:thumbsup:
Way to be ahead of the curve, Oklahoma! Can't wait until this is rolled out EVERYWHERE! Who needs facts and critical thinking in this enlightened day and age?
LINK (http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/religion/hobby-lobbys-steve-green-launches-a-new-project-a-public-school-bible-curriculum/2014/04/15/e26a1176-c4d1-11e3-9ee7-02c1e10a03f0_story.html)
Quote
The Mustang, Okla., school board voted Monday (April 14) to adopt a Bible course developed by Steve Green, clearing the way for the Hobby Lobby president, whose suit against the Affordable Care Act is currently before the U.S. Supreme Court, to enter another charged arena at the borderline of church and state.
The board, whose district is practically in Hobby Lobby's Oklahoma City backyard, agreed to beta-test the first year of the Museum of the Bible Curriculum, an ambitious four-year public school elective on the narrative, history and impact of the Good Book.
For at least the first semester of the 2014-15 year, Mustang alone will employ the program, said Jerry Pattengale, head of the Green Scholars Initiative, which is overseeing its development. In September 2016, he hopes to place it in at least 100 high schools; by the following year, "thousands."
If successful, Green, whose family's wealth is estimated at upward of $3 billion, would galvanize the movement to teach the Bible academically in public schools, a movement born after the Supreme Court banned school-sanctioned devotion in the 1960s but whose steady progress in the last decades has been somewhat hampered.
The Green curriculum "is like nothing we've seen before," said Charles Haynes, senior scholar at the First Amendment Center and editor of a booklet sent out to all schools by the U.S. Department of Education in 2000 on teaching religion in public schools. "It's unique in its ambition and its scope and its use of the latest technologies. I think school districts far from Oklahoma will take note."
So will civil libertarians. 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."
If realized, these sentiments, although shared by millions of Americans, could conflict with the court's requirement that public school treatment of the Bible be taught in a secular, academic fashion.
In the same speech, Green expressed hope that such courses would become mandatory, whereas now they are usually elective.
Green's move into public school curricula grew out of his second-best-known project (after the lawsuit): a 430,000-square-foot museum of the Bible due to open in 2017 several blocks from the National Mall in Washington, D.C., that will feature objects from his family's 44,000-piece collection of biblical artifacts.
A little over a year ago, said Pattengale, the realization that a high school curriculum could "help millions of students worldwide" understand the Bible's importance came to seem even more pressing than the museum. Having created an international network of scholars to assist the museum, Pattengale led a crash initiative on the curriculum. He describes the first year, which takes the project only to its quarter-way mark, as a multimillion-dollar effort involving more than 170 people. "It will never recuperate its expenses," he said, but "there's no desire to make money."
He describes the program as "robustly unique." It divides its topic into three areas: the Bible's narrative; the history of its composition and reception; and its impact on human civilization. The spine of the first-year program (the only text completed so far) is a 400-plus-page book, currently spiral-bound, featuring 108 chapters divided into five-day-a-week lessons.
The book links to a dizzying array of state-of-the-art digital enhancements (Pattengale counts 550), including one where illustrations "come alive" as video on the screen of a smartphone; original lectures by Green Institute scholars; clips from the Mark Burnett/Roma Downey miniseries "The Bible"; and deep digital access to the Green's biblical collection.
Asked to describe a typical chapter, Pattengale (who also serves on the Religion News Service managing board) outlined a "narrative" segment on creation that includes a summary of the Bible account; a section on how subsequent scientific discoveries relate to what the Bible says; and a consideration of key reasons it was written. A sidebar called "Are People Created Equal?" explores the Book of Genesis' influence on that idea through history, including the famous phrase from the Declaration of Independence.
Contrary to popular assumptions, there is nothing unconstitutional about teaching about the Bible in public schools. The same Supreme Court ruling that outlawed school-sanctioned prayer in 1963 qualified that "Nothing we have said here indicates that such study of the Bible ... when presented objectively as part of a secular program of education, may not be effected consistently with the First Amendment."
