Texas Lawmaker Wants Bible to Be Used as Textbook in State's Public Schools

page: 1
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 3 2007 @ 06:21 PM
link   

Texas Lawmaker Wants Bible to Be Used as Textbook in State's Public Schools


www.foxnews.com

DALLAS — A Texas legislator wants to require the state's nearly 1,700 public school districts to teach the Bible as a textbook, "not a worship document."

The House Public Education Committee was set late Tuesday to consider — but not vote on — a bill by Rep. Warren Chisum, R-Pampa, mandating high schools to offer history and literacy courses on the Old and New Testaments. The courses would be elective.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Apr, 3 2007 @ 06:21 PM
link   
While many will argue that this is a separation of church and state issue. If done in a way that is purely educational, is teaching the bible in schools as a text book course alone such a bad thing?

Some schools have been teaching portions of the Quran as a part of teaching tolerance for the Islamic faith.

Studying the Bible, not bible study?

www.foxnews.com
(visit the link for the full news article)


apc

posted on Apr, 3 2007 @ 07:30 PM
link   
Public education involving the Judeochristian scriptures should be limited to the historical impact on the development of the United States and world history. Much in the same way that the Quran is used to educate about the Islamic faiths, something most Americans are fairly ignorant of.

If an elective is offered it should be a history course, with a focus on the impact on historical events only. Not on the scriptures themselves, or the history of the scriptures. That clearly does not belong in public education.



posted on Apr, 3 2007 @ 07:45 PM
link   
The Bible has had an enormous impact on the world. It should be open to study, just as any other important text.


The House Public Education Committee was set late Tuesday to consider — but not vote on — a bill by Rep. Warren Chisum, R-Pampa, mandating high schools to offer history and literacy courses on the Old and New Testaments. The courses would be elective.

www.foxnews.com...


What Mr. Chisum means by literacy courses, I'm not sure, but as long as the classes are elective, I don't see why any rational person would object.





[edit on 2007/4/3 by GradyPhilpott]


apc

posted on Apr, 3 2007 @ 08:03 PM
link   
If the classes were anything but a focus on historical impact, I would object.

Why should my tax dollars pay to teach anything else related to the Bible if equivalent elective classes are not offered for other religions?

If I were an Athiest for instance, I would be outraged if this course were anything other than an "enhanced" world history class. I wouldn't want to be forced to pay to help indoctrinate other children into a faith I felt was false.



posted on Apr, 3 2007 @ 09:19 PM
link   
Did you bother to read the article?


apc

posted on Apr, 3 2007 @ 09:47 PM
link   
Yes, and as you pointed out, what is literacy?

A study towards understanding the text itself and specific passages, what I draw from the term "literacy", would be unacceptable. This would be a subject matter that should be taught by pastors and priests... topics that do not belong in a public classroom.

If you hadn't bothered to jump the gun on my statement, you would understand I support, to a practical extent, any true motivations these courses have in the education of the historical impact of the Bible. By practical I mean if a King James version of the Bible is to be the textbook issued, will they just disregard the impact made by the Catholic versions? What about the opposite? We're talking about a book with multiple different interpretations, each having their own impact on the societies that developed around them.


[edit on 3-4-2007 by apc]



posted on Apr, 3 2007 @ 09:55 PM
link   
Well, I'm pretty sure that no one has any idea about those things, since the courses probably have not yet been designed.


"We're not going to preach the Bible, we're going to teach the Bible and how it affects all of our writings, documents and the formation of our government," said Chisum. "We're taking it as a document that has historical value. It's the most widely distributed book in the world."

The bill says the courses must be taught in an "objective and nondevotional manner" that does not attempt to indoctrinate students. [emphasis mine]

www.foxnews.com...


apc

posted on Apr, 3 2007 @ 10:04 PM
link   
Exactly why my statements have been speculative. All those "If"s and conditional question marks.

I think it will be exceedingly difficult to pull this off, however. Inquisitive students will be unavoidable, and I have to wonder just how much class time will be spent telling them a disclaimer. But if they can manage success with minimal incident, they will have my applause.



posted on Apr, 4 2007 @ 11:28 AM
link   
I think it should be allowed under two conditions 1) It is used for its historical content rather than anything else dealing with faith or thinks that may have happened 2) Any an all other religous books should be allowed such as the Quran...



posted on Apr, 4 2007 @ 12:46 PM
link   
I don't mind the Bible being taught as mythology or history, same as Greek and other mythologies, and as long as its not taught as the only religion or have any indoctrination in it. The problem I see, though, as someone else mentioned, is which version of the Bible to use? I don't really think that the King James version is the best becauase so many things were changed in it.
I think it would be difficult to accomplish.



posted on Apr, 4 2007 @ 12:50 PM
link   
Um_Gazz...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Sorry. I posted the same information in the education forum.

