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

[Hollie]

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.

It does if the class is a part of the public school syllabus.

 

[Hollie]

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?

Your wish to have your religious beliefs taught in the public schools is a violation of the law. Why this need to force your religion on others?

 

[Meriweather]

It does if the class is a part of the public school syllabus.

No, it doesn't. A public school syllabus establishes a curriculum, not a religion. It is a topic offered for study.

 

[Hollie]

It does if the class is a part of the public school syllabus.

No, it doesn't. A public school syllabus establishes a curriculum, not a religion. It is a topic offered for study.

I think you will find that's not true.

It should be a simple matter to refute the rule of law. Can you identify where bible studies is a part of any public school syllabus?

 

[mdk]

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.

Of course not, I already stated as much. History is impossible to discuss without getting into the religious aspect of the society. Discussing the Roman Empire without discussing Paganism or The Catholic Church would give one a incomplete history. Same would can be said about India without Hinduism. Teaching the impact of these faiths is entirely fine, teaching that one faith and it's morality is better then another isn't wise wether the class be an elective or not. That should be left to the parents and the church they attend.

 

[pinqy]

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.

The Suprem Court has long ruled that teaching the Bible as literature or in context of history or culture is fine. I have heard of cases, though where the teacher turns such a class into proselytizing.

 

[PratchettFan]

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.

No. That is a justification to teach one over the other. An example of "separate but equal". It means less popular religions will be excluded. It is the establishment of religion and is unconstitutional. It's all or nothing.

 

[Meriweather]

I think you will find that's not true.

It should be a simple matter to refute the rule of law. Can you identify where bible studies is a part of any public school syllabus?

Google it. You will find where the Bible (or portions) thereof are included in the curriculum. There are programs in both Alabama and Texas. The rule of thumb is: Bible courses in public schools must be taught in an academic, non-devotional manner that refrains from promoting or disparaging religion or promoting one particular faith perspective over all others.

 

[Meriweather]

The Suprem Court has long ruled that teaching the Bible as literature or in context of history or culture is fine. I have heard of cases, though where the teacher turns such a class into proselytizing.

Bingo! (To the first sentence). I haven't heard of the proselytizing teachers, but that there are some sounds right in line with human nature. However, I would hope such teachers would be removed from teaching that course.

 

[Meriweather]

No. That is a justification to teach one over the other. An example of "separate but equal". It means less popular religions will be excluded. It is the establishment of religion and is unconstitutional. It's all or nothing.

And I respect your opinion, but I do not believe it has to be, "All or nothing." It sounds as if perhaps you would favor Comparative Religion, but would not favor the Bible as History, Culture, and Literature. Or, the Koran as History, Culture, and Literature.

 

[Hollie]

I think you will find that's not true.

It should be a simple matter to refute the rule of law. Can you identify where bible studies is a part of any public school syllabus?

Google it. You will find where the Bible (or portions) thereof are included in the curriculum. There are programs in both Alabama and Texas. The rule of thumb is: Bible courses in public schools must be taught in an academic, non-devotional manner that refrains from promoting or disparaging religion or promoting one particular faith perspective over all others.

I did Google it. Your "quote" was from something called the "Texas Freedom Network". They appear to an advocacy group not affiliated with the Texas Board of Education.

Public School Bible Courses - Texas Freedom Network

 

[PratchettFan]

No. That is a justification to teach one over the other. An example of "separate but equal". It means less popular religions will be excluded. It is the establishment of religion and is unconstitutional. It's all or nothing.

And I respect your opinion, but I do not believe it has to be, "All or nothing." It sounds as if perhaps you would favor Comparative Religion, but would not favor the Bible as History, Culture, and Literature. Or, the Koran as History, Culture, and Literature.

I would not agree it is appropriate in a public school setting to have a course which is exclusive to any religious text. That would be appropriate at the college level, but not in a public school.

 

[ogibillm]

No. That is a justification to teach one over the other. An example of "separate but equal". It means less popular religions will be excluded. It is the establishment of religion and is unconstitutional. It's all or nothing.

And I respect your opinion, but I do not believe it has to be, "All or nothing." It sounds as if perhaps you would favor Comparative Religion, but would not favor the Bible as History, Culture, and Literature. Or, the Koran as History, Culture, and Literature.

