Would you take a public school bible class?

[badger]

Senate bill passes (http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=19&articleid=20100203_18_0_OKLAHO279991)

I took a religious studies class at OU and it was the most annoying class in the world, JMHO. It was taught by a former (Baptist, I think) preacher who left priesthood, probably because her sermons/lectures were so one-sided... her opinion-sided, I mean.

I get that most classes are lecture classes where the professor stands up there and talks while the Greek kids sleep and the athletic department aides take notes. I get that. However, it made the class 20 times worse that the subject was religion... and if high schools in Oklahoma end up with classes like this, I predict parents aren't gonna stand for it.

[Frozen Sooner]

Yes.

[SicEmBaylor]

I would, but then again I'm used to it. I was required to take them.

[SicEmBaylor]

The World Religions survey class was actually pretty good.

Anyway, as for the bill, I think the bible should be taught in a humanities class and absolutely not in a history class and it should be taught as part of a program on different religions.

HS students absolutely need more perspective when it comes to different religions. College students do too.

[sooner_born_1960]

former (Baptist, I think) preacher who left priesthood, probably because her
There are a lot of contradictions right there.

[SicEmBaylor]

Oh, and the bill hasn't passed anything but a sub-committee. This is a long way from becoming law.

[yermom]

no.

i think the history/origin of the book is interesting, but i've been over the content enough

if you want your kids to know the contents of the Bible, shouldn't you be doing it yourself instead of letting the school give them their interpretations of it? (or at church)

i mean, there is a lot of contradictory stuff in there ;)

[C&CDean]

There are a lot of contradictions right there.

No ****. If it was a she, then she wasn't a Baptist preacher or a priest.

And yes, I'd take one if I needed it for graduation.

Boarder??

[1890MilesToNorman]

I think the bible should be taught in a humanities class and absolutely not in a history class and it should be taught as part of a program on different religions.

The Bible ain't history? Every document ever written is a part of history.

[badger]

I knew that Catholics didn't have female priests, but Baptists too? Shows how much I learned in my religious studies class ;)

[sooner_born_1960]

Baptists don't have priests of any flavor.

[Okla-homey]

Baptists don't have priests of any flavor.

Nor do they ordain wimmen. I bet she was Episcopal (Anglican) because they ordain wimmen and also call them "priest."

[JohnnyMack]

No.

[NormanPride]

This is just a bad idea. We can't even agree on evolution, people.

[MamaMia]

Baptists don't have priests of any flavor.
They're called preacher men. ;)

I wouldn't. Everyones bible is not the same.

[Okla-homey]

And for the record, I think person must have reasonable knowledge of what's in the Bible to be considered well educated since it has such a profound effect on Western thought, mores and culture.

However, I would prefer we insure high school kids can read, cipher, make change, know how many pints in a quart, who we fought in WWII, how many senators there are per state and such before I'd go whole-hog on mandatory "Bible as Literature" course.

[sooner_born_1960]

As to the original question, sure, why not. The instructor is more important than the venue.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

What Homey said.

Raise the bar in educational standards, accept that some children are going to fall short and provide opportunities for training in the trades to make up that gap. Once we're there, then maybe. A big fat maybe. And ONLY in a historical context.

The minute it becomes preaching is where I personally draw the line.

[Chuck Bao]

No, definitely not if I have a choice.

The graduate program at Baylor requires one class in religious studies. I think I took something like history of religious thought or something like that. I don't remember anything that I learned from that course. I was fairly well versed in the Bible already.

Since then, I have read the Bhagavad Gita and Upanishads, the Koran and some Buddhist sutras.

I agree with Homey that it is important to understand Western history or thought in perspective of the Bible. Or maybe more importantly it is to see the hyprocrisy of our culture today and the current mix-bag interpretation.

But, there is no way that I would go along with dropping art classes and music classes and English classes for religious studies in our public schools.

[ouduckhunter]

Years ago, as a student, I wouldn't have taken a bible class on a bet. Now though, I would probably take one because the average kindergartener probably knows more about the bible then I do.

[47straight]

No, not a public school bible class.

But Homey does raise a good point about the value of knowledge about the Bible in terms of culture and Western Civilization, but we have other priorities that are higher right now.

