Bible Classes in Texas Public Schools

I believe that if you teach the history of the bible and the evolution of monotheistic belief you can evectively convey the beauty of the writing and the nature of the times it describes without delving into it's many interpretations. I learned much more from books like "The History of God" or "The Book of J", "Who Wrote the Bible" and discussions of the Gnostics gospels (titles I can't remember). These books put into perspective the writings of the Bible, it's believed authors, editors and redactors. To develop a curriculum using only the bible is to cheat students of what I believe is the most important part of learning and that is to inspire critical thinking about a topic.

On the face of it the Texas education officials don't seem as interested in developing independent thinkers as they are determined to stifle differing religious views.

David Waters asks: "But how do you teach about the Bible without teaching a Bible class?"

Don't let believers teach it.

It is really quite simple to keep the religion out. Keep the Bible historical and as a source of ethical teachings. Following a religion requires involvement of the heart and emotions and faith in the narrative. A study that deals with the text of the Bible in a classroom involves only the critical mind.

If you examine the Texas Republican platform, it argues for a Christian nation, with no separation between church and state. These bible classes are part and parcel of advancing this political ideology in Texas.

Mormons would be well at ease in a Bible class. They spend twice as much time studying the Bible as the Book of Mormon. Let's not make an issue where none exists.

It's interesting how within the past 30-40 years it has become "unonstitutional" to teach Bible in schools. Our founders never intended this.

Here are some interesting quotes:

Benjamin Rush: "The only means of establishing and perpetuating our republican forms of government is the universal education of our youth in the principles of Christianity by means of the Bible."

Noah Webster: "The Christian religion is the most important and one of the first things in which all children under a free government ought to be instructed. No truth is more evident than that the Christian religion must be the basis of any government intended to secure the rights and privileges of a free people."

John Jay: "The Bible is the best of all books, for it is the word of God and teaches us the way to be happy in this world and in the next. Continue therefore to read it and to regulate your life by its precepts."

Texas is a fun state for Christians. The state Congress doesn't have anyone's best interest in mind, but theirs.

When it came to this, there was a real issue - Texans love Jesus, but Congress loves cash.

I have a friend that sent me a slammin' blog post that says it better than I ever could. He sounds like he is from there too.

http://hiscrivener.wordpress.com/2008/07/24/in-texas-the-bible-gets-schooled/

So should the US be declared a christian nation to which form of christianity and the bible would the US be affiliated with? Some protestants consider catholics to be a cult as they do mormons. Some protestants say the bible is to be taken literally and some metaphorically. Which would be followed? If literally then do all US laws get changed to follow the eye for an eye language?

Sadly, few Americans know their history very well anyway. Many of the most well known founders of our nation considered themselves deists or unitarians with the moniker christian coming in second. They made a subtle but distinct differentiation between the two. Jefferson and Adams were two of them. Does that mean we should really be calling ourselves a deist nation?

Texas is trying to make it so intelligent design can be taught in schools by calling into question the controversies surrounding evolution. I say go for it. Apply the same standards to intelligent design, highlighting the controversies surrounding it at the same time you highlight those of evolution and you may actually get some kids doing some critical thinking. Their very religious parents may not be so happy. They may feel their religious beliefs were being called into question. However, they would have gotten their way.

The Bible is a proved hoax. It's a hoax only when advertised to be fact and not when it's presented as what it is, fiction. Big religion is missing the boat by not declaring the Bible to be fiction. Then it can be put in public libraries and used as a text book in the public schools. All sorts of mythical fiction already is but not with the label, "the word of God."

Big "faith" insists on the Bible being God's word as though they couldn't continue to do that if it was declared to be fiction. What they've done is drawn the "6th" line in the sand and need the Bible to validate hell. The Scorpion Pharaoh, the one who drew the original 6th line in the sand had the same problem they have. Without hell he had no power. The 6th line created hell in the minds of his followers.

All power comes from hell, (the threat of hell). We already know the big money goes to those willing to lead the multitudes to hell. It's on the web at hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul and a very legitimate reading of the Bible. Teaching the Bible in the public schools is bound to have that interpretation taught by the non believing teachers. With that little tidbit becoming popular big religion will demand the Bible be kept out of the public schools.

According to Claire Hoffman, Jon Meacham is lost!

Texas: It's like a whole other country.

Umm, yeah. Not. America.

Not that it'd be fair to hapless folks living in Texas, but if folks in those states have that big a problem with how we live in America, maybe we ought to start reviewing if they even belong in the US in the first place. Seriously.

"As a source of divine inspiration, prophetic imagination and poetic wisdom, the Bible is unsurpassed."

What a sweeping opening statement! Has the writer done a coldy objective analysis of all comparable religious texts to come to this conclusion, or are we in a Christian country just expected to automatically agree with this wildly presumptious statement?

This ridiculous debacle in Texas is part of a one-two punch by the Christians to force religion down the public's throat. The second punch is the effort to teach Intelligent Design in science classes by teaching the non-existent "weaknesses" in the evolutionary theory.

This is an even greater threat to the education of our youth than is the silly Bible class BS. Because Texas has such a large school system, printers of textbooks must edit their books to meet with Texas' knuckle-dragging take on the sciences or risk having their textbooks rejected by Texas "educators." Ergo, textbook publishers will soon be including language about the non-existent "weaknesses" in evolutionary theory in their books simply to appease the anti-science crowd in Texas, but those same books will be marketed and sold to schools across the country.

Sadly, it may already be too late. A report issued last week by the Business Roundtable shows that the country is failing to meet goals set in 2005 to produce science graduates from the nation's colleges and universities. This comes on the heels of a study issued late last year that reported that, "U.S. students ranked 29th out of 57 countries when it comes to science literacy. Worse yet, the U.S. ranked below the international average score, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development."

The USA is well on-track to lose its preeminence in the sciences. Couple that with foreign nations buying up American businesses left and right, and you have the perfect storm for the USA sliding into third-world status within 30 years.

But, no worries! Our country will still have Jeebus, and there's no one that Jeebus loves more than the poor and downtrodden. We may finally become a truly "Christian nation" after all, at least in numbers if not philosophy.

Mr. Waters:

You write: "Is the New Testament more privileged than the Old Testament?"

In this way, you answer your own question. What is the "Old Testament"? Would it, perchance, have any connection to the Tanakh?

Colleges and universities across the US offer courses in the Bible as Literature and on the literature of other sacred texts. I have no problem with this. They are particularly useful for students who are pursuing degrees in English/American literature, comp. lit., etc.

Then, too, there are the various Religious Studies programs.

Although for obvious reasons, Bible as Lit. courses concentrate on what you would call the "OT," typology must be addressed (Christian typology, that is), once when gets to the "NT," and one must. It is then that problems do arise, not infrequently, among Muslim students.

A far better idea for high school education has been suggested by Daniel Dennett, and that is to offer courses in religion, in which all religions are represented, and, I would add, in which atheism and agnosticism are discussed, as well. This would go to civics, multiculturalism, and an enligtened pluralism.

Personally, I would think courses on the Bible and other sacred texts can wait until the students enter college.

Anon, "According to Claire Hoffman, Jon Meacham is lost!"

Who is Claire Hoffman that her opinion of Jon Meacham matters.

I think Claire Hoffman is lost, big time!

If a religion in addition to Christianity is to be chosen to be taught in schools it should be Native American (Red American Indian) spirituality. The whole of Western civilization, not just America, was founded on Christianity. So there is nothing out of place about studying the Bible in school in an academic way from the point of view of human rights, equality of sexes, ethical principles etc.

Many years ago I lived in Texas for two years. I grew quite fond of the place, but since I was in graduate school never ran into the religious side of it. Also I was not paying attention to that anyway.

I quickly learned that Texas had three religions: Christianity, football, and chili. I never did find out which was in first place, Christianity or football. Since I didn't care for football, and had recently abandoned Christianity, I investigated chili. I became an instant convert, and have been a faithful follower ever since. I also came back to Christianity. But not football - baseball is now one of my religions.

As far as teaching religion in high school: teach a course in comparative religion, required, and preferably taught by a non-believer.

