Should the Bible be used as a textbook in schools?

Originally posted by Elfwood
Maybe students could study the Koran to keep it neutral eh? Think anyone would like that idea?

Sure, if this were an Islamic nation. It isn't.

Schmick, notice how I usually say this nation was Founded on the Christian faith, and was Intended to be a Christian nation. That is our foundation; our historical roots. The state of this nation is not so defined anymore, as you perceived with the Springer show and many other points of evidence.

This stray from our heritage was not by accident, and the assault on our moral fiber has been concerted and well planned. One day those of us who know the truth will be very few - and in camps awaiting death.

Hi Thomas Crowne,

I would be interested in knowing more about what you believe America's role will be in the end days and how you came about in believing this.

There is the big argument over religion (usually Christianity) being taught in schools in a supposedly Christian country with a supposedly Christian government. Does anyone notice anything strange here?

You go to a Muslim country, do they ban the teaching of their religion in class? You go to a Hindu country do they ban religion in their schools?

It seems to me the greatest conspiracy is against Christianity and the continual corruption of the word of God.

It is devalued as just another belief system and as of no more importance as any other pagan belief. Yet another tautology is, if the government really believes this, why the Christian facade?

Should the bible be used as a textbook in schools?

Is the Bible a text book?? no off course it isn't.

Should it be taught in schools as literal history
You kidding right

Originally posted by shmick25
Yeah, maybe this is why your society is so screwed up with a definite lack of distinct values - where the world watches in humour as your shows like Jerry Springer reflect where the cultural values of your general population are at, where a government claims to be 'Christian' but their actions show otherwise, where you have the highest rate of gun deaths in the world, where you cry freedom and liberty as it is being stripped away from you at the same time, where your 'founding fathers' thought it acceptable to have a sub class slave system ...... the list never ends.

I do not disagree with your analysis; there are very real problems; but I certainly would disagree that those problems have anything to do with America's refusal to become a theocracy.

It's not exactly headline news there are moral problems in America, but moral problems exist everywhere also. Palestine may not have immoral idiots like Jerry Springer on its TV, but the USA doesn't have teenage suicide bombers either.

So the question begs, what are you exactly 'free' from?

Freedom is not a negative. In other words, we aren't free from. Freedom, being a positive, is a freedom to. Classical liberal theory, which is the basis on which the United States was founded, holds that people have natural rights, and that the only legitimate function of government is to secure those rights.

Do I believe that some people abuse these rights? Of course I do, it's pretty obvious. A poet once wrote that Freedom is a two-edged sword; one side is Liberty, the other side is Responsibility, and both sides are exceedingly sharp. In my opinion, modern day Americans tend to emphasize the Liberty, while ignoring the Responsibility.

But this is a matter of education; Americans today, at least in general, are much less educated than those in previous generations, and freedom can only truly function in a society of educated individuals. To make it worse, many Americans are becoming more anti-intellectual, bringing them closer to the level of serfs.

'Age of Enlightenment: Freedom' Interesting terminology. According to the Bible and the garden of Eden, this is exactly what the devil offered Eve. So, not such a new concept.

This is a religious view, and has nothing to do with the state, which is secular (and which is my entire point). If I wanted to be governed by a book of religious beliefs, I'd move to Iran. If I wanted to be governed by a pseudo-religious political orthodoxy, I'd move to Cuba or North Korea.

As for the actual using of the Bible as a textbook in public school, I remain opposed. That's what churches are for; schools are meant to teach secular knowledge.

Nevertheless, Christianity is an important factor in the history of western civilization, and thus Christianity should (and is) taught in this regard in history classes. Likewise, Islam and Judaism must be touched upon when teaching history. But it simply is not the job of government to indoctrinate children into this or that religion.


[edit on 26-11-2004 by Masonic Light]

This whole thread runs entirely at cross purposes, when I noted that the bible was use in "language literature and culture" in University as a text, I did not for one moment suggest that what lay within the bible was literally true. I also specifically noted that it was quite improper to try and teach children what god to believe in.

People here can argue till their blue in the face that America is not a Christian country, but the Christian paradigm is universal in all western cultures. We celebrate Christmas, we celebrate Easter, we celebrate Thanksgiving, name for me one state in America or western European country that has a public holiday for Ramadan. We don't appreciate how our systems of Justice and government and social order in general is derivative of Christian thought.

Personally, I don't think that's necessarily been a good thing, but it is real, and the evolution of western thought make little or no sense without a basic understanding of biblical constructs.

It makes little sense to spend too much time studying the Koran in the west because Islam has had only a minor influence of the development of our dialog of contemporary thought. If you lived in Saudi Arabia there would be little piont in studying the Bible.

