Bible Classes in Public Schools?

[Iceblink]

Article can be found here....

http://www.cnn.com/2005/EDUCATION/02/12/bible.class.ap/index.html

[IntheNet]

Article can be found here....

http://www.cnn.com/2005/EDUCATION/02/12/bible.class.ap/index.html

Iceblink... you didn't post your opinion... just the link... so let me add one vote here in support of such Bible Classes, simply because parents seem to support them: "...more than 1,000 signed a petition urging the school board to keep the classes..."

Rather than seeing religion as offensive, I would assume that parents see such instruction as enhancing their children, which it indeed does.

IntheNet

[Iceblink]

Iceblink... you didn't post your opinion... just the link... so let me add one vote here in support of such Bible Classes, simply because parents seem to support them: "...more than 1,000 signed a petition urging the school board to keep the classes..."

Rather than seeing religion as offensive, I would assume that parents see such instruction as enhancing their children, which it indeed does.

IntheNet


I would have thought you'd know it by now. I'm a staunch supporter of the separation of church and state. This definitely crosses the line. It is utterly inappropriate to use state, federal, or any type of government funds for this class.

There is obviously not a rigorous curriculum of any sort in place for those who choose not to participate.

The article upsets me in that people still feel that there can be no morality without the involvement of religion... especially the Christian religion. This is wrong. I haven't read the article in a couple days, but I recall someone actually saying something to the effect that children not involved in religion will be running around having sex, doing drugs, and getting into trouble.

I'm sorry, but I've known a lot of Catholic schoolgirls in my time.

I have always been of the opinion that the bible can and should be included in curricula as literature. I am often known to cite biblical stories when exploring the creation tales of other religions and cultures... but we know that this is not what's happening.

What you say above is rhetoric, whether or not you meant it to be. These are not people who find religion offensive. They just understand that necessity for separation of church and state. In fact, a local Sunday school teacher spoke out against the classes. This teacher knows where it is appropriate to teach religion.

If you want religion, go to church. That's where these classes belong. I know that they are bussed off to a church for the classes and they're not on school property. I wonder who pays for the transportation.... the school or the church? Hmmm....

I know you have your beliefs, but you need to see things from another perspective. You pretty much always fail to do so. You have no empathy for the other side. Letting the ones who participate color does not make things all better. Some of those children are sure to be picked on and no child deserves that.

[IntheNet]

...I'm a staunch supporter of the separation of church and state.... This definitely crosses the line. It is utterly inappropriate to use state, federal, or any type of government funds for this class...

Ok...thanks for your opinion...perhaps you could elaborate why? The courses seem to attrach widespread parental support and yield better students... why is it "utterly inappropriate"? Seriously... why is your objection so strong when proof is clear? Perhaps it is time to readdress this perceived separation of "church and state" which you cite by the Supreme Court...

In summary, Iceblink, when a program works, and children profit from it, why should it be "innappropriate"? Shouldn't parents be the final authority, not the ACLU?

...What you say above is rhetoric...

Actually, no... I simply stated my opinion, just as you did above. As I said, I support this religious education fully, and hope that the programs expands throughout the United States in order to combat the secular virus which yields the immorality society suffers from.

IntheNet

[Chicago1871]

The courses seem to attrach widespread parental support and yield better students... why is it "utterly inappropriate"?
Federal funding for public schools should not be used for religious purposes. If parents want their kids to get a religion-based education, then they should send them to private school.

Seriously... why is your objection so strong when proof is clear? Perhaps it is time to readdress this perceived separation of "church and state" which you cite by the Supreme Court...
One case is not proof. You need to relearn the scientific method.

...combat the secular virus which yields the immorality society suffers from.
You got proof for that statement?

[IntheNet]

If parents want their kids to get a religion-based education, then they should send them to private school.

There are not enough parochial schools to service demand in cental and lower VA area (Staunton), particularly in rural areas. But to your point,
parents seem to support these educational classes. From the article: "...more than 1,000 signed a petition urging the school board to keep the classes..."
Who are you to tell parents what they can't do in their children's best interest?

