Posted on 01/17/2006 11:36:18 AM PST by ReaganandDubyaForever
One public school district voted Monday night to begin offering a new bible class as part of its curriculum.
The elective course is called "The Bible and its Influence." Board members voted six to one to approve the new class.
"The Bible is a fundamental document," says Rosalyn Bratcher with the New Braunfels ISD. "It has had a great influence in terms of politics, art, music, literature."
The district says this course does not violate the First Amendment.
"What makes it compliant is that we are teaching the Bible as a textbook and a document," adds Bratcher.
Northeast ISD already offers a bible course at two of its high schools, also as an elective.
New Braunfels ISD surveyed their students and about half of the students say they are interested in taking the course.
Parents we spoke to about the issue are split on the idea.
"If you're going to have to pass this class or take this class as part of a grade or any kind of credit towards your high school diploma, I'm totally against it," says Christy Oliphant.
Keith says, "I think we need to learn more about our creator."
Now that the class has been approved by the New Braunfels school board, it will be offered to Juniors and Seniors in the fall.
Don't mess with Texas :)
Dumb idea. The only solution is the end of government education.
Amazing!
Man, you give up to easy.
As long as it is an elective who cares, after nobody takes it will be dropped.
"As a matter of history, schoolchildren can and should properly be informed of all aspects of this Nation's religious heritage. I would see no constitutional problem if schoolchildren were taught the nature of the Founding Father's religious beliefs and how these beliefs affected the attitudes [*607] of the times and the structure of our government. n6 Courses in comparative religion of course are customary and constitutionally appropriate. n7 In fact, since religion permeates our history, a familiarity with the nature of religious beliefs is necessary to understand many historical as well as contemporary events. n8 In addition, it is worth noting that the Establishment [*608] Clause does not prohibit per se the educational use of religious documents in public school education. Although this Court has recognized [***535] that the Bible is "an instrument of religion," Abington School District v. Schempp, supra, at 224, it also has made clear that the Bible "may constitutionally be used in an appropriate study of history, civilization, ethics, comparative religion, or the like." Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S., at 42 (citing Abington School District v. Schempp, supra, at 225). The book is, in fact, "the world's all-time best seller" n9 with undoubted literary and historic value apart from its religious content. The Establishment Clause is properly understood to prohibit the use of the Bible and other religious documents in public school education only when the purpose of the use is to advance a particular religious belief." Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578
I'd thoroughly enjoy a critical course study on the Bible. One would quickly come to the conclusion that it's not to be taken literally, given the archaic nature of much of the Old Testament.
Unless handicapped people aren't allowed in church, as the Bible commands in
"And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto Aaron, saying, Whosoever he be of thy seed in their generations that hath any blemish, let him not approach to offer the bread of his God. . . . a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or any thing superfluous. Or a man that is brokenfooted, or brokenhanded, Or crookbacked, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken; No man that hath a blemish of the seed of Aaron the priest shall come nigh to offer the offerings of the Lord made by fire . . . he shall not go in unto the vail, nor come nigh unto the altar, because he hath a blemish; that he profane not my sanctuaries: for I the Lord do sanctify them." (Leviticus 21:16-23)
or unless bats are actually birds and not mammals, as stated in the Bible here:
"And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray, And the vulture . . . And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat." (Leviticus 11:13-19, where "fowl" is oph. Repeated in Deuteronomy 14:11-20, calling the same list "birds" [tsippor] and "fowls" [oph])
Yes, if it's an elective.
" Will you feel the same when they introduce a class on the Koran?"
They already do in California.
Bible study course becomes lightning rod in church-state debate
**Will you feel the same when they introduce a class on the Koran?**
No, and I'm sure somewhere they already do.
I doubt that replying to your post is worth while, but I'll do it anyway. As for Leviticus 21:16-23, the Lord was speaking about the requirements for priesthood, NOT about handicapped people attending church.
As for the "bat" issue, God created them, I guess He knows what they are.
Did it say whether this is this part of Chuck Norris's campaign? He speaks out frequently for the National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools. They have passed legal muster in challenges, so far.
That's the one.
" Will you feel the same when they introduce a class on the Koran?"
They already do in California.
I totally agree. Government schools are just propaganda outlets. A transplanted Mexican rancher here in our part of the country says that most Americans are the only people in the world that think government is good. I wonder where they learned that?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.