Bible Course Becomes a Test for Public Schools in Texas

NY Times ^ | 8/1/05 | Ralph Blumenthal and Barbara Novovitch

[Crackingham]

When the school board in Odessa, the West Texas oil town, voted unanimously in April to add an elective Bible study course to the 2006 high school curriculum, some parents dropped to their knees in prayerful thanks that God would be returned to the classroom, while others assailed it as an effort to instill religious training in the public schools.

Hundreds of miles away, leaders of the National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools notched another victory. A religious advocacy group based in Greensboro, N.C., the council has been pressing a 12-year campaign to get school boards across the country to accept its Bible curriculum.

The council calls its course a nonsectarian historical and literary survey class within constitutional guidelines requiring the separation of church and state.

But a growing chorus of critics says the course, taught by local teachers trained by the council, conceals a religious agenda. The critics say it ignores evolution in favor of creationism and gives credence to dubious assertions that the Constitution is based on the Scriptures, and that "documented research through NASA" backs the biblical account of the sun standing still.

In the latest salvo, the Texas Freedom Network, an advocacy group for religious freedom, has called a news conference for Monday to release a study that finds the national council's course to be "an error-riddled Bible curriculum that attempts to persuade students and teachers to adopt views that are held primarily within conservative Protestant circles."

The dispute has made the curriculum, which the national council says is used by more than 175,000 students in 312 school districts in 37 states, the latest flashpoint in the continuing culture wars over religious influences in the public domain.

[Mylo]

Jefferson was not a Christian; so by "Nature's God" and "natural law" he meant....


what exactly?

And how would reading the Bible inform one as to this person's non-Christian views on the Constitution and natural law?

[Mylo]

And if I said that I thought Bill Clinton was "an immoral man but a great politician" it would be out of context but not a misstatement to say that I thought he was "an immoral man".

Just as Jefferson quote is out of context, but not incorrect; he did call the Bible a dunghill, albeit with diamonds in it.

[MamaTexan]

And how would reading the Bible inform one as to this person's non-Christian views on the Constitution and natural law?

Well, if you want the *nutshell* version-

Noah Webster, the man personally responsible for Art. I, Sec. 8, ¶ 8, of the U. S. Constitution, explained two centuries ago:
The duties of men are summarily comprised in the Ten Commandments, consisting of two tables; one comprehending the duties which we owe immediately to God-the other, the duties we owe to our fellow men.

The Ten Commandments are two sets of laws. Enforcement of the first 5 remains only in God's purview. The LAST 5 Commandments were laws between God and men AND punishable BY man. Breaking one of these 5 Commandments is what defines *crime* for ALL of the people.

These moral laws were already well known by Americans. When a person murdered (not to be confused with self defense), failed to live up to a contractual obligation (adultery), stole, lied, or conspired (covet) to do any of the above, that person committed a crime because they negatively and directly affected another human being.

______________________________________________________

If your interested in the fuller version, try:

e-Law books

Scroll down to the Liberty Library section

James McClellan, Liberty, Order, and Justice: An Introduction to the Constitutional Principles of American Government SectionC The Rule of Law

BTW If you try to take moral, Christian principles completely out of government, you've pulled 'the principals for which it stands' right out from under the Constitution.

'Cause it's not about God....it's about Freedom :)

[BenLurkin]

Too bad evolution class isn't an 'elective'.

[Noachian]

The Bible does not describe a government in any way remotely similar to that created in the Constitution.

Of course it doesn't. The period of time that the bible encompasses was a time of kings and emperors. At the time that the Constitution was created monarchy was the chief form of government. The Constitution was, at its creation, a unique form of government. To think that a constitutional form of government would be described in a 2000 year old bible is ludicrous.

Nothing listed in the Bill of Rights could be squared with the Bible, either. There is no "Freedom of Religion or Speech" in the Bible. Indeed, much of the OT preaches against such concepts.

Again, you're taking a unique form of government (an 18th century form of government) and trying to apply it to the first century. That's apples and oranges.

Methinks you really didn't put a lot of effort into your response, but simply reacted in a knee-jerk fashion.

