Why teachers don't want the Bible studied in school.

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

As far as I know, I am the only member posting on this forum with the education and experience to dispute all of these well-intentioned yet terminally flawed idea. I was a school administrator in Florida and took Educational Law classes in graduate school and passed a certification exam for schools up through the school superintendent position. There is no school-sponsored religion in any public schools. Anyone saying otherwise is either uninformed, lying, or just plain stupid.

 

[Concerned American]

So teach Mormonism, holy rollers, Koresh Christianity? Eastern Orthodox?

Exactly. Another point not taken into consideration is the 15% that are not in the mainstream of that ill-conceived post. Turn it around and consider if the 85% were muslim and what would happen to the 15% Christians.

 

[Gary Seven]

Well, separation of church and state doesn't prelude religious education in school, it just precludes the government deciding it. It precludes the government picking what religion you study, or none at all. It would be perfectly possible for schools to have a religious class once a day or every week, etc., so long at it was some outside religious authority teaching the religions elected by and agreed to by the students.

For instance, if 85% of the school were Christian, there'd be no harm in setting aside one class a week during or after school for a minister to come in and teach Christianity to the christian students much like any other subject; what the Separations Clause precludes is for the government itself to be in charge of it, decide or limit it.

Once it's taught outside the context of just being basic literature or historical sociology (as in simply, "this is where and when these ideas came from") it breaches the clause. And the applicable classes darn well better include the texts and scriptures of other religion without bias. For example, requiring the Ten Commandments but not allowing the Upanishads or the Quran to be studied impartially in a public school is grounds for a serious lawsuit. It's even ok to have a "History of Religion" course as long as any religious jncan be discussed without bias.

 

[Zincwarrior]

Pastafarianism

JaNet doesn't like the Holy Noodle!

 

[Zincwarrior]

Once it's taught outside the context of just being basic literature or historical sociology (as in simply, "this is where and when these ideas came from") it breaches the clause. And the applicable classes darn well better include the texts and scriptures of other religion without bias. For example, requiring the Ten Commandments but not allowing the Upanishads or the Quran to be studied impartially in a public school is grounds for a serious lawsuit. It's even ok to have a "History of Religion" course as long as any religious jncan be discussed without bias.

We could teach how are politicians violate all ten of them daily and list out the examples.

 

[Augustine_]

It has nothing to do with the so-called separation of church and state as the schools don't represent the state in the sense of making laws. They object because they fear that some students might take the Bible seriously which would upset their worldview, especially regarding the teaching of the ToE. They also fear that a force other than their own would unduly influence the students thinking and behavior. IOW, they see the Bible as a competitor and a threat to their authority. And in fact, it is.

The bible has no more educational value than any other religious text. Religions can groom children to their will in Sunday Schools and other such religious indoctrination centers. Keep regular education and magical nonsense education separate.

 

[Zincwarrior]

The bible has no more educational value than any other religious text. Religions can groom children to their will in Sunday Schools and other such religious indoctrination centers. Keep regular education and magical nonsense education separate.

I found math class offered more than enough time and motivation for intensive prayer.

 

[Gary Seven]

We could teach how are politicians violate all ten of them daily and list out the examples.

A kid could do a paper on that if he wants and get an A+ on it if its well written. But it's not up to a government employees to teach it.

 

[toobfreak]

Once it's taught outside the context of just being basic literature or historical sociology (as in simply, "this is where and when these ideas came from") it breaches the clause.

I'm not sure I understand or agree, BW. The schools ought to be about EDUCATION. It should allow for some provision for students with religious interests to have experts in the field come in and give them weekly classes much like any college does. Just like they bring in an athletic director to teach gym and hold football games. It is a subject of learning germane to the participants by their own word.

There is no breech of any clause so long as the school (the government) stays out of it, and simply provides the forum (a classroom) for interested students to hold their classes which meet THEIR educational needs and standards as deemed by them!

 

[Winco]

I don't have a problem with the bible. That being said, I don't want the bible taught in public schools. I also don't want the Koran or the Tanakh taught in public schools. It is the purview of each individual parent to direct the morals of their children.

Good Call.

Public schools need to get back in their lane and teach the 3 Rs.

Then you stepped in your own shit by claiming that you know what is taught. The 3 R's are absolutely taught, saying otherwise is very fallacious.

The government is NOT moral and never has been.

Then why the constant defense of team trump?

 

[Unkotare]

It has nothing to do with the so-called separation of church and state as the schools don't represent the state in the sense of making laws. They object because they fear that some students might take the Bible seriously which would upset their worldview, especially regarding the teaching of the ToE. They also fear that a force other than their own would unduly influence the students thinking and behavior. IOW, they see the Bible as a competitor and a threat to their authority. And in fact, it is.

Well, that was a steaming load of nonsense.

