Duck Dynasty's, Alan Robertson - Bible in Public School

[Hollie]

"A class on the bible"? You are utterly oblivious to what has been presented to you regarding the Establishment Clause, right?

Maybe a class on hewing Arks out of cubits of gopherwood?

Holding an elective class does not "establish" a religion.

You need to make that case before the courts. The problem you have is that using terms such " teaching the bible" tends to prejudice your argument.

 

[PratchettFan]

Duck Dynasty's, Alan Robertson, says that the Bible should be taught in public schools. I agree although I think it should be an elective. The Bible is an historical document that's had significant influence on mankind for centuries. Kids should at least know what it's all about before denying its veracity based on the whims of a handful of bitter atheists (usually folks angry at God for not getting that certain toy at Christmas).

Duck Dynasty s Alan Robertson Bible Should Be Taught in Public Schools CNS News

As a high school class, with other religious texts included, such as the Talmud, Qur'an, Vedas, etc.... sure. The problem I would see is that it would have to be done neutrally, not indicating a preference for one over the other. Otherwise, you have the establishment of religion. Could be tricky.

Each class could/would be a separate elective. I may want to learn about the Buddhism but lack interest in Wicca, Athesim, Islam or the history of other religions.

Then I can see a major problem right off. Whether you may want to learn something as a student should not be a factor at all. The intent of the class should be to expose you to information, not let you pick and choose what information you want. If that is the nature of the class, then it needs to wait until college. If all you are going to do is deal with the history of one religion, then the state is establishing a priority to that religion.

High Schools across the country have "elective" classes that are for information purposes only and are not mandatory. Using the logic already being used by the public school system I see no harm in allowing students to "elect" classes that are of personal interest to them. It happens all the time. What are you afraid of?

Not afraid at all. However, I challenge you to find one of the "elective" classes which are there because the kids said they were interested in the information. They have clubs for that kind of thing. Either the class meets the requirements of the school or it does not. If it is there just to teach kids about the Bible, then they need to go elsewhere for that.

 

[Meriweather]

We seem to be having a problem associating teaching the bibles in public schools with a host of court rulings detailing why that's illegal.

Again, an elective doesn't establish anything. In fact, there are schools who offer such classes, and they are not considered illegal.

 

[Hollie]

Duck Dynasty's, Alan Robertson, says that the Bible should be taught in public schools. I agree although I think it should be an elective. The Bible is an historical document that's had significant influence on mankind for centuries. Kids should at least know what it's all about before denying its veracity based on the whims of a handful of bitter atheists (usually folks angry at God for not getting that certain toy at Christmas).

Duck Dynasty s Alan Robertson Bible Should Be Taught in Public Schools CNS News

Can be taught in public school already. Just have to present it in a neutral context along with other religions' texts. I'm all for it. Nothing cranks out atheists better than the Bible.

True ... "broad" is the path that leads to destruction and many there be that walk that path.

The fraud of fundamentalist Christianity under the burqa of ID'iot - creationism has already suffered humiliating losses in the court.

Are you still oblivious to the constitution?

You still seem fearful for some reason. Why is that? What do you have to lose in allowing folks to make their own decisions? Why are you so controlling?

An elective course in a public school syllabus makes that elective a part of the public school syllabus.

Is there something in the above you find confusing?

 

[Meriweather]

"A class on the bible"? You are utterly oblivious to what has been presented to you regarding the Establishment Clause, right?

Maybe a class on hewing Arks out of cubits of gopherwood?

Holding an elective class does not "establish" a religion.

You need to make that case before the courts. The problem you have is that using terms such " teaching the bible" tends to prejudice your argument.

Grin. When it comes to school, I also use phrasing such as "Teaching the history of America", teaching English, teaching Spanish and the Spanish culture. Teaching the Bible can be very different from teaching religion.

 

[PratchettFan]

There’s nothing to be afraid of in connection with Christian creationism being taught as bible classes regarding the origins of the universe and life. That can be done at Sunday school along with lectures on talking snakes and a flat earth.