Methinks you haven't done your homework. Read about the 56 men who risked their lives when they signed that declaration to be independent of King George, and think about why the first "right" in the Bill of Rights is the "free exercise of religion".

These were religious men who took their religion seriously, and had a firm belief that the Ten Commandments was the basis of natural law. These men built a constitutional government on the concept of men being equally endowed by their "Creator" with unalienable rights.

So, before you go through the Bible looking for rights, freedoms, and constitutional governments remember that the men who wrote, signed, and died for our Constitution, used their Christian faith to build a unique form of government that bibical peoples never knew. No other faith in the world has inspired such a document as ours.

[Mylo]

Yet when Thomas Jefferson said "natural law" do you think he was referring to the laws of the Bible that he called a dunghill?

And when Thomas Jefferson said "nature's god" do you think he meant Jesus Christ, who he thought of as not being the son of God, and openly scoffed at the idea of him being god himself (the trinity)?

[MamaTexan]

Oh, good grief.

You are still hung up on the *Jefferson was not a Christian thing?*

Do you think Jefferson was the ONLY Founder? There were FIFTY-FIVE men who attended the first Continental Convention, and THIRTY-NINE signed the Constitution.

Do you think Jefferson's admiration for the moral teachings of the Bible (FROM THE LINK IN YOUR PREVIOUS POST) NEGATED the most basic principals of the Decalogue?

Have you even BOTHERED to read anything that falls outside your personal views, or do your eyes slam shut when you see the word *Christian*??

Why don't you stop beating your anti Christian drum, Mylo....

and just run along and find Otis, okay?

[Mylo]

I am not anti-Christian. I am anti "this is a Christian nation, founded only by Christians and based upon the Christian faith" historical revisionism.

Many of the founders were Deists. Many were also Christian.

Why can't you answer two simple questions?

Did Jefferson mean the laws of the Bible when he said 'natural law'?

Did Jefferson mean the God of the Bible when he said 'nature's god'?

[Junior]

Your the one who claimed the Constitution is based on the Bible.

[MamaTexan]

I am anti "this is a Christian nation, founded only by Christians and based upon the Christian faith" historical revisionism.

Ah, yet again, you put words in my mouth (never said founded ONLY by Christians, did I?), and you do not do me the courtesy of reading the material I posted in order to back up my assertions.

See post #43 for an explanation of the correlation between the Christian faith, English common law and the rule of law in America.

__________________________________________________

ROFLMAO!

historical revisionism?

No my dear, it's a historical FACT that the laws in this country was based on the Christian faith.... so much so that the Commandments are listed in the CURRENT and LEGAL definition of natural law. (See post #20)

____________________________________________________________ Did Jefferson mean the laws of the Bible when he said 'natural law'?
Did Jefferson mean the God of the Bible when he said 'nature's god'?

Yes... He was not so foolish a man to throw away diamonds just because he'd found them in a dunghill, now was he?

In fact, he says so himself in his letter Letter To Dr. Benjamin Rush, dated April 21, 1803 :

In some of the delightful conversations with you in the evenings of 1798-99, and which served as an anodyne to the afflictions of the crisis through which our country was then laboring, the Christian religion was sometimes our topic; and I then promised you that one day or other I would give you my views of it. They are the result of a life of inquiry and reflection, and very different from that anti-Christian system imputed to me by those who know nothing of my opinions. To the corruptions of Christianity I am indeed opposed, but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian, in the only sense in which he wished anyone to be: sincerely attached to his doctrines in preference to all others, ascribing to himself every human excellence, and believing he never claimed any other.

This is the Introduction to Jefferson's Bible where it states:

Thomas Jefferson wrote in a letter to William Canby, "Of all the systems of morality, ancient or modern, which have come under my observation, none appear to me so pure as that of Jesus."

_________________________________________________

You seem erroneously convinced that any acknowledgment of the Christian faith and it's role in American government means you have to be a Christian.

In order to avoid that oh-so-horrible fate, you DENY the very thing that gives you your freedom.

I think Jefferson would be appalled!

[D Rider]

Mars and Earth never get that close; the gravitational influence between the two planets is negligible.

No kidding. Could that be because of the altered orbits, they were talking about then, hmmm?

Anyway, thanks for the tip, I had never noticed before. /sarcasm.

