.

The push by conservative legislators in Florida, Indiana, Missouri, North Dakota, Virginia and West Virginia has stirred some controversy. Critics of the proposals, including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), argue that public school classes on the Bible would jeopardize the separation of church and state enshrined in the First Amendment to the Constitution.

COMMENT:-

There is nothing wrong with teaching "what the Bible says" in school, in fact there is nothing wrong with teaching "what the Qu'ran says" or "what the __[fill in the blank]__ says" in school.

There is, however, something wrong with teaching "This is what the Bible says and since it is the actual revealed Word Of God it is 100% literally true.". If you couple that with "... and any religion that teaches anything else is the work of the Devil and has to be expunged." then it is wrong to several quanta higher levels.

Teaching "The Bible" is one thing, teaching "Religion" is another, and teaching that all other religions have to be wiped out is yet another.

PS - If the people who are pushing for elective courses that taught what was in the Old and the New Testiments were also pushing for elective courses that taught what was in the Torah and/or the Qu'ran and/or The Book of Mormon and/or even ONE other text that was fundamental to some religion other than Christianity I might be able to give them some credit for wanting to broaden student's minds. They aren't.

PPS - An interesting alternative is "High school class aims to bring students face-to-face with extremist viewpoints", but, of course, to "conservatives" those people simply aren't "REAL Christians".
​

I took religious literacy in high school where we studied MANY religious texts. The difference of course was that no religious text was said to be "truthful" or "factual". We took a look at their content and their meaning. It was actually very eye opening and I learned quite a bit from it, not preachy.

 

[Omega Man]

I have no problem with it, so long as the coursework uniformly covers revered texts of all the worlds religions.


OM

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

I have no problem with it, so long as the coursework uniformly covers revered texts of all the worlds religions.


OM

Generally speaking, the courses being pushed don't do that.

What yu have to remember is that "God 'wanted Donald Trump to become president'." so that means that anyone who doesn't agree with Mr. Trump is a "God Hater".

 

[Higgins86]

why not have R.E classes like we do in the UK? Expose kids to all religions?

 

[ElChupacabra]

why not have R.E classes like we do in the UK? Expose kids to all religions?

In a religiously diverse country that would make sense for a public school, the problem is some people want to further one particular religion over others. I think what you posted would be the best approach if the subject of religion is going to be pushed. From an academic perspective, knowing about the religions which helped build the moral codes of different societies is useful knowledge.

 

[gfm7175]

I'm assuming this is the part which is your own words concerning the article...

There is nothing wrong with teaching "what the Bible says" in school, in fact there is nothing wrong with teaching "what the Qu'ran says" or "what the __[fill in the blank]__ says" in school.

I agree with you. There is nothing wrong with presenting more information, especially as an elective course.

There is, however, something wrong with teaching "This is what the Bible says and since it is the actual revealed Word Of God it is 100% literally true.". If you couple that with "... and any religion that teaches anything else is the work of the Devil and has to be expunged." then it is wrong to several quanta higher levels.

Remembering that we are discussing public schools, I agree with you. Public schools should not be pushing particular religious beliefs onto people. They should be presenting the different viewpoints to students, and allowing them to debate/discuss such viewpoints, but not peddling any particular religion as truth. That's what private schooling is for.

Teaching "The Bible" is one thing, teaching "Religion" is another, and teaching that all other religions have to be wiped out is yet another.

I agree with you.

PS - If the people who are pushing for elective courses that taught what was in the Old and the New Testiments were also pushing for elective courses that taught what was in the Torah and/or the Qu'ran and/or The Book of Mormon and/or even ONE other text that was fundamental to some religion other than Christianity I might be able to give them some credit for wanting to broaden student's minds.

I agree with you.

They aren't.

Here, I disagree with you, as this conclusion is (seemingly non-intended) bigotry on your part. You can't infer that all of them aren't from the truth that some part of the whole aren't. Some of those people, myself included, are open to all those other religious texts being taught (in an informational sense, not a "believe in this particular religion" sense) in public schools.


