Here we Go Again; Idaho Senate panel Want The Bible In Science Class

a reply to: Semicollegiate

You don't have to believe in climate change, but unlike the bible the info we see about that comes from actual science.

The bible has no place in school outside a history class to show what book a religon used. And that goes for all religious texts.

a reply to: Praetorius

If the limitations set forth here are actually held to, it definitely beats what it's repealing.

No it doesn't.

Can you give me an example of, oh lets say biology, and how the Bible can be used as a credible reference to benefit students understanding of biology?

Astronomy? Geology?

originally posted by: Praetorius

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Praetorius

Seems like a reasonable step to me.

You want teachers to comment on biblical scripture and interpret the Bible for your children, in public school? Are you sure about that?

If the limitations set forth here are actually held to, it definitely beats what it's repealing. I think ANY document, religious or otherwise, that might be relavent to the topics presented in some way, should be a possible resource.

It explicitly states that anyone who objects does not have to use it, and imposes restrictions to the current allowance of just having the bible read at them willy-nilly. Bring on the alternate texts by all means as long as reasonable limitations are in place, and absolutely step in the right direction from just "we can read the bible to you when we see fit".

Do you really think that folks of a fundie mindset is gonna stop with your supposed limitations?? hell they are pushing their bible as science agenda as is.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Praetorius

If the limitations set forth here are actually held to, it definitely beats what it's repealing.

No it doesn't.

How not? Now it states the bible *can* be used - by those who don't object - as reference where it may be relavent, as compared to "we're just going to read it to when we want".

Can you give me an example of, oh lets say biology, and how the Bible can be used as a credible reference to benefit students understanding of biology?

Astronomy? Geology?

Sure. One easy example would be Paul speaking as to the benefit of wine for the stomach. We could also use it in light of biblical diets in relation to human health.

As to astronomy, the bible does discuss the Pleaides and and other celestial objects and so presents useful material regarding our ancestors' view of the heavens.

And to geology, absolutely. The bible is a major flood (myth?) source, and so could be useful for review (or simple criticizing) in light of our current understanding of geological processes.

Granted, you're stretching the bounds of my creative thinking given my mental state, but regardless. All it says is that the book can be used by those who don't object where it might be useful. Certainly beats a free pass to just read it to classes daily, IMHO.

originally posted by: Spider879

originally posted by: Praetorius

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Praetorius

Seems like a reasonable step to me.

You want teachers to comment on biblical scripture and interpret the Bible for your children, in public school? Are you sure about that?

If the limitations set forth here are actually held to, it definitely beats what it's repealing. I think ANY document, religious or otherwise, that might be relavent to the topics presented in some way, should be a possible resource.

It explicitly states that anyone who objects does not have to use it, and imposes restrictions to the current allowance of just having the bible read at them willy-nilly. Bring on the alternate texts by all means as long as reasonable limitations are in place, and absolutely step in the right direction from just "we can read the bible to you when we see fit".

Do you really think that folks of a fundie mindset is gonna stop with your supposed limitations?? hell they are pushing their bible as science agenda as is.

I can't speak as to a 'fundie' mindset or what such might do, but I can recognize a step in the better direction. You can have these strictures in place, or you can simply have the schools in the state read the bible to your kids with no limitation daily. Pick your poison.

originally posted by: jhn7537
Why would they want to teach fiction to students?

Science 'Fiction' is ALREADY being taught...

The reason why is obvious:

“Education is a weapon, whose effect depends on who holds it in his hands and at whom it is aimed.” ~ Joseph Stalin

"I begin with the young." ~ Adolf Hitler

"He alone, who owns the youth, gains the future." ~ Adolf Hitler

a reply to: Praetorius

Thanks for providing us the actual legislation. I find that the MSM tends to sensationalize these things at the expense of the facts.

If I understand your post, this is the legislation that is currently in place:

33-1604. Bible reading in public schools. Selections from the Bible, to be chosen from a list prepared from time to time by the state board of education, shall be read daily to each occupied classroom in each school district. Such reading shall be without comment or interpretation. Any question by any pupil shall be referred for answer to the pupil's parent or guardian.

So this legislation forced students to endure the reading of random bible verses everyday? But then no interpretive comments were allowed to be put forth by the educators?

Now, this is the legislation that is being proposed:

The Bible is expressly permitted to be used in Idaho public schools for reference purposes to further the study of literature, comparative religion, English and foreign languages, United States and world history, comparative government, law, philosophy, ethics, astronomy, biology, geology, world geography, archaeology, music, sociology, and other topics of study where an understanding of the Bible may be useful or relevant. No student will be required to use any religious texts for reference purposes if the student or parents of the student object.

So, this new legislation, by repealing the former statute, now releases the educators and students from having to endure this daily bible verse routine.

However, for the Bible to be used in most of those areas of study, an interpretation must be presented. Otherwise how can it be used as a reference. And as for the science courses, I can imagine the Bible being used as little more than an example of how primitive cultures were completely unaware of how simple science could explain most of the experiences that they attributed to their Abrahamic deity.