"How do you teach about the Bible without teaching a Bible class?" Youngj1 has it right. You teach it as a collection of texts written in particular historical moments by particular people (whether "inspired" or not) with particular audiences and particular agendas, responding to particular social, historical, religious, and political situations. This approach has the incidental benefit of deconstructing the obviously anti-Semitic (on face value) aspects of the New Testament. It is theoretically possible for a believer to do this if he or she is adequately trained in the discipline of religious studies, which requires "bracketing" (setting aside) one's own personal beliefs and doing the best one can to understand the material objectively.

So, Pakistan has its "madrasas" where young muslims learn to be fudamentalist.
Now, Texas will create its own "madrasas" for being as stupid as are the islamists!

Texas?

Why that dont surprise me?

If LBJ, the Bush crime family, Tom Delay and Phil Gramm have failed to convince you Texas annexation was a big mistake, it's doubtful this will either.

So what version will they study? King James, NIV, abridged, the mega church Bible, The God Wants you (and me) to be rich Bible, The White Kids Bible, the Black Kids Bible, the God Hates Fags Bible, The Jesus had a boyfriend Bible, The Catholic Bible, The Baptist Bible, The Texas Baptist Bible, The new and improved Texas Baptist Bible, The Chicken Soup Bible for left handed big haired ladies or the Falwell/Robinson/World Harvest/Dobson sound bite Bible?

Looks like there may not be time for Football in Texas anymore

Yet another less-than-subtle attempt by conservatives to push religion into the classroom. Only the most naive among us would believe that this is going to be anything other than the naked promotion of Christianity.

As a Christian who believes in a separation of church and state, I think the teaching of a Bible class in a public school is a bad idea. When you blend any worldly institution with Biblical beliefs, your faith becomes corrupted; all the time, every time.

I agree that if you're going to teach a class in public schools, it should be class on all religions, and taught by a secular teacher.

I think that the only way to avoid corrupting your faith is to keep if free and untainted by the rules and restrictions of governmental organizations. People make so much of the removal of prayer from public schools, and blame so many problems on it. The fact of the matter is that if more people who called themselves Christians would take the time to raise their kids in the example of Christ, it wouldn't matter what raged outside their doors...these kids would be better prepared to deal with it.

Bill Cosby rails that black parents must become better role models for their kids. I submit that Christian parents must start doing the same. The problem is that many who call themselves Christians are simply cultural Christians, Christians in name only. They haven't surrendered their lives to Christ, and find His simple commandments too difficult to follow. Some of these same people seem to think that organizations and institutions outside the home, such as a school system, should shoulder some of their parenting responsibilities.

Cultural Christianity is a growing problem in that people proclaim to believe in Christ, but then don't follow his example. They try to force worldly institutions, such as schools, to pick up some parenting slack that's consistent with their worldview, and it's bound to fail.

The true Christian church isn't an institution. It's not a building. It's not a bureaucratic organization. It's not what is or isn't taught in public schools. It's the core body of believers who live by the principle that we must love one another as Christ loves us, and do it at all times, no matter how difficult we find it. If we don't do this, then we fail at keeping the rest of the commandments.

As GK Chesterton once said, "It's not that Christianity has been tried and found wanting, it's that Christianity has been found difficult and left untried."

It's time to stop calling this a Christian nation. Instead, all those who call themselves Christians should start living in the example of Christ. Then, and only then, will things start to turn around. Anything less is simply people forcing dogmatic beliefs on those who don't believe them. You can't legislate a change of heart in people. You can, however, lead by shining example if you're willing to walk the walk.

Further proof that I was right to "come out" as a lifelong atheist.

God? Jesus? Buddha? Mohammed? Who are these fictional snake-oil salesmen, and why should I and millions of others be forced to follow their teachings?

Go back to the cave, Bible-thumpers, and be sure to roll the boulder over the entrance behind you. Cheers!

I found the comments by "Reason" interesting. This person infers that the "Founders" never intended for religion to be kept out of hte public square, and used quotes from jahn Jay, Benjamin rush and Noah Webster to support this claim.
Noah Webster was not a "founder". he was still in school when the Revolution took place and was never a big time political activist. He was a devout Christian who was moralistic and believed Christianity must be taught in schools. He also edited (read censored) the KJV Bible to remove what might be seen as offensive words and phrases.

Benjamin Rush was also a devout Christian, raised by a uncle who was a minister. He was a known advocate for Christianity in public life, and particularly in education.

John Jay, while he did participate in writing the Federalist Papers, did not attend the Continental Congress. He definitely brough his Christian aesthetic perspective to the table.

I doubt anyone could have cherry picked three better proponents of their views, while ignoring the majority views of teh Founders.

As a resident of Texas, I can assure you that these classes will largely be taught by radical evangelical protestants that have every intention of indoctrination.

In this place, catholics are not considered christian, the episcopalians are suspect and the mormons represent the antichrist. The hindus, budhists, muslims and certainly the agnostics don't stand a chance.

You will soon see a bunch of suits for abuse and bullying of students coming forth.

But how do you teach about the Bible without teaching a Bible class? Simple: You don't! Furthermore, knowledge of biblical content, characters, poetry, and narratives are NOT in any way prerequisites to understanding contemporary society and culture. This is just another attempt by the evangelicals to get their religion into the public schools. They won't stop until laws are passed to banish their cults back into their churches where they belong. Teach the Bible in Sunday school. That's where it belongs!

This is the basis of our culture, folks. Why deny that? Everyone has different views of the Bible, but whether you agree or disagree with the Bible, you are still being defined by that standard. We don't become nearly as animated about discussions of the Koran or the Buddhist scriptures because these have not been a factor in forming the hearts and minds of most Americans.

Culture is culture, we make it, we change it, but it all starts somewhere.

Seriously, how can anyone with half a brain not see this as a problem?

I take umbrage at the sentiment that to understand the USA you NEED to understand the bible. That's a load of c**p.

This is another not subtle attempt to force religion on students by the religious right.

If there is such a thing as moderate christians, please speak up and put this behind us as a nation. Any talk of any religion being taught in publis schools should be struck down in the courts instantaneously.

A sickened atheist.

"Scared" is right on the beam about how the Bible will be taught in Texas schools. Fundamentalists will teach the courses and the Texas Education Agency will make no serious attempt to monitor the implementation of the program. As a result, there will be many lawsuits and the extremists in their ranks will make all Christians look like mindless, bitter, and inhumane yahoos. That's what happens in a state ruled by ignorant bigots, at the top of a one-party Republican state.

Chagasman and others who share your sentiment:

Um, have you ever studied Western literature? Philosophy? Political theory? History?

Not teaching about the Bible is not the answer, because the Bible plays an enormous role in the context of Western history. For better or worse, one could argue that the Bible IS the context of Western history.

Teaching the Bible for what it is -- a historical collection of religious texts written by humans including historical accounts, poetry, detailed legal systems, conventional wisdom, and folk stories by human beings trying to make sense of their world -- might just be the most positive approach Texas schools have ever taken and, if the teachers are unbiased and students buy it, could undermine the teachings of fundamentalist churches.

Then again, in a state like Texas where many children grow up learning all about it in Sunday School, perhaps a class on other religious texts would be more appropriate. At any rate, it would help to expand students' world view beyond Western civilization.

Two words for Christian religious school education:

Monica Goodling

Makes one wonder if it would have been better to let the South go in 1862. The North would have industrialized and progressed, while the South could be to the North what Mexico is to the U.S. today. Let's airlift the people out of Austin into a better state and then set fire to the rest.

Jill: "the Bible plays an enormous role in the context of Western history. For better or worse, one could argue that the Bible IS the context of Western history"

The second statement does not follow from the first. Thousands of texts meet the first criteria, and none of them would meet the second. Even attempting to make such a connection reveals the intention of preferring the Bible over the almost infinite amount of text humans (not all of them "Western") have created to do what the Bible does. To not understand this is to be illiterate.

Jill writes:

"Um, have you ever studied Western literature? Philosophy? Political theory? History?

Not teaching about the Bible is not the answer, because the Bible plays an enormous role in the context of Western history."

Dear Jill -

Do you really imagine that these Texas Bible courses will spend any significant time on teaching the Bible as anything but THE religious text and "the truth?" Is the intent REALLY to teach it as history, which would involve pointing out the hundreds if not thousands of historic inaccuracies in the thing, beginning with the Creation myth, through the Exodus myth through the FACT that there is scant evidence that Moses, David, Jesus and the prophets weren't real people, but were actually mythical archetypes?