The key words, of course, are "objectively" and "secular." Haynes suggested that "the bar is actually low — I think it's hard for judges to get beyond the surface to questions of what a sound academic course looks like — but much more difficult to develop materials that actually both reflect constitutional principles and are academically solid."
Added Southern Methodist University's Mark Chancey: "The devil is in the details" of each plan.
Of his boss's 2013 speech, Pattengale said: "The curriculum may or may not espouse those views. The last people (Green) wanted to hire were scholars who would embellish the facts to support his religious position." A chapter with the provocative title "How Do We Know That the Bible's Historical Narratives are Reliable?" will include diagrams charting the commonality of multidisciplinary scholarly findings with the biblical account — or the lack of such commonality, he said.
In Mustang, Green could not have asked for a more sympathetic research partner. Religious observance in the Oklahoma City bedroom community is largely Christian, and the majority of Christians are, like Green, Southern Baptist. The nearest two synagogues are not in town — and are populated with Messianic Jews who believe in Jesus. In 2005, when a previous school superintendent canceled the schools' annual Christmas pageant because of concerns over the separation of church and state, voters rejected a proposed school bond.
The Greens are a local employer — Hobby Lobby corporate headquarters is just five miles east on Oklahoma Highway 152 — and highly regarded citizens: "They are for real a good Christian family, and have been for years and years," says Don Anderson, a successful real estate agent.
Said Brady Henderson, legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Oklahoma: "We don't like their Supreme Court brief, but they do give a lot to the community. They treat their employees better than a lot of service industries."
The vote Monday night was closer than might have been expected: four yeas and one abstention. One former pastor spoke out against adopting the curriculum, citing the innate difficulty of finding common language about the Bible. Abstaining board member Jeff Landrith grumbled that the community had not had enough chance to review curriculum. Board President Chad Fulton responded that it would available shortly for examination. One party promising to take a look was the Oklahoma ACLU: "to ensure no students... have their right of religious liberty compromised."
Soon, many will have a chance to assess it.
QuoteThe Greens are a local employer — Hobby Lobby corporate headquarters is just five miles east on Oklahoma Highway 152 — and highly regarded citizens: "They are for real a good Christian family, and have been for years and years," says Don Anderson, a successful real estate agent.
Queue the gay lover stories in 5....4...3...2.... ;)
Quote from: merithyn on June 05, 2014, 11:44:39 AM
:thumbsup:
Way to be ahead of the curve, Oklahoma! Can't wait until this is rolled out EVERYWHERE! Who needs facts and critical thinking in this enlightened day and age?
You know, having attended a Jesuit high school, I can tell you the mandatory religion courses were heavily into facts and critical thinking...
The bible is probably the most important book ever written. Understanding western art, history, literature, etc. without knowledge of the bible is going to be difficult.
On the other hand, I don't know that we are a society that is mature enough to teach the bible. I foresee screaming parents, petulant kids, lawsuits, and stupid articles on yahoo and slate.
Quote from: Barrister on June 05, 2014, 11:46:48 AM
You know, having attended a Jesuit high school, I can tell you the mandatory religion courses were heavily into facts and critical thinking...
Are the Jesuits putting together this program?
Quote from: alfred russel on June 05, 2014, 11:53:49 AM
The bible is probably the most important book ever written. Understanding western art, history, literature, etc. without knowledge of the bible is going to be difficult.
On the other hand, I don't know that we are a society that is mature enough to teach the bible. I foresee screaming parents, petulant kids, lawsuits, and stupid articles on yahoo and slate.
I want religious instruction to be left to me and my church not the government. So long as the constitutional rights of my family are respected and my kids can opt out that is fine by me. But Green wants his obviously false theological ideas to be mandatory courses.