[Tequila25]

Here's a link to the summary of the problems they have with the current curriculum.

* The curriculum cites a “respected scholar” who claims that archaeological evidence “always confirms the facts of the Biblical record” [page 170]. Yet that “respected scholar” claimed elsewhere to have seen Jesus’ school records in India, records from the lost continent of Atlantis and evidence that Egypt’s Great Pyramid of Giza was used to transmit radio messages to the Grand Canyon thousands of years ago.
* The curriculum uses a discredited urban legend that NASA has evidence that two days are missing in time, thus “confirming” a biblical passage about the sun standing still [pages 116-17].

* The curriculum misstates the length of the ancient Jewish calendar [page 14] and the years of the rule of Herod as king of the Jews [pages 193 and 196].
* The answer key to a quiz [page 87] identifies a pharaoh as “Hyksos.” Hyksos was the name of an Asiatic-Semitic people who once ruled Egypt.
* One passage [page 138] asks students to consider how the use of “simple monosyllabic words” in a passage of Old Testament poetry was typical of the Hebrews. Yet while the words in these passages may be monosyllabic in English translations, they are quite different in Hebrew and Greek. How English syllabification provides insight into the ancient Hebrew mindset is not explained.

Inadequate Citation
The curriculum is shockingly lax when it comes to properly crediting sources – inexcusable in any scholarly writing at either the high school or college level. For example, the wording of the sections titled “Pilate” and “Herod,” which constitute pages 195-196 in their entirety, is identical to that of passages from the articles “Pilate, Pontius,” and “Herod the Great” in Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia 2001. No source is cited. In fact, a considerable amount of the curriculum’s content – Dr. Chancey estimates one-third or more of its pages – is reproduced word for word from its sources (both cited and uncited), often for pages at a time, though the curriculum does not note this or indicate that permission has been granted to reproduce these passages.

If this is all true, I would want this course pulled simply because it looks so unprofessional and kooky that it makes Christians look wacky. Why would you want to give more ammunition to the libs to discredit Christianity?

[malakhi]

No kidding. Could that be because of the altered orbits, they were talking about then, hmmm? Anyway, thanks for the tip, I had never noticed before. /sarcasm.

I was trying to be polite. The entire theory is, frankly, moonbat crazy. Maybe good for a segment on the Art Bell show, but not something taken seriously by actual scientists. If you think it has any sort of plausibility, you are seriously mistaken.

[little jeremiah]

Moral Absolutes Ping.

Note how those on the left hate and fear actual religion, any symbol, however small, like changing the city (or was it county) seal of Los Angeles?

Folks, this is an ELECTIVE course. Not mandatory. And when you consider the inroads that homosexual activists have made in the public schools, and this one small effort to give shoolchildren the opportunity to hear the word of God - in historical context, this is not a sectarian missionary project - this is a drop in the bucket.

But they can't stand it. I don't know about you, but I am sick and fed up. Really sick, and really fed up.

Freepmail me if you want on/off this pinglist.

[little jeremiah]

And consider how much of the pro-homosexual (and what to speak of other leftist crap) teaching/promotion in schools is absolutely mandatory!

[D Rider]

...but not something taken seriously by actual scientists. If you think it has any sort of plausibility, you are seriously mistaken.

I really don't know much about it, so the comparison is unfair. But it seems about as plausible as macro evolution. But of course since I don't know much about it comparing it to something as ridiculous as macro evolution is unfair.

[Mylo]

Is Newton's theory of Universal Gravitational Attraction even up for debate? Come on now! It is a mathematical formula that has been demonstrated to be highly accurate in every situation tested. Your knowledge of science is EXTREMELY lacking.

[Just mythoughts]

"But a growing chorus of critics says the course, taught by local teachers trained by the council, conceals a religious agenda. The critics say it ignores evolution in favor of creationism and gives credence to dubious assertions that the Constitution is based on the Scriptures, and that "documented research through NASA" backs the biblical account of the sun standing still. "


Fear of funding cuts send critics off the deep end. Got to laugh when critics accuse somebody of concealment of a religious agenda.

[Matchett-PI]

"DEISM?"

You need to get your facts straight. Check my profile page.