Not teaching children about a book called the Bible which people called Christians revere, cause you don't like Christianity, is like not teaching children mathematics because numbers are arabic and you don't like arabs...

Originally posted by Flange Gasket
Not teaching children about a book called the Bible which people called Christians revere, cause you don't like Christianity,

Who has stated that as a reason to not include it in schools? Other reasons, valid ones, have been given, not merely disliking 'christianity'. Its reather silly to suggest that thats why people don't want it, since lots of christians apparently don't want it used as a textbook.

is like not teaching children mathematics because numbers are arabic and you don't like arabs...

No it isn't. Besides, math has an actual use, whereas christianity, for all its accomplishments, is just a religion, a beleif system, and, if nothing else everything it is capable of, other religions are capable of too. beasides, math is real, christianity is a religion.

The Bible isnt just a religious book, but a recording of history that dates back very far kept record. fact is, the Bible was taught in US public school not to long ago in the before the 1950's or so when it began to change, and creation was taught in science on how earth came about. according to the nations forfathers, this nation was under "God" NOT "Allah" NOT "Buddha" and NOT "Satan" but "God", it never said "Jesus Christ" but "God". hence, under this nations principals "God" should be in school, and the nations laws and everything else were founded under the Bible, therefore Satans Bible, or something to that matter shouldnt be taught in the public school, but according to how this nation was meant to be, The Bible should be taught in the school, but not today with the way everythings looking and how you cant even say "God" anymore without getting sued up your rear end.

Originally posted by Slicky1313
fact is, the Bible was taught in US public school not to long ago in the before the 1950's or so when it began to change, and creation was taught in science on how earth came about.

In schools of the middle ages, it was also taught that the earth was the center of the solar system, and that everything revolved around it. When finally schools stopped teaching that in favor of the theories of Copernicus and Galileo, they also were condemned by biblical literalists. It seems there has always been war between science and religion in Christendom.

according to the nations forfathers, this nation was under "God" NOT "Allah"

A couple of quick points: first, Allah is God. Even Arabic-speaking Christians call God "Allah". It's just a foreign word that means "God".
Secondly, the term "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance (if that's what you were referring to) was not instituted by our forefathers: it was placed in the Pledge by Congress in the 1950's.

It is certainly true that our forefathers believed in God, and that invoked Him to protect our Republic. The common error is simply that this had anything to do with Christianity or the Bible. The famous Jeffersonian Bible, issued by Thomas Jefferson, eliminated all references to miracles and the supernatural because he said such things were "superstitious nonsense".
Thomas Paine wrote that he would never so dishonor God by confusing him the deity described in the Bible. Washington, Franklin, Adams, etc., all made similar remarks.

You didn't get my piont at all (sigh)...

It is entirely irrelevant to the arguement that you or I or anybody agrees or disagrees with the bible or religion or God...

What matters from an educators point of veiw, is trying to communicate how society, language and culture became what they are.

How do you explain that America's founding fathers fled from religous persecution to start a free society if you don't understand the historical religious basis for the persecution in the first place? How do you teach the history of the Inquisition without mentioning religion? How do you elucidate the problems the Masonic founders of America had with the church if you can't explain what the church is?

I hope you are beginning to understand, what I'm trying to say...

P.S. How is maths physically "real" ?, numbers in applied math are representative of physical things but mathematics is no more physically "real" than religion, maths is a modelling system.



[edit on 26-11-2004 by Flange Gasket]

I'm not sure if you were addressing me or another poster, but I'll take a shot at it.

Originally posted by Flange Gasket

It is entirely irrelevant to the arguement that you or I or anybody agrees or disagrees with the bible or religion or God...

What matters from an educators point of veiw, is trying to communicate how society, language and culture became what they are.

Agreed. This is why I stated earlier in the thread that it is necessary to teach Christianity in a historical context.

How do you explain that America's founding fathers fled from religous persecution to start a free society if you don't understand the historical religious basis for the persecution in the first place?

Our founding fathers did not flee religious persecution. Almost without exception, they were all born in the colonies.

The original European settlers did indeed flee from religious persecution, but they did not found our nation; neither did they institute freedom. The strict Calvinists left England to escape what they considered the "popery" of Anglicanism, but they established their own religious dictatorships in the American colonies. For example, people could be beaten and flogged for not attending church, etc. This was true even under the Articles of Confederation, and remained the case until the Constitution was ratified, along with the First Amendment.

How do you teach the history of the Inquisition without mentioning religion? How do you elucidate the problems the Masonic founders of America had with the church if you can't explain what the church is?