How about literature? Are these courses going to start with the texts that predate the Bible, and if so, will they point out the many similarities between the Bible and other ancient literary texts? Will these classes introduce modern texts written as a rejection of the Bible along with those that support it?

And, political theory? What's to be covered here? The sorry history of the church? The torture and death advanced under the name of the Judeo-Xian tradition? How about the genocidal massacres depicted in the OT? Will these be taught objectively with as much care given to the political philosophy and life views of the populations slaughtered by the Jews, or will they be treated as so much chattle, the victims of the inhumane acts of "god's chosen people?" Or will their lives and human rights be totally ignored (as always!) with the Bible stories standing as proof (proof!) that with god, all things are possible (like slaughtering your enemies).

No, I don't think that this is the intent of those pushing for Bible classes in Texas. You're welcome to disabuse me of my thoughts, of course, so, have at it.

I await your response.

The Texas bible class will probably teach kids it is okay to shoot up a church if it is full of eeeevil librrrruls.

You Repukes are NOT Christians. Jesus would NEVER support your torture policy.

Anonymous wrote: "The whole of Western civilization, not just America, was founded on Christianity."

Now this is one of those statements that sounds correct, but then when you step back and look at it, it makes little sense. If anything America was founded on British principles of law and order. Its economy was capitalistic, its government democratic, its guiding governmental structure was ancient Rome. If it has been founded on "Christianity", it would have had 13 kingdoms whose kings all submitted to a christian American Pope in Washington who dictated to the kings who then dictated to their subjects.

Anonymous wrote: "So there is nothing out of place about studying the Bible in school in an academic way from the point of view of human rights, equality of sexes, ethical principles etc."

You see, when you set up a false premise, anything is possible. Lets take human rights. Where are human rights stated in the bible, which says that slavery is ok? Lets take equality of the sexes, where is that stated in the bible? I know of many places where it states just the opposite. Lets take ethical principles, such as "all men being created equal". Where is that stated in the bible, where kings and nobility are recognized as requiring submission to, and maids and servents can be beaten but not to the level of maiming.

I agree studying the bible as it relates to history for example is a valid area of study, however this Texas course intends to "teach students knowledge of biblical content". That is entirely different and even scarier when you consider the different interpretations each christian sect has on various parts of the bible. Wait until a Morman teacher is hired and see what happens.

Why christians cannot leave their religion at home and in the church I cannot understand. They remind me of the TV character Monk who just cannot leave anything alone that is out of place. They obsess over christianity in every aspect of American public life until they just have to put their christian mark on everything. They need serious help.

Texas is going to get a raft of lawsuits from this, because you KNOW the teachers will break the law and proselytize in class.

This is already a bad enough problem all over the nation, but Texas just handed the fundies a loaded gun inside a hollowed out Bible.

We are constantly told by seemingly benign historians that the BIble is foundational and fundamental to understanding Western civilization and America. Poppycock and bull feathers! The truth is, whatever historical and cultural consequences and effects, this poorly put together tome of so-called inspiration and great literature is, quite frankly, losing its appeal and its power in this world. That is a good thing. The thought of the Greeks has offered far greater contributions to the progress of Western civilization. The Bible may have given us our increasingly disingenuous "moral foundations," but is most noted for taking us into at least a thousand years of what we refer to aptly as the Dark Ages.

Born Right the First Time wrote: ": Let's airlift the people out of Austin into a better state and then set fire to the rest."

No no no, Austinites were airlifted in years ago to take over Texas. Its taking longer than expected but give it a little more time. Oh my, I just let the cat out of the bag ... nevermind ...

Dear Fate -

Excellent post.

As I am fond of saying, "there are no votes in heaven."

Strange how people living in republics and democracies for their short time on this planet yearn to spend an eternity in a dictatorship.

Jesus could have said that he went to prepare a democracy, that is, if he knew anything about the Greeks. But he didn't. He went to prepare a kingdom, and kingdoms - especially the ones depicted in the Bible - are dictatorships, no matter how benign their ruling class.

Jill wrote: "Teaching the Bible for what it is -- a historical collection of religious texts written by humans including historical accounts, poetry, detailed legal systems, conventional wisdom, and folk stories by human beings trying to make sense of their world -- might just be the most positive approach Texas schools have ever taken and, if the teachers are unbiased and students buy it, could undermine the teachings of fundamentalist churches."

Hmmm, well, like others in this blog, you start with a false premise, that the bible is a historical collection of religious texts. You forgot what happened at the council of Nicea, where many religious texts (gospels) were removed, some considered heretical. So the bible is really a *distillation* of historical texts that were agreed upon by like-minded men, while other texts of the era which had differing content were removed. You also need to consider the many translations, first into Greek, then English as well as the cultural contexts which I doubt any high school teacher would address. And of course a teacher would need to explain the contradictions in the bible.

You also make a few more false assumptions, that the teachers might be unbiased for example. That would be nearly impossible, especially in a state like Texas. And undermining the teachings of fundamentalist churches is not a government function and in fact is prohibited, so if this class has that effect, it would be unconstitutional to teach it.

Jill, this is why the founding fathers decided church and state needed to maintain their distance. When you try to bring one into the affairs of the other all hell breaks loose. America is one of the most religious nations and it is primarily because the government stays out of religious affairs. People who think religion belongs in government are just plain wrong and it needs to be fought most vigorously by the religious since it is freedom of religion itself that is at stake when government promotes of prohibits religion.

The irony is that the miopic Christians who opened this pandora's box don't even realize that they have the most to loose. When little Johnny comes home and tells his parents that his school teacher told him Preacher Smith was completely wrong about the nature of their sacred religion, all hell is going to break loose (as it rightly should). Bible classes will inevitably open divisions among the many competing Christian sects and a civil war will erupt over which brand of Christianity will be taught, as it always does in these cases. It will be so much fun to watch these theocratic blockheads learn the law of unintended consequences first hand the hard way. I can hardly wait for school to start for what promises to be more fun than a barrel of missing links but I guess I'll have to!

Good to see a clause in this policy that forbids violating the First Amendment by proselytizing.

This means that the Texas STate Board MUST ban all curricula by the NCBC (National Council on Bible Curriculum in Schools).

Several school districts are currently using this curriculum, which violates the First Amendment and this Texas board policy.

Their material is laced with proslytization and disparagement of other religious sects.

Ban the NCBC.

G. D. Wymer: "We are constantly told by seemingly benign historians that the BIble is foundational and fundamental to understanding Western civilization and America. Poppycock and bull feathers! The truth is, whatever historical and cultural consequences and effects, this poorly put together tome of so-called inspiration and great literature is, quite frankly, losing its appeal and its power in this world. That is a good thing. The thought of the Greeks has offered far greater contributions to the progress of Western civilization. The Bible may have given us our increasingly disingenuous "moral foundations," but is most noted for taking us into at least a thousand years of what we refer to aptly as the Dark Ages."

In all fairness, biblical teachings can provide a good foundation for all to live by. The bible contains sound wisdom on brotherhood, being a good neighbor, not to be judgmental to your fellow man, and about how to love, love in several ways.

So why is there a debate on whether the Bible is considered a "true" historical book or not? What are the Nay-Sayers afraid of?

No one is saying that the children are going to be taught that they must believe in the bible as the word of God. They are talking about teaching our next generation sound principals of doctrine to live by so that it can add to their development as well-rounded individuals as an adult………….come on people, let your *fear* go!

Many of the posters here are not even using reasoning before condemning that the bible be used for teaching. The Psalms are beautiful poetry among other beauty within the pages of the Bible.

Mr Mark wrote, "No, I don't think that this is the intent of those pushing for Bible classes in Texas. You're welcome to disabuse me of my thoughts, of course, so, have at it.

I await your response."

To assume someone's position on a matter is dead wrong, not even reasonable. Your fear is showing big time!

Texas, ah, I love Texas...been there twice. I had a great time in Texas over the Christmas and New Years holiday in 2005/2006. The Texans know how to party.

I met some of the best non-Christians while in Texas, with good morals, and happy hearts. Free spirited people that didn't impose their non-Christian beliefs on you and at the same time respected your beliefs. The people in Texas know how to make someone feel welcomed.