In the end I can see how this legislation may be useful in protecting the educational system from the wrath of the far-left Bible-in-government haters. And it protects the students from having to consider the bible as any kind of reference work if they or their parents object. However, it also allows these educators to interpret the Christian cannon in ways that the legislators may find distasteful. Presumably they are aware of this and have taken that application in consideration.

-dex

a reply to: Praetorius

How not? Now it states the bible *can* be used - by those who don't object - as reference where it may be relavent, as compared to "we're just going to read it to when we want".

It broadens it's use from literature, religion, social and cultural curriculum to science, where it has no useful purpose other than to indoctrinate or to invalidate. Do you want teachers in public schools to be able to use science to invalidate the Bible? It goes both ways you know.

Sure. One easy example would be Paul speaking as to the benefit of wine for the stomach. We could also use it in light of biblical diets in relation to human health.

I can appreciate that I'm stretching your imagination, but "wine is good for the tummy", in public school? Really? How about fasting? That is a good one for the kids who can't afford the school lunch!

As to astronomy, the bible does discuss the Pleaides and and other celestial objects and so presents useful material regarding our ancestors' view of the heavens.

Knowing that our ancestors, from all over the planet, looked up at the stars and named the planets and invented constellations isn't astronomy.

And to geology, absolutely. The bible is a major flood (myth?) source, and so could be useful for review (or simple criticizing) in light of our current understanding of geological processes.

This is an example of how a teacher could use a geology lesson specifically and deliberately to discredit the biblical flood.

Imagine if a biology teacher decided to use the Adam and Eve story as an example of how the Bible is wrong?

It's far wiser to leave the Bible to literature, mythology and social and cultural awareness curriculum. Leave the Bible lessons and interpretation to the parents, the priests and the pastors, and out of public school.

a reply to: DexterRiley
My agreement and thanks I believe you see correctly.

I feel that a blanket prohibition of reference to or study of religious texts where they might be useful to any degree is shortsighted, even if that stretches WELL beyond the judeo-christian texts. Heck, bring in the Satanic Bible if it applies (I would assume mostly for sociological studies).

Open general interpretations open for debate or questioning. Deny ignorance. Blocking these out only promotes ignorance - allowing them in promotes thought and questioning.

I'm not sure why we're so afraid or presentation of these things if such doesn't require use/acceptance of the concepts presented therein and the playing field is level. I say the same of blacklisted items otherwise.

Thanks again.

originally posted by: Murgatroid

originally posted by: jhn7537
Why would they want to teach fiction to students?

Science 'Fiction' is ALREADY being taught...

The reason why is obvious:

“Education is a weapon, whose effect depends on who holds it in his hands and at whom it is aimed.” ~ Joseph Stalin

"I begin with the young." ~ Adolf Hitler

"He alone, who owns the youth, gains the future." ~ Adolf Hitler

Ok, if they are presenting the bible as fiction then I have zero problem.. But when they cross over into the crazy, lets believe this book zone, that's when people should begin questioning...

a reply to: windword

It broadens it's use from literature, religion, social and cultural curriculum to science, where it has no useful purpose other than to indoctrinate or to invalidate. Do you want teachers in public schools to be able to use science to invalidate the Bible? It goes both ways you know.

Absolutely. The bible itself self says "Prove all things. Hold fast that which is true." If the bible can't prove itself, be done with it!

I can appreciate that I'm stretching your imagination, but "wine is good for the tummy", in public school? Really? How about fasting? That is a good one for the kids who can't afford the school lunch!

I believe fasting DOES have some fairly-well documented health benefits, although I don't think that's your point. Although I believe you missed mine for the sake of argument.

Knowing that our ancestors, from all over the planet, looked up at the stars and named the planets and invented constellations isn't astronomy.

But it does have applications to the topic, despite not being an inexhaustible resource.

This is an example of how a teacher could use a geology lesson specifically and deliberately to discredit the biblical flood.

Imagine if a biology teacher decided to use the Adam and Eve story as an example of how the Bible is wrong?

It's far wiser to leave the Bible to literature, mythology and social and cultural awareness curriculum. Leave the Bible lessons and interpretation to the parents, the priests and the pastors, and out of public school.

In that case, reach out to the state's legislature and appeal for such. If they bible is not useful for any of this, then by all means open the floodgates for full public/educational scrutiny and let it be flushed away. It's been two thousand years now, so be done with it already if so.

Instead, we'll insist on either disregarding this legislation and continue allowing it to be read to our classes at will, or giving it a safe haven in the realm of literature?