Please understand that I'm very much in favor of teaching the facts of history. This is true with religion, philosophy, literature, etc. By no means am I advocating the elimination of teaching about a particular point of view simply because I disagree with it.

My only point is that the Bible should not be used a "textbook" in the teaching of history, anymore than the Bhagavad Gita or the Illiad should be used in that context. As I mentioned before, Christianity has played an extremely important role in the history of western civilization; sometimes this role has been good, sometimes not-so-good. All this should be (and is) taught in the history classes.

agreed....

and for the record, I find the whole "moral majority" Christian fundamentalist position on religion in education as repugnant as the next man.

Hi,
I think it should and only should be taught to children who want to learn it. I had to go to Religious education in 1st and 2nd year which i felt was against my rights due to me not wanting to learn anything more about a subject i do not believe exsists. Why should i be forced to learn a subject that is against my religion that like making a muslim learn the christian faith its wrong. I feel that religious songs and prayers are also wrong within school due to the multiable religions in our schools now and also the people who do not believe. I had to sit through many a prayer or song doing nothing as i feel that i am offending other beliefs as i am not even prayini just stand there think of other stuff like how bored i am.

All to there own why force one to do what another believes. All to their own.

The bible is a dangerous book to expose children (of all ages) to, because they can't make sense of that mess.

Originally posted by jupiter869
Evolution always causes people to ask more questions.

And THANK GOD for that! Questions, ahhh, how beautiful! That's what th children need, to have something stimulate their brains so fully that they are forced to ask questions, to enquire, to be...oh god......SKEPTICAL!

Putting the Bible in al iterature class I have no problem with. It is in fact, just a book. Don't be so afraid of it that oyu start removing it from libraries people. Sure, the evangelists live to get things censored, but we shouldn't start censoring them either. That would be hypocritical.

But science, history....then you're bugging me. Many scholars believe the Illiad to be a factual book depicting the events of the Trojan War, but we're still not reading about it world history 101. And since when is everyone all uppity about learning about religion in schools? WE ALREADY DO! My current textbook goes over the history of Hinduism, Buddhism, a bit of Shintoism, a little Daoism, Judaism, Islam, and Christianity. It gives brief descriptions of the faith and the history of the movements. There's no getting aorund it, its important, hell, its the BASIS of a large quantity of the societies on earth!

And the Bible in a science calss? Wait....when does the Bible EVER talk about science? I'm not sure, but there seems to be no other subject other than literature where the Bible could fit in.

Originally posted by StarBreather
The bible is a dangerous book to expose children (of all ages) to, because they can't make sense of that mess.

I take extreme offense to this. How old are you? And how dare you judge the mental capacity of the youth.

And when exactly is someone no longer a "child"? When is it that they have enough sense to understand? Is there an age limit? A deadline? A height requirement?

I did not mean to be offensive.

In the bible, the god tells Abraham to sacrifice his own child.

The god tells Moses to circumsize his own son.

The god tells his people to slay the peoples of other tribes.

The god interferes with human development by destroying cities and confounding languages.

Does this god set a good example?

So, you haven't read the Bible then? In the Bible, God never intended for Abraham to kill his son, and Abraham never did.

But yea, I don't think the Bible would make a good textbook. Study of such should be reserved for higher learning if a student is so inclined.

Originally posted by StarBreather
I did not mean to be offensive.

In the bible, the god tells Abraham to sacrifice his own child.

The god tells Moses to circumsize his own son.

The god tells his people to slay the peoples of other tribes.

The god interferes with human development by destroying cities and confounding languages.

Does this god set a good example?

In Lord of the Flies (9th grade reading level) one of the children is brutally crushed to death.

In Beyond the Burning Time (Im not sure if that's the right title) girls are burned for being witches.

In Inferno you read of rapists, murderers, and even a man who spends eternity eating the head of another man.

A Portrait of the artist as a Young Man has at least 50 pages filled with nothing bu t prostitutes and sex tales....it goes in depth.

Do these set good examples?

I know you did not mean to be offensive, and I really don't feel any anger toward you..I just tend to let me passionate side out sometimes.

But really, if we're afraid of showing children a book containing stories of a man sacrificing his child, how can we teach about WWI or II or even dare to look at the current evens of our own society?

They are not taught to tell children how to live their lives, they are taught to be respected for what they are- breathtaking works of literature.

So, you haven't read the Bible then? In the Bible, God never intended for Abraham to kill his son, and Abraham never did.

You are interpreting. I am just saying what the bible says. No more, no less. When Abraham received the order, he didn't know that the god would change his mind upon a whim.
This is not out of character. Remember, this is the same god who did biological experiments with Job. Poor humans have tried ever since to extract some meaning from this act of un-godly cruelty.