I also want to note that, to stay consistent with my viewpoint that religion ought not be taught as truth in public schools, that this extends to other things not commonly viewed as religions (as they are incorrectly attributed to "science"), such as the Big Bang Theory, the Theory of Abiogenesis, Global Warming/Climate Change, and etc... Those things are, in fact, religions. Religion is best defined as 'an initial circular argument with other arguments stemming from it'. Christianity is an example. Buddhism is another. The Big Bang Theory is another. Creationism is another.

Those things should also be taught on an informational basis rather than a "this is the truth" basis.

 

[Hicup]

In a religiously diverse country that would make sense for a public school, the problem is some people want to further one particular religion over others. I think what you posted would be the best approach if the subject of religion is going to be pushed. From an academic perspective, knowing about the religions which helped build the moral codes of different societies is useful knowledge.

I agree, and although I'm not religious, I came to my understanding through years of self-enlightenment. Maybe a few courses on religion at school would have hastened my understanding..


Tim-

 

[ashurbanipal]

President Trump appeared to endorse efforts by legislators in several states to allow public schools to offer Bible classes.

My first reaction to this was much the same as everyone else's--sure, teach the Bible, but teach it as an artifact and pillar of culture. However, it occurs to me that High School students would not, except in very extraordinary cases, have the necessary background in history and cultural interpretation to really understand the books of the Bible. At minimum, to understand the Bible at all, you have to have at least some facility with the original languages, as well as an understanding of the cultural context in which the books were produced, and also some familiarity with the issues of historical and contemporary scholarship. Trying to deliver all that in a course that also goes into the content of the Bible in any comprehensive way would be well beyond the High School level.

For example: Leviticus 18:22 is usually understood in contemporary times to imply that homosexual intercourse is morally wrong. The word used to describe it--thoebe--is translated as "abomination" in the King James. However, the same word is used to describe the act of eating rabbit, catfish, or pork (Deuteronomy 14). Etymologically, it derives from a root that means "against our ritual" or "against our custom." Leviticus 18:22 is therefore an address to the Levites that homosexuality is to be considered against their custom or ritual. This was still an offense punishable by death, but the verse lacks any connotation of a moral line being crossed. The actual concept denoted by thoebe is not one that we have in our contemporary culture, and so it has to be "grown" among students studying the Bible, and usually takes a few years before it can be understood in its context.

Interestingly, the English term "abomination" had a meaning at that time it doesn't have any longer--it was often used to describe people born with deformities. To someone reading at the start of the 17th century, the word "abomination" would have communicated close to the right idea, of something that goes against the right cultural order. Its meaning has evolved since then. Anyway, the point is that unless you know this kind of stuff, you won't understand the Bible. I don't think most High School students are equipped enough to have all of that necessary background.

 

[Deuce]

Nobody supporting these classes wants to teach "religious diversity." They want the government to indoctrinate children into their religion. That's it. They're just too cowardly to admit it.

 

[JustHanging]

It's **** like this why evangelicals overlook all the horrible stuff he says and does and will never cross him. The reddest of meat for the base.

Absolutely.

 

[bongsaway]

From CBS News

Trump backs push for Bible classes in schools
​

President Trump appeared to endorse efforts by legislators in several states to allow public schools to offer Bible classes.

"Numerous states introducing Bible Literacy classes, giving students the option of studying the Bible. Starting to make a turn back? Great!" Mr. Trump tweeted Monday morning after "Fox and Friends" ran a segment on the topic.

Christian lawmakers in six Republican-controlled state legislatures across the country are pushing for legislation that would allow public schools to offer elective classes on the New and Old Testaments.

The push by conservative legislators in Florida, Indiana, Missouri, North Dakota, Virginia and West Virginia has stirred some controversy. Critics of the proposals, including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), argue that public school classes on the Bible would jeopardize the separation of church and state enshrined in the First Amendment to the Constitution.

