Texas to use Bible as Textbook in Schools?

so the other day i was thinking about this story and decided to look in my school's library to see if they had a bible and a koran. it turns out that they had 17 bibles (1 annotated by isaac asimov was very entertaining), 1 book of mormon, and NO korans. they didn't have any hindu religious texts either. all they had were bibles and a book of mormon. now, my school is very diverse, i wouldn't say that most people aren't christians but i would say that maybe it's only 60%. then about 20% are jewish, 10% muslim, and the rest is a grab bag.

providing religious texts in schools is all well and good, but when you have 16 bibles (i won't count the one annotated by asimov because it serves the opposite purpose of the bible) with only 1 other religious text there is a problem.

One of the high schools I went to (moved between freshman & sophomore years) had a Literature of the Bible class that was offered. It was taught by the English department and as far as I know, nobody had a big problem with it.

I didn't take the class so I can't comment on the course content at all, but I did have the professor in another class and he wasn't a bad guy at all. He was open minded and actually really enjoyed debating literary classics with us.

The class was purely elective and I had friends who took it, and they didn't feel like their grades were being compromised when/if they argued with him.

It really wasn't that big of a deal.

The whole thing is nothing new, it's been around for a while. I went to school in a time when a morning prayer and the pledge of to the flag started the day. As a Native American taught by white teachers, I was a prime target.

But I was taught to think by my parents. Before school could get it's claws into my tiny little mind, they were there instructing me to use my own talents to find truth. And if you think a plain old history class can't be distorted, you're wrong. From the perspective of my people the history books, even on a college level, are full of white myths. And a lot is just plain stupid and inaccurate.

A few weeks ago I heard a congresswoman on the evening buls...er...news talking about the war in Iraq. She was busy castigating people for wanting to pull out the troops, and spoke of how the use of biological weapons had been used in the past on the Kurds. She had the gall to say that was the first time such a thing had been done.

And no one on the show even blinked at this outright idiotic statement. I suppose all that mustard gas in WW1 is classed as spoiled food? But this same approach went on in school when I was a child. The teachers made much ado about the murdering savages and the peaceful settlers. Thankfully, I had learned to read well before school age, and my parents provided a wide range of material.

So no matter what is taught, most of it will be wrong or useless anyway. Parents need to teach their children critical thinking skill before the world starts in on them. And that means before school van make learning a drudgery instead of the true joy that it is.

I agree...well stated in your post. Critical thinking skills. I too know of the gasing in WW1 as an attempt to break the stalemate which was happening in the trenchs.
As on my fathers side they are Hawaiian I am often told the stories of the stealing of the Hawaiian Islands by corporations or shipping companys in those days. Not what one gets in the history books today.
Occasionally one gets history books with a different slant to them and one must read carefully and compare with other history versions to sort of read betweent the lines to to speak. You realize that you were often not taught the total or big picture. Very intresting what you see when you learn to see beyond the M1A issue standard lines.

As to that Congresswoman ..we get the same unthinking format around here annually at Jamestown and Colonial Williamsburg...before Christmas.
Some nut case trys to explain in the local media as to how the colonialists might have decorated their homes for Christmas. Anyone knowing any history knows that the early colonialists did not celebrate Christmas. Amazing what is missing from our thinking.


This is why I stated in my earlier post that education is not just teaching one things ..but the method of putting the things or facts into a coherant useful form to benifit the individual. To me this is lacking in public education and even in much of private education.
And yes..this needs to be instilled before the world outside the home gets ahold of our souls. If so they will surely make merchandize of us.

Thanks for your post,
Well said,
Orangetom

I for one am glad to hear this news. I always felt that religion should have never been pulled out of the schools in the first place. It is good to know that there is a possibility at least through electives that we can start to go back to the roots of America, since it was founded on Christian principles.

Someone mentioned the study of Roman law. Actually that would be interesting especially a comparison with the US laws. Also how the Roman laws developed, and how the US laws developed. I do remember the founders did refer back to different laws of different cultures to help formulate what worked, what didn't, and what to include so they could sturcture them around what they wanted to achive. The founders didn't just start from scratch. That is why we have a system of government with three branches that are suppose to equal them selves out.

Intresting post. This thread seems to be bringing out some intresting views on this topic.