 

[jacksonlamb]

It has nothing to do with the so-called separation of church and state as the schools don't represent the state in the sense of making laws. They object because they fear that some students might take the Bible seriously which would upset their worldview, especially regarding the teaching of the ToE. They also fear that a force other than their own would unduly influence the students thinking and behavior. IOW, they see the Bible as a competitor and a threat to their authority. And in fact, it is.

Woodnutz is acting the simpleton for fun. No teacher thinks like that.

 

[Winco]

As far as I know, I am the only member posting on this forum with the education and experience to dispute all of these well-intentioned yet terminally flawed idea.

Pay attention Tory.
I don't think so......I am the only member posting on this forum.

 

[initforme]

I'm not sure I understand or agree, BW. The schools ought to be about EDUCATION. It should allow for some provision for students with religious interests to have experts in the field come in and give them weekly classes much like any college does. Just like they bring in an athletic director to teach gym and hold football games. It is a subject of learning germane to the participants by their own word.

There is no breech of any clause so long as the school (the government) stays out of it, and simply provides the forum (a classroom) for interested students to hold their classes which meet THEIR educational needs and standards as deemed by them!

In a church yes. Not in a public school.

 

[toobfreak]

Would that be Baptist? Methodist? Mormon? Seventh Day Adventist? Catholic?

None, any or all of the above as THEY decide. For instance, let's say the school sets a threshold of at least ten kids all signing up for christian instruction, they might decide it should be general christian ideology, but what if they get 30 kids all interested in learning more about christian faith and 28 of them are Baptist, then they might decide to make the class specific to Baptist faith. The whole point is that:

1. Religion is a legitimate branch of learning.
2. That the school nor government have any say in picking or limiting the class.

I'm not saying that the school must have intensive study, but IF they have the facilities, means and interest, it SHOULD be an option open to consideration by them and for them, so I cannot answer for what they might find best suits them. Point is that if there is strong interest for this in the school district, then to limit or stop them in educating their children and using their facilities paid through their taxes as they see fit, /WOULD/ be a violation of their constitutional right to separation of church and state!

I disagree, public school has no place for religious teachings.

Again, I cannot say you are right or wrong. I can neither agree nor disagree. It might depend on the curriculum, where there is time or space, or pursued once a week after regular class. It is up to the SCHOOL, the students and parents who use that school to decide for themselves how best to use their facilities as any spiritual training would be under the student's and parent's direction and not the school's. Or maybe it wouldn't work there at all in their case--- the point is, it is up to THEM, not me.

 

[MostBoringManInTheWorld]

None, any or all of the above as THEY decide. For instance, let's say the school sets a threshold of at least ten kids all signing up for christian instruction, they might decide it should be general christian ideology, but what if they get 30 kids all interested in learning more about christian faith and 28 of them are Baptist, then they might decide to make the class specific to Baptist faith. The whole point is that:

1. Religion is a legitimate branch of learning.
2. That the school nor government have any say in picking or limiting the class.

I'm not saying that the school must have intensive study, but IF they have the facilities, means and interest, it SHOULD be an option open to consideration by them and for them, so I cannot answer for what they might find best suits them. Point is that if there is strong interest for this in the school district, then to limit or stop them in educating their children and using their facilities paid through their taxes as they see fit, /WOULD/ be a violation of their constitutional right to separation of church and state!


Again, I cannot say you are right or wrong. I can neither agree nor disagree. It might depend on the curriculum, where there is time or space, or pursued once a week after regular class. It is up to the SCHOOL, the students and parents who use that school to decide for themselves how best to use their facilities as any spiritual training would be under the student's and parent's direction and not the school's. Or maybe it wouldn't work there at all in their case--- the point is, it is up to THEM, not me.

You are correct only if it is an elective, not mandatory.

 

[toobfreak]

You are correct only if it is an elective, not mandatory.

Well, that has been my point all along! To get the State OUT of it, so it CAN or CANNOT be elected by the people actually using the school as THEY see fit?

 

[MostBoringManInTheWorld]

Well, that has been my point all along! To get the State OUT of it, so it CAN or CANNOT be elected by the people actually using the school as THEY see fit?

If you mean the local school board should make it an elective and people can take it or not, I agree with you.

 

[frigidweirdo]

It has nothing to do with the so-called separation of church and state as the schools don't represent the state in the sense of making laws. They object because they fear that some students might take the Bible seriously which would upset their worldview, especially regarding the teaching of the ToE. They also fear that a force other than their own would unduly influence the students thinking and behavior. IOW, they see the Bible as a competitor and a threat to their authority. And in fact, it is.

Yeah, imagine students reading the Noah's Ark story and then killing all but 8 kids in the class. That'd be the American way of doing the Bible.

 

[toobfreak]

If you mean the local school board should make it an elective and people can take it or not, I agree with you.

Gee thanks, that is all I ever really meant to say.

Maybe my wife was right and I'm too complex.