A bible in every Texas classroom

All of which are thoroughly and fatally debunked - but feel free to check it out- multiple times - DOC just keeps coming back with the same disproved stuff like any other CTer.

Yes, I agree with you, the "Jefferson's Admiration" forum in the religion section should be checked out. And if they do check it out your "thoroughly and fatally debunked" comment will say a lot about your credibility. Once again I really don't post much in that forum until post 61 and after.

The only reason I'm talking about the Jefferson forum in here is that other people in here are bringing it up. But I'm glad they are doing it and I hope the forum creator in this forum will allow them to continue to bring it up. You can't beat the free advertising.
 
Last edited:
I think that it's good that the Bible be studied as literature the same way Shakespeare or Yeats is studied as literature.

However, this is happening in Texas. Call me prejudiced but I sense a slight deception as to why it's being studied.
 
It makes sense to study it as history? A book that describes a world-wide flood is not an accurate history book. A book with talking animals is not a good history book.

No. But it is an extremely significant part of the history of the western world. In fact, one would be hard pressed to comprehend much of history without understanding the role of the bible and the church in it.

It doesn't have to be a history book to have a place in it.

That's not a defense, just a differing slant on your observation. :cool:
 
No. But it is an extremely significant part of the history of the western world. In fact, one would be hard pressed to comprehend much of history without understanding the role of the bible and the church in it.

It doesn't have to be a history book to have a place in it.

That's not a defense, just a differing slant on your observation. :cool:

There is a significant difference between studying the history of the Bible, and it’s influence on history, as opposed to studying the Bible as history.
 
A book is a book.

Oh, please. Do you really see no difference between the Christian bible and Quotations from Chairman Mao?

The most popular book of all time should be studied so students can maybe understand why it is the most popular book of all time. That's what education is all about.

If they want to study the Bible, that's what churches are there for. If students want to study Quotations From Chairman Mao, that's what the Revolutionary Communist Party is there for.
 
A book is a book. The most popular book of all time should be studied so students can maybe understand why it is the most popular book of all time. That's what education is all about.

Then why is the Bible the only best-seller to be taught in church? Why don't they cover Harry Potter, or the latest romance novel? Since the churches obviously are there to teach about best-sellers, it seems they aren't keeping up.

Answer that, and I can tell you why the Bible isn't taught in schools.
 
Then why is the Bible the only best-seller to be taught in church? Why don't they cover Harry Potter, or the latest romance novel? Since the churches obviously are there to teach about best-sellers, it seems they aren't keeping up.

Harry Potter? That doesn't even appear on the list until #9. I think to really give people a well-rounded education, churches should be teaching the second and third-best selling books of all time in addition to the Bible. This would be to show people what having an all-time best-seller is really all about.
 
No. But it is an extremely significant part of the history of the western world. In fact, one would be hard pressed to comprehend much of history without understanding the role of the bible and the church in it.

It doesn't have to be a history book to have a place in it.

That's not a defense, just a differing slant on your observation. :cool:

I agree with the idea that students will have a better understanding of history, culture, and high art if they have an understanding of the Bible, but as brodski pointed out, there is a difference between studying the effects of the Bible and using the Bible as a source document.
 
However, this is happening in Texas. Call me prejudiced but I sense a slight deception as to why it's being studied.

And Huntington Beach, California. Yes, I know that Orange County is the westernmost notch of the Bible-belt, but I am still a bit surprised to see it being put forward here.
 
So you don't want students to have the freedom to study the world's best selling book if they wish to take the elective course.

I think such freedom would be a good thing, but I don't think the school would be able to do it in a secular manner. I think that this well end up wasting quite a bit of time and money, especially when it eventually ends up in front of the court system.

SEE Cole v. Oroville or FFRF v. Rhea County Board of Edudcation for presedence.

Additionally, why does it take an entire class. Watership Down is a sreshman book, which students spend maybe two weeks on, and that is on the list? The argument that this should also require teaching of other books as well seems quite valid, as their history and literature is important as well. I think if there is a call for the bible their should also be a call for the Quaran, Talmud, Gita, Tao, Dianetics, and a list of many others, shouldn't students have the freedom to take these as elective courses. And what about something like Tolstoy's The Kingdom of God is Within You. This is a Christian book which inspired Ghandi and King, but at the same time is very subversive to the chuch and teaches non-violence beyond that of American Christian Churches. Certainly this was an influential book... King and Chandi?
 
I agree with the idea that students will have a better understanding of history, culture, and high art if they have an understanding of the Bible, but as brodski pointed out, there is a difference between studying the effects of the Bible and using the Bible as a source document.

I would go further to say that in understanding history it is less important to understand what is actually in the bible, than it is to understand what various people at various points in time claimed was the meaning of what is in the bible.
 
So you don't want students to have the freedom to study the world's best selling book if they wish to take the elective course.

I believe it is negligence of the highest order for an adult other than a parent to expose children as young as 14 to a book that contains incest, murder, genocide, rape, infantcide, torture, and adultery.



As for depriving these students of "their freedom," why can't they study the book at home or study the book in a public library or study the book during their free periods or study the book in their own freaking church? Why must they be able to earn class credits while studying this book?
 
Last edited:
A book is a book. The most popular book of all time should be studied so students can maybe understand why it is the most popular book of all time. That's what education is all about.

If you want to study why it is the most popular book of all time, you need to look WAY beyond the book itself, and need to study the political history of the Middle East and Roman Empire in the times when it was written.