I think yours was first? I didn't see it. You might want to close

mine down???



posted on Apr, 4 2007 @ 01:06 PM
link   
My government high school had a Bible as literature and a Bible in history elective. So did my government college.

Just have a history or english prof teach it and not a priest you'll be fine.
Or if you wait long enough all of the literature of the past will be dead as todays kids dont want to read anything that isnt published by WWE or Rocafella Records then we wont need to teach it. I noticed that kids can rarely call upon events as far back as 2 months ago for context let alone something that was written 2,000 years ago. Context is dead, lit is dead, the Bible is dead. Just give them all snappy one-liners and as long as the applause sign lights up they'll know what to do.



posted on Apr, 4 2007 @ 01:45 PM
link   
I'm in total agreement with ImpliedChaos.

I don't trust the integrity of a perhaps religious person, who's mandated to proselytize by their religion, with a bible and the rapt attention of a roomful of impressionable and perhaps "troubled" students to respect the difference between "teaching" and "preaching" the bible.

Plus, according to our government, they should also offer courses on the Qur'an, the Talmud, the Bhagavad Gita, the Veda and a few Wiccan texts as well. Then, I'd support it.



posted on Apr, 4 2007 @ 01:50 PM
link   
Id just like to add that my high school had a world religons course. In that class we learned about a wide variety of religions(some i had never heard of), and religous practices. There was no need to actually bring in a bible or quran, or torah....I believe that all schools should have a course like this so that students can understand the basic diffences/similarities and practices of diff. religons, w/o being preached or subjected to a biased opinon



posted on Apr, 4 2007 @ 01:51 PM
link   
Why so against it.

I think we should Force our childen to learn not only the bible but all of the religious text. They should be manditory. It would solve alot of the problems of the world if one side understood where the other was comming from. Also they would also be able to fight fire with fire. There is always some idiot who is spouting this text and that verse to backup his/her position on a subject. Don't you think it would be good to be able to refer to somthing that they know and turn it on them?


KNOWLEDGE is not the enemy IGNORENCE is the enemy.

By the way its Koran not Quran, you would know this if you learned it in school, like it think they should.

[edit on 4-4-2007 by Royal76]



posted on Apr, 4 2007 @ 01:57 PM
link   
@ ROYAL76---Excuse me but I did learn how to spell Quran in school. If you read what i posted you would know that i took a world religons course that you are recommending. Anyways It can be spelled either way (although I have never seen anyone spell it Koran)




The Qur'ān [1] (Arabic: القرآن ‎al-Qur’ān, literally "the recitation"; also called القرآن الكريم ‎ al-Qur’ān al-Karīm "The Noble Qur'ān"; also transliterated as Quran, Koran, and Al-Quran) is the central religious text of Islam.

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Apr, 4 2007 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Royal76
Why so against it.


For starters -

1 - Because it is a 'foot in the door' for other things. A slippery slope.

2 - Because it WILL be abused. You have fundamentalists in positions of power, with their bible in hand, standing in front of 30 (or so) impressionable youngsters. They WILL preach.

3 - When it comes grade time ... what gets an 'A'?? Repeating what the professor interprets the bible as? what gets an 'F' - if your interpretation of the bible is different than the professors? You betchya.

4 - Which bible will be used? The King James Version? That's the fundamentalist bible of choice. It's also NOT an accurate or complete translation.

5 - Who is teaching the classes? 'Scripture Scholars' - that's who. Catholic ones? Nope. Episcopal? Nope. Lutheran? Doubt it. Fundamentalist without a tolerance for other interpretations? You betchya.

6 - Although the bible is referenced in other literature and it's good to understand ther reference, not many high schools teach the literature that references the bible. And those few classes that study a book that references a bible quote or two .. well, those students can go home and read the bible or get a short notation from the professor on the subject. A full 'other class' isn't necessary.



posted on Apr, 4 2007 @ 03:24 PM
link   
To fully understand a culture, whether past or present, you have to study the key religious texts of that culture, and how that people interpreted those texts.

There is a danger that in learning about, or teaching about, the religion, you wind up being preached at, rather than taught at. But in any worth while endevour there is a certain amount of risk. I think the reward is worth the risk.



posted on Apr, 4 2007 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by seagull
I think the reward is worth the risk.


I fully understand and I fully agree with you .. up to this point.
I don't think it's worth risking high school students.
I know I'm cynical. I lived in Alabama for almost 10 years.
I saw how deadly serious the fundamentalists there were.

I just don't trust them with this.
I have no question in my mind that they wouldn't be able to refrain from preaching.

Sorry. That's where I am coming from.





new topics
top topics
 
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join