And I have to question your initial thesis. I talk to Europeans on the internet who know next to nothing about the bible beyond just general things and they have excellent understanding of all those things, far exceeding the biblically literate Americans.
Quote from: Barrister on June 05, 2014, 11:46:48 AM
Quote from: merithyn on June 05, 2014, 11:44:39 AM
:thumbsup:
Way to be ahead of the curve, Oklahoma! Can't wait until this is rolled out EVERYWHERE! Who needs facts and critical thinking in this enlightened day and age?
You know, having attended a Jesuit high school, I can tell you the mandatory religion courses were heavily into facts and critical thinking...
Yes but it is as yet unknown whether this course content will be as rigorous. Since his stated goal is to "show that the Bible is true" one can safely assume this education will be significantly different than that given in a Jesuit school where such nonsense as a 6.000 year old universe or the Bible being literally true are not taught.
Quote from: Barrister on June 05, 2014, 11:46:48 AM
Quote from: merithyn on June 05, 2014, 11:44:39 AM
:thumbsup:
Way to be ahead of the curve, Oklahoma! Can't wait until this is rolled out EVERYWHERE! Who needs facts and critical thinking in this enlightened day and age?
You know, having attended a Jesuit high school, I can tell you the mandatory religion courses were heavily into facts and critical thinking...
My understanding is that
Jesuits are heavily into facts and critical thinking. I have my doubts that this applies to everyone interested in Bible-thumping.
Quote from: Valmy on June 05, 2014, 11:59:27 AM
And I have to question your initial thesis. I talk to Europeans on the internet who know next to nothing about the bible beyond just general things and they have excellent understanding of all those things, far exceeding the biblically literate Americans.
It's literally impossible to understand medieval Western art & literature without knowledge of the bible. That doesn't mean reading the bible makes one a medieval scholar.
Quote from: Valmy on June 05, 2014, 11:59:27 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 05, 2014, 11:53:49 AM
The bible is probably the most important book ever written. Understanding western art, history, literature, etc. without knowledge of the bible is going to be difficult.
On the other hand, I don't know that we are a society that is mature enough to teach the bible. I foresee screaming parents, petulant kids, lawsuits, and stupid articles on yahoo and slate.
I want religious instruction to be left to me and my church not the government. So long as the constitutional rights of my family are respected and my kids can opt out that is fine by me. But Green wants his obviously false theological ideas to be mandatory courses.
And I have to question your initial thesis. I talk to Europeans on the internet who know next to nothing about the bible beyond just general things and they have excellent understanding of all those things, far exceeding the biblically literate Americans.
Knowing the Bible is
essential to a deep understanding Western literature, art and philosophy. How could it not be, when the Bible has been a central part of Western civilization for at least 1600 years, and much art, literature and philosophy incorporates Biblical themes?
However, it is obviously untrue that knowing
only the Bible will make one an expert in Western literature, art and philosophy.
Quote from: Malthus on June 05, 2014, 01:00:26 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 05, 2014, 11:46:48 AM
Quote from: merithyn on June 05, 2014, 11:44:39 AM
:thumbsup:
Way to be ahead of the curve, Oklahoma! Can't wait until this is rolled out EVERYWHERE! Who needs facts and critical thinking in this enlightened day and age?
You know, having attended a Jesuit high school, I can tell you the mandatory religion courses were heavily into facts and critical thinking...
My understanding is that Jesuits are heavily into facts and critical thinking. I have my doubts that this applies to everyone interested in Bible-thumping.
Well of course, which is why I was sure to mention it.
I just wanted to state that study of religion and the Holy Bible is not necessarily divorced from facts and critical thinking.
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...).
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 05, 2014, 01:03:54 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 05, 2014, 11:59:27 AM
And I have to question your initial thesis. I talk to Europeans on the internet who know next to nothing about the bible beyond just general things and they have excellent understanding of all those things, far exceeding the biblically literate Americans.