I would go back again in a heartbeat!

Anonymous wrote: "No one is saying that the children are going to be taught that they must believe in the bible as the word of God. They are talking about teaching our next generation sound principals of doctrine to live by so that it can add to their development as well-rounded individuals as an adult………….come on people, let your *fear* go!"

If you do not mind having your children taught a class on the teachings of Gautama Buddha, which is beautiful and peaceful, then maybe you have a point. But if you are hesitant in sending your kids to such a class taught by Buddhists then you might understand what others feel about this. But remember, no matter what you think, the Constitution does not allow governmental schools to establish religion, and promoting Christian or Buddhist teachings in public school is unConstitutional, thank God. It may seem harmless to you but my guess is you are a christian so its no big deal to you. Maybe a local Imam teaching your kids about the beauty of Islam would be ok with you? I mean, come on, let your *fear* go!

Sorry, that last post responding to Anonymous was me, not Anonymous writing to him/herself.

Hey, Anonymous, get a different name since "Anonymous" is what not putting a name in the "Name" field gives you.

Anon writes:

"Mr Mark

Your fear is showing big time!"

Yes, I am fearful that the arrogant Xians in Texas are prepared to trash the very bedrock of our nation (the Constitution) and to try their best to foist their mythical beliefs into the public schools.

I would think that any American worth their salt would fear assaults against the Constitution, assaults that are made no more desirable for the fact that the assaults are being headed up by Xians with a bigoted and ignorant view of the world...and who are able to get away with it simply because they can in a state with an education board headed up by a bunch of self-admitted, knuckle-dragging creationists like Don McElroy.

See here:
http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrobase/Issue/story?oid=oid%3A648425

While there may be some merit to the ideal of teaching Bible literacy in a nation where people use the bible for their arguments, often without understanding it....

Well, in reality, what would you really *expect?* A lot of these folks get up in arms if a children's book *fails to condemn* people of other religions or sexualities or whatnot.

Oh stop you crying all you big babies- especially YOU Mr Mark.

"elective Bible classes in public high schools"

"Elective"- what does that mean-

(dictionary.com)

"open to choice; optional; not required: an elective subject in college; elective surgery"

If someone wants to go to that class, let them..

Like it or not the Bible is one of the great texts of human history. If we cannot educate people about the Bible, then we have to ask what works are more deserving. I am not at all religious and am for the separation of church and state in a big way, but black listing a work that has had such a profound impact on human history is ridiculous.

The concerns of prosylitizing are very valid. The guidelines laid out by the board clearly forbid any such practice though. If that is the major function of any of these classes I guarantee that you will not have to wait long for a law suit. As the guidelines are stated though I do not see how any reasonable person could take issue with the availability of such an elective course in highschool.

Consider for a moment then when you advocate forbidding such a class you are forbidding teaching about the most widely read book in human history. A book that has been a paramount source of ethics, philosophy, and countless literary allusions. Can we not teach about Zeus, Icarus, or Narcissus? What about Zoroaster or Muhammad or the Buddha? Should the Bhagavad Gita be off limits too? Lao Tzu or Confucius,,, maybe?

This anti-Christian zealotry is every bit as harmful as the Christian zealotry it so vehemently deplores. I usually associate limits on inquiry with religion run amok. Apparently there is now a flip side as well.

John-Michael writes:

"Like it or not the Bible is one of the great texts of human history. If we cannot educate people about the Bible, then we have to ask what works are more deserving."

How about:

Darwin - On the Origin of Species

Paine - Common Sense

Paine - Rights of Man

Paine - The Age of Reason

Shakespeare - Collected Works

How's that for starters?

Dear RNH -

No problem for you with the whole separation of church and state, huh?

BTW - I have no problem being called a "big baby" when it comes to defending the Constitution. I'm in good company with the enlightened people who wrote the thing.

JM writes:

"I am not at all religious and am for the separation of church and state in a big way, but black listing a work that has had such a profound impact on human history is ridiculous."

Well, that so-called "black listing" was done by our Founding Fathers when they erected a wall of separation between secular government and its institutions (ie: public schools) and religion, was it not?

Our founders gave religion as special carve-out in the Constitution, but it is a two-edged sword. I'd ask you to respect the "freedom FROM" edge of that sword, just as I and others respect the "freedom OF" edge.

I would agree that all those works merit a place in a well rounded highschool education. Why doesn't the Bible though?

The Bible, like many religious texts, can be thought of as an invaluable repository of our attempts as a people to come to terms with reality and the burdens and problems of civilization. We should treasure and explore the precious few such resources that remain from antiquity. The Bible also offers profound guidance on and exploration of issues that confront us to this day. It is an incredibly valuable insight into our specie's pursuit of understanding.

Shakespeare does a positively amazing job exploring the human condition. Is that grounds to say "well that's good enough, no need for that Bible?" Saying that there are other great works in the human cannon in no way argues against the greatness of another. Do you really think we should ban such monumental books from education because we don't like how some people apply them? Should we ban Dostoevsky because his writings can lead to despair or encourage anarchy?

We cannot promote religion through the government. Promoting and educating are two very different things. We have legal mechanisms to keep promotion in check. Is that not good enough? Do we really need to metaphorically burn books that we may not approve of to shelter our children?

I believe in liberal arts education at all levels, and that would include teaching the Bible. With that said, I think the smell-test for whether the public schools can teach it appropriately is the question of who does the teaching. What are the professional qualifications for such a teacher? Would the school hire a non-Christian to teach the Bible? A person with no religious preference?

Based on the morality coming out of Texas, perhaps Bible study would be of some benefit - particularly amongst the red neck, Anglo, christian, riech wing populace.

E.g., even a few Texas Methodists (SMU Board of Trustees) seem unable to distinguish between money and morality.

True Western Civilization values (Socrates, Plato, Marcus Aurelius, et. al., et. al.) is the real answer but apparently not under consideration (are we surprised?).

Sincerely,
Providence Candlelight

reich not riech. SATC.

It's fine in principle to teach public school students about the Bible or about religion, and the Constitution does not forbid it. The concern here in Texas is with how such courses will play out in practice, especially since the legislature has disregarded the advice of educators and elected not to provide specific guidelines for the curriculum. The quote from Prof. Mark Chancey in the original article is spot-on: existing Bible courses in Texas actively and intentionally promote Christianity and disparage other religions. That is forbidden by the Constitution, but it usually goes unchallenged because most people are reluctant to buck local opinion by bringing a lawsuit. A substantial number of people in this state would love to get their hands on public money and use it to spread their religious beliefs. If you look closely, you'll see that it slips into their rhetoric, usually in the form of some allusion to the positive influence that Bible study will have on students' "values." In effect, they are admitting their hope that Bible study will convert students to Christianity or strengthen preexisting Christian beliefs. Do it on your own time with your own money, I say. Don't turn Jesus into a thief.

John-Michael wrote: "We cannot promote religion through the government."

Exactly.

John-Michael wrote: "Promoting and educating are two very different things."

They can be, but not necessarily. Note that many right wingers blame "liberal professors" for "liberal thinking" among the college educated, and that is adult education, not high school.

John-Michael wrote: "We have legal mechanisms to keep promotion in check. Is that not good enough?"

It is good enough if we do not expect any promotion, but all indications are that this was designed to be a promotion of christianity. I mean, consider what other religious texts are to be studied in this program. Where are the classes to study other religious texts? Here is a link to a list of all religious texts, which is not small:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_text

John-Michael wrote: "Do we really need to metaphorically burn books that we may not approve of to shelter our children?"

Now you're going over the top. Our Constitution protects religious freedoms. When the government starts burning your bibles please let me know, and both I and the ACLU will be all over the government to stop it. Not teaching the bible in public school is NOT the same as suppressing religion, not at all, it is allowing religious freedom by separating the government from establishing a religion, which you would understand if you were of a different religion than the christianity being proposed to be taught by the government in a public high school where no other religions are being taught.

to Chicago11

I don't think we can really say that a Christian cannot educate students in a secular manner. I went to a Catholic highschool. We had an hour of religion class every day. Freshmen year was the OT, sophomore year the NT, junior year was "World Religions", and senior year we could pick a class from a number of classes that ranged from Eastern Philosophy to Judaism to Catholicism and Social Justice. Yes Christianity was covered in the most depth thanks to the first to years, but it was covered in a purely educational way. No faiths were at all denigrated. We were taught the tenets of the whatever religion we were studying with some historical context. Granted that the atmosphere in different parts of the country may be considerably less balance, but again that is what the law is for.

