When will legislators learn?
Of Man’s first disobedience, and the fruit
Of that forbidden tree, whose mortal taste
brought death into the world, and all our woe….
I cite the opening lines to John Milton’s masterpiece to illustrate that there is a better, less controversial way to familiarize high school kids with the bible: Teach literary classics and explain biblical references when they come up.
ATLANTA — A bill allowing school systems in Georgia to offer elective courses on the Bible sailed through the House on Monday without debate.
Lawmakers passed the legislation, which originated in the Senate, 151-7
The bill would provide state funding for two courses that would be offered to high school students, one on the Old Testament and the other on the New Testament.
Mills said the courses would teach the Bible as history and literature, not in a devotional way, an approach that has withstood legal challenges.
Two points: I think that educated people in the U.S. should be familiar with the bible, for the sake of cultural literacy. But therein lies the rub: As soon as you reference “John 3:16” (so that everyone understands what those signs at the baseball games mean), somebody’s going to argue that you are promoting Christianity. In some cases this is going to be true, in others not, but who gets to decide? So I give a thumbs down to this legislation.
Related link: AJC Article [better, but may require free log-in]
Other states offer similar classes, but none is believed to have a law specifically authorizing classes on the Bible.
The bill does not require that school systems offer the course or that students attend the class.
So, is the chick in the middle a Klingon?!
Educated people in the US should be familiar with the Koran, the Talmud, L. Ron Hubbard’s SciFi writing, and a lot of things that they’re not familiar with.
Somehow, I don’t think this class is going to engender “cultural literacy”. It’s going to give holy rollers an opportunity to try and ram Jesus down the throat of infidels and other wayward souls.
Pffffft. If they had proposed this in Berkely, I’d think maybe they were really interested in cultural literacy. But GEORGIA? C’mon.
I would have no problem with this if they’d just do a World Religions class and delve into all of the major ones.
Well, since it’s an elective and not compulsory, you really don’t have a legitimate claim that this is for the purpose of “ramming Jesus down the throat of infidels…”
Democrats that are far left are trying to hijack the party the same way republicans on the far right have done.
If you don’t read all those religious texts you can’t make proper fun those religion’s followers. Now, do your homework young man!
Seems that to avoid seperation of church and State they must teach books such as the Koran and others and not push one over the other.
Rather than rant on I will just agree with Trevor, he says it best:
“I would have no problem with this if they’d just do a World Religions class and delve into all of the major ones. ”
I feel that focusing on a single book violates seperation .
I once took a college-level Philosophy of Religion class where we read and discussed the highly-problematical Book of Job. Many State universities have a Religion department that grants degrees. In these cases, there is no attempt to convert anyone to any particular belief (except, perhaps, to Pirsig’s Church of Reason). Like anything else, studing religion is a tool that can be misused by the wrong hands.
The Bible is poor history book, and I cringe at those who try to promote it as such. It is full of inaccuracies, myths and only focuses on one part of history, not the whole of the world.
I do support a class where all the major and most minor religions are discussed and compared. It would lead to better understanding of each other. Of course, that is something the religious right is scared of.
This will get struck down in court.
Rob – When I lved out west I had several “Jack Mormon” friends (those who left the LDS). They were among the wildest people I’ve ever known. No sinner like a reformed saint, I guess.
The Bible summed up:
Old Testament:
God gets angry and destroys the world by flood.
New Testament:
People retaliate and kill God by crucifixion.
OR the scientific law to sum it up even more:
for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.
Reading the article, I agree that the courts will / should strike this law down. First, it specifies that there are to be two courses, one just for the Old Testament and the other for the New Testament. Since the law specifies the Bible, and this is the only Georgia state education law that requires a specific book, it will not be a comparative history or literature course.
There is the problem about which Bible to use. The King James version is different from the Roman Catholic’s which is different from some of the newer “easy read” or modern Bibles. It looks like this law will promote the cause of one religion over all others. Which is really too bad.
A comparative religion course teaching several major religions including Islam, Buddhist, and Wikken would be a legitimate course in my view. Even the comparative differences between Roman Catholic, Baptist, Coptic, Anglican / Episcopal, Mormon, Methodist, Presbyterian, Russian Orthodox, and Greek Orthodox, would be a good course.
i expected to read this thread and see some real heated discussion. What wimps. In Georgia, and like most other places, the kids signing up for the class will be kids who WANT to take the class.
You will see NO mention of church and state separation in the constitution. It merely talks about state sanctioned religion — a very bad thing.. Just ask any of Henry VIII’s wives.The idea of separation didn’t come along until the 1930s. Separation doesn;t even get a good discussion in the Federalist papers.
Most people who argue about sepration are really not wanting to hear anything about religion. I think freedom of speech already covers that. You have the freedom not to hear what you don;t want to hear.
Not wanting to hear is the coward’s way out.
Hmmm..so with or without the concept you think we should live under a theocracy? That would be pretty funny. Let’s give the country to the Vatican or PAt Robertson and be done with it.
Wimps? No Way! I’ll meet you at dawn with Weapons By Ishtar and I know I’ll win because GOD is on my side!!!
Has anyone else noticed that over the past few weeks the comments on this blog have become increasingly radical, from both extremes?
“The bill would provide state funding for two courses that would be offered to high school students, one on the Old Testament and the other on the New Testament.”