It's literally impossible to understand medieval Western art & literature without knowledge of the bible. That doesn't mean reading the bible makes one a medieval scholar.
Nonsense. For a general understanding you can easily get the short version. Besides the sorts of theological beliefs and practices and controversies that dominated the medieval period the bible is not even that relevant. If you see a painting of St. Bernard being fed by the milk of the Virgin Mary how exactly is the Bible going to help you understand that? Heck in the Bible Mary is never explicitly the Holy Virgin, Jesus has brothers and sisters (well in Mark and Matthew anyway). There she is just a virgin until she isn't.
Quote from: Barrister on June 05, 2014, 01:13:33 PM
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.
Quote from: Valmy on June 05, 2014, 01:14:22 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 05, 2014, 01:13:33 PM
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.
Quote from: Malthus on June 05, 2014, 01:08:54 PM
Knowing the Bible is essential to a deep understanding Western literature, art and philosophy. How could it not be, when the Bible has been a central part of Western civilization for at least 1600 years, and much art, literature and philosophy incorporates Biblical themes?
If you are going to be scholar, sure you need to know the Bible. But not to have an understanding, particularly for anything until a graduate level course.
Quote from: Barrister on June 05, 2014, 01:15:42 PM
Then I guess I'm missing out on the source of Meri's outrage.
Seems pretty obvious to me. Very rich person creating a course meant to spread a specific theological view and use the government to teach it to every school kid in the country. He will be successful in many jurisdictions. It is an outrage.
Quote from: Barrister on June 05, 2014, 01:15:42 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 05, 2014, 01:14:22 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 05, 2014, 01:13:33 PM
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.
This guy's announced intention is to make it mandatory and universal; and far from a 'critical analysis', again his expressed hope is to use the course to teach the "truth" of the text, and to emphasise only the positive impact of the text on society.
Quote from: Malthus on June 05, 2014, 01:31:26 PM
This guy's announced intention is to make it mandatory and universal; and far from a 'critical analysis', again his expressed hope is to use the course to teach the "truth" of the text, and to emphasise only the positive impact of the text on society.
Yes this is a culture warrior, not an educator.
Quote from: Malthus on June 05, 2014, 01:08:54 PM
Knowing the Bible is essential to a deep understanding Western literature, art and philosophy. How could it not be, when the Bible has been a central part of Western civilization for at least 1600 years, and much art, literature and philosophy incorporates Biblical themes?
I absolutely agree. However, knowing the Bible as The One True Understanding of God Almighty, as Green would have it taught, is probably not the best way to go about teaching it.
Quote from: Barrister on June 05, 2014, 01:15:42 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 05, 2014, 01:14:22 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 05, 2014, 01:13:33 PM
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.
It helps to read the article. :)
Quote from: merithyn on June 05, 2014, 01:35:46 PM
Quote from: Malthus on June 05, 2014, 01:08:54 PM
Knowing the Bible is essential to a deep understanding Western literature, art and philosophy. How could it not be, when the Bible has been a central part of Western civilization for at least 1600 years, and much art, literature and philosophy incorporates Biblical themes?
I absolutely agree. However, knowing the Bible as The One True Understanding of God Almighty, as Green would have it taught, is probably not the best way to go about teaching it.
We are in 100% agreement on that. :D
Hobby Lobby sucks. We have those here and the stores are always a mess and staffed by people who have no idea where anything is. Maybe this dude should put his effort into his stores instead of Bible shit.
Quote from: Caliga on June 05, 2014, 01:38:33 PM
Hobby Lobby sucks. We have those here and the stores are always a mess and staffed by people who have no idea where anything is. Maybe this dude should put his effort into his stores instead of Bible shit.
Dude I went there last year to get something framed. I mean how hard is that? They fucked it up twice. Ridiculous. It should have been free but they took like 10 bucks off. Never going there again.
