KY Bill allowing Bible literacy classes in public schools

[CKwi88]

Were bible and literacy just used in the same sentence?


Blasphemy!

[*Nately120*]

We can't let God back into public schools because the next time there is a shooting people are going to have to say "Well, I guess we wrong and it was guns all the time!"

[*bfine32*]

As I said earlier: if there is any such class it should contain all major religions practiced in the U.S. and the coverage should be proportionate to the prevalence in this country. No attempt should be made to convert anyone to any religion in an academic environment.

I saw it suggested that it should be left to the parent to instruct the child on religion. Do we really want some parents explaining Muslim religion to their children and what about the poor children that really have no parental presence in their life? We get too much of our instruction on religion now on social media.

I do understand the mentality of the modern day American; as has been demonstrated many times in this very thread. So any such class should be optional and require parental consent. Those that opt out should be offered a class in another (non-oppressive) cultural basis.

[BFritz21]

(03-14-2016, 05:40 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: It will become a problem when someone requests a similar class discussing the Qur'an, Vedas, or what have you. The second that happens and is tossed aside there will be a lawsuit waiting on the other end.

I'm fine with classes like these, as long as we take an all or none approach.

If there is enough interest, then I could see it being a problem, but I don't think that there would be enough interest.

I don't see any problem with this if they're teaching it as historical connotation and not as religious connotation.  

They're not saying "this is true," but rather "this is what it says."

To anyone that has a problem with this, let me ask you this one question:  Do you have a problem with the Crusades being taught in public schools?  More specifically, do you have a problem with teaching kids that the reason the Muslims wanted the city?  Wouldn't teaching that Muslims believe that Jerusalem is where Muhammed ascended into Heaven be violating the separation of Church and state in the same way that teaching the Bible would be violating the separation?


What's the difference?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-14-2016, 07:51 PM)Beaker Wrote: My problem is two fold. First, this is a cleverly disguised and worded way to get religion into public schools.

100% agreed, except it's not that cleverly disguised. 

Quote:Secondly, the bible is not a historical text.

100% agreed.

[McC]

(03-14-2016, 07:51 PM)Beaker Wrote: My problem is two fold. First, this is a cleverly disguised and worded way to get religion into public schools. Once the foot is in the door, they can branch out into the science vs creation crapola. There is no place for religion of any kind in public schools. You want to discuss religion, do it at church, at home, on the street corner etc. But don't bring it into the classroom. Religion can be taught in private schools, and at the college level.

Secondly, the bible is not a historical text.

In this context, it's looked at more as a piece of literature than a historical document.

Why is everyone ignoring this--


According to the bill, students would learn biblical content, characters, poetry, and narratives “that are prerequisites to understanding contemporary society and culture, including literature, art, music, mores, oratory and public policy.”


This bill is not talking about teaching religion.

The Bible is the foundation for much of Western culture. We are a Western nation, with a Western culture.

And, the course would be an elective.

Man, everybody is so poised to leap these days.

[Rotobeast]

(03-14-2016, 11:52 PM)McC Wrote: In this context, it's looked at more as a piece of literature than a historical document.

Why is everyone ignoring this--


According to the bill, students would learn biblical content, characters, poetry, and narratives “that are prerequisites to understanding contemporary society and culture, including literature, art, music, mores, oratory and public policy.”


This bill is not talking about teaching religion.

The Bible is the foundation for much of Western culture.  We are a Western nation, with a Western culture.

And, the course would be an elective.

Man, everybody is so poised to leap these days.

I agree. 

But, I think they're worried how a teacher could manipulate the class into accepting their Christian beliefs. 
The thing is a teacher could as easily say "look at what all these dumb SOB's done in the name of their belief".

[NATI BENGALS]

Basically a philosophy class. I dont really care since it is an elective. But it should be about the major religions of the world. Not one.

If you want to take this instead of home ec or woodshop. Whatever. Problem is there should be less of that and more math and science and real world stuff. I was talking with some friends the other day. Computer programming/coding should really be looked at as a core class. Instead of wasting time with cursive teach something useful. I wish i was forced to learn more about coding etc.

[GMDino]

(03-14-2016, 11:52 PM)McC Wrote: In this context, it's looked at more as a piece of literature than a historical document.

Why is everyone ignoring this--


According to the bill, students would learn biblical content, characters, poetry, and narratives “that are prerequisites to understanding contemporary society and culture, including literature, art, music, mores, oratory and public policy.”


This bill is not talking about teaching religion.

The Bible is the foundation for much of Western culture.  We are a Western nation, with a Western culture.

And, the course would be an elective.

Man, everybody is so poised to leap these days.

But you can get all of that from reading Greek philosophers and plays and Roman works of literature too.  All without using one religion's book.

A class that teaches "we base our culture on this book" is teaching religion.  I went to Catholic school for 12 years.  We had religion class and history.  Rarely did the two cross over because the bible is not the basis for all culture and it is not a history book.

[*michaelsean*]

(03-14-2016, 07:51 PM)Beaker Wrote: My problem is two fold. First, this is a cleverly disguised and worded way to get religion into public schools. Once the foot is in the door, they can branch out into the science vs creation crapola. There is no place for religion of any kind in public schools. You want to discuss religion, do it at church, at home, on the street corner etc. But don't bring it into the classroom. Religion can be taught in private schools, and at the college level.

Secondly, the bible is not a historical text.