>>…It merely talks about state sanctioned religion — a very bad thing..
Uh….isn’t using taxpayers money to teach Bible classes EXACTLY WHAT THE FOUNDING FATHERS HAD IN MIND when they forbade “state sanctioned religion”????
Jeez. Anybody who doesn’t see this as a blatant power grab by the Pat Robertson set has their head up their butt. And anybody who thinks the kids are going to receive a “fair and balanced” (in the TRUE sense, not the Fox “news” sense) point/ counterpoint discussion of the Old and New Testaments has got to be smoking better stuff than I can get.
I have learned at least one thing at University…..there’s nothing like a Comparative Religions class taught by an Athiest.
Gee, I didn’t see anyone advocating living under a theoracy, but ever since my brain surgury I occasionally *click* out on things.
I do agree….this class or classes won’t hold up in court. The Bible may be a book, but literary it’s not. They would have been better off doing a Comp. Relig. course. Or even better, a Comp. Literary course, comparing the literary styles of the Bible, the Koran, the Kama Sutra(can’t wait for that one), etc., etc.
>>actually, no, it wasn’t. but thanks for asking.
Adtually, yes it was.,
(ok, here’s a clue for the clueless: there is a difference between a state MANDATED religion and a state SANCTIONED religion. In the Georgia case, students may not be forced [at least not overtly] to attend these Christianity indoctrination sessions, but they are being funded, promoted, housed, and given tacit approval by the STATE. “bible study”, held during school hours, taught by state-salaried teachers, taking place in public schooll buildings, falls into the same category. That’s why such a thing is not allowed).
Thanks for asking.
>>Not wanting to hear is the coward’s way out.
So. I take it you’re supporting taxpayer funded course in Islam? Or do you choose the coward’s way out?
There should be separation between State and Church.
There cannot be separation between God and people, or a lot of people (Nation). UNDER GOD. America is not seperate from God. See your currency. Walk into any court house. IN GOD WE TRUST.
Trouble is, know one could possibly no God.
This is where all the conflict comes from.
>>Trouble is, know one could possibly no God.
>>This is where all the conflict comes from.
So, I guess we should just do what the Founding Fathers intended. Worship in our own way at home and in church, and let the gummint take care of running the public schools, the cities, states, and country.
Gee, weren’t they smart fellas??
David, learn to look back a little before your own generation. In God, etc. was added to our currency — along with the deity tag on the end of the pledge of allegiance — during the last runup to fascism during the McCarthy era in the 1950’s.
Congress had as many cowards then as now.
>>teaching *about* religion is not the same thing as teaching
>>religion, so try again.
Are you just jerking my chain? Or are you seriously trying to put forth the proposition that these Georgia Home Boys are not going to turn this into a thinly disguised Sunday school during the week?
If so, I take it you are in support of similar taxpayer-funded classes dealing with atheism, Islam, Zoroastrianism, Scientology, and the rest of the world’s major religions?
Oh, knock it off, Theo. You know EXACTLY what I’m talking about. I’ll just BET you think that Roscoe P. Coltrane and his daisy dukes all voted for this bill so that the students could read the Old and New Testaments as literature, discuss the mythology behind modern Christianity, its relationiship to other major religions, etc. HAW.
And it sounds as though we’re in agreement on this one. I won’t let them make the students bow towards mecca during class or ask Tom Cruise what movies to see, and you make sure that whoever teaches the Bible classes doesn’t thump the bible down at the local Baptist church on Sunday mornings.
>>that stereotypes and bigotry are not the exclusive domain
>>of non-liberals.
I never said they were. But they do a damn fine job of it.
I wouldn’t even care if a bunch of teachers got together, taught bible classes on their own time, after school, in a class room that wasn’t be used anyway.
It’s that it will receive state funding that bothers me.
Paul
Once again you are engaging in your usual word twisting in order to play devil’s advocate. Mustard’s argument has nothing to do with stereotypes, so get off your thumb and back on topic. You are much too intelligent a man to engage in such petty tangents when your arguments run out of energy.
I see so little difference between teaching a religion and teaching “about” a religion when the course is as confined as this one is. So little in fact that I agree with Mustards contention that there is no difference.
1. there was no federal tax until the 20th century, so talking about ‘taxpayer money’ and ‘founding fathers’ is stupid
Sorry, but that is wrong. The Federal Government has had the ability to tax from day 1. And they used that power, It was the Federal Income Tax that did not become a set tax until 1917.
2. the founding fathers didn’t want the anglican church as a state sponsored religion …
Only partly true. Several states DID want the Anglican Church as a sanctioned religion. The Bill of Rights was almost not accepted because of objections over this point. It was Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin that persuaded the Congress to accept the concept of no State Religion in order to protect all Americans from the “tyranny” a state supported / sanctioned religion could cause. Don’t forget, Connecticut, Delaware, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Pennsylvania were all non Anglican. Throughout the colonial period, the Church of England demanded tribute from landowners and a place in the Courts and Legislatures, especially in the Southern colonies.
For an excellent article on why religion should be kept away from public education, read this article. It concerns Arkansas and why the teaching of evolution is being ignored. The Governor is pushing the teaching of creationism.
http://www.arktimes.com/Articles/ArticleViewer.aspx?ArticleID=e7a0f0e1-ecfd-4fc8-bca4-b9997c912a91