Oddly enough, a lot of history classes already teach this information.

Which is true: people become christians because they read the bible? Or people read the bible because they are christians?

There are probably 100 christians who own a bible but have never read it for every one who became a christian after reading. That doesn't count the number of christians who were already christian before reading the bible.
 
What about christians that read the bible, then became agnostic/atheists?
 
The bible is part of the curriculum (studying ancient cultures) for 6th grade students in the district my kids attend. When my niece was in 6th grade, her teacher taught the bible as if it were historical fact. My youngest son, now in the sixth grade, told me his teacher taught the bible more as 'fable'.

This is what concerns me regarding this HS elective class. A teacher who uses the class to proselytize.
 
Answer that, and I can tell you why the Bible isn't taught in schools.
If we're going to teach based on number of books sold, I suggest we jump straight to Benjamin Spock's The Common Sense Book of Baby and Child Care.
 
The bible is part of the curriculum (studying ancient cultures) for 6th grade students in the district my kids attend. When my niece was in 6th grade, her teacher taught the bible as if it were historical fact. My youngest son, now in the sixth grade, told me his teacher taught the bible more as 'fable'.

This is what concerns me regarding this HS elective class. A teacher who uses the class to proselytize.


Unfortunately, experience has shown us all too often that this ends up happening.

No one is fooled by this. We all recognize that the reason this bill is offered has nothing to do with teaching the bible secularly as an elective class. If there were any hope at all that it would mainly end up that way, I'd be fine with it. But it won't. It will still be taught by ministers using it as a Sunday School class.
 
The bible is part of the curriculum (studying ancient cultures) for 6th grade students in the district my kids attend. When my niece was in 6th grade, her teacher taught the bible as if it were historical fact. My youngest son, now in the sixth grade, told me his teacher taught the bible more as 'fable'.

This is what concerns me regarding this HS elective class. A teacher who uses the class to proselytize.

They did not have this when I was in HS, the closest we came was Milton. But now that I tutor for Princeton Review I go from school district to school district and have noticed it in a bunch of classrooms. I know at least some times it is taught as lit. But sometimes there are some rather questionable books on the bible as history in the rooms, which makes me doubt that abilities of the teacher to convey it in a proper manner.
 
You might want to compare this to similar classes in Florida a few years ago, as described in PFAW's report, The Good Book Taught Wrong: Bible History Classes in Florida Public Schools. (That link is to the PDF version -- non-PDF files are available here.)

A few pertinent quotes:
Despite the Supreme Court's admonition that the Bible must be taught about "objectively," it appears that most, if not all, of the Florida school districts teaching the "Bible History" courses are doing so not objectively, but from a Christian perspective. This perspective extends beyond the titles to the course content, which typically presents the Bible according to particular Christian (usually Protestant) interpretations.

For example, it is common in the instructional materials to find the story of Adam and Eve referred to as "the Fall of Man," and the serpent in that story referred to as "Satan" - Christian interpretations of Genesis 3 that are not shared by other faiths. The Bible classes at issue in the Herdahl case also described Genesis 3 as "the Fall of Man." As Professor Lewis testified in that case, "That phrase, however, does not appear anywhere in the Bible; it is a purely theological, Christian interpretation of the story - further evidence of the religious nature of the instruction. Moreover, Jews, who also regard the Book of Genesis as religious scripture, do not interpret the story of Adam and Eve in the same way." And, as Professor Lewis testified in Lee County, "the Serpent" of Genesis 3 is "interpreted in Christian faith, but not Jewish faith, as Satan."

Likewise, a number of the Florida school districts present the "Old" Testament as predictive of, or in light of, the "New" Testament. For example, an exam used in the Indian River County school district asks, "Where is a prophecy in the Old [T]estament about the birth of Jesus?" This is a purely Christian reading of the Bible, since Judaism does not recognize a "New" Testament, nor interpret the Hebrew Scriptures as predictive of it.

A number of school districts appear to assume that only Christian students would take the "Bible History" courses. A review of the instructional materials suggests an assumption by these school districts that the teachers and students are of the same (Christian) faith, with the Bible approached accordingly, rather than in an objective and secular manner.

One of the most striking examples is from the Columbia County school district, where students at Columbia High School are asked the following exam question:

"If you had a Jewish friend who wanted to know if Jesus might be the expectant [sic] Messiah, which book [of the Gospels] would you give him?"

At Madison County High School, the "New Testament" final exam asks students to write an essay, "sing Scripture reference to support [their] thoughts," about each of the following topics: "God's Plan For The Family; Living A Victorious Life In The World Which Is So Dark; and God's Directions For Righteous Living." And course materials used in the Levy County school district state in the "study guide" for Joshua: "God is not content with our doing what is right some of the time. He wants us to do what is right all the time. We are under his orders to eliminate any thoughts, practices, or possessions that hinder our devotion to him."
 
The most popular book of all time should be studied so students can maybe understand why it is the most popular book of all time.
Why it's the most popular book of all time? Maybe because they stick one in every hotel room in the world, to start with. Hospitals, too, in many places. (My mother, after her stroke, was terrified to find a bible in her hospital night stand, thinking she caught in a cult or something.) Just because there are a gazillion of those books out there, doesn't imply that anybody actually bought them to read or that anybody who has one (I was given one as a child by an aunt) actually wants to read it. I hardly think it's the most popular because it's a great read!
 

Back
Top Bottom