[TUSooner]

I took "Bible as Literature" at Moore HS circa 1973. It was taght by Mrs Box (or Fox of Foxx or Boxx?), the babdis preacher-man's wife. She actually talked about the Old Testament in a fun way, but it wasn't really a literature class, just babdis and Zioninst theology. She talked about how the Arabs were ****ed because they were the descendats of Easu and the the Jews, as children of jacob, were entitled to every scrap of sand between the Med and the Tigris and Euphrates rivers.
I certainly agree with Homey that some knowledge of the Bible, espcially maybe the KJV, would be helpful in understanding Western Civ. But the kind of stuff Mrs. Box taught could lead to some dangerous politics and self-fulfilling prophecies of the Apocalypse & Armageddon & stuff (which she could discuss in a cheerful manner, by the way).

[GKeeper316]

The Bible ain't history? Every document ever written is a part of history.

it isnt an historical record... for instance, outside of the bible, there is no evidence whatsoever that the jews were ever enslaved by the egyptians, despite what is said in exodus.

[Crucifax Autumn]

I wouldn't take it unless it was a more intellectual course on the history of the Bible in a historical/social context and not really about religion. There are more appropriate places to learn the actual bible itself in a religious context. If the context was right it could be a very interesting class. But it is in no way right to be teaching the actual religion in a public school.

[StoopTroup]

I'd teach it.

I'll setup a PayPal acct ASAP.

Opps....wrong thread....sorry. :D

[Fraggle145]

I wouldn't take it, and I agree with Homey about kids should be able to make change first.

2nd I hope they stay true to :
"It is not mandatory," Ivester said. "And it has to be taught as history or literature."

3rd I hope they also offer classes in other religious books as maybe it would finally bring about some understandings between religions.

[Crucifax Autumn]

it isnt an historical record... for instance, outside of the bible, there is no evidence whatsoever that the jews were ever enslaved by the egyptians, despite what is said in exodus.

Years ago there was a show on either History or Dicovery where they would go through archeology, other written history, and the Bible and compare notes. I want to say Arthur C. Clarke was involved in it, but a quick search didn't help me much. I don't thing it was the Mysteries of the Bible show, but it may have been since they seem similar. The one I'm thinking about actually covered the Egyptian thing and came to the same conclusion you mentioned. The show was truly fascinating and was just as cool when they confirmed a Bible story as it was when they disproved it as rubbish historically.

A class like that show I'd take and enjoy.

[Crucifax Autumn]

3rd I hope they also offer classes in other religious books as maybe it would finally bring about some understandings between religions.

My World History teacher in high school did a fantastic job of teaching us about the religions of the world accurately and sensibly. I was a pretty average Christian at the time and this short section of of the class actually opened my mind to other beliefs due to the history and interconnectedness of many of the religions, not to mention that at that time the news wasn't filled with "crazy Muslims", Israel was a bit less crazy, Hindus weren't threatening to nuke someone every couple of years, etc. so we got a rather pure view of the religions and based on the further reading I did on all of them outside of school, at that time I could actually see myself embracing any of them. Age has led me away from embracing any of them and just attempting to be a decent human instead, but when you look at most religions as I did then, in a bubble by itself without the crazy fundamentalists dicking them up, they are all rather inspirational and it becomes easy to understand why good and decent people follow them all.

[Crucifax Autumn]

Baptists don't have priests of any flavor.

When I eat one I always go for the chocolate-vanilla swirl or if I need a change mint chocolate chip.

[Chuck Bao]

it isnt an historical record... for instance, outside of the bible, there is no evidence whatsoever that the jews were ever enslaved by the egyptians, despite what is said in exodus.

I don't think that 1890 miles is saying that the Bible is accurate history, just that it subsequently influenced history, as has every ancient published and copied text. You could rightfully include Homer's Illiad and the Odyssey as texts affecting modern western civilization.

I do agree with you that there is no historic evidence of an exodus from Egypt. The History Channel is airing their programs on ancient BC battles and they protray King David as a really nasty, bloodthirsty thug. If God and our perception of God is one of wiping out civilizations by lopping off the heads of all the men and male children and selling the females and famale children into slavery, well why would God object to dropping a few hundred nuclear bombs on a whole lot of them Middle East bastards? Our salvation was from a man named Jesus and you gotta love what he is reported to have said. I am not sure why our God would be that bi-polar, but somebody somewhere seems to have gotten it all wrong.

