Hobby Lobby’s Steve Green launches a new project: public school Bible curriculum

[The Brain]

We had religion class in school. Obviously it could never work in America, just like decent broadband and efficient bureaucracy.

[grumbler]

I don't think I ever had religious courses and I've never read the bible (though I have, of course, read stories from the bible), and I teach AP European history (successfully, too, given that my students pass the test).  I don't think that religious courses per se need to be taught.  I think that the relevant stories from any religion can be read in the context of the art or philosophy they illuminate.

That's not to say I oppose optional courses on, say, comparative religion.  I've taught those, as well.  Religion as an intellectual topic is interesting and worthy of study.  Religion as indoctrination belongs in church.

[Razgovory]

Done right, I see no problem whatsoever with an elective course on Bible studies at even a public school (a mandatory course, obviously, would be a different story...).

Well the US doesn't either which is why those already exist.

Then I guess I'm missing out on the source of Meri's outrage.

Clearly you haven't listened to your body enough.  That's where facts and critical thinking come from.

[merithyn]

I don't think I ever had religious courses and I've never read the bible (though I have, of course, read stories from the bible), and I teach AP European history (successfully, too, given that my students pass the test).  I don't think that religious courses per se need to be taught.  I think that the relevant stories from any religion can be read in the context of the art or philosophy they illuminate.

That's not to say I oppose optional courses on, say, comparative religion.  I've taught those, as well.  Religion as an intellectual topic is interesting and worthy of study.  Religion as indoctrination belongs in church.

Well said, grumbler.

I think religious ed is useful in understanding history, not essential.

[Berkut]

I think discussing whether studying religion is useful or not is missing the basic point.

Attempts like this are always bullshit when you consider the source.

This guy wants to be able to proselytize his religion in schools. He knows that is not allowed. So he is going to try to do the same thing, but dress it up as something else. There is a zero percent chance that an evangelical religious fanatic has anything but ulterior motives here.

And the only way it works is if the people responsible for give the ok for his "religious studies" text to be allowed understand and agree with what he is trying to do.

This is like a known pedophile saying he doesn't want to create child porn, he just wants to write a nice book about youth anatomy - do you mind if he takes some pictures of your kid? Oh sure, he is a pedophile, granted, but in THIS case, he is really just trying to promote science. Really!

[grumbler]

I think discussing whether studying religion is useful or not is missing the basic point.

Attempts like this are always bullshit when you consider the source.

This guy wants to be able to proselytize his religion in schools. He knows that is not allowed. So he is going to try to do the same thing, but dress it up as something else. There is a zero percent chance that an evangelical religious fanatic has anything but ulterior motives here.

And the only way it works is if the people responsible for give the ok for his "religious studies" text to be allowed understand and agree with what he is trying to do.

This is like a known pedophile saying he doesn't want to create child porn, he just wants to write a nice book about youth anatomy - do you mind if he takes some pictures of your kid? Oh sure, he is a pedophile, granted, but in THIS case, he is really just trying to promote science. Really!

I think the "basic point" is so obvious that it doesn't need repeating.  That the thread went on to other, more interesting, topics doesn't at all mean that people didn't get the "basic point," it just means that there are other points to be made, as well.

[Malthus]

I think discussing whether studying religion is useful or not is missing the basic point.

Attempts like this are always bullshit when you consider the source.

This guy wants to be able to proselytize his religion in schools. He knows that is not allowed. So he is going to try to do the same thing, but dress it up as something else. There is a zero percent chance that an evangelical religious fanatic has anything but ulterior motives here.

And the only way it works is if the people responsible for give the ok for his "religious studies" text to be allowed understand and agree with what he is trying to do.

This is like a known pedophile saying he doesn't want to create child porn, he just wants to write a nice book about youth anatomy - do you mind if he takes some pictures of your kid? Oh sure, he is a pedophile, granted, but in THIS case, he is really just trying to promote science. Really!

Reading the article in the OP, I'd have to disagree: he isn't "dressing it up as something else" at all. He's out and out saying the classes are intended for religious indoctrination.

[Valmy]

He's out and out saying the classes are intended for religious indoctrination.

Sort of.  He is making a pretense it is objective but that this objective study of the Bible will result in everybody being a good Bible believing Hobby Lobby shopper.

[Malthus]

He's out and out saying the classes are intended for religious indoctrination.

Sort of.  He is making a pretense it is objective but that this objective study of the Bible will result in everybody being a good Bible believing Hobby Lobby shopper.

Not really - if this is accurate.

In an award acceptance speech last April before the National Bible Association, Green explained that his goals for a high school curriculum were to show that the Bible is true, that it's good and that its impact, "whether (upon) our government, education, science, art, literature, family ... when we apply it to our lives in all aspects of our life, that it has been good."

There is no pretence here - he's (allegedly) quite openly saying that his purpose is to show the Bible as both "true" and "good". I don't see any claim to objectivity here.

[Valmy]

There is no pretence here - he's (allegedly) quite openly saying that his purpose is to show the Bible as both "true" and "good". I don't see any claim to objectivity here.

That was said to his co-conspirators if you will.  That is not how he is selling it to the school boards.

[Malthus]

There is no pretence here - he's (allegedly) quite openly saying that his purpose is to show the Bible as both "true" and "good". I don't see any claim to objectivity here.

That was said to his co-conspirators if you will.  That is not how he is selling it to the school boards.

There is nothing in the article itself stating that he's hiding anything about his program or his motivations - he appears proud of both. The school board is simply quoted as being impressed by his materials. Where are you getting the idea that he's pretending to anyone the program is not intended to push his religious Bible vision?

[crazy canuck]

There is no pretence here - he's (allegedly) quite openly saying that his purpose is to show the Bible as both "true" and "good". I don't see any claim to objectivity here.

That was said to his co-conspirators if you will.  That is not how he is selling it to the school boards.

I had agreed with Grumbler that the basic point was obvious but I guess it needs repeating after all 

He is "selling" this as school boards being enabled to "show that the Bible is true".  He is not giving one message to his supporters and another to those who do not yet see the light.  He appears to believe everyone is with him and that it is an obvious societal benefit for religious indoctrination to occur in the school system.  Granted given the reception he has recieved from school boards to date he has likely been reinforced in that view.

[Berkut]

There is no pretence here - he's (allegedly) quite openly saying that his purpose is to show the Bible as both "true" and "good". I don't see any claim to objectivity here.

That was said to his co-conspirators if you will.  That is not how he is selling it to the school boards.

I had agreed with Grumbler that the basic point was obvious but I guess it needs repeating after all 

He is "selling" this as school boards being enabled to "show that the Bible is true".  He is not giving one message to his supporters and another to those who do not yet see the light.  He appears to believe everyone is with him and that it is an obvious societal benefit for religious indoctrination to occur in the school system.  Granted given the reception he has recieved from school boards to date he has likely been reinforced in that view.

Indeed, which is why I brought this up - he appear to believe he has found a way to violate the clear intent of the law and Constitution by slapping a token dressing of "objectivity" on religious proselytizing.

It is important to remember that there are lot so school board members out their in Bible Belt America just as frustrated as he is at the meddling courts thwarting their attempts to educate children on the wonders of Christianity. This is a means to allow them to accept another hack at public school religious indoctrination while claiming that they are not violating clear court orders.

It is a smart move, really. Even if it gets thrown out eventually, that will take time. All they really want is a fig leaf to at least *claim* that they are not clearly violating the law.