Quote from: Malthus on June 05, 2014, 01:37:27 PM
We are in 100% agreement on that. :D
I guess I should ask at this point: do you know your Bible? :P
Quote from: Valmy on June 05, 2014, 01:42:05 PM
Quote from: Malthus on June 05, 2014, 01:37:27 PM
We are in 100% agreement on that. :D
I guess I should ask at this point: do you know your Bible? :P
I was a medieval history major. Of course I do. :D
Quote from: Valmy on June 05, 2014, 01:40:53 PM
Quote from: Caliga on June 05, 2014, 01:38:33 PM
Hobby Lobby sucks. We have those here and the stores are always a mess and staffed by people who have no idea where anything is. Maybe this dude should put his effort into his stores instead of Bible shit.
Dude I went there last year to get something framed. I mean how hard is that? They fucked it up twice. Ridiculous. It should have been free but they took like 10 bucks off. Never going there again.
"Hey, I wanted a framed picture of my dog, I got back a framed Bible illustration. WTF?!"
Also, they used to carry consims, but they don't anymore. :mad:
Quote from: Valmy on June 05, 2014, 01:42:05 PM
Quote from: Malthus on June 05, 2014, 01:37:27 PM
We are in 100% agreement on that. :D
I guess I should ask at this point: do you know your Bible? :P
Yup. Read it several times, studied it in religious school, taught religious school for a year, volunteered for an archaeological dig in Israel, studied Biblical history and archeology with the scholars there.
I'd say I know it pretty well. I still find neato stuff in it from time to time ... for example, I never knew that the prophet Isaiah, often used by Christians to support the messiah-hood of Jesus, actually declared quite another person to be the anointed of God - namely Cyrus the Great, Emperor of Persia! :lol:
Quote from: Malthus on June 05, 2014, 01:31:26 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 05, 2014, 01:15:42 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 05, 2014, 01:14:22 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 05, 2014, 01:13:33 PM
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.
This guy's announced intention is to make it mandatory and universal; and far from a 'critical analysis', again his expressed hope is to use the course to teach the "truth" of the text, and to emphasise only the positive impact of the text on society.
Yeah, but he's obviously not going to be allowed to do that.
Quote from: Barrister on June 05, 2014, 01:47:32 PM
Quote from: Malthus on June 05, 2014, 01:31:26 PM
This guy's announced intention is to make it mandatory and universal; and far from a 'critical analysis', again his expressed hope is to use the course to teach the "truth" of the text, and to emphasise only the positive impact of the text on society.
Yeah, but he's obviously not going to be allowed to do that.
What makes you so sure of that?
Quote from: merithyn on June 05, 2014, 01:42:56 PM
I was a medieval history major. Of course I do. :D
I have read it and commentaries on it. I took two classes in College on it.
And I know a lot of medieval history but I am not really sure who much good knowing the Bible extensively did me. The sort of Christianity practiced right up until the Biblically literalist Protestants came along seems only loosely based on it :lol:
If anything you have to go back and read up on Saints and folk customs and official church doctrine and the councils. Knowing that stuff strikes me as more important.
Quote from: Barrister on June 05, 2014, 01:47:32 PM
Yeah, but he's obviously not going to be allowed to do that.
Oh for fuck's sake, at least read the bolded part, will you?? :mad:
He's already got the curriculum in one Oklahoma school district, with the intent of having it in 20 other school districts in the next year, and 1000 as soon as he can make it happen. :contract:
So long as it's approved by the individual school boards and is not mandatory, he can and he will be allowed to do that.
Quote from: Jacob on June 05, 2014, 01:49:24 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 05, 2014, 01:47:32 PM
Quote from: Malthus on June 05, 2014, 01:31:26 PM
This guy's announced intention is to make it mandatory and universal; and far from a 'critical analysis', again his expressed hope is to use the course to teach the "truth" of the text, and to emphasise only the positive impact of the text on society.
Yeah, but he's obviously not going to be allowed to do that.