[SicEmBaylor]

The Bible ain't history? Every document ever written is a part of history.

Yeah but not every document ever written can or should be studied in a HS History class. Especially when the actual content is pretty suspect.

Look, OK students take half a unit of OK History, half a unit of World History, and a full unit of US History. Typically, a lot of those classes are taught by some assistant football coach who knows as much about history as I do fornicating (to steal a line from Patton).

In other words, there isn't much history taught as it is and I would much rather OK students get a double dose of US History than wasting time on the Bible. In fact, even the world history classes don't go that far back....they typically start at 1492. The Bible would totally be out of place.

A humanities class, on the other hand, is where the Bible should be taught as part of a study on not only Christianity but other major world religions including Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, etc.

[Okla-homey]

Yeah but not every document ever written can or should be studied in a HS History class. Especially when the actual content is pretty suspect.

Look, OK students take half a unit of OK History, half a unit of World History, and a full unit of US History. Typically, a lot of those classes are taught by some assistant football coach who knows as much about history as I do fornicating (to steal a line from Patton).

In other words, there isn't much history taught as it is and I would much rather OK students get a double dose of US History than wasting time on the Bible. In fact, even the world history classes don't go that far back....they typically start at 1492. The Bible would totally be out of place.

A humanities class, on the other hand, is where the Bible should be taught as part of a study on not only Christianity but other major world religions including Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, etc.

Sic, with all due respect, you are totally full of shiite on this one. Western thought, and virtually every significant and/or decisive historical event or occurence that transpired in this hemisphere from 1492 forward was profoundly influenced by biblical canon and contemporary Christian dogma. I could start listing, but frankly, its not worth the effort.

[SicEmBaylor]

Sic, with all due respect, you are totally full of shiite on this one. Western thought, and virtually every significant and/or decisive historical event or occurence that transpired in this hemisphere from 1492 forward was profoundly influenced by biblical canon and contemporary Christian dogma. I could start listing, but frankly, its not worth the effort.

Homey, when was the last time you were in an Oklahoma World History class?

You have one semester to teach a bunch of high school students everything they need to know since the beginning of recorded history. Most history teachers start at 1492 and don't even bother with anything prior to that date. Some touch on the crusades and the Magna Carta very briefly. You get a little more depth in AP classes but not much all things considered.

How much time would you have a history teacher dedicate to the teaching of the Bible? I'm not talking about how the Bible has influenced historical events -- that's another matter entirely. What we're talking about here is studying the Bible as a historical document. So, how much time should a high school history teacher devote to teaching the Bible?

One of the reasons Oklahoma requires a humanities (or art) credit is specifically to teach things like religion, culture, art, architecture, etc.

[Frozen Sooner]

Sic, with all due respect, you are totally full of shiite on this one. Western thought, and virtually every significant and/or decisive historical event or occurence that transpired in this hemisphere from 1492 forward was profoundly influenced by biblical canon and contemporary Christian dogma. I could start listing, but frankly, its not worth the effort.

I agree. I do not believe you can call yourself an educated person in the Western world without having read the Bible. The vast majority of our cultural matrix stems from ideas in the Bible.

As I understood the question's plain meaning, it was whether I would take such a class were it offered. I would, and in fact my AP English class had a segment on the Book of Job. I don't think I'd make it mandatory at all, but I think such a class certainly has a place as an elective.

[SicEmBaylor]

I agree. I do not believe you can call yourself an educated person in the Western world without having read the Bible. The vast majority of our cultural matrix stems from ideas in the Bible.

As I understood the question's plain meaning, it was whether I would take such a class were it offered. I would, and in fact my AP English class had a segment on the Book of Job. I don't think I'd make it mandatory at all, but I think such a class certainly has a place as an elective.

I'm not questioning the importance of studying the Bible -- I'm questioning what class is best suited to do the teaching. It should be taught in a humanities class and not a world history class. World History is only a half-unit class in the state of Oklahoma which means there is a hell of a lot of ground to cover in just a few months out of 4 years of school.

