Duck Dynasty's, Alan Robertson - Bible in Public School

[PratchettFan]

They can speak about anything they like. They should be encouraged to speak about anything they like. However, that is not the same thing as a class set up specifically to instruct them in the Bible while ignoring all other religious texts. That constitutes the establishment of religion. Include all texts or give it a pass. Because there is only one reason to exclude other religious texts.

As been mentioned, classes can be set up in different ways. What you are speaking of now is a comparative religion class, not a class on the Bible as History, Culture, and Literature.

Then I would be opposed to it. It's a college class, not a public school class. If you are excluding all other religious texts, then you are establishing religion. It's unconstitutional.

 

[DriftingSand]

Another interesting class might be Religious/ Spiritual Symbolism. It could help students understand not just symbols like crosses, pentagrams, sigils, circles, and their various meanings in religions, but also help them understand numerology, and possible metaphors in various religious myths and legends.
​

I wouldn't have a problem with that. A class on the Bible as one elective and a class on religious symbolism as a different elective.

"A class on the bible"? You are utterly oblivious to what has been presented to you regarding the Establishment Clause, right?

Maybe a class on hewing Arks out of cubits of gopherwood?

That actually sounds like an interesting class. I'd attend just to see the huge undertaking

Duck Dynasty's, Alan Robertson, says that the Bible should be taught in public schools. I agree although I think it should be an elective. The Bible is an historical document that's had significant influence on mankind for centuries. Kids should at least know what it's all about before denying its veracity based on the whims of a handful of bitter atheists (usually folks angry at God for not getting that certain toy at Christmas).

Duck Dynasty s Alan Robertson Bible Should Be Taught in Public Schools CNS News

Can be taught in public school already. Just have to present it in a neutral context along with other religions' texts. I'm all for it. Nothing cranks out atheists better than the Bible.

True ... "broad" is the path that leads to destruction and many there be that walk that path.

The fraud of fundamentalist Christianity under the burqa of ID'iot - creationism has already suffered humiliating losses in the court.

Are you still oblivious to the constitution?

You still seem fearful for some reason. Why is that? What do you have to lose in allowing folks to make their own decisions? Why are you so controlling?

An elective course in a public school syllabus makes that elective a part of the public school syllabus.

Is there something in the above you find confusing?

What's so "confusing" about allowing a student to learn the history and formation of a book that has had significant influence on mankind on a global scale? What on earth are your afraid of?

 

[Meriweather]

Not at all. If you do them singly you don't have a class on comparative religion. You have several separate classes each competing with its own single religion.

Your comparison completely fails -- different levels of Algebra do not compare to the same level of how different religions view the same thing. "How much material" it is is irrelevant. That only determines how deep you go. But you can't teach "here's how Buddhism views death" and then wait for an entirely different class (if it happens at all) to teach "by contrast here's how Judaism views death". Why would you want to eliminate context? Doesn't make sense.

Once again, we are talking (from a teacher's point of view) how long it would take to cover the Bible as History, Culture, and Literature--and then do the same for other religious texts. I'm saying I doubt all could be effectively covered in one year--not and do it right. Should all classes be offered? I already said yes to that.

Now, a comparative religion class is an entirely different class, because you are then focusing on religion, not on history, culture, and literature.

Which classes are wanted?

 

[Pogo]

Not at all. If you do them singly you don't have a class on comparative religion. You have several separate classes each competing with its own single religion.

Your comparison completely fails -- different levels of Algebra do not compare to the same level of how different religions view the same thing. "How much material" it is is irrelevant. That only determines how deep you go. But you can't teach "here's how Buddhism views death" and then wait for an entirely different class (if it happens at all) to teach "by contrast here's how Judaism views death". Why would you want to eliminate context? Doesn't make sense.

Once again, we are talking (from a teacher's point of view) how long it would take to cover the Bible as History, Culture, and Literature--and then do the same for other religious texts. I'm saying I doubt all could be effectively covered in one year--not and do it right. Should all classes be offered? I already said yes to that.

Now, a comparative religion class is an entirely different class, because you are then focusing on religion, not on history, culture, and literature.

Which classes are wanted?

A more proper comparison for what you suggest would be holding a math class, but this class will only deal with the number Four. After all, bringing in the other numbers would just be "too much material". Those will be dealt with in other classes.

Why would you do that?

 

[Meriweather]

Then I would be opposed to it. It's a college class, not a public school class. If you are excluding all other religious texts, then you are establishing religion. It's unconstitutional.

No, it is still not establishing a religion, it is teaching a religious text from the perspective of history, culture, and literature.

Yet another type of class would be to find a common historical or cultural theme and then use only select material from each source--rather than cover each source thoroughly from start to finish.

 

[Meriweather]

A more proper comparison for what you suggest would be holding a math class, but this class will only deal with the number Four. After all, bringing in the other numbers would just be "too much material".

Why would you do that?

Do you want to compare how many pages are in a math book as to how many pages are in the Bible? I've taught both, Pogo--though one at public school and one at church. I know what I am talking about.

 

[PratchettFan]

Another interesting class might be Religious/ Spiritual Symbolism. It could help students understand not just symbols like crosses, pentagrams, sigils, circles, and their various meanings in religions, but also help them understand numerology, and possible metaphors in various religious myths and legends.
​

I wouldn't have a problem with that. A class on the Bible as one elective and a class on religious symbolism as a different elective.

"A class on the bible"? You are utterly oblivious to what has been presented to you regarding the Establishment Clause, right?

