nothing about it excludes others, its no different than other offerings at state schools. just because it would concentrate on the bible or christianity does not by itself equal promotion of christianity or violate the lemon test. REL317 at state is about christianity, REL311 about the old testament and REL312 about the new. At high schools the bible is already covered in world histories and other courses, simply having a secular study of it is not promoting or inhibiting.

[Edited on February 28, 2013 at 10:50 AM. Reason : .]

2/28/2013 10:39:03 AM

State also offers courses on other religions.

REL 331 The Hindu Tradition
REL 332 The Buddhist Traditions
REL 333 Chinese Religions
REL 334 Japanese Religions
REL 340 Islam
REL 350 Introduction to Judaism

Get it?

2/28/2013 11:14:59 AM

And nothing about this bill prevents high schools from having classes on other things too, or covering them in the same class (they even suggest that). The bill doesn't really change anything at all, it doesn't violate the lemon test, it doesn't even create any new classes at all.



[Edited on February 28, 2013 at 11:35 AM. Reason : .]

2/28/2013 11:22:29 AM

Your response was more amusing before you edited it (twice).

2/28/2013 12:30:35 PM

It's also substantially different when it's being taught to 18+ year olds who are paying yo attend vs. Being taught in mandatory attendance school.

2/28/2013 12:31:27 PM

typijng on a phone is hard work

^is there case law about that?

[Edited on February 28, 2013 at 12:32 PM. Reason : ?]

2/28/2013 12:31:50 PM

How hard would it be to make the law pertain to a "Religious Studies Elective" and not "Bible Study"? It claims "religious neutrality" but it is specifically advancing study of Holy Books for only a particular few religions, when it could easily be all-encompassing.

[Edited on February 28, 2013 at 1:47 PM. Reason : .]

2/28/2013 1:45:40 PM

this bill creates 0 classes

3/1/2013 8:06:18 AM

Your point? It's still sectarian horseshit being pushed by a public servant.

3/1/2013 11:00:33 AM

dtown I never said it created classes, try again.

In fact, try to answer my question: Why would it be hard to just change the bill's wording from "Torah and New Testament" (Clever way for them to avoid saying Bible when that's obviously what they're gunning for) to "Religious Holy Books".



[Edited on March 1, 2013 at 1:57 PM. Reason : .]

3/1/2013 1:57:00 PM

Quote :

"(i) follow federal and State law in maintaining religious neutrality and accommodating the diverse religious views, traditions, and perspectives of the students of the local school administrative unit and (ii) not endorse, favor or promote, or disfavor or show hostility toward any particular religion, nonreligious faith, or religious perspective.""

it definitely favors Christianity, in that it specifically addresses Christianity and no other religions.

3/1/2013 5:08:50 PM

That's allowed

[Edited on March 1, 2013 at 5:14 PM. Reason : ^^i don't support this because of that, but its not unconstitutional ]

3/1/2013 5:13:39 PM

[Edited on March 1, 2013 at 5:18 PM. Reason : Dl]

3/1/2013 5:18:01 PM

how dare they study a text that was monumental to this nation's founding!

3/2/2013 12:49:12 PM

Despite what you might have been taught in Sunday School, the Constitution wasn't based on the Bible.

3/2/2013 1:06:17 PM

^^Are you referring to Texas trying to remove Thomas Jefferson from the text books, and thus much of the US do to their buying power and ability to control the market?

3/2/2013 1:36:30 PM

NO SEE JEFFERSON WAS A HEATHEN ATHEIST AND A BLOT UPON THE HISTORY OF OUR GOOD CLEAN WHITE COLONIAL CHRISTIAN REPUBLIC

3/2/2013 2:12:03 PM

Thomas Jefferson didn't read the Bible. It didn't shape his views and values at all. It's not like he studied and modified the Bible or anything. Nor did Judeo-Christian beliefs shape the Constitution. You're totally right. The founding fathers were not theists. They were staunch atheists, actually.

Thanks, guys! I forgot!