But it is the most influential book in the history of the world.  It should be studied and the Koran.  Hiding from things doesn't make them go away.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-15-2016, 09:39 AM)michaelsean Wrote: But it is the most influential book in the history of the world.  It should be studied and the Koran.  Hiding from things doesn't make them go away.

And sex is the greatest biological imperative, yet many people don't want to discuss it in school.  Hiding from it doesn't make it go away.

[fredtoast]

(03-14-2016, 07:07 PM)McC Wrote: Teaching the Bible and teaching religion are two very different things.  God didn't create religions.  Man did.  In this very thread alone though, teaching Bible literacy classes very quickly became teaching religion.

I think the quote at the end of the story from the ACLU rep said it all



“Although there certainly are acceptable ways to teach about the Bible to public school students — such as teaching comparative religion classes or about the Bible’s relationship to literature, art or music — the fact remains that it is difficult, in practice, to do so in a constitutionally permissible manner,”

[fredtoast]

Here is a good reason why some people are concerned about how this will work out in practice




"Senate Bill 278, sponsored by State Sen. Robin Webb, D-Grayson, was unanimously approved Thursday by the Senate Education Committee.

Webb said the Bible is the cornerstone of literature."

[BmorePat87]

As an elective, I see no issue with the concept of this course. It should be studied in Social Studies not English. I get the concerns about teaching it as an accurate account of history, but I would trust that the teachers wouldn't necessarily do that.

In 10th grade, I took an independent research class. My project was the historiography of the new testament. I'm not religious but it interested me.

[*michaelsean*]

(03-15-2016, 10:53 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: And sex is the greatest biological imperative, yet many people don't want to discuss it in school.  Hiding from it doesn't make it go away.

So you are agreeing with me?

[Bengalzona]

Personally, I see this kind of course as something that should be offered as an elective at a university rather than at a public high school or middle school.

Also I think there is some relevancy in studying the Bible, regardless of a person's religious or non-religious beliefs. Most atheists and agnostics I know tend to have read and studied more of the Bible than most Christians I know. If you are going to argue for or against something, it is important to know what it says first.

I think the Bible has historic relevance. I hear the arguments against the Bible being a historical document, the gist of which is that it was made for propaganda purposes. This is true. But this is a criticism that applies to pretty much every history up to and including modern times. A Roman historian tended to write from a Roman-centric viewpoint. He did not consider too many (if any) other views. Modern historians are now trained to consider the viewpoints of histories and their writers, and to seek out additional viewpoints which may verify or dispute. This is a relatively newer way of looking at history, but it leads to a more complete picture. A Bible can be used as one of several sources when considering a some historical period or events (the Babylonians overrunning Judah, the Roman occupation of the Levant, etc.). That said, it should never be viewed as the sole or complete source for history.

The Bible has made a contribution to our literature as well. Stories, parables and quotes from the Bible are referenced in may other literature works. Many of the phrases worked in the King James Bible are still used in common conversation today (in fact, many people cannot differentiate quotes from the King James Bible and quotes from Shakespeare). There is also the fact that, while it is not the earliest known writings, parts of the Hebrew Bible are among the earliest we know of and that are still existing.

The Bible has also had an influence on our legal system (outside of the whole misguided "legislating the Bible" movement). It contains one of the earliest known legal systems in the laws of Moses (the Mitzvah). This would become a precursor to modern legal systems. In that sense, and the fact that our current legal system values precedent, it is important to consider the sources of how we got to where we are.

There is a lot to be learned in our society from studying the Bible beyond the religious teachings in it.

[*bfine32*]

I thing the thing we are geting away with is that this country was founded on relgious principles. It is why the pilgrimns came over on the Mayflower and it is why it is the first thing mentioned in the First Amendment of the Constitution.

Folks may not like why or how this country was founded but that does not change the facts. The teachings of the Bible may help others understand these motivations.

As I have said "No one should attempt to convert anyone in an academic capcity". But that does mean we ignore the number one founding blocks of this Nation, just because the read the word Bible and immediatelt revert to their stereotypes.  

[fredtoast]

(03-15-2016, 12:45 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I thing the thing we are geting away with is that this country was founded on relgious principles. It is why the pilgrimns came over on the Mayflower and it is why it is the first thing mentioned in the First Amendment of the Constitution.

Folks may not like why or how this country was founded but that does not change the facts. The teachings of the Bible may help others understand these motivations.

I think you are confusing "religion" with "Christianity".

[*bfine32*]

(03-15-2016, 11:04 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Here is a good reason why some people are concerned about how this will work out in practice




"Senate Bill 278, sponsored by State Sen. Robin Webb, D-Grayson, was unanimously approved Thursday by the Senate Education Committee.

Webb said the Bible is the cornerstone of literature."

The Bible has sold over 5 Billion copes throughout the world. Lord of the Rings is #2 at about 150 Million. Why would you not consider it to be the cornerstone of literature?

[Belsnickel]

(03-15-2016, 11:04 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Here is a good reason why some people are concerned about how this will work out in practice

"Senate Bill 278, sponsored by State Sen. Robin Webb, D-Grayson, was unanimously approved Thursday by the Senate Education Committee.

Webb said the Bible is the cornerstone of literature."

In all honesty, he isn't entirely off base. Arguments could be made that literacy rates, especially in English speaking countries, can be attributed to the Bible. It was often said that people learned to read, at least among the lower classes, so they could read the Bible. The German language is what it is today because of Martin Luther's German translation of the Bible and there would be no unified German language without it. I'm sure the same could be said for other languages as well. Without these things, literature as we know it today would not exist.