I will however disagree with you in one area of your post. Religion has never left public schooling. It has been supplanted by another religion. To those who know the pattern it is obvious that this is the groundwork for a return to the olde feudal system. A few running things for the many. It just for the time being looks different. There are cracks showing in this system.

I do agree with you in that the Founders here were well versed in the dos and dont's of Ancient forms of governments. THe Romans being most noteworthy. This history of which I am familiar reads that the Roman citizen had alot of freedom and liberty in the early days of the Republic. Later years when the Caesars took over the system seemed to decline when the Caesars where also gods. Mind you now there were actually some good Caesars..at times but also some horrible ones Nero and Caligula come to mind.
The Founders were also well aware of the priesthood and its connections to trade and commercialism. The Spanish and their usage of the Society Of Jesus every where they went in trade is textbook and they were well aware of this history as well as the history of Feudal Europe and the Mid East back to Biblical times.

I remind you also that in our Constitution of the United States there is refered to as two different systems of law..Common Law and Suits at equity or sometimes called Admiralty Law.

Common Law refers to what is actaully intended by the law..what is lawful...the subatance of the law. Pretty much cut and dried here...not much wiggle room.

Legal ..refers to what is the form of the law..not what was actually intended. Form verses substance. Few Lawyers are wont to clear this up for the public..prefering to leave the public thinking they are the same. They are not. By Form..I mean all the "i"s are dotted and the "t"s are crossed but the verdict or outcome often does not make good nonsense. This is often the result of the "Form " of law or legal.

Admiralty Maritime Law is very similar. IT is commercial law intended to facilitate and regulate commerce. This type of law goes back pre Roman in pedigree. THe founders were concerned with Admiralty law or the commercial laws of the seas enroaching on land and taking over. Where the public individuals now were part of the commercial formula and thus regulatable as if they were commerce and not in posession of rights..but priveleges which can be revoked by a soverign. Hence my reference in previous posts here to a Feudal System.

Admiralty law has to do with priveleges which can be revoked and regulated by means of licenses...marriage licenses, hunting licenses, fishing licenses, drivers licenses. All these are exercised in courts where there is no jury of ones peers. Mostly administrative functions are heard here. Cases are pretty much delt with in a file folder. This too is not understood by the bulk of peoples. You must demonstrate here innocence...there is no presumption of innocence in an Admiralty court where it is a matter of jurisdiction ..by priveleges granted through licenses.
This is one of the systems promoted by public education. They do not teach one that there is another system...in effect...but only one side. THe Admiralty Law side.
More and more our government by the political system which it is..in financing public education is teaching our young people to go more and more into Admiralty Law...or commercial law..without them even being aware of it.

Notice how it used to be ones "right to vote" now through media and education distortion it is the "voting privelege"??? Have you noticed the switch?? I have. I here the local morning DJ on the radio say this all the time....our voting "privelege." What happened??

"And to the Republic for which it stands." Remember that . Today it is Democracy?? When did the switch take place?

I recall reading an article years ago about a soldier returning from WW1 and reading in the newspapers that they had fought for Democracy. He stated in the article....." I knew then that thieves had stolen my country."
Here was a guy who knew more than most peoples.

Just some food for thought,
Thanks,
Orangetom

Ahoy,
Being a teacher and a scholar who has studied the bible as well as the text from other religions, I agree that it can be studied from purely a scholastic point of view. I think that it is a good idea for people to study such things in order to get a deeper and more informed understanding of other cultures. However, I’m not sure that a high school student is mature enough to make the distinction between “studying for scholastic research” and “preaching.” I know when I try to bring these things up in class as a cultural comparison; I get a whole flock of angry parents complaining. (For example, it sure helps to understand the Crusades if you understand the political / religious dynamics of all the groups involved.) I do wish we could work some kind of “morals” classes into our schools. I’m not talking about classes that hold some subliminal religious agenda, but what we as a culture of humans have agreed upon as a “proper” way to live and treat one another in our society. Things like respecting one another’s opinions on religion. Other things would be “do unto others…” I would like to clear something up. The U.S. Constitution says nothing about “separation of church and state.” It also doesn’t say we will have a “Godless” government. Both of those are interpretations of the First Amendment by people who came after the founding fathers. But, when you stop to think about the men who framed the Constitution, all but two were very religious men. All were very intelligent. They understood that religion is a way to teach the morals of our culture to our children. All the First Amendment says is the US will not have a “government supported religion.” Good thread and I think it is something that we here in the United States need to address