[Dr. Wankler]

There are not enough parochial schools to service demand in cental and lower VA area (Staunton), particularly in rural areas. But to your point,

Not quite so fast. If there was a demand for these schools, they would exist. That's the nature of parochial education. Since there is not a demand, you are clearly advocating that the government create said services, which is about as un-conservative as you can get.

Who are you to tell parents what they can't do in their children's best interest?

He's not telling them what they can and can't do. He's objecting, as a citizen, to using public funding to do it, which is perfectly appropriate.

Personally, I think the Bible should be taught in public school. As literature. You can do a pretty impressive unit comparing, say, Genesis to the Iliad or the Odyssey. Or a Greek tragedy like Oedipus Rex compared to the Book of Job. Or you can take one of the Gospels and compare it with Marcus Aurelius or Epictetus. There are lots of things you can do to introduce people to a book which has shaped the world. But you can't require it to be treated like a sacred text.

[IntheNet]

Not quite so fast. If there was a demand for these schools, they would exist...
Actually, Dr. Wankler, it's not at all like a MacDonald's franchise... there is a severe nationwide shortage of priests, nuns, and lay educators for these parochial schools, particularly the Catholic schools... try getting a new child enrolled to experience difficulty... since the religious component of these schools splits their time between religious (mass and devotional ministry) and education (classes and administration), there is no free time left for recruitment of new assistance, thus some of these parochial schools are actually accepting less students rather than more... thus the need to offer such Bible classes in public school classrooms, outside of the purview of private parochial school instruction. It might hurt your ACLU mandates of your perceived "church/state separation" to acknowledge that religious instruction is taking place in public schools, but it is what the parents want, and they are the final arbiters of their childrens' education.

[Dr. Wankler]

Actually, Dr. Wankler, it's not at all like a MacDonald's franchise... there is a severe nationwide shortage of priests, nuns, and lay educators for these parochial schools, particularly the Catholic schools... try getting a new child enrolled to experience difficulty... since the religious component of these schools splits their time between religious (mass and devotional ministry) and education (classes and administration), there is no free time left for recruitment of new assistance, thus some of these parochial schools are actually accepting less students rather than more...
.

I suspect that you don't even know that you're changing the subject, since the article posted has nothing to do with Catholic schools. But the Catholic schools I'm familiar with (and don't even try to pull your usual BS here, because I'm Catholic and work in Catholic higher education) aren't turning people away even in cases when enrollment is shrinking. In fact, these schools are admitting more and more students from families who are not Catholic, largely because, for a variety of reasons, US Catholics aren't as committed to Catholic primary and secondary education as they have been in the past.


thus the need to offer such Bible classes in public school classrooms, outside of the purview of private parochial school instruction. It might hurt your ACLU mandates of your perceived "church/state separation" to acknowledge that religious instruction is taking place in public schools, but it is what the parents want, and they are the final arbiters of their childrens' education.

If you'd read my post (or more likely, found someone to read it to you) you would've seen that I support teaching the Bible in public schools. Just not as a religious document.

[IntheNet]

But the Catholic schools I'm familiar with (and don't even try to pull your usual BS here, because I'm Catholic and work in Catholic higher education) aren't turning people away even in cases when enrollment is shrinking. In fact, these schools are admitting more and more students...
http://www.ncea.org/newinfo/mediareleases/newsdetail.asp?release_id=112

CATHOLIC EDUCATORS OPEN NEW SCHOOLS, CONSOLIDATE OR CLOSE OTHERS
WASHINGTON, D.C.--More than one-third of Catholic schools nationwide have waiting lists or admission while 123 were closed or consolidated for a net loss of 45 schools, according to a report issued by the National Catholic Educational Association (NCEA). To address the demand for a Catholic education in many parts of the country, 34 new Catholic schools were opened during the past school year...

There are literally hundreds of other stories of Catholic Schools overcrowded, overrun, and shutting down... happy to hear that your school is "admitting" as it is a rarity.

...you would've seen that I support teaching the Bible in public schools. Just not as a religious document....