COMMENT:-

There is nothing wrong with teaching "what the Bible says" in school, in fact there is nothing wrong with teaching "what the Qu'ran says" or "what the __[fill in the blank]__ says" in school.

There is, however, something wrong with teaching "This is what the Bible says and since it is the actual revealed Word Of God it is 100% literally true.". If you couple that with "... and any religion that teaches anything else is the work of the Devil and has to be expunged." then it is wrong to several quanta higher levels.

Teaching "The Bible" is one thing, teaching "Religion" is another, and teaching that all other religions have to be wiped out is yet another.

PS - If the people who are pushing for elective courses that taught what was in the Old and the New Testiments were also pushing for elective courses that taught what was in the Torah and/or the Qu'ran and/or The Book of Mormon and/or even ONE other text that was fundamental to some religion other than Christianity I might be able to give them some credit for wanting to broaden student's minds. They aren't.

PPS - An interesting alternative is "High school class aims to bring students face-to-face with extremist viewpoints", but, of course, to "conservatives" those people simply aren't "REAL Christians".
​

More from the party who wants government out of our business. They speak with forked tongue.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

why not have R.E classes like we do in the UK? Expose kids to all religions?

You mean that you want "The State" to teach **H*E*R*E*S*Y** like they do in Godless Socialist Monarchies!!!

For shame Sir, for SHAME!

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Here, I disagree with you, as this conclusion is (seemingly non-intended) bigotry on your part. You can't infer that all of them aren't from the truth that some part of the whole aren't.

The people pushing the legislation currently being considered are NOT advocating teaching "comparative religion" they ARE advocating teaching "Christianity as disclosed by the Literal Word of God as contained in The Bible".

Some of those people, myself included, are open to all those other religious texts being taught (in an informational sense, not a "believe in this particular religion" sense) in public schools.

And I agree with you.

I also want to note that, to stay consistent with my viewpoint that religion ought not be taught as truth in public schools, that this extends to other things not commonly viewed as religions (as they are incorrectly attributed to "science"), such as the Big Bang Theory, the Theory of Abiogenesis, Global Warming/Climate Change, and etc... Those things are, in fact, religions. Religion is best defined as 'an initial circular argument with other arguments stemming from it'. Christianity is an example. Buddhism is another. The Big Bang Theory is another. Creationism is another.

Those things should also be taught on an informational basis rather than a "this is the truth" basis.

If you mean by "informational basis" something like "Some people think that __[fill in the blank]__ and others don't, so we should disregard any factual evidence that would tend to support EITHER viewpoint.", I can not go along with you.

If you mean by "informational basis" something like "Based on this set of observed and concrete physical evidence, our best guess about __[fill in the blank]__ is that __[fill in the blank]__ but some people don't agree and their reason for not agreeing is based on this theory for which there is no observed and/or concrete physical evidence __[fill in the blank]__.", I can not go along with you.

If you mean by "informational basis" something like "Based on this set of observed and concrete physical evidence, our best guess about __[fill in the blank]__ is that __[fill in the blank]__ but some people don't agree and their reason for not agreeing is based on this other set of observed and concrete physical evidence __[fill in the blank]__.", I can go along with you.

PS - Did you know that the calculations for Lunar and Circumlunar flights are made using a mathematical model that postulates that the Earth remains in a fixed position and the rest of the Universe revolves around it? This is NOT because that is what people believe, but rather because is makes the calculations immensely more simple.

 

[JMaximus]

From CBS News

Trump backs push for Bible classes in schools
​

President Trump appeared to endorse efforts by legislators in several states to allow public schools to offer Bible classes.

"Numerous states introducing Bible Literacy classes, giving students the option of studying the Bible. Starting to make a turn back? Great!" Mr. Trump tweeted Monday morning after "Fox and Friends" ran a segment on the topic.

Christian lawmakers in six Republican-controlled state legislatures across the country are pushing for legislation that would allow public schools to offer elective classes on the New and Old Testaments.