Mr Mark,

Keep unleashing hell on these people. I am behind you - nay, I am at your side.

Anyone who wants to subvert our Constitution is my enemy, as my oath of a soldier said.

Arminius

Which Bible? Catholic? Greek Orthodox? Anglican? Lutheran? Methodist? King James? The "New" Bible?

Beneath this is an attempt not to teach the Bible, nor Christianity, but rather fundamentalist, evangelical Protestantism. It's no different than the Saudi Wahabbis teaching an Islam that denigrates the vast majority of Muslims for not being "real Muslims."

We had school prayer when I was in grade school. Of course, we used the Protestant version, not the Catholic version. The Catholics parents were miffed, but the School Board was Protestant. We got the message, loud and clear. Catholics were not real Christians.

Given the extreme diversity of Christian sects, any attempt to "teach" the Bible will devolve into proselytizing one narrow group of Christian sects. But that's the real intent of the entire exercise.

Further, this "teaching" of the Protestant Bible also will involve the typical historical distortions and outright lies of the religious right. They will claim that we are an officially "Christian" (read, fundamentalist Protestant) nation; that the Founding Fathers were Bible-thumpin' evangelicals who wanted Jesus Christ as ruler of America; that the Protestant Bible inspired the American Revolution; that non-Christians are not real Americans, blah, blah, blah, ad nauseum. They will trot out all the revisionist propaganda to prove their point.

It's telling that Texas is taking the lead in this. This is the state where people who refuse to say the Lord's Prayer at public high school football games risk reprisals. See Santa Fe Independent School District v. Jane Doe, 530 US 290 (1999). The District Court Judge caught the allegedly "Christian" locals trying to intimidate the plaintiffs in this action to free themselves from school prayer at high school football games (ironically, a religion in itself in Texas):

"Respondents are two sets of current or former students and their respective mothers. One family is Mormon and the other is Catholic. The District
Court permitted respondents (Does) to litigate anonymously to protect them from intimidation or harassment.1

"1. A decision, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals noted, that many District officials “apparently neither agreed with nor particularly respected.” 168 F. 3d 806, 809, n. 1 (CA5 1999). About a month after the complaint was filed, the District Court entered an order that provided, in part:

“[A]ny further attempt on the part of District or school administration, officials, counsellors, teachers, employees or servants of the School District, parents, students or anyone else, overtly or covertly to ferret out the identities of the Plaintiffs in this cause, by means of bogus petitions, questionnaires, individual interrogation, or downright ‘snooping’, will recease immediately. ANYONE TAKING ANY ACTION ON SCHOOL PROPERTY, DURING SCHOOL HOURS, OR WITH SCHOOL RESOURCES OR APPROVAL FOR PURPOSES OF ATTEMPTING TO ELICIT THE NAMES OR IDENTITIES OF THE PLAINTIFFS IN THIS CAUSE OF ACTION, BY OR ON BEHALF OF ANY OF THESE INDIVIDUALS, WILL FACE THE HARSHEST POSSIBLE CONTEMPT SANCTIONS FROM THIS COURT, AND MAY ADDITIONALLY FACE CRIMINAL LIABILITY. The Court wants these proceedings
addressed on their merits, and not on the basis of intimidation or harassment of the participants on either side.”

Id. at 524-535 (emphasis in original).

And the defendants said they were Christians!

Intimidation. Harassment. This is why we can't allow religious nutcases to teach the Bible in public schools. And Texas seem filled with these people.

to Fate

I agree that we should be giving options to study multiple religions. This ruling by the board does not bar any such practice but gives guidelines on teaching a class on the Bible. It states that the purpose of the course is to:

“teach students knowledge of biblical content, characters, poetry, and narratives that are prerequisites to understanding contemporary society and culture, including literature, art, music, mores, oratory, and public policy.” The course “shall not endorse, favor, or promote, or disfavor or show hostility toward, any particular religion or nonreligious faith or religious perspective.”

Those guidelines specifically prohibit the kind of promotion that is forbidden by the Constitution. If there is a wink wink nudge nudge there to local teachers it is not in the official verbage. My point is that if you take issue with such guidelines you are cutting off a vital aspect of a well rounded education. That is where my book burning comment comes in.

I was careful to say metaphorically burning books as historically the burning of books has been an attempt by a ruling party to destroy the pursuit of certain types of knowledge. While I cannot imagine the government ever actually burning Bibles, to legislate against a course bounded as this one at least officially is, is essentially an action by the government that would stymie the pursuit of knowledge in a very valuable field for our young adults.

I just cannot see how such a course can be legally banned, and the effort to do so strikes me as distinctly un-American.

I'm not sure what the big deal is. The article states that the class is an ELECTIVE. If you don't have an interest in a subject matter that effects most Americans, take a different class.

Of course, in most public schools, teaching MY kids about sexuality (straight, gay, bi, transgender, etc.) is MANDATORY. I guess it's okay to teach MY kids about using a condom or that you're free to have as much sex as you want because you can get a quick and free! abortion down the street.

Dear JM -

I would regard the sincerity of Texas' "purpose" for teaching the Bible in public schools on the same level of sincerity as were bush's "purposes" for invading Iraq.

Were this initiative being put forward by a group of non-believers or educational professionals, then I might think the effort was benign. But it isn't. It's being put forward by self-identifying creationists on the Texas SBOE who are pushing forward IN SPITE OF the recommendations from professional organizations empowered to study the issue:

"In May, 2008, the SBOE rejected the recommendations of an $85,000, two-year study conducted by English teachers and curriculum experts in favor of a group of standards favored by McLeroy and his fellow conservatives. It was submitted just prior to adoption, WITHOUT TIME FOR BOARD OR PUBLIC REVIEW, yet passed with a contentious 9-6 vote." - The Austin Chronicle

And Xians love to cite the illegal trial of Jesus as an example of justice denied.

The head of the TSBOE is an avowed creationist who has made no bones about his "purpose" for advancing his anti-science agenda.

Read the article and learn:

http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrobase/Issue/story?oid=oid%3A648425

I'm not sure how to the point this is, but as I posted way earlier on this thread, I like Daniel Dennet's idea of teaching a variety of sacred texts, introducing high school students to the diversity of religious belief. To this, I would add atheism and agnosticism.

We live in a multicultural society, should aim for an enlightened pluralism, with the emphasis on enlightened.

Teaching the Bible, as in teaching a particular religious interpretation, obviously has no place in a secular curriculum. On teaching the Bible as literature, I posted earlier on this thread.

Mr Mark,

Thanks for taking my advice - unleash hell.

Meanwhile, please refrain from any overt slams against those of us believers who are reasonable. But I suspect that I am asking something that you are unable to do. Damnit, you already have enough ammo.

Farnaz,

I have already proposed the idea of teaching comparative religion in high school. This is the only path. But the teacher is critical, must not have an agenda.

Brambleton writes:

" In most public schools, teaching MY kids about sexuality (straight, gay, bi, transgender, etc.) is MANDATORY."

Says who?

Do you actually have school-aged kids? I do. Their public schools (SoCal) offer sex education classes, but every parent is given the option to have their kids opt out of these classes for whatever reason. The form comes home, and you need to fill it out and sign it no matter what your preference. Not returning the form is an indication that you do NOT want your kids to participate.

So, my religion-free kids are getting their intro to sex education via classes taught by their teachers, where they are free to ask adults for clarification. The Xian kids have to wait until recess to get the scoop from the kids who attended the classes, where THEY are free to get the best misinterpretation of sex ed that non-participation can buy.

anon wrote, "If you do not mind having your children taught a class on the teachings of Gautama Buddha, which is beautiful and peaceful, then maybe you have a point. But if you are hesitant in sending your kids to such a class taught by Buddhists then you might understand what others feel about this. But remember, no matter what you think, the Constitution does not allow governmental schools to establish religion, and promoting Christian or Buddhist teachings in public school is unConstitutional, thank God. It may seem harmless to you but my guess is you are a christian so its no big deal to you. Maybe a local Imam teaching your kids about the beauty of Islam would be ok with you? I mean, come on, let your *fear* go!"