Maybe a class on hewing Arks out of cubits of gopherwood?

That actually sounds like an interesting class. I'd attend just to see the huge undertaking

Can be taught in public school already. Just have to present it in a neutral context along with other religions' texts. I'm all for it. Nothing cranks out atheists better than the Bible.

True ... "broad" is the path that leads to destruction and many there be that walk that path.

The fraud of fundamentalist Christianity under the burqa of ID'iot - creationism has already suffered humiliating losses in the court.

Are you still oblivious to the constitution?

You still seem fearful for some reason. Why is that? What do you have to lose in allowing folks to make their own decisions? Why are you so controlling?

An elective course in a public school syllabus makes that elective a part of the public school syllabus.

Is there something in the above you find confusing?

What's so "confusing" about allowing a student to learn the history and formation of a book that has had significant influence on mankind on a global scale? What on earth are your afraid of?

You want it taught in isolation without any other religious texts. What on earth are you afraid of?

 

[Pogo]

Then I would be opposed to it. It's a college class, not a public school class. If you are excluding all other religious texts, then you are establishing religion. It's unconstitutional.

No, it is still not establishing a religion, it is teaching a religious text from the perspective of history, culture, and literature.

Yet another type of class would be to find a common historical or cultural theme and then use only select material from each source--rather than cover each source thoroughly from start to finish.

You're avoiding the question.

I'm asking why you want to eliminate context and you're telling me how many pages there are.

 

[PratchettFan]

Then I would be opposed to it. It's a college class, not a public school class. If you are excluding all other religious texts, then you are establishing religion. It's unconstitutional.

No, it is still not establishing a religion, it is teaching a religious text from the perspective of history, culture, and literature.

Yet another type of class would be to find a common historical or cultural theme and then use only select material from each source--rather than cover each source thoroughly from start to finish.

Still trying to keep out other religious texts, and that is the problem. If you wish to have a class on religious texts, then it has to be inclusive. If it is exclusive, then it is placing a priority on that text above all others. That is the establishment of religion and is unconstitutional. It's all or nothing. If that is not doable, then it shouldn't be done.

 

[Meriweather]

You're avoiding the question.

I'm asking why you want to eliminate context and you're telling me how many pages there are.

No, I already answered the question. I pointed out there are many alternatives for a school/community to consider:

1. In depth study of religious texts, studied separately in the context of history, culture, and literature (and impact)
2. Comparative Religion, where many religious beliefs are studied, compared, and contrasted
3. A history, cultural, or literary theme that draws on writings from many religious books, but does not cover any entire book in an in depth study.

 

[Meriweather]

Still trying to keep out other religious texts, and that is the problem. If you wish to have a class on religious texts, then it has to be inclusive. If it is exclusive, then it is placing a priority on that text above all others. That is the establishment of religion and is unconstitutional. It's all or nothing. If that is not doable, then it shouldn't be done.

Offering all as an elective is not "keeping out other religious texts". The student who elected The Bible as History, Culture, and Literature will learn something different from the student who elected The Koran as History, Culture, and Literature. Both of these students will not be learning the same material as the student who elected A Comparative Study of Religions.

 

[Pogo]

Sigh...

 

[mdk]

When I was high school, we had a World Cultures class and learned about all the major religions of the world and the major tenants, history, and whatnot. Never once did it turn into a sermon for this faith or that faith. It was an amazing class. I am down with holy books being discussed regarding their cultural and historical impact, most history classes already do so. Discussing history without is silly.

 

[Meriweather]

Sigh...

It's okay, Pogo. Just tell your school district what course you want offered, and how you want it presented...and allow others to do the same with their school districts.

 

[Pogo]

Sigh...

It's okay, Pogo. Just tell your school district what course you want offered, and how you want it presented...and allow others to do the same with their school districts.

Don't need to. We all have the same Constitution. Which reads in part, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion", so it's already covered.

Why you want to eliminate context, that will have to remain a mystery.

 

[Meriweather]

Don't need to. We all have the same Constitution. Which reads in part, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion", so it's already covered.

Why you want to eliminate context, that will have to remain a mystery.

It's simple. Offering a class does not establish a religion.

 

[Pogo]

Don't need to. We all have the same Constitution. Which reads in part, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion", so it's already covered.

Why you want to eliminate context, that will have to remain a mystery.

It's simple. Offering a class does not establish a religion.

"Offering" isn't quiiiiiite the same thing as "should be taught", is it.

 

[mdk]

Don't need to. We all have the same Constitution. Which reads in part, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion", so it's already covered.

Why you want to eliminate context, that will have to remain a mystery.

It's simple. Offering a class does not establish a religion.

I suppose that depends on how the classes is presented. If people want to use this class as an excuse to extol the virtues of one Holy Book over another them no, I am opposed to such a class. Do we really want the government teaching children faith? That is best left to the parents and members of the clergy that the parents wish.

 

[Meriweather]

"Offering" isn't quiiiiiite the same thing as "should be taught", is it.

My understanding is the thread is speaking speaking of an elective, not a "should be taught."

 

[Meriweather]

I suppose that depends on how the classes is presented. If people want to use this class as an excuse to extol the virtues of one Holy Book over another them no, I am opposed to such a class. Do we really want the government teaching children faith? That is best left to the parents and members of the clergy that the parents wish.

On the other side of the coin, do we want the government prohibiting children from learning about anything that touches on faith? The Bible (or any religious book) as History, Culture, and Literature--or, comparative religion classes isn't anything the government should prohibit as an elective course.