In an academic, public classroom setting, teaching Christian dogma is a violation of law. Beyond that, what is truly laughable about creationists is the lack of any affirmative description of what “creationist doctrine” really is, other than mindless reiteration of biblical tales. As an example, nowhere in the creationist ministry literature is there an explanation of how the gawds achieved their “creation”. There is no doctrinal literature such as "The Creation Scenario is described as..." Similarly, there is no literature to be found with the phrase: "The Creator gawds used the following mean, methods and creative processes in making living organisms..." And ultimately, we will never hear the creation ministries announce: "We have just published evidence in peer reviewed scientific journal of physical evidence which reveals the means and methods by which the creator gawds established life on this planet." Instead, all we get is simpleton creationist drivel that supernatural means and supermagical causes define their gawds.

Creationists can offer no explanations of how life developed on the planet. They have found no physical evidence for any of their gawds. Very simply, creationism is nothing more than a window dressing for fundamentalist christianity.

Who said anything about teaching "Christian dogma?" Not me, certainly. I'm saying that the Bible and Creation Science can be taught from an historical perspective and as a means to show it's influence on mankind. Why do you fear that so much?

Now you are tossing in "Creation Science". That is not historical and would not belong in a class about religion. Personally, I am in favor of it in a general science class, if only to give an excellent example of how a theory falls apart. But not in the class you are proposing.

It is historical. Science simply means "knowledge." Folks back in biblical times sought knowledge. Noah built an ark so he would have to know something about engineering. Buildings were being built. Health was a concern. Metallurgy had been discovered. Etc.

No. That dog won't hunt. You are not proposing a history of science course. If you did and wanted to include Creationism, then you would also have to include Alchemy.

I could live with that as long as the actual teaching of each school of thought is presented in a truthful and unbiased. Speakers or representatives from each ideological discipline could present their cases while letting the students decide what is true or false.

And now we are talking about ideological disciplines making their case, not history. The nature of the class has changed significantly from the OP.

 

[bodecea]

Duck Dynasty's, Alan Robertson, says that the Bible should be taught in public schools. I agree although I think it should be an elective. The Bible is an historical document that's had significant influence on mankind for centuries. Kids should at least know what it's all about before denying its veracity based on the whims of a handful of bitter atheists (usually folks angry at God for not getting that certain toy at Christmas).

Duck Dynasty’s Alan Robertson: Bible Should Be Taught in Public Schools

(CNSNews.com) – Duck Dynasty’s beardless and eldest son, Alan Robertson, said the Bible should be taught in the public schools because it used to be required of earlier generations of students, particularly at even the higher-level Ivy League universities, and because America’s Founders believed society and its laws could function properly only when citizens had a solid “understanding of God’s truth and His Word.”

Duck Dynasty s Alan Robertson Bible Should Be Taught in Public Schools CNS News

Which version?

 

[PratchettFan]

"A class on the bible"? You are utterly oblivious to what has been presented to you regarding the Establishment Clause, right?

Maybe a class on hewing Arks out of cubits of gopherwood?

Holding an elective class does not "establish" a religion.

You need to make that case before the courts. The problem you have is that using terms such " teaching the bible" tends to prejudice your argument.

Grin. When it comes to school, I also use phrasing such as "Teaching the history of America", teaching English, teaching Spanish and the Spanish culture. Teaching the Bible can be very different from teaching religion.

Can be. The question is, would it be? If it is taught on its own, without other religious texts being taught at the same time, then I would offer that it would not be. It would be tantamount to the establishment of religion, which is unconstitutional.

 

[Hollie]

We seem to be having a problem associating teaching the bibles in public schools with a host of court rulings detailing why that's illegal.

Again, an elective doesn't establish anything. In fact, there are schools who offer such classes, and they are not considered illegal.

An elective is a course that Is a part of the public school syllabus.

What public schools offer a class in bible studies as a part of their electives?

Be precise. Identify those public schools.

 

[PratchettFan]

I could live with that as long as the actual teaching of each school of thought is presented in a truthful and unbiased. Speakers or representatives from each ideological discipline could present their cases while letting the students decide what is true or false.

Speakers and representatives from each ideological discipline may not be needed; in fact, might get in the way. For example, if I taught such a class, I would teach the Bible from the historical and literature perspective, and then break the students into small groups where they could discuss any religious facets or implications among themselves.

I wouldn't mix the Koran, Buddhism, and other religious texts in the same class, because that would be rather like mixing history and English in the same class. Yes, it could be done, but each has enough material that mixing them all together wouldn't do justice to any of them. Offer each as an elective. If the interest is there, have the class. If its not, don't.