The push by conservative legislators in Florida, Indiana, Missouri, North Dakota, Virginia and West Virginia has stirred some controversy. Critics of the proposals, including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), argue that public school classes on the Bible would jeopardize the separation of church and state enshrined in the First Amendment to the Constitution.

COMMENT:-

There is nothing wrong with teaching "what the Bible says" in school, in fact there is nothing wrong with teaching "what the Qu'ran says" or "what the __[fill in the blank]__ says" in school.

There is, however, something wrong with teaching "This is what the Bible says and since it is the actual revealed Word Of God it is 100% literally true.". If you couple that with "... and any religion that teaches anything else is the work of the Devil and has to be expunged." then it is wrong to several quanta higher levels.

Teaching "The Bible" is one thing, teaching "Religion" is another, and teaching that all other religions have to be wiped out is yet another.

PS - If the people who are pushing for elective courses that taught what was in the Old and the New Testiments were also pushing for elective courses that taught what was in the Torah and/or the Qu'ran and/or The Book of Mormon and/or even ONE other text that was fundamental to some religion other than Christianity I might be able to give them some credit for wanting to broaden student's minds. They aren't.

PPS - An interesting alternative is "High school class aims to bring students face-to-face with extremist viewpoints", but, of course, to "conservatives" those people simply aren't "REAL Christians".
​

The Bible has played a key role in the history of Western civilization as it exists today.

It isn't inconceivable that Western school systems would choose to educate their pupils in it to the exclusion of other religious texts.

But if it's being taught, it needs to be done on an academic level - not a spiritual or religious one. Teaching the Bible in this way would more likely have the effect of weakening Christian society's unquestioning faith in its belief system than converting unsure students to 'take up their crosses'.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

My first reaction to this was much the same as everyone else's--sure, teach the Bible, but teach it as an artifact and pillar of culture. However, it occurs to me that High School students would not, except in very extraordinary cases, have the necessary background in history and cultural interpretation to really understand the books of the Bible. At minimum, to understand the Bible at all, you have to have at least some facility with the original languages, as well as an understanding of the cultural context in which the books were produced, and also some familiarity with the issues of historical and contemporary scholarship. Trying to deliver all that in a course that also goes into the content of the Bible in any comprehensive way would be well beyond the High School level.

For example: Leviticus 18:22 is usually understood in contemporary times to imply that homosexual intercourse is morally wrong. The word used to describe it--thoebe--is translated as "abomination" in the King James. However, the same word is used to describe the act of eating rabbit, catfish, or pork (Deuteronomy 14). Etymologically, it derives from a root that means "against our ritual" or "against our custom." Leviticus 18:22 is therefore an address to the Levites that homosexuality is to be considered against their custom or ritual. This was still an offense punishable by death, but the verse lacks any connotation of a moral line being crossed. The actual concept denoted by thoebe is not one that we have in our contemporary culture, and so it has to be "grown" among students studying the Bible, and usually takes a few years before it can be understood in its context.

Interestingly, the English term "abomination" had a meaning at that time it doesn't have any longer--it was often used to describe people born with deformities. To someone reading at the start of the 17th century, the word "abomination" would have communicated close to the right idea, of something that goes against the right cultural order. Its meaning has evolved since then. Anyway, the point is that unless you know this kind of stuff, you won't understand the Bible. I don't think most High School students are equipped enough to have all of that necessary background.

Thank you for raising a VERY interesting and pertinent point.

The "meaning" of words DOES change over time.

As for your last point, given the actual levels of functional literacy displayed by High School graduates on college admission examinations, a suspicion that a significant percentage of them wouldn't be sufficiently well equipped to understand books that were considered suitable for children in the 1960s.

 

[Winston]

From CBS News

Trump backs push for Bible classes in schools
​

President Trump appeared to endorse efforts by legislators in several states to allow public schools to offer Bible classes.

"Numerous states introducing Bible Literacy classes, giving students the option of studying the Bible. Starting to make a turn back? Great!" Mr. Trump tweeted Monday morning after "Fox and Friends" ran a segment on the topic.