And I salute your efforts... but what do you have against Bible instruction in public schools? Indeed, as far as New Yorker Heather and Logan Ward's son, who can abstain from the program if he wishes =>
http://www.cnn.com/2005/EDUCATION/02/12/bible.class.ap/
Mr. Ward chooses instead to attempt to take apart a long running Bible instruction program: "began in Virginia in 1929 after a majority of students failed a simple Bible test."
As I said before, most of the local parents seem to support this program... thsi is a case of an ACLU backed lawsuit, not anything at all to do what's in the children's best interest.

IntheNet

[Dr. Wankler]

http://www.ncea.org/newinfo/mediareleases/newsdetail.asp?release_id=112


From the article, which I doubt you've actually read...

New schools
Along with the data on closings and enrollment declines, there is another statistic to report: 34 schools opened in 2003-04, many of them launched by parents and boards who are seeking the faith-based, strong academic traditions provided by Catholic education.

So, if there is a demand, the schools will be opened. And it won't be the government who does it.




And I salute your efforts... but what do you have against Bible instruction in public schools? Indeed, as far as New Yorker Heather and Logan Ward's son, who can abstain from the program if he wishes =>
http://www.cnn.com/2005/EDUCATION/02/12/bible.class.ap/
Mr. Ward chooses instead to attempt to take apart a long running Bible instruction program: "began in Virginia in 1929 after a majority of students failed a simple Bible test."
As I said before, most of the local parents seem to support this program... thsi is a case of an ACLU backed lawsuit, not anything at all to do what's in the children's best interest.IntheNet


For the third time. I don't object to teaching the Bible as literature in public schools. I do, however, object to the STATE presuming to undertake and/or underwrite religious instruction for the same reason the authors of our founding documents did. The point is not to suppress religion, it is to protect religion, for when the state takes charge of anything to do with religion, religion becomes corrupt. You know, kinda like when Islamists enforce a theocracy. Along these same lines, I have no objection to teaching the Bible, just so long as the program isn't based on what S.T. Coleridge called (after Gotthold Ephraim Lessing, from whom he stole much of his cultural and critical theory) "bibliotry" (the idea that sacred truth is known through the Bible alone, which is a form of idolatry, as the name implies). As a Catholic, for instance I would object (and along similar lines, Jewish families would similarily object) to the historically-based principle of solo scriptura guiding the inquiry. The belief that scripture alone is the guiding light emerged from a specific historical context, yet those who pursue it often pretend like it was given from God. It wasn't: it was a reaction of the Protestant reformation to frequent abuses of power by the Catholic heirarchy,which at the time was probably helpful, but which eventually became reduced to the sort of vapid, ahistorical fundamentalism that demeans the sacred scriptures by making them into something they never were.

And ultimately, we will never agree what comes from man and what comes from God. Which is why it is wise to keep religious instruction out of secular institutions. It doesn't sanctify the political body, it reduces the sacred to the political. Which is pretty much the Right Wing agenda, by the way.

[IntheNet]

... it is wise to keep religious instruction out of secular institutions...

Since I can see you and I will never agree, I will defer from advancing this further. However, I disagree strongly with your assessment that schools are "secular institutions," or should be, in any sense of the word. The smallest ones of society are genuinely innocent and inately religious, only needing the guiding hand of proper instruction, to find God. To determine that schools should be "secular" commmits a disservice to youth; it is good that such radical leftist thinking as yours is of the minority. Nobody is forced to read the Bible, nor are they compelled against their own desire, within such Bible classes. However, to deny youth the opportunity to find God, via the Bible, is wrong, pure and simple, and immoral. Thank God our Chief Executive is a primary supporter of such instruction, on behalf of our nation's youth and the moral fabric of our nation.

[Dr. Wankler]

Since I can see you and I will never agree, I will defer from advancing this further. However, I disagree strongly with your assessment that schools are "secular institutions," or should be, in any sense of the word.

Not all schools are secular. All public schools, though, are secular. It's the law, and it's the way things are done in the good ol' US of A, thankfully.