I disagree. It would more like including both sentence structure and punctuation in an English class. It is all the same thing. If you consider the Bible to be special, then it does not belong in a public school classroom. It's either all or nothing.

 

[Hollie]

"A class on the bible"? You are utterly oblivious to what has been presented to you regarding the Establishment Clause, right?

Maybe a class on hewing Arks out of cubits of gopherwood?

Holding an elective class does not "establish" a religion.

You need to make that case before the courts. The problem you have is that using terms such " teaching the bible" tends to prejudice your argument.

Grin. When it comes to school, I also use phrasing such as "Teaching the history of America", teaching English, teaching Spanish and the Spanish culture. Teaching the Bible can be very different from teaching religion.

Grin. "Teaching the bibles" was a slip. You need to cover your tracks better. I'm not implying you need to be honest about your agenda, just be consistent with obscuring the facts.

 

[Meriweather]

Can be. The question is, would it be? If it is taught on its own, without other religious texts being taught at the same time, then I would offer that it would not be. It would be tantamount to the establishment of religion, which is unconstitutional.

The Bible can easily be taught on its own without bringing in various religious speakers or texts. It is my opinion religious speakers (texts) are not necessary. On the other hand, our high school students are not as uptight as some adults are. They sometimes speak about religion as freely as they speak about a sports or political event. In teaching the Bible, it is a sure bet that the students will freely share their own thoughts and ideas with one another. Some will approach it from an atheist point of view, others Christian, others Jewish, etc. However, these discussions should not take over the class goal of the Bible is being taught as history/culture/literature.

 

[Meriweather]

I disagree. It would more like including both sentence structure and punctuation in an English class. It is all the same thing. If you consider the Bible to be special, then it does not belong in a public school classroom. It's either all or nothing.

Disagree. It's not like including sentence structure and punctuation. It's more like including Algebra I, Geometry, Algebra II, and Calculus all in one year. There is too much material to cover for such a combination to be done effectively.

 

[Hollie]

Can be. The question is, would it be? If it is taught on its own, without other religious texts being taught at the same time, then I would offer that it would not be. It would be tantamount to the establishment of religion, which is unconstitutional.

The Bible can easily be taught on its own without bringing in various religious speakers or texts. It is my opinion religious speakers (texts) are not necessary. On the other hand, our high school students are not as uptight as some adults are. They sometimes speak about religion as freely as they speak about a sports or political event. In teaching the Bible, it is a sure bet that the students will freely share their own thoughts and ideas with one another. Some will approach it from an atheist point of view, others Christian, others Jewish, etc. However, these discussions should not take over the class goal of the Bible is being taught as history/culture/literature.

The Bibles being taught as history/culture/literature can be done at Sunday school.

Can you guess why the courts have already ruled on the matter of bible studies being taught in the public schools?

 

[Pogo]

I could live with that as long as the actual teaching of each school of thought is presented in a truthful and unbiased. Speakers or representatives from each ideological discipline could present their cases while letting the students decide what is true or false.

Speakers and representatives from each ideological discipline may not be needed; in fact, might get in the way. For example, if I taught such a class, I would teach the Bible from the historical and literature perspective, and then break the students into small groups where they could discuss any religious facets or implications among themselves.

I wouldn't mix the Koran, Buddhism, and other religious texts in the same class, because that would be rather like mixing history and English in the same class. Yes, it could be done, but each has enough material that mixing them all together wouldn't do justice to any of them. Offer each as an elective. If the interest is there, have the class. If its not, don't.

I disagree. It would more like including both sentence structure and punctuation in an English class. It is all the same thing. If you consider the Bible to be special, then it does not belong in a public school classroom. It's either all or nothing.

Worthy point. First, the poster conflates a book (Koran) with a religion (Buddhism), but a comparative study makes perfect sense. "Here's how Islam views X, by contrast here's how Shinto views it". It would not only be useful but essential to have comparisons. When you leave context out you're driving toward a single religion. Such a course requires that it's a disinterested observation of diverse philosophies, i.e. teaching from the "third person" rather than first person.

We failed to establish definition of terms at the beginning here, because the Robertson guy in the article didn't establish it. There are two ways to interpret "the bible should be taught". Taught as an artifact, or taught as a directive? Aye, there's the rub.