What makes you so sure of that?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
Quote from: merithyn on June 05, 2014, 01:50:08 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 05, 2014, 01:47:32 PM
Yeah, but he's obviously not going to be allowed to do that.
Oh for fuck's sake, at least read the bolded part, will you?? :mad:
He's already got the curriculum in one Oklahoma school district, with the intent of having it in 20 other school districts in the next year, and 1000 as soon as he can make it happen. :contract:
So long as it's approved by the individual school boards and is not mandatory, he can and he will be allowed to do that.
Exactly. As long as it's not mandatory.
Quote from: Barrister on June 05, 2014, 01:47:32 PM
Yeah, but he's obviously not going to be allowed to do that.
Oh yes he will. He has lots of money. Obviously he will never get close to doing it nationwide but he will in a lot of jurisdictions where his ideas are popular. Such is how the culture war goes.
Quote from: Barrister on June 05, 2014, 01:50:37 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
Addressed in the article.
Quote from: Valmy on June 05, 2014, 01:49:56 PM
Quote from: merithyn on June 05, 2014, 01:42:56 PM
I was a medieval history major. Of course I do. :D
I have read it and commentaries on it. I took two classes in College on it.
And I know a lot of medieval history but I am not really sure who much good knowing the Bible extensively did me. The sort of Christianity practiced right up until the Biblically literalist Protestants came along seems only loosely based on it :lol:
If anything you have to go back and read up on Saints and folk customs and official church doctrine and the councils. Knowing that stuff strikes me as more important.
Knowing the Bible makes it far easier to understand the laws and practices of 13th and 14th century England, in my experience. It also makes understanding the art and architecture much easier. It means that frescoes aren't just pretty pictures, but each picture is on each wall or ceiling for a particular purpose to that building.
It's actually pretty interesting, I think. I also believe that religious studies should be taught in school... by agnostics with no particular brand of religion of their own. :D
Quote from: Valmy on June 05, 2014, 01:52:06 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 05, 2014, 01:50:37 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
Addressed in the article.
Which he refuses to read. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Malthus on June 05, 2014, 01:47:11 PM
I never knew that the prophet Isaiah, often used by Christians to support the messiah-hood of Jesus, actually declared quite another person to be the anointed of God - namely Cyrus the Great, Emperor of Persia! :lol:
Dude nothing is more hilarious than the weak ass support for Jesus in the Old Testament. No wonder they have a hard time converting Jews.
Anyhow, as a European from secular Denmark - we had religion classes. In fact we had a Christianity class from... I think grade 3 to 5, and after that it turned into a religion class. We learned a bunch of the common bible stories and, I believe, a bit of historical context. There was, to my recollection, never any implications about the content being true or false; it was all about familiarity with the content.
Seemed alright to me.
In the religion class, later, we still studied Christianity but we also did a fairly big section on Islam with the same attitude - these are some of the key stories and events, this is what the religion is about; with no judgment on whether it's right or wrong.
Quote from: merithyn on June 05, 2014, 01:52:27 PM
It's actually pretty interesting, I think. I also believe that religious studies should be taught in school... by agnostics with no particular brand of religion of their own. :D
:yes:
More or less how I was taught as a kid, actually - 1970s Reform Judiasm at Holly Blossom. :D It's gotten more conservative since, I hear.
Quote from: Jacob on June 05, 2014, 01:57:36 PM
Anyhow, as a European from secular Denmark - we had religion classes. In fact we had a Christianity class from... I think grade 3 to 5, and after that it turned into a religion class. We learned a bunch of the common bible stories and, I believe, a bit of historical context. There was, to my recollection, never any implications about the content being true or false; it was all about familiarity with the content.
Seemed alright to me.
In the religion class, later, we still studied Christianity but we also did a fairly big section on Islam with the same attitude - these are some of the key stories and events, this is what the religion is about; with no judgment on whether it's right or wrong.
Seems the right approach to me.
Denmark has an official state church :P. I get what you are saying but that is why the religion classes are there.