I know you and I are on different sides of the fence as regards the wider topic, and that's fine. But I can't see how this news is LESS offensive than the law that is facing repeal with this movement. Scrutinize the bible, disprove it - but if some folks are fine with using it for reference where it might apply, let them do so instead of just having it read to them daily with no limitations or applicability otherwise.

a reply to: Praetorius

Preatorius , my thing is the bible or any religious text inside the science class , do what you will outside of it, I have a problem with this it will decay into mission creep and the Ken Hams of the world will flood our science labs teaching man walks with dinos, I know you think that people of good will ,will make some sorta balanced judgement by having their religious text next to their theory of relativity ..it ain't gonna happen.

originally posted by: Spider879
a reply to: Praetorius

Preatorius , my thing is the bible or any religious text inside the science class , do what you will outside of it, I have a problem with this it will decay into mission creep and the Ken Hams of the world will flood our science labs teaching man walks with dinos, I know you think that people of good will ,will make some sorta balanced judgement by having their religious text next to their theory of relativity ..it ain't gonna happen.

Oh ye of little faith...

If you'd prefer they can just continue to read bible excerpts in class at will, power to you. I'd much rather prefer it's an option for those willing to accept it as a reference resource where it might be useful with limitations in place otherwise, as I would any other document in such situation.

And if the people of a state are inclined to let such occur, or not, so be it. Surely this can be overcome if they find it unacceptable - I have a hard time believing fundies can overcome the public will.

Regardless - I appreciate the discussion itself. My thanks to yourself, Windword, and the otherwise involved nonetheless. To me this just seems much ado about nothing in light of the preexisting law as it stood.

a reply to: Praetorius

Respects to your contributions..much thanks..

a reply to: Spider879
Sláinte!

a reply to: Spider879

As a Christian I find this to be a ghastly proposition. The Holy Bible is a tome which we use to inform us of our spiritual responsibilities. It has no bearing what so ever on the sciences, which I might add, are some of the most necessary fields of study that a human being can engage in. I have said this before, and it bears repeating:

Science teaches us about the physical universe, about the matter and energy of which it is made, and about all the ways that matter and energy expresses itself. For the physical universe, science is the compass by which one navigates its intricacies. For matters of the soul and the spirit, the Bible, ones faith, is the compass. Two different navigational aids, for two entirely different spheres of existence. They do not belong in the same classroom in the least, and I find any suggestion to the contrary to be born of the most profound stupidity.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: Semicollegiate

You don't have to believe in climate change, but unlike the bible the info we see about that comes from actual science.

Human caused climate change is pure faith, is in every chemistry text book, and will become the excuse for a hierarchical global government.

I suppose a lot of folks think the Bible is self defense against the collectivist pod people.

The bible has no place in school outside a history class to show what book a religon used. And that goes for all religious texts.

Mandatory school is worse than a Bible in it.


Give me four years to teach the children and the seed I have sown will never be uprooted.

Vladimir Lenin

Read more at www.brainyquote.com...

a reply to: Spider879

Science is just as much a religion as any of them, as it too classifies the behavior of reality, using its own tenets.

e.g. Science, through inference, declares that most of reality is not alive, because most of reality does not behave like their classification of life. That is, most of reality does not appear to have will, because it is so well behaved. But what if atoms are living, albeit a very different type of life? Maybe atoms simply don't know how to misbehave, or maybe they choose not to? Do atoms not become, and then decay? What is life and death?

Of course that example is not my beliefs, but they are grounds for such dialog as:

e.g. Why don't we break off into theocracies; letting each teach and practice their own understandings?

e.g. Or why don't we let many schools open up, thereby allowing parents to send their kids to whatever school of thought they prefer? That is, why do we have such restrictions, as to what must be thought?

e.g. Why are some parties so insistent on the nationalization of our beliefs, while pretending as if they aren't?

e.g. Why do we even need or allow compulsory education? Is it true that only your beliefs about reality can qualify me to be suitable for society? Is that any society, or just your definition of society? So long as I respect property rights, and trade fairly, what difference does it make?

e.g. And of course, once you're out of school, it really doesn't matter what you believe. So again, what is the point?


-Just some thoughts.

edit: If how you feel is that you dislike being forced to believe, or at least memorize, other people beliefs, beliefs that you disagree with, then I share your disdain - I see no reason for it.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Praetorius

If the limitations set forth here are actually held to, it definitely beats what it's repealing.

No it doesn't.

Can you give me an example of, oh lets say biology, and how the Bible can be used as a credible reference to benefit students understanding of biology?

Astronomy? Geology?

It could, hypothetically, keep their minds open to new perspectives about emergent properties.

I bet the students don't retain much Astronomy and Geology anyway, unless they find those subjects interesting.

In which case the Bible would make them prove stuff to themselves that others would take in like propaganda.

ETA and metaphorically the Bible is often correct. It has the progression of the cosmos from the big bang to light to the ocean to the fishes to Adam and Eve. The Bible was written by the smartest folks alive at the time. It has good mental stuff in it.

a reply to: Semicollegiate

Pure faith is a bit of a stretch. There is a reason it is the science books, ones that are not thousands of years old written by people who weren't there for the stuff they wrote about.

Oh and go quote, guess we should just get rid of school then because of Lenin.