 

[PratchettFan]

Can be. The question is, would it be? If it is taught on its own, without other religious texts being taught at the same time, then I would offer that it would not be. It would be tantamount to the establishment of religion, which is unconstitutional.

The Bible can easily be taught on its own without bringing in various religious speakers or texts. It is my opinion religious speakers (texts) are not necessary. On the other hand, our high school students are not as uptight as some adults are. They sometimes speak about religion as freely as they speak about a sports or political event. In teaching the Bible, it is a sure bet that the students will freely share their own thoughts and ideas with one another. Some will approach it from an atheist point of view, others Christian, others Jewish, etc. However, these discussions should not take over the class goal of the Bible is being taught as history/culture/literature.

They can speak about anything they like. They should be encouraged to speak about anything they like. However, that is not the same thing as a class set up specifically to instruct them in the Bible while ignoring all other religious texts. That constitutes the establishment of religion. Include all texts or give it a pass. Because there is only one reason to exclude other religious texts.

 

[Meriweather]

Grin. "Teaching the bibles" was a slip. You need to cover your tracks better. I'm not implying you need to be honest about your agenda, just be consistent with obscuring the facts.

No need to cover anything, but to clarify my train of thought when another's thought process goes off in a different direction.

 

[PratchettFan]

I could live with that as long as the actual teaching of each school of thought is presented in a truthful and unbiased. Speakers or representatives from each ideological discipline could present their cases while letting the students decide what is true or false.

Speakers and representatives from each ideological discipline may not be needed; in fact, might get in the way. For example, if I taught such a class, I would teach the Bible from the historical and literature perspective, and then break the students into small groups where they could discuss any religious facets or implications among themselves.

I wouldn't mix the Koran, Buddhism, and other religious texts in the same class, because that would be rather like mixing history and English in the same class. Yes, it could be done, but each has enough material that mixing them all together wouldn't do justice to any of them. Offer each as an elective. If the interest is there, have the class. If its not, don't.

I disagree. It would more like including both sentence structure and punctuation in an English class. It is all the same thing. If you consider the Bible to be special, then it does not belong in a public school classroom. It's either all or nothing.

Worthy point. First, the poster conflates a book (Koran) with a religion (Buddhism), but a comparative study makes perfect sense. "Here's how Islam views X, by contrast here's how Shinto views it". It would not only be useful but essential to have comparisons. When you leave context out you're driving toward a single religion. Such a course requires that it's a disinterested observation of diverse philosophies, i.e. teaching from the "third person" rather than first person.

We failed to establish definition of terms at the beginning here, because the Robertson guy in the article didn't establish it. There are two ways to interpret "the bible should be taught". Taught as an artifact, or taught as a directive? Aye, there's the rub.

I think Robertson's position is quite clear. He wants Christianity taught in public schools. This is illegal and should be. Comparative religion... fine. An historical examination of religious texts.... fine. Teaching the religious text of only one religion... not fine.

 

[Meriweather]

They can speak about anything they like. They should be encouraged to speak about anything they like. However, that is not the same thing as a class set up specifically to instruct them in the Bible while ignoring all other religious texts. That constitutes the establishment of religion. Include all texts or give it a pass. Because there is only one reason to exclude other religious texts.

As been mentioned, classes can be set up in different ways. What you are speaking of now is a comparative religion class, not a class on the Bible as History, Culture, and Literature.

 

[Pogo]

I disagree. It would more like including both sentence structure and punctuation in an English class. It is all the same thing. If you consider the Bible to be special, then it does not belong in a public school classroom. It's either all or nothing.

Disagree. It's not like including sentence structure and punctuation. It's more like including Algebra I, Geometry, Algebra II, and Calculus all in one year. There is too much material to cover for such a combination to be done effectively.

Not at all. If you do them singly you don't have a class on comparative religion. You have several separate classes each competing with its own single religion.

Your comparison completely fails -- different levels of Algebra do not compare to the same level of how different religions view the same thing. "How much material" it is is irrelevant. That only determines how deep you go. But you can't teach "here's how Buddhism views death" and then wait for an entirely different class (if it happens at all) to teach "by contrast here's how Judaism views death". Why would you want to eliminate context? Doesn't make sense.