But I want no part of this in an American public school. Our public school system could not be more different politically.
Quote from: Malthus on June 05, 2014, 02:00:17 PM
Seems the right approach to me.
Do you have any idea what a horrible idea trying to do something like this would be in Texas? We have culture warriors passionately battling it out on every school board. This sounds good and has the right intention but man....we spend way too much time fretting about making sure our kids are appropriately taught Capitalism and Christianity are the best ideas in the universe at the expense of literacy and mathematics as it is and we do not even have religion classes.
Quote from: Valmy on June 05, 2014, 02:01:09 PM
Denmark has an official state church :P. I get what you are saying but that is why the religion classes are there.
But I want no part of this in an American public school. Our public school system could not be more different politically.
Oh yeah, I agree that it is unlikely it could be carried out like that in the US. I think it provides a useful cultural and intellectual grounding, but it should have exactly zero hint of proselytization to it... and as you say, that is very unlikely to happen in a US context. So I agree with your stance.
Putting aside the issue of whether we should have public schools at all, considering the woeful general state of public education and most government institutions in this country, I'd like to thank Oklahoma for once again making Mississippi look good.
Quote from: Valmy on June 05, 2014, 02:03:15 PM
Quote from: Malthus on June 05, 2014, 02:00:17 PM
Seems the right approach to me.
Do you have any idea what a horrible idea trying to do something like this would be in Texas? We have culture warriors passionately battling it out on every school board. This sounds good and has the right intention but man....we spend way too much time fretting about making sure our kids are appropriately taught Capitalism and Christianity are the best ideas in the universe at the expense of literacy and mathematics as it is and we do not even have religion classes.
Yes. We do have an idea. It still seems the right approach, even if it is impossible to carry out in Texas (or other parts of the US).
Quote from: Valmy on June 05, 2014, 02:01:09 PM
Denmark has an official state church :P. I get what you are saying but that is why the religion classes are there.
But I want no part of this in an American public school. Our public school system could not be more different politically.
Religion is an integral part of our history and our present. I believe that it's imperative that a reasoned, balanced education on religions (of as many varieties as we can slip into it) happens for all children.
Unfortunately, our country is very bi-polar on this. It either has to be a lesson on how great Christianity has been for the world, and how it continues to be The One True Religion, and all other religions are no better than pagan fodder OR no religion can be taught in any fashion because that's indoctrination.
We are, as a nation, incapable of finding moderation on anything anymore. :(
Quote from: merithyn on June 05, 2014, 02:06:15 PM
We are, as a nation, incapable of finding moderation on anything anymore. :(
I am not sure we ever were very good at that.
Quote from: Scipio on June 05, 2014, 02:05:18 PM
Putting aside the issue of whether we should have public schools at all, considering the woeful general state of public education and most government institutions in this country, I'd like to thank Oklahoma for once again making Mississippi look good.
It's good you put aside that issue, or you might have been tempted to say something that would make Mississippi look bad again. :P
Quote from: Valmy on June 05, 2014, 02:03:15 PM
Quote from: Malthus on June 05, 2014, 02:00:17 PM
Seems the right approach to me.
Do you have any idea what a horrible idea trying to do something like this would be in Texas? We have culture warriors passionately battling it out on every school board. This sounds good and has the right intention but man....we spend way too much time fretting about making sure our kids are appropriately taught Capitalism and Christianity are the best ideas in the universe at the expense of literacy and mathematics as it is and we do not even have religion classes.
I'll add it to the list of sensible things that are impossible to achieve in Texas because of Texans. :P
Quote from: Malthus on June 05, 2014, 02:25:30 PM
I'll add it to the list of sensible things that are impossible to achieve in Texas because of Texans. :P
Indeed. You can do many sensible things in Texas, you just have to avoid the sovereign authority of the people.