The smallest ones of society are genuinely innocent and inately religious, only needing the guiding hand of proper instruction, to find God. To determine that schools should be "secular" commmits a disservice to youth; it is good that such radical leftist thinking as yours is of the minority.

I'm laughing too hard to really say anything to this... other than THAT'S WHAT PARENTS ARE FOR!!! when it comes to providing the "guiding hand of proper instruction." It is, however, awfully Soviet of you to expect the state to provide instruction in matters of ultimate concern rather than parents.

Nobody is forced to read the Bible, nor are they compelled against their own desire, within such Bible classes.

Are we talking in general, or, since you think it serves your purpose, are you referring specifically to the article this time? But I think students should be required to read the Bible (as a literary text, in context with other documents sacred and secular), just as they are required to learn mathematics or history.

However, to deny youth the opportunity to find God, via the Bible, is wrong, pure and simple, and immoral. Thank God our Chief Executive is a primary supporter of such instruction, on behalf of our nation's youth and the moral fabric of our nation.

To assume that the public schools must do the work of God's grace is rather demeaning to the Creator, as is your sacrilegious belief that She requires GWB to do her work on earth.

[IntheNet]

...belief that She requires GWB to do her work...

She?

[Chicago1871]

There are not enough parochial schools to service demand in cental and lower VA area (Staunton), particularly in rural areas. But to your point,
parents seem to support these educational classes. From the article: "...more than 1,000 signed a petition urging the school board to keep the classes..."
Who are you to tell parents what they can't do in their children's best interest?
I could be the school board, the state, the federal government. If think that it's in my children's best interest to grow up rich, that doesn't mean I deserve to win the lottery.

[Chicago1871]

Actually, Dr. Wankler, it's not at all like a MacDonald's franchise... there is a severe nationwide shortage of priests, nuns, and lay educators for these parochial schools, particularly the Catholic schools... try getting a new child enrolled to experience difficulty... since the religious component of these schools splits their time between religious (mass and devotional ministry) and education (classes and administration), there is no free time left for recruitment of new assistance, thus some of these parochial schools are actually accepting less students rather than more...
Then maybe these parents ought to be signing petitions or donating funds/their time to establishing more private facilities.
...thus the need to offer such Bible classes in public school classrooms, outside of the purview of private parochial school instruction.
I don't think that evolution is being taught enough in public schools and there isn't enough time to recruit more science teachers, so I think a petition asking that an indepth evolution class be taught in Catholic schools should be created.

It might hurt your ACLU mandates of your perceived "church/state separation" to acknowledge that religious instruction is taking place in public schools, but it is what the parents want, and they are the final arbiters of their childrens' education.
1. It's the American Civil Liberties Union, and last I checked you are an American.

[Samarkand]

The smallest ones of society are genuinely innocent and inately religious, only needing the guiding hand of proper instruction, to find God.
This is up there with the dumbest and most ignorant of posts; it's definitely deserving of a place in the Dumbest Post Thread in World Rivalries. There are no innate (note spelling BTW) things about any children that are not biological. Innate, in case you don't know means 'born with'.

Children are NOT innately religious. They will believe in anything they are told such as Santa Claus, the Easter bunny, and the tooth-fairy. They do not exit the womb, enter the world singing halleujahs and praaaaasin' the Lord. They are taught this, much like the way they are taught about Santa Claus, the Easter bunny, and the tooth-fairy.

[soji22]

Ok...thanks for your opinion...perhaps you could elaborate why? The courses seem to attrach widespread parental support and yield better students... why is it "utterly inappropriate"? Seriously... why is your objection so strong when proof is clear? Perhaps it is time to readdress this perceived separation of "church and state" which you cite by the Supreme Court...

In summary, Iceblink, when a program works, and children profit from it, why should it be "innappropriate"? Shouldn't parents be the final authority, not the ACLU?



Actually, no... I simply stated my opinion, just as you did above. As I said, I support this religious education fully, and hope that the programs expands throughout the United States in order to combat the secular virus which yields the immorality society suffers from.