A humanities class allows for more in-depth study of the Bible, its context, how it relates to other religious documents, and how Christianity compares and contrasts to other religions.

[Okla-homey]

Homey, when was the last time you were in an Oklahoma World History class?

You have one semester to teach a bunch of high school students everything they need to know since the beginning of recorded history. Most history teachers start at 1492 and don't even bother with anything prior to that date. Some touch on the crusades and the Magna Carta very briefly. You get a little more depth in AP classes but not much all things considered.

How much time would you have a history teacher dedicate to the teaching of the Bible? I'm not talking about how the Bible has influenced historical events -- that's another matter entirely. What we're talking about here is studying the Bible as a historical document. So, how much time should a high school history teacher devote to teaching the Bible?

One of the reasons Oklahoma requires a humanities (or art) credit is specifically to teach things like religion, culture, art, architecture, etc.

The thing is, most kids find history dull and irrelevant, mainly because; 1) they're kids and don't think anything that happened before they were born matters, and; 2) the dumarse education majors who teach it hated history too and don't bother to try to make it interesting by explaining the "why" of history, instead, taking the low road requiring them to memorize dates and names which, if memorized, get deleted from the student's mental computers the moment they finish the quiz.

[SicEmBaylor]

The thing is, most kids find history dull and irrelevant, mainly because; 1) they're kids and don't think anything that happened before they were born matters, and; 2) the dumarse education majors who teach it hated history too and don't bother to try to make it interesting by explaining the "why" of history, instead, taking the low road requiring them to memorize dates and names which, if memorized, get deleted from the student's mental computers the moment they finish the quiz.

Now, you're 100% correct on EVERYTHING above. I mean that really and truly is exactly how it is in the typical classroom. EXACTLY.

[Boarder]

It definitely should not be mandatory, but what would be wrong with offering one as a humanity elective? I tell my Christian and non-Christian friends, alike, "what scares you about taking a class on religions of the world?"

I've had one ANTH Religion in everyday life class and three Philosophy of Religion classes, so far. Each has had about 50/50 athiest/theist. Two of the three (Philosophy) teachers have been outstanding about teaching it neutrally to give the story and let the student judge. I actually think it should be mandatory to teach and give info about all religions...in church.

So yes, I would most definitely take it, if offered. I'd probably take one on the Koran and Buddhism, too, if offered.

*fyi, my major is Ethics and Religion so I may be a tad biased. It's more about Philosophy of Religion, rather than one particular religion, even though it inevitably turns to the Christian God when discussing.

[Frozen Sooner]

I'm not questioning the importance of studying the Bible -- I'm questioning what class is best suited to do the teaching. It should be taught in a humanities class and not a world history class. World History is only a half-unit class in the state of Oklahoma which means there is a hell of a lot of ground to cover in just a few months out of 4 years of school.

A humanities class allows for more in-depth study of the Bible, its context, how it relates to other religious documents, and how Christianity compares and contrasts to other religions.

It should be taught as a literature class.

[King Crimson]

if you want your kids to know the contents of the Bible, shouldn't you be doing it yourself instead of letting the school give them their interpretations of it? (or at church)

well, heck ya since other texts of western history are all bull****. that whole "enlightenment" project that gave us science (crudely speaking), was more bull****.

[King Crimson]

if you want your kids to know the contents of the Bible, shouldn't you be doing it yourself instead of letting the school give them their interpretations of it? (or at church)

well, heck ya since other texts of western history and all bull****. that whole "enlightenment" project that gave us science (crudely speaking), was more bull****.

[1890MilesToNorman]

My point was the Bible is the most important publication is history, not that it is factual. The Bible has influenced most of the important historical events for centuries. The history of the book itself is long and confusing, why were so many books left out? why were the books contained in the Bible chosen for inclusion? You can't teach history with including the Bible.

[1890MilesToNorman]

My point was the Bible is the most important publication is history, not that it is factual. The Bible has influenced most of the important historical events for centuries. The history of the book itself is long and confusing, why were so many books left out? why were the books contained in the Bible chosen for inclusion? You can't teach history with including the Bible.

[1890MilesToNorman]

My point was the Bible is the most important publication is history, not that it is factual. The Bible has influenced most of the important historical events for centuries. The history of the book itself is long and confusing, why were so many books left out? why were the books contained in the Bible chosen for inclusion? You can't teach history without including the Bible.