If you do not mind having your children taught a class on the teachings of Gautama Buddha, which is beautiful and peaceful, then maybe you have a point. But if you are hesitant in sending your kids to such a class taught by Buddhists then you might understand what others feel about this. But remember, no matter what you think, the Constitution does not allow governmental schools to establish religion, and promoting Christian or Buddhist teachings in public school is unConstitutional, thank God. It may seem harmless to you but my guess is you are a christian so its no big deal to you. Maybe a local Imam teaching your kids about the beauty of Islam would be ok with you? I mean, come on, let your *fear* go!

Keep telling yourself, its.is.only.teaching. and then you won't be afraid anymore.

Mr. Mark, "Yes, I am fearful that the arrogant Xians in Texas are prepared to trash the very bedrock of our nation (the Constitution) and to try their best to foist their mythical beliefs into the public schools."

Look I have been to Texas a couple of times and I can attest to a Texan's gentle, kind, and unbiased behavior. They are very welcoming people that believe in living life as simply as possible.

I loved it there; I didn't feel that they were a threat in any way regarding my religious beliefs. However, here back home the people are the opposite, condemning, criticizing, cold and cruel.

I missed being at home while I was in Texas but after coming back it was a rude awakening. I'll never forget going on a date with a male friend once, knowing this person for years, and at dinner I attempted to make small conversation.

This person, a so-called friend, looked me in the eye and answered one of my questions that I had asked him regarding his background, nothing deeply personal, just generalities about where he was originally from, and he stated the following,

“You notice that I am not asking "you" anything about yourself don't you? Because I don't care to know about you.....”

I thought then why did you agree to a dinner date, but too reserved, I did not want to put him on the spot and frankly cared too much to cause him any embarrassment, so I overlooked his comment.

But I can tell you that was as cold-hearted as it gets. No Texan ever treated me that way, they welcomed me into their homes, introduced me to their friends and family, and made me feel respected, and none of them were Christian.

Anon -

I don't see how your last post has anything to do with anything I've written in this thread.

Fate: "Sorry, that last post responding to Anonymous was me, not Anonymous writing to him/herself.

Hey, Anonymous, get a different name since "Anonymous" is what not putting a name in the "Name" field gives you."

Live with it, it is my choice.

Mr Mark: "Anon -I don't see how your last post has anything to do with anything I've written in this thread."

I suggest that you re-read it, all the criticizing on this thread about Texans and how they are is nothing but hatred for people that do not think like you.

You and others could stand to learn a great lesson from their way of thinking and living...and thus not fear what they want to do. I believe that their motives are sincere.

Brambleton wrote: "I'm not sure what the big deal is. The article states that the class is an ELECTIVE. If you don't have an interest in a subject matter that effects most Americans, take a different class."

And what different class do they offer? Hindu Studies? Confuscian Influences on Law? Origins of Algebra in peaceful Islam? You see, there is nothing else to take. And "elective" does not excuse the church/state issue. For example, a school cannot run an church service during 4th period, even if it is an elective. If you want your kids to have religion classes in school, send them to a religious private school, or Sunday school. Asking the state to teach religion is not going to end well for anyone.

I thought people understood the Constitution, but I guess not.

Brambleton wrote: "Of course, in most public schools, teaching MY kids about sexuality (straight, gay, bi, transgender, etc.) is MANDATORY. I guess it's okay to teach MY kids about using a condom or that you're free to have as much sex as you want because you can get a quick and free! abortion down the street."

But this has nothing to do with the constitutionality of the government endorsing and promoting a religion, so why do you bring it up? Its a non-sequitor.

This smacks to me of another attempt to subvert our Constitution. Having lived in Texas, I can say that discrimination there is so normal, it's a way of life. Even for someone raised Jewish as I was. Places like Austin are somewhat more metropolitan, but there's still an assumption of Christianity even when there's no reason to think someone is.

What bothers me is that textbook authors in this country have to get approval from Texas just to get their book published at all, and heavy censoring is done so that our history becomes utterly unrecognizable. The book that really opened my eyes to this is James Loewen's 'Lies my Teacher told me'. He talks at great length about how the textbook process works and about his attempts to get published.

Dear Anon -

Your last post only serves to further illuminate the problem of your poor communication and your lack of discernment.

Have fun, Quixote. You're swatting at windmills and other imagined foes.

Mr Mark:
Dear Anon -"Your last post only serves to further illuminate the problem of your poor communication and your lack of discernment.

Have fun, Quixote. You're swatting at windmills and other imagined foes."

Thank you for the compliment, now I know that you understood my point.

Fate: ""Brambleton wrote: "I'm not sure what the big deal is. The article states that the class is an ELECTIVE. If you don't have an interest in a subject matter that effects most Americans, take a different class.""

Get a grip will you, Brambleton is totally right, you just don't have the maturity to admit it.

Anonymous wrote: "Look I have been to Texas a couple of times and I can attest to a Texan's gentle, kind, and unbiased behavior. They are very welcoming people that believe in living life as simply as possible."

Then you must be white.

Anonymous wrote: "I loved it there; I didn't feel that they were a threat in any way regarding my religious beliefs. However, here back home the people are the opposite, condemning, criticizing, cold and cruel."

You must be just like your Texas friends.

Anonymous wrote: "This person, a so-called friend, looked me in the eye and answered one of my questions that I had asked him regarding his background, nothing deeply personal, just generalities about where he was originally from, and he stated the following, “You notice that I am not asking "you" anything about yourself don't you? Because I don't care to know about you.....”

Sounds like you don't pick your friends well.

Anonymous wrote: "I thought then why did you agree to a dinner date, but too reserved, I did not want to put him on the spot and frankly cared too much to cause him any embarrassment, so I overlooked his comment."

Your point? One person at home is rude to you but the whole state of Texas was not?

Anonymous wrote: "But I can tell you that was as cold-hearted as it gets. No Texan ever treated me that way, they welcomed me into their homes, introduced me to their friends and family, and made me feel respected, and none of them were Christian."

I can guarantee you that this was due to you being like they are. I am white and was at a party at my in-laws house in Dallas. They are baptists and white. Party guests arrived and all were white. The first question a guest asked me was what religion I was. Knowing the response I would get to "atheist" I lied and said "Lutheran". I guess I passed some test because they kept talking to me and then they found out I worked for the "Federal Government". Oh my. "How can you work for such a place" came the questions. When I pointed out to the Lockheed-Martin people that they were also paid by the feds things got a little ugly, meaning they drifted away from me. After the party my in-laws took us and the kids out for ice cream. On the way home a black man was seen driving in the neighborhood. Without any hesitation my brother-in-law reached over, opened the glove box and brought out the gun and sat it on his lap. He then followed the man until he left the neighborhood mumbling how he *must* be in the wrong neighborhood. Remember, there were kids in this car.

A friend went into a bar in Dallas with a tee-shirt that had a small devil on it. He was surrounded by four men who said they did not like the devil or those who would wear the devil's shirts.

Go to Texas again and go to a bar and mention to the fellow next to you that you do not believe in God, or that your best friend is a Jew, or black, or Pakistani. Then you might get a glimpse of the Texas others get to see. They either like you or they hate you, but tolerant they are not

Anonymous wrote: "Get a grip will you, Brambleton is totally right, you just don't have the maturity to admit it."

Tell me, can a public school have an elective prayer service during school? Can a public school electively teach students knowledge of Koranic content, characters, poetry, and narratives by a Muslim?

This is beyond the slippery slope and on ice so thin it is guaranteed to break.

Hi Arminius,

I can't find your post. Here is my earlier post, way down. Are we on the same page? Same book?

Mr. Waters:

You write: "Is the New Testament more privileged than the Old Testament?"

In this way, you answer your own question. What is the "Old Testament"? Would it, perchance, have any connection to the Tanakh?

Colleges and universities across the US offer courses in the Bible as Literature and on the literature of other sacred texts. I have no problem with this. They are particularly useful for students who are pursuing degrees in English/American literature, comp. lit., etc.

Then, too, there are the various Religious Studies programs.