IntheNet

People with secular worldviews are not necessarily immoral. In fact, in my experience, people with secular philosophies are some of the most moral, responsible, courageous, magnanimous, humanitarian people to be found on the planet. Although I am a secularist, I still think that the moral aspects of religion have a lot of merit. However, to state that the outwardly religious are the only ones with a valid claim to morality is an outright fallacy. Every rationally thinking person -- religious or non -- strives to treat his or her fellow human geing with dignity and respect, but that is not to say that infringements on individuals' rights won't happen. Accidental offenses aren't generally as harmful as volitional ones. The desire to be good to others comes from within, is quite self-evident, and is a surefire way to build a peaceful, cooperative society. Humanism makes plenty of sense. The Bible and religion leave far too many questions unanswered. Their foundations are wobbly. They have no relevance for our time. I think we are quite near the point where humanity as a whole rejects religiosity as an exercise in futility. Fundamentalists like to use secular humanism as a scapegoat for society's ills. The most successful people in both history as well as our time achieved excellence in whatever it is that they were/are known by acting on fundamentally humanistic impulses. A lot of the so-called evils -- pornography, abortion, pre-marital sex, interracial dating and marriages -- in evidence in society today have been around for many, many years. The pervasive nature of modern mass media coupled with twenty-first century America's emphasis on individual liberty means that "sins" get more visibility than they have in any other period of history. Humanist philosophy encourages individuals to take responsibility for their actions and to stop blaming circumstances, the universe, the alignment of stars, parents, etc for their mistakes -- it is a quite empowering, liberating, invigorating life stance. Whether or not people want to admit it, we control our own destinies. We can only hope to learn from mistakes and improve. One way to accomplish this is by not dwelling on the past. I know of and have met people who claim to have "God" in their lives and yet are guilty of some truly egregious acts. How they sleep at night, I have no idea. I think the US educational system should take a leaf from the Brits' book and teach both religious education and philosophy, that is if we can get over how right we always are about everything; a very big "if" indeed. Youngsters would thus be introduced to the intriguing world of critical thinking much earlier. Who knows, we might even see standardized test scores rise. My scientific approach to problem-sloving means that I don't look outside of nature for salvation -- I have always relied on my own ingenuity. To my mind, religion is responsible for most of the pernicious evils that have been perpetrated throughout history, everything from sexism to ethnic cleansing. I think eventually humanity will solve its own problems, providing of course we successfully negotiate this current era of seemingly unrestrained piety, sociocultural repression, and subtle obscurantism. Looking to some arbitrary higher power for guidance is, in my estimation, quite emasculating. As long as we insist on doing things the same way, the human condition will not ameliorate too noticeably. We can solve our own problems. We need only ask the right questions when conducting our internal dialogue.

[AFCA]

Actually, no... I simply stated my opinion, just as you did above. As I said, I support this religious education fully, and hope that the programs expands throughout the United States in order to combat the secular virus which yields the immorality society suffers from.

IntheNet

Oh yes, because we all know how wonderful life was in medieval Europe when the church had a lot to say. Those were some great christians.

Since I can see you and I will never agree, I will defer from advancing this further. However, I disagree strongly with your assessment that schools are "secular institutions," or should be, in any sense of the word. The smallest ones of society are genuinely innocent and inately religious, only needing the guiding hand of proper instruction, to find God. To determine that schools should be "secular" commmits a disservice to youth; it is good that such radical leftist thinking as yours is of the minority. Nobody is forced to read the Bible, nor are they compelled against their own desire, within such Bible classes. However, to deny youth the opportunity to find God, via the Bible, is wrong, pure and simple, and immoral. Thank God our Chief Executive is a primary supporter of such instruction, on behalf of our nation's youth and the moral fabric of our nation.

The epitome of ignorance... a christian nutjob (yes, you are a ********ing nutjob) thinking that morality is determined by religion.

[IntheNet]

... thinking that morality is determined by religion...

Then prove it isn't! List all the non-religious activities contributing to the establishment of morality in society... list all the secular events that enhance morals in American life.

If you can't then shut up!