[1890MilesToNorman]

My point was the Bible is the most important publication is history, not that it is factual. The Bible has influenced most of the important historical events for centuries. The history of the book itself is long and confusing, why were so many books left out? why were the books contained in the Bible chosen for inclusion? You can't teach history without including the Bible.

[1890MilesToNorman]

My point was the Bible is the most important publication is history, not that it is factual. The Bible has influenced most of the important historical events for centuries. The history of the book itself is long and confusing, why were so many books left out? why were the books contained in the Bible chosen for inclusion? You can't teach history without including the Bible.

[starclassic tama]

This is just a bad idea. We can't even agree on evolution, people.

just about every biologist/doctor/scientist in the world agrees on it. there isn't really any controversy left for those who think about things in a rational way.

[Frozen Sooner]

**

[Crucifax Autumn]

You can't teach history with including the Bible.

Well you could, but all the cool shat like war and genocide would be left out. Espescially if you also didn't include the Koran and Torah. How friggin' boring would that be? :D

[1890MilesToNorman]

I only posted that **** once? Wad up with that crap?

[sooner ngintunr]

I agree. I do not believe you can call yourself an educated person in the Western world without having read the Bible. The vast majority of our cultural matrix stems from ideas in the Bible.



Thats about the craziest thing I've heard in awhile. Most of the Bible was written in Hebrew.

How much was lost in translation? The Bible has little if nothing to do with the western world, interpretation of the Bible does.

:pop:

[Clever Trevor]

No no no no! YOu guys are all wrong.
My point was the Bible is the most important publication is history, not that it is factual. The Bible has influenced most of the important historical events for centuries. The history of the book itself is long and confusing, why were so many books left out? why were the books contained in the Bible chosen for inclusion? You can't teach history with including the Bible.

[Frozen Sooner]

Thats about the craziest thing I've heard in awhile. Most of the Bible was written in Hebrew.

How much was lost in translation? The Bible has little if nothing to do with the western world, interpretation of the Bible does.

:pop:

I'm sorry that I didn't clarify that the translation of the Hebrew and Aramaic writings that were given the imprimatur of holy writ by the Council of Nicea were what I was referring to when I said "the Bible." In the future, I will attempt to be more precise so that when I refer to "the Bible" you don't think I mean the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Gnostic scrivenings, or a laundry list Jesus gave to Mary Magdalene.

So, to be clear:

The collection of writings generally referred to as "The Bible," including the texts approved by the Council of Nicea and translated first into Latin then into the various languages of the Western World, including but not limited to: German, English, French, Italian, Finnish, Danish, Welsh, Greek (ancient and modern), and Spanish has undeniably had a major effect on the literature, art, and customs of the western world. By "western world" I mean specifically the culture descended from the cultures of western Europe, including but not limited to the culture of the United States, Canada, Mexico, Peru, Colombia, and a bunch of other countries I'm not going to list. Without some familiarity with these aforementioned writings, you simply cannot claim to be a fully-educated member of one of these societies, as there is too much in art and literature and other cultural pursuits you simply will not understand.

[oklaclarinet]

Yeah but not every document ever written can or should be studied in a HS History class. Especially when the actual content is pretty suspect.

Look, OK students take half a unit of OK History, half a unit of World History, and a full unit of US History. Typically, a lot of those classes are taught by some assistant football coach who knows as much about history as I do fornicating (to steal a line from Patton).

In other words, there isn't much history taught as it is and I would much rather OK students get a double dose of US History than wasting time on the Bible. In fact, even the world history classes don't go that far back....they typically start at 1492. The Bible would totally be out of place.

A humanities class, on the other hand, is where the Bible should be taught as part of a study on not only Christianity but other major world religions including Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, etc.


Homey, when was the last time you were in an Oklahoma World History class?

You have one semester to teach a bunch of high school students everything they need to know since the beginning of recorded history. Most history teachers start at 1492 and don't even bother with anything prior to that date. Some touch on the crusades and the Magna Carta very briefly. You get a little more depth in AP classes but not much all things considered.