Although for obvious reasons, Bible as Lit. courses concentrate on what you would call the "OT," typology must be addressed (Christian typology, that is), once when gets to the "NT," and one must. It is then that problems do arise, not infrequently, among Muslim students.

A far better idea for high school education has been suggested by Daniel Dennett, and that is to offer courses in religion, in which all religions are represented, and, I would add, in which atheism and agnosticism are discussed, as well. This would go to civics, multiculturalism, and an enligtened pluralism.

Personally, I would think courses on the Bible and other sacred texts can wait until the students enter college.

July 27, 2008 2:07 PM

Most religious people are decent and well intentioned. I respect their right to believe.

But in my view blind faith divorced from reason leads to ostracism, persecution of both believers and their opposites, and ultimately collective insanity. Sadly, such is the current state of affairs in this ego driven world, as well as in most orthodox religions themselves.

All religions then as currently constituted are basically forms of organized ignorance. Handed down generation after generation. Let's not perpetuate the errors in a public high school.

The seeds or kernels of golden truths are in all the major spiritual traditions, but couched in symbols, metaphor, fables and allegory.

The founders of each with few exceptions did not expect that their inspired insights would be taken literally. Boy, look at the world for the results of that error.

Truth is beyond words; symbols that require spiritual discernment can serve as pointers only. Few of course are taught the deeper insights by their spiritual authorities; in most cases unfortunately it is the blind leading the blind.

Fate writes to Anon:
"They either like you or they hate you, but tolerant they are not"

I spent two years in Texas in college. I picked the school on a whim - I wanted to get far from home and see some part of the country I'd never seen. After two years, I couldn't wait to get out. I was really tired of the students who were sweet as "sugah" to my face, but who couldn't wait to stab me in the back because I was a "yankee." They treated their own like this, too - if you didn't wear the right labels (Neimans - coats thrown over chairs in a studied fashion so the label was clearly visible), or behave just so.

I don't like to generalize about any group of people - I met some really good people in Texas, and remained friends with them. Every election there are people in Texas who vote Democratic. But the majority (as evidenced by the results of those elections and the laws they pass) are just as Fate describes.

So, Anon, if you met nice, non-Christian Texans during your "visits", then count yourself lucky.

Admitting to being an atheist in that state can get you killed. Same for gays, Muslims, and anything else that "ain't like us."

Fate wrote, "Go to Texas again and go to a bar and mention to the fellow next to you that you do not believe in God, or that your best friend is a Jew, or black, or Pakistani. Then you might get a glimpse of the Texas others get to see. They either like you or they hate you, but tolerant they are not"

Not so, I was at a bar/restaurant with six of my co-workers one night to celebrate a birthday. I met 2 litigation attorneys while I was there that night, one was with his wife the other one was by himself and we all became friends. Throughout the month that I lived there these people introduced me to their family members and their friends and welcomed me into their home, all were non-Christian.

But they knew I was a Christian and was quick to apologize when they thought that they said something offensive to me as a Christian, like using curse words. I never met a group of friendlier people.

The 2 attorneys were litigation attorneys against the company that I worked for while I was in Texas but after the initial conversation regarding that topic it was left at the door, so to speak, it never became an issue between us or our friendship as it was the same with my Christianity.

They used to kid me about being a vegetarian but in a fun way and they always made sure while we were out or at their home to provide a vegetarian meal for me. I gain a great deal of respect for these people and their sincerity to be at peace with others and the way that they respected others and their individual beliefs. How could one not respect these people for their free spiritedness and willingness to accept someone for who they are and not for whom they think someone should be?

Fate, "Your point? One person at home is rude to you but the whole state of Texas was not?"

Your point, one family was rude to you in Texas so the whole state is rude? Please spare me of your judgmental attitude.

In the US, 76.5% are Christians, 1.7% are Jews and 0.6% are Muslims. There are more Buddhists than Muslims in the US, not to mention 15% atheists.

Should any curriculum be tailored to suit the needs of the Muslims who in your opinion would have problems with reading the New Testament.

As an atheist Jew from Iran originally, why this concern about Muslims? Does a Muslim stand to suffer in any way by reading the New Testament? The Quran has many Bible characters and the Bible could easily serve as primary literature for Muslims.

Pam wrote "Admitting to being an atheist in that state can get you killed. Same for gays, Muslims, and anything else that "ain't like us." "

Anon's friends who told him they're not Christians may be dead by now.

Why do I feel that atheists seem like in an eternal state of nightmare? They claim that they came from monkeys (that's horrible), the earth is warming (warm will burn them) and just now, reading the Bible in school horrifies them. When they hear of Texas, they imagine the Texas massacre movie.

Ironically, they don't fear their life after death which is a TRUE HORROR for them.

What a terrible life to live. Atheists are a miserable lot. Poor guys. What a pity.

There's got to be problems over which Bible to use.

I'm Catholic and the Bible that we use, along with the whole Greek, Russian, and other Eastern Churches use contains several books - Wisdom, Sirach, Tobit, 1 and 2 Maccabees - that the Protestants took out. Will this class teach all the Bible, that Bible that used by the Church Father, Augustine, Aquinas and St. Francis, or the leaner Bible of Protestants?

Will this become a tax-payer fed attempt to take good Catholic kids and make them Protestants?

s:

You are an idiot.

Athiests and agnostics are not miserable. We dont have to worry about going to hell, being ashamed of our sexual desires or having an all seeing god spy on our every thought and move (a hideous thought akin to living in a totalitarian society).

No one knows if god exists or not. Deal with it.

"Athiests and agnostics are not miserable."

They are just angry and offensive.

""Athiests and agnostics are not miserable."

They are just angry and offensive."
---------------------------

I'm neither angry nor offensive. I don't understand how any ethical person can denigrate someone else's religious beliefs through stereotypes. This shows a lack of character that does not speak well for this person's religious beliefs.

"Why do I feel that atheists seem like in an eternal state of nightmare? They claim that they came from monkeys (that's horrible), the earth is warming (warm will burn them) and just now, reading the Bible in school horrifies them. When they hear of Texas, they imagine the Texas massacre movie.

Ironically, they don't fear their life after death which is a TRUE HORROR for them.

What a terrible life to live. Atheists are a miserable lot. Poor guys. What a pity."
------------------------------------

I don't live in an eternal state of nightmare. I am proud to have come from monkeys- they are no worse than humans. I like Texas. I won't have any life after death. And my life is not terrible at all. No need to pity me. I pity you, for you can not see me from my perspective, due to your prejudices and ethnocentrism.

"Jon Meacham is right. You cannot understand America or its institutions without understanding the Bible and its influence. But how do you teach about the Bible without teaching a Bible class?"

The same way you would teach any history class, I guess. Teach it without promoting it. The same way we would teach history of the USA, or China, or Japan, or any other country. Present what is known about the subject without endoring, criticing or making any moral judgements on it. Is this possible? Probably not if it presented by, or the content is received by, anyone who is a person "of faith".

Even if all students involved were Christians, a course in the Bible could and, in some cases would, lead to conflict. Christians have had enough disagreement among themselves to have engaged in lengthy, bloody conflict, e.g., the 100 years war. How would a teacher deal with the conflicting views of Christians on full immersion baptism vs. christening, adult baptism vs. infant baptism, free will vs. predestination, speaking in tongues, etc. As a young unchurched kid, I wondered why half the class would abruptly stop reciting the Lord's Prayer, while the rest continued. Later I learned that in the mass, the last sentence is reserved for the priest; such behavior is divisive and plants the seed for discord. The founding fathers inclusion of the non-establishment clause was their means of ensuring that the government would be for all the people, not a chosen group. Their concern was not prompted out of a concern that Christians would discriminate against or persecute non-Christians, but out of a concern that Christians, the purported followers of the Prince of Peace, would do that to each other, i.e., they wanted to prevent one Christian sect from using the power of the state to quash differing interpretations of the faith.

"I don't understand how any ethical person can denigrate someone else's religious beliefs through stereotypes. This shows a lack of character that does not speak well for this person's religious beliefs."

Gee Jeff- I bet you spend all your free time working at your favorite atheist charity.

Atheists are angry, offensive, unethical, and uncharitable..

Now don't get upset. I'm just yanking that rather large chain around your ankle.

Anon wrote: "But they knew I was a Christian and was quick to apologize when they thought that they said something offensive to me as a Christian, like using curse words. I never met a group of friendlier people."