I would not agree it is appropriate in a public school setting to have a course which is exclusive to any religious text. That would be appropriate at the college level, but not in a public school.

i would very much doubt that any of the groups pushing for an elective teaching about the bible would really like anything other than their own interpretations, and thus their religion, taught.

 

[Meriweather]

I think you will find that's not true.

It should be a simple matter to refute the rule of law. Can you identify where bible studies is a part of any public school syllabus?

Google it. You will find where the Bible (or portions) thereof are included in the curriculum. There are programs in both Alabama and Texas. The rule of thumb is: Bible courses in public schools must be taught in an academic, non-devotional manner that refrains from promoting or disparaging religion or promoting one particular faith perspective over all others.

I did Google it. Your "quote" was from something called the "Texas Freedom Network". They appear to an advocacy group not affiliated with the Texas Board of Education.

Public School Bible Courses - Texas Freedom Network

Sorry, I didn't mean for you to Google the quote, but Bible study in public schools. You should be able to find some schools who do offer such classes, and that they all tend to be under the umbrella noted in the quote. As someone noted earlier, such classes have passed the "Establishment" test.

 

[Hollie]

I think you will find that's not true.

It should be a simple matter to refute the rule of law. Can you identify where bible studies is a part of any public school syllabus?

Google it. You will find where the Bible (or portions) thereof are included in the curriculum. There are programs in both Alabama and Texas. The rule of thumb is: Bible courses in public schools must be taught in an academic, non-devotional manner that refrains from promoting or disparaging religion or promoting one particular faith perspective over all others.

I did Google it. Your "quote" was from something called the "Texas Freedom Network". They appear to an advocacy group not affiliated with the Texas Board of Education.

Public School Bible Courses - Texas Freedom Network

Sorry, I didn't mean for you to Google the quote, but Bible study in public schools. You should be able to find some schools who do offer such classes, and that they all tend to be under the umbrella noted in the quote. As someone noted earlier, such classes have passed the "Establishment" test.

I searched. I found nothing. There are bible study groups in after school programs but nothing in terms of bible studies as part of the school syllabus.

 

[Meriweather]

I would not agree it is appropriate in a public school setting to have a course which is exclusive to any religious text. That would be appropriate at the college level, but not in a public school.

Again, I disagree. Students should offer electives that are of interest to students. I should be able to take an art elective on painting without having it include computer art. Or, I should be able to take German without also having to learn Spanish. Keep in mind, I live in an area with two large high schools, which from sheer volume can offer electives that can specialize. For example, the music electives include choir, orchestra, marching band, jazz band, and guitar. Art is broken into general art, painting, ceramics, photo art, and I forget the other.

I can imagine a very small high school would have to settle for offering music or art and be glad to have both. If someone, because of background and culture, wants to learn more about the Bible in a public school setting, I don't think that student should be told, "You have to learn the Koran, too" anymore than a Spanish student should be told, "You have to learn French as well." Let students study what interests them (when it comes to electives). If you are speaking of small schools, then I agree, their electives may have to be broader in scope in order to offer anything at all.

 

[Pogo]

"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."

"Duck Dynasty's, Alan Robertson, says that the Bible should be taught in public schools."

First sentence of the OP.

 

[Pogo]

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.

Nothing in this topic is about gummint "prohibiting" anything. The thrust here is that the subject in the OP wants the gummint to require it. And that's a direct violation of the First Amendment. Which is where I came in.

 

[Meriweather]

i would very much doubt that any of the groups pushing for an elective teaching about the bible would really like anything other than their own interpretations, and thus their religion, taught.

As a teacher, I disagree. The Bible can be taught from the historical, cultural, and literary perspectives. That approach is quite fascinating--in fact I find it more fascinating than the religious perspectives. I don't find anything alarming about offering it as a high school elective.

 

[ogibillm]

i would very much doubt that any of the groups pushing for an elective teaching about the bible would really like anything other than their own interpretations, and thus their religion, taught.

As a teacher, I disagree. The Bible can be taught from the historical, cultural, and literary perspectives. That approach is quite fascinating--in fact I find it more fascinating than the religious perspectives. I don't find anything alarming about offering it as a high school elective.

and when a teacher begins to question the bible, to teach noah's flood as allegory, or the non-literal nature of revelations, what then? do you think people like alan robertson will allow their bible to be criticized?