How much time would you have a history teacher dedicate to the teaching of the Bible? I'm not talking about how the Bible has influenced historical events -- that's another matter entirely. What we're talking about here is studying the Bible as a historical document. So, how much time should a high school history teacher devote to teaching the Bible?

One of the reasons Oklahoma requires a humanities (or art) credit is specifically to teach things like religion, culture, art, architecture, etc.

Your statements on the Oklahoma High School requirements aren't quite accurate. From the State Department of Education website:

3 Units History and Citizenship Skills
including one unit of American History, one-half unit of Oklahoma History, one-half unit of United States Government and one unit from the subjects of History, Government, Geography, Economics, Civics, or non-Western culture and approved for college admission requirements

So technically, World History isn't required, but one of several options to fill the third credit. However, many of the things you list as "humanities" fall into this category as well. You are confusing humanities with the Fine Arts requirement:

1 Unit or Set of Competencies of Fine Arts such as music, art, or drama, or 1 Unit or Set of Competencies of Speech

Subjects like religion, culture, architecture, etc. would only work in this category if taught from the standpoint of music or visual art.

http://sde.state.ok.us/Schools/Counseling/Graduation.html

[SicEmBaylor]

Your statements on the Oklahoma High School requirements aren't quite accurate. From the State Department of Education website:

3 Units History and Citizenship Skills
including one unit of American History, one-half unit of Oklahoma History, one-half unit of United States Government and one unit from the subjects of History, Government, Geography, Economics, Civics, or non-Western culture and approved for college admission requirements

So technically, World History isn't required, but one of several options to fill the third credit. However, many of the things you list as "humanities" fall into this category as well. You are confusing humanities with the Fine Arts requirement:

1 Unit or Set of Competencies of Fine Arts such as music, art, or drama, or 1 Unit or Set of Competencies of Speech

Subjects like religion, culture, architecture, etc. would only work in this category if taught from the standpoint of music or visual art.

http://sde.state.ok.us/Schools/Counseling/Graduation.html

The requirements have changed since I was in high school then. As for humanities, when I was in HS you had a choice between taking humanities or a fine arts/music class. I went with humanities and it was one of the best classes offered at my HS. I'm sure there are plenty of high schools that still offer a humanities class.

[oklaclarinet]

The requirements have changed since I was in high school then. As for humanities, when I was in HS you had a choice between taking humanities or a fine arts/music class. I went with humanities and it was one of the best classes offered at my HS. I'm sure there are plenty of high schools that still offer a humanities class.

Those requirements went into effect for freshmen starting in the 2006-2007 school year (i.e. this year's graduating class). The old arts requirement was for two unit or sets of arts competencies, which were much more loosely interpreted. I know my high school got everyone this requirement by making sophomore and junior English teachers do a unit on art and music and then give a test. Those classes were then marked on the official transcript with an asterisk noting those classes as filling the "arts in education" requirement. So while the new standards reduce the arts credit by one unit, they force schools to have students take an actual art or music class instead of shortchanging them as a small unit in another class.

[sooner ngintunr]

I'm sorry that I didn't clarify that the translation of the Hebrew and Aramaic writings that were given the imprimatur of holy writ by the Council of Nicea were what I was referring to when I said "the Bible." In the future, I will attempt to be more precise so that when I refer to "the Bible" you don't think I mean the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Gnostic scrivenings, or a laundry list Jesus gave to Mary Magdalene.

So, to be clear:

The collection of writings generally referred to as "The Bible," including the texts approved by the Council of Nicea and translated first into Latin then into the various languages of the Western World, including but not limited to: German, English, French, Italian, Finnish, Danish, Welsh, Greek (ancient and modern), and Spanish has undeniably had a major effect on the literature, art, and customs of the western world. By "western world" I mean specifically the culture descended from the cultures of western Europe, including but not limited to the culture of the United States, Canada, Mexico, Peru, Colombia, and a bunch of other countries I'm not going to list. Without some familiarity with these aforementioned writings, you simply cannot claim to be a fully-educated member of one of these societies, as there is too much in art and literature and other cultural pursuits you simply will not understand.

You totally missed my point, I understand yours. You come off as slightly condescending.

Some familiarity with the writings and reading the entire scripture are two different things.

I don't want to get into an argument over religion.