Quote from: Valmy on June 05, 2014, 02:30:25 PM
Quote from: Malthus on June 05, 2014, 02:25:30 PM
I'll add it to the list of sensible things that are impossible to achieve in Texas because of Texans. :P
Indeed. You can do many sensible things in Texas, you just have to avoid the sovereign authority of the people.
Texas: proving democracy a fundamentally bad idea since December 29, 1845.
America has proven democracy a fundamentally bad idea. Then again, Europe hasn't proven technocratic rule a bad idea as well. I vote for computer tyranny.
Quote from: Ideologue on June 05, 2014, 03:35:37 PM
America has proven democracy a fundamentally bad idea. Then again, Europe hasn't proven technocratic rule a bad idea as well. I vote for computer tyranny.
Democracy can produce poor results. But the alternatives produce worse results.
Quote from: Ideologue on June 05, 2014, 03:35:37 PM
America has proven democracy a fundamentally bad idea. Then again, Europe hasn't proven technocratic rule a bad idea as well. I vote for computer tyranny.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fecx.images-amazon.com%2Fimages%2FI%2F51PsP927DIL.jpg&hash=a82ed922104bf09ae5ae3eac8a5a266c8373d29b)
I'll pass.
I call Beeb a Commie and shove him into a feces processor.
Quote from: Valmy on June 05, 2014, 01:49:56 PM
Quote from: merithyn on June 05, 2014, 01:42:56 PM
I was a medieval history major. Of course I do. :D
I have read it and commentaries on it. I took two classes in College on it.
And I know a lot of medieval history but I am not really sure who much good knowing the Bible extensively did me. The sort of Christianity practiced right up until the Biblically literalist Protestants came along seems only loosely based on it :lol:
If anything you have to go back and read up on Saints and folk customs and official church doctrine and the councils. Knowing that stuff strikes me as more important.
There is more to understanding christianity than the bible. Reading the bible doesn't make you an expert on christianity. But I doubt you can really know much about christianity without a working knowledge of the bible.
If you are studying the ancient greeks, you probably want to pick up the Odyssey. If you want an immersion in middle eastern society, culture and history, you might want to thumb through the Quran at some point. For western culture and history, it is the bible.
I'm fine if children aren't taught about religion. Put it in the dustbin. :yucky:
Quote from: Ed Anger on June 05, 2014, 06:26:38 PM
I call Beeb a Commie and shove him into a feces processor.
You are obviously KGB.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on June 06, 2014, 06:13:22 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on June 05, 2014, 06:26:38 PM
I call Beeb a Commie and shove him into a feces processor.
You are obviously KGB.
Sounds like commie talk to me.
We had religion class in school. Obviously it could never work in America, just like decent broadband and efficient bureaucracy.
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.
Quote from: Barrister on June 05, 2014, 01:15:42 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 05, 2014, 01:14:22 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 05, 2014, 01:13:33 PM
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.
Quote from: grumbler on June 07, 2014, 03:49:06 PM
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.
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!
Quote from: Berkut on June 09, 2014, 10:17:09 AM
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.
Quote from: Berkut on June 09, 2014, 10:17:09 AM
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.
Quote from: Malthus on June 09, 2014, 11:05:01 AM
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.
Quote from: Valmy on June 09, 2014, 11:08:26 AM
Quote from: Malthus on June 09, 2014, 11:05:01 AM
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.
QuoteIn 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.
Quote from: Malthus on June 09, 2014, 11:13:05 AM
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.
Quote from: Valmy on June 09, 2014, 11:13:57 AM
Quote from: Malthus on June 09, 2014, 11:13:05 AM
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?
Quote from: Valmy on June 09, 2014, 11:13:57 AM
Quote from: Malthus on June 09, 2014, 11:13:05 AM
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.
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 09, 2014, 11:32:02 AM
Quote from: Valmy on June 09, 2014, 11:13:57 AM
Quote from: Malthus on June 09, 2014, 11:13:05 AM
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.