Christian lawmakers in six Republican-controlled state legislatures across the country are pushing for legislation that would allow public schools to offer elective classes on the New and Old Testaments.

The push by conservative legislators in Florida, Indiana, Missouri, North Dakota, Virginia and West Virginia has stirred some controversy. Critics of the proposals, including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), argue that public school classes on the Bible would jeopardize the separation of church and state enshrined in the First Amendment to the Constitution.

COMMENT:-

There is nothing wrong with teaching "what the Bible says" in school, in fact there is nothing wrong with teaching "what the Qu'ran says" or "what the __[fill in the blank]__ says" in school.

There is, however, something wrong with teaching "This is what the Bible says and since it is the actual revealed Word Of God it is 100% literally true.". If you couple that with "... and any religion that teaches anything else is the work of the Devil and has to be expunged." then it is wrong to several quanta higher levels.

Teaching "The Bible" is one thing, teaching "Religion" is another, and teaching that all other religions have to be wiped out is yet another.

PS - If the people who are pushing for elective courses that taught what was in the Old and the New Testiments were also pushing for elective courses that taught what was in the Torah and/or the Qu'ran and/or The Book of Mormon and/or even ONE other text that was fundamental to some religion other than Christianity I might be able to give them some credit for wanting to broaden student's minds. They aren't.

PPS - An interesting alternative is "High school class aims to bring students face-to-face with extremist viewpoints", but, of course, to "conservatives" those people simply aren't "REAL Christians".
​

If Trump or his advisors have any political savvy they will hammer this God Squad rhetoric to kingdom come.

Since it looks like he's going to lose the wall fight, if I was Trump, I pivot away from the White Supremacist base and towards the Evangelicals.






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[gfm7175]

The people pushing the legislation currently being considered are NOT advocating teaching "comparative religion" they ARE advocating teaching "Christianity as disclosed by the Literal Word of God as contained in The Bible".



And I agree with you.



If you mean by "informational basis" something like "Some people think that __[fill in the blank]__ and others don't, so we should disregard any factual evidence that would tend to support EITHER viewpoint.", I can not go along with you.

If you mean by "informational basis" something like "Based on this set of observed and concrete physical evidence, our best guess about __[fill in the blank]__ is that __[fill in the blank]__ but some people don't agree and their reason for not agreeing is based on this theory for which there is no observed and/or concrete physical evidence __[fill in the blank]__.", I can not go along with you.

If you mean by "informational basis" something like "Based on this set of observed and concrete physical evidence, our best guess about __[fill in the blank]__ is that __[fill in the blank]__ but some people don't agree and their reason for not agreeing is based on this other set of observed and concrete physical evidence __[fill in the blank]__.", I can go along with you.

PS - Did you know that the calculations for Lunar and Circumlunar flights are made using a mathematical model that postulates that the Earth remains in a fixed position and the rest of the Universe revolves around it? This is NOT because that is what people believe, but rather because is makes the calculations immensely more simple.

I mean "informational basis" as the same way that you want religions (such as Christianity, Buddhism, Shinto, Muslim, Judaism, etc.) to be taught in public schools...

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

If Trump or his advisors have any political savvy they will hammer this God Squad rhetoric to kingdom come.

Since it looks like he's going to lose the wall fight, if I was Trump, I pivot away from the White Supremacist base and towards the Evangelicals.






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You might find "Revealed: FBI investigated civil rights group as 'terrorism' threat and viewed KKK as victims" interesting. If you don't find

The FBI considered the KKK as victims and the leftist protesters as potential terror threats, and downplayed the threats of the Klan, writing: “The KKK consisted of members that some perceived to be supportive of a white supremacist agenda.”
(emphasis added)
​

disturbing, I don't know what you would.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

I mean "informational basis" as the same way that you want religions (such as Christianity, Buddhism, Shinto, Muslim, Judaism, etc.) to be taught in public schools...

My BAD!!!

I was in a rush this morning, and I read your "informational BASIS" as "informational BIAS".

Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.