Yep, its the off season.

:pop:

[Frozen Sooner]

You totally missed my point, I understand yours. You come off as slightly condescending.

Some familiarity with the writings and reading the entire scripture are two different things.

I don't want to get into an argument over religion.

Yep, its the off season.

:pop:

That's fine. You came across as pedantic. I guess that makes us even.

Your original post seemed to focus on showing off that you knew the Bible wasn't originally written in English and that what we read (generally, unless you happen to be a Classics major or something) is a translation. You're right-I did miss any other point that you were trying to make. We're all aware that the thing on our bookshelf isn't the original text.

If your point is that some understanding isn't the same thing as reading the whole thing, I agree. I don't think you're likely to get a whole reading of the Bible into a one semester course anyhow-but a good overview of the text is manageable.

[JLEW1818]

i think the history of Religion is pretty cool stuff, regardless if you believe it or not.

Should greek mythology be taught? hell, everybody knows that **** is fake

well i guess me and Zeus did smoke together some. .... back in the day.. ;)

[Frozen Sooner]

Should greek mythology be taught? hell, everybody knows that **** is fake


Yes. For many of the same reasons the Bible should. You are simply not an educated person without some familiarity.

[sooner ngintunr]

That's fine. You came across as pedantic. I guess that makes us even.

Your original post seemed to focus on showing off that you knew the Bible wasn't originally written in English and that what we read (generally, unless you happen to be a Classics major or something) is a translation. You're right-I did miss any other point that you were trying to make. We're all aware that the thing on our bookshelf isn't the original text.

If your point is that some understanding isn't the same thing as reading the whole thing, I agree. I don't think you're likely to get a whole reading of the Bible into a one semester course anyhow-but a good overview of the text is manageable.

My point might be considered a slight on Christians so I will will not make it obvious, because that is not my objective.

Alot of people take the scriptures in their native language literally, forgetting that the actual meaning may have been lost in translation (this includes the Koran of course). I see this as a major flaw in Islam and Christianity. I believe it breeds hypocrisy in religion. This means that, that means this. We are left with a man telling us "the meaning". Men have flaws Faith does not.

:pop:

Public schools should have nothing to do with the teachings of the Bible. The last thing we need is government schools involved in religion. I'm not ready to give up that many freedoms.

[Frozen Sooner]

My point might be considered a slight on Christians so I will will not make it obvious, because that is not my objective.

Alot of people take the scriptures in their native language literally, forgetting that the actual meaning may have been lost in translation (this includes the Koran of course). I see this as a major flaw in Islam and Christianity. I believe it breeds hypocrisy in religion. This means that, that means this. We are left with a man telling us "the meaning". Men have flaws Faith does not.


I think we're talking about two different things. Discussion of the Bible as literature, which is what I've been talking about, doesn't go into scriptural meaning so much as it goes into themes and such. Like the story of Moses interpreted as the Archetypical Hero's Journey. Having someone teach it as TRUTH gets into all kinds of problems, which you start on below. From this standpoint it doesn't really matter whether the Ten Commandments say "Kill" or "Murder."


Public schools should have nothing to do with the teachings of the Bible. The last thing we need is government schools involved in religion. I'm not ready to give up that many freedoms.

Again, depends. If they're teaching it as religion, I wholeheartedly agree (and more importantly, so do a long line of Supreme Court decisions.) That's a facial violation of the Establishment Clause. I don't agree that ignoring the Bible's impact on culture is a good idea, though, and I think teaching the Bible as literature would be valuable for students.

Trust me, I'm the last guy to argue for teaching religion in the schools.

[Boarder]

I disagree. I think they should teach it as "a" religion, just not "the" religion, which would violate Establishment. The literature idea is fine, but if I had to choose one or the other, I'd go with it in a comparative religion context.

There would be the problem with finding an acceptable curriculum. However, it can be done in the secular college system so I don't think it it would be that big of a problem. I could see the local pastor's dilemma, though:
a. be happy that any Bible is being taught in public school, if nothing else to get the name of Jesus out to the kids and possibly get them into Sunday School to fix the public schools' distortions. or....
b. reject any Bible being taught that doesn't jive with his particular denomination.