Sounds like they were on their toes. I would be too if I lived in Texas and was not a Christian.

What I really find astonishing was how the rest of the red-states treat Texans. We flew to Colorado and rented a car for a long car ride to Yellowstone. 2000 miles and lots of wonderful sights (Rushmore, Crazy Horse monument, Devil's tower, Black Hills, Yellowstone, Dubois [you know you're in the west when you visit Dubois WY!], Estes Park, Rocky Mountain National Park). A lovely trip that I highly recommend, but the rental car we were given had Texas tags. The cold shoulders and comments by people were very surprising. We eventually had to explain we were actually from Maryland and it was a rental car, and this happened all along the trip in CO, SD, MT, WY.

When we got to Colorado we stayed with my sister's family who lives there. We talked about the responses from people seeing the tags. She laughed and explained how everyone in the west hates Texas because they are arrogant about being true cowboys, wearing cowboy hats and boots when the closest they get to working outside is mowing the lawn. As I looked back on our trip the only cowboy boots and hats we saw were in Sheridan, WY where we watched men working some cows in a field across from a diner we ate in. It seems the closer people live to Texas the more they dislike Texans. Just an observation but one that jives with our other experiences in Texas where we saw lots of cowboy boots and hats in downtown Dallas.

I'm not saying Texans are evil or anything, just too full of themselves, and I understand that is a generalization and I'm sure your friends are nice people, but the next time you see them, ask them what they think of the rest of Texas.

ChuckB is correct but I would add that the main reason for the non-establishment clause was England's establishment of a state religion and its repercussions in England and the colonies.

But what is clear is that without the non-establishment clause evangelicals would by now have set themselves up as the American state religion, and Americans of other religions and of no religion would be fleeing back to Europe and elsewhere in droves, which evangelicals probably would not mind at all.

It is this continual exploration to establish christianity in public forums like schools that I find unAmerican, and its only Christians who are doing this. Its happening in Texas as the article describes, its happening in Kansas where "intelligent Design" was to be taught in public school, and elsewhere.

Why do these Christians hate America and its Constitutional freedoms?

If you want to really irritate Texans, tell them this true story:

The Union Civil War General Sheridan was appointed to be the Governor General of Texas shortly after the war. He was riding into Texas, and after a while, his guide, a Texan, asked the general what he thought about Texas. Sheridan answered, "If I owned Texas and Hell, I'd rent out Texas and live in Hell." The response of his guide was not recorded, alas.

"Gee Jeff- I bet you spend all your free time working at your favorite atheist charity."

-----------------------

I have done quite a bit of volunteer work for charities not affiliated with any religious denomination. What is your point? Are you implying that you mistakenly assume that atheists do not participate in charity work or found and fund charity organizations?

Hmmmm said: "Now don't get upset. I'm just yanking that rather large chain around your ankle."
-----------------------------------

Again, your prejudices are showing. What makes you think I have a large chain around my ankle? How would you feel if I referred to your religious beliefs as a chain around your ankle?

"How would you feel if I referred to your religious beliefs as a chain around your ankle?"

I could care less. Lighten up, Jeff, you're getting a wild hair.

First of all, I am neither defending nor condemning the decision to teach the Bible in public schools. I´d just like to take a moment to respond to the comments about Texas.

I was born in Lubbock, lived in Odessa six years and and my father´s family is from Coleman County. I don´t currently live in Texas and have lived in many other places: New Mexico, Colorado, Arkansas, Bolivia (the nation).

I have moved around quite a bit even in those respective states. Texas is a unique place yes, but one thing many obviously do not know is how diverse it actually is. With a population of over 22 million people it is a true snapshot of America. Immense cities such as Houston and DFW in the east, coastal cities such as Galveston, Corpus Christi, cities along the border such as McAllen, Brownsville, El Paso, Laredo and panhandle/west Texas cities such as Amarillo, Lubbock and Odessa-Midland are all very different from each other. I know by the way because I have lived there and have family spread throughout all of Texas. Houston is one of the most diverse cities in the nation and is very cosmopolitan. Some of the best institutions of higher learning are located in Texas, SMU, A&M, UT, Baylor, etc... There are very well established communities of Jewish people in Dallas and Houston. The Hispanic influence in the state is obvious and it is certainly not only a Mexican influence, but you have Hispanic families that have lived for centuries in the area as well as newcomers from all over Latin America. El Paso and San Antonio are well known for their Hispanic majorities, which also means that both cities along with several others are more Catholic than protestant or evangelical. The Asian community is also very large in Houston. The gay community in Austin is well known, and that community seems to be able to handle just fine that Texas ¨narrow mindedness¨.

Of all cities in the nation, Texas cities seem to be attracting rapid growth currently. Houston, DFW, San Antonio and Austin are all experience incredible growth and those people are coming from states where supposedly things are so much better.

I also worked with the public schools in Denver for 5 years along with my wife. One thing I will say for Texas is that when their teacher salaries match or are higher than cities such as Denver, New York, Chicago, DC, Los Angeles and San Francisco, it makes you wonder which states truly value quality education. You certainly won´t finde medium home prices of $170,000 in most east or west coast cities, and not in Denver either. But I guess the assumption is in those other states that teachers are not really worth the investment.

And while I am it, let us all clarify one little misconception, George Bush was born in Connecticut not Texas!

This post is just to respond to all of you who wrote things alluding to or saying out right that Texas is a place full of fundamental, racist, bigoted hillbillies. Texas has an amazing history. It is one of the most diverse states in the entire country and has a great deal to offer. I have lived in enough places to know that racism, bigotry and ignorance of true Christianity exists in each and every state. For example, let´s explain why the overwhelming majority of African Americans in Denver still do not live west of Colorado Blvd.????? Racism and bigotry my friends is a problem that exists in every place I have ever visited. Ask minority groups in New York and San Francisco if they have never felt victim to racism.

In fact, here we have another classic example of how people justify their own bigotry and prejudices while at the same time they condemn the bigotry and prejudices of others. Let´s get it clear. It is never okay to judge people in such a fashion. I live in a country divided between kollas and cambas (Bolivia) and we frequently are threatened that we are on the brink of civil war and one of the main contributing factors is precisely that people of one region of the country are racist against the other and vice versa. So to all of you show, teach and lead by your examples not by demonstrating the very behaviour you condemn. By doing so you only discredit yourself and your argument. So there!

Fate wrote, "I'm not saying Texans are evil or anything, just too full of themselves, and I understand that is a generalization and I'm sure your friends are nice people, but the next time you see them, ask them what they think of the rest of Texas."

You just cannot stand someone's positive view of Texans that is quite clear by your continuous "bashing" of my Texans friends.

They happened to be very patriotic to the state of Texas and I admire them for it. My friends in Texas are great people, regardless of how you try to prove otherwise. Like this statement you made "Sounds like they were on their toes. I would be too if I lived in Texas and was not a Christian." Did it every occur to you that there are some people that are just plain courteous? That they have no underlying motives behind their actions just are in a state of being at face value? They were being polite, plain and simple.

My friend extended himself many times during my stay there and even assisted me with the purchase of a gift that I wanted to send home to someone that was dear to me. Since I did not know the exact brand to purchase I asked for his advice on the matter and he readily gave me his suggestion and took me to purchase what he had suggested.

Too bad there are not more people like them; you on the other hand see things in a negative light.

JC,

Good defense of Texas. When I was there, long ago, for two years, I never ran into any bigotry. I thought Texans were quite friendly. One thing I did learn fast - Texas is not a Southern state, it is not a Western state - Texas is, well, Texas!

What is it they say about religious zealots?

"The great thing about finding the TRUE religion, is that it turns out that you and God hate all the same people!"

SickOfThemAll: "What is it they say about religious zealots?

""The great thing about finding the TRUE religion, is that it turns out that you and God hate all the same people!""

That is not true, Christians hate the sin or evil not the sinner.

Let's lay off the passionate defenses of Texas. I've lived there two different times, my daughter was born there, and I have just this to say:

Without Texas, George Bush would not be president.

That in itself is enough reason to give it back to Mexico.

And from a religious angle, since this is a religious blog, I'd note that Bush is driven by fundamentalism and fundamentalists and as a result the separation of church and state is smaller than ever.