I can see some Christians going with b, not taking into account how a would actually do some good for them. These same things would apply to the local Rabbi, Oman, etc.

Now that I think about this, why is this being written as a law? Shouldn't it be for the courts to rule (if such a class being offered is constitutional)?

[Frozen Sooner]

I disagree. I think they should teach it as "a" religion, just not "the" religion, which would violate Establishment. The literature idea is fine, but if I had to choose one or the other, I'd go with it in a comparative religion context.

There would be the problem with finding an acceptable curriculum. However, it can be done in the secular college system so I don't think it it would be that big of a problem. I could see the local pastor's dilemma, though:
a. be happy that any Bible is being taught in public school, if nothing else to get the name of Jesus out to the kids and possibly get them into Sunday School to fix the public schools' distortions. or....
b. reject any Bible being taught that doesn't jive with his particular denomination.

I can see some Christians going with b, not taking into account how a would actually do some good for them. These same things would apply to the local Rabbi, Oman, etc.

Now that I think about this, why is this being written as a law? Shouldn't it be for the courts to rule (if such a class being offered is constitutional)?

Courts can't rule on it until someone brings it to them. They can write an advisory opinion, I guess.

I don't have a problem with the Bible being taught in a comparative religion course either. Didn't mean to express disapproval of that either. You're right-that doesn't violate the EC either (subject to some caveats which we're assuming, of course.)

[MR2-Sooner86]

Would parents even accept the book? I mean hell the Union school board had to discuss “Buster’s Sugartime” just last week because it had a gay couple in it. (http://newsok.com/tulsa-union-school-board-to-discuss-controversial-book/article/3435070) The bible talks about killing gays, killing troubled children, killing non-virgin women, incest, rape, slavery, and all that other good stuff.

[Boarder]

Courts can't rule on it until someone brings it to them. They can write an advisory opinion, I guess.

Right, I meant that if the schools want to teach the class, implement it (or have the state school authority authorize it, whatever channels you need) and then see if it gets challenged. They could get the advisory opinion, which would probably be best.

Seems like a waste of time for the legislature. First time ever.

[Okla-homey]

The bible talks about killing gays, killing troubled children, killing non-virgin women, incest, rape, slavery, and all that other good stuff.

Your point? What the heck is wrong with any of that?

[SicEmBaylor]

Yes. For many of the same reasons the Bible should. You are simply not an educated person without some familiarity.

And, the fact is, it is taught. We spent at least a week on basic Greek Mythology............in my Humanities class.

[SicEmBaylor]

Anyway, not to start another debate here, but if I had to choose one book that every high school student HAD to read cover-to-cover it would be James Fenimore Coopers, "The American Democrat."

The American Democrat>Bible

At least insofar as it pertains to history.

[MrJimBeam]

The bible talks about killing gays, killing troubled children, killing non-virgin women, incest, rape, slavery, and all that other good stuff.

I came across that pron site just last week. $29.00 per month recurring.

[NormanPride]

I realize the ideal of having the Bible taught as a historically-important book that heavily influenced western thought is good. However, I believe that the reality is that a poorly funded and understaffed public high school will provide a class taught by a football coach that will fail miserably and will only serve to alienate and offend. As I said earlier, schools can't even agree on how to teach evolution. If you add the Bible in as legitimate coursework then all hell will break loose.

[Bourbon St Sooner]

Well our public schools have failed at everything else, why not teaching the bible?

I keed, I keed.

[MR2-Sooner86]

Your point? What the heck is wrong with any of that?

My point is people are talking about bringing the Bible into schools. However, we got a book that has a simple line of "I have two moms" and people flip ****. Lets not forget Tom Sawyer isn't in schools because it makes references to slavery. I find that funny and rather hypocritical.
Yeah lets kill gays, sell your daughter, and if you beat the hell out of your slave it's ok as long as they get up the next morning......Praise Jesus!

[Okla-homey]

Yeah lets kill gays, sell your daughter, and if you beat the hell out of your slave it's ok as long as they get up the next morning......Praise Jesus! You should check out Saudi. That's all being done under their law on a weekly basis. srsly.

[MamaMia]

Which bible would be used in this class? There are so many different "Christian" bibles. For example, my catholic bible has more books in it than does a protestant bible.