Proposing that our nation was founded as a Christian nation is different from proposing that the Christian Bible heavily influenced our founding. I'm arguing the latter. That might be a hard distinction to make for the revisionist knee-jerk liberals, but I think you can do it, guys.

[Edited on March 3, 2013 at 12:58 AM. Reason : ]

3/3/2013 12:34:14 AM

Quote :

"Christian Bible heavily influenced our founding. I'm arguing the latter."

You haven't argued shit. You've made an assertion and.....?

3/4/2013 9:05:57 AM

Yeah. I'm asserting. I didn't think I would have to argue it. You don't think the Bible influenced our founders in any significant way?

In fact, I am not even going to argue that. Google can do that for you. You don't need to respond. Your idiocy could very well blow my mind if you think the Bible didn't influence our founding fathers. What great lengths some of you go in order to hate on religion and any semblance of conservatism!

[Edited on March 4, 2013 at 1:52 PM. Reason : ]

3/4/2013 1:41:26 PM

uh, you're arguing against something no one has said that wasn't being discussed that you started

3/4/2013 2:01:32 PM

lol

Quote :

"SEEMS UNNECESSARILY REDUNDANT"

3/4/2013 3:12:25 PM

Quote :

"You don't think the Bible influenced our founders in any significant way?"

I think Plato's Republic influenced our founders in a significant way. What in the holy hell does any of that have to do with whether our state legislators should be passing laws encouraging public schools to have Bible Study?

3/4/2013 4:23:11 PM

Quote :

"how dare they study a text that was monumental to this nation's founding! "

3/4/2013 11:41:34 PM

Define 'monumental'.

3/5/2013 12:01:30 AM

Yes please, since you want to turn this thread into a defense of the Bible, what fucking passages were "monumental" in the formation of our country? Was it the "don't malign the Holy Spirit" passages that prompted the 1st Amendment? Was it the God getting pissed at Samuel not killing all the livestock in addition to the women and children in 1 Sam 15?

Christianity essentially has been running the show in Western Civilization for 1700 years. De facto, it has an influence on many things. The American Government, however, was *the* first expressly secular government. Its departure from existing dogma is what makes it special, not its adherence to it.

And since you clearly want to go down this road, many of our founding fathers were deists, the least devout form of believers. Thomas Jefferson's Bible would be considered sacrilege by almost all modern Christians. We can produce reams of quotations by Jefferson and Adams showing their disdain for Christianity and the effects of the Church on European politics and a definitive desire to not repeat the same mistakes in the new country.

3/5/2013 9:13:00 PM

Quote :

"Christianity essentially has been running the show in Western Civilization for 1700 years"

Thanks! Reason enough for it to be studied. Case closed.

Thomas Jefferson loved parts of the Bible. And hated others. It should be studied.

I never said they were devout Christians. Good try, though. Deists, indeed. And they picked their theistic beliefs from thin air? Or the Quran? Or...maybe the Bible?

And many were devout Christians. Google helps. http://christianity.about.com/od/independenceday/a/foundingfathers.htm

Quote :

"since you want to turn this thread into a defense of the Bible"

Nope. Just the study of it. But by all means! Let's go ahead and censor everything we disagree with!

Plus those Pilgrims were Atheists? Muslims? I forget, but I'm sure they didn't adhere to Biblical teachings.

[Edited on March 6, 2013 at 12:12 AM. Reason : ]

3/5/2013 11:58:25 PM

Religion influences cultures and stuff? No way !

3/6/2013 10:33:34 AM

haha i know. especially ours. exactly why we should study it.

if anything, an objective examination would demonstrate how much the religious right has missed the mark.

but if the right introduced a bill, let's play politics and shoot it down BC IT MUST BE RELIGIOUS TYRANNY!

(to be honest, they probably were being conservative jacklegs trying to BRING AMURICA BACK TO GOD and stick it to the liberals. but i think the ends override their political motivations in this case. but like it's been said, this doesn't really change anything anyway. i just don't get why people feel so threatened by Bible study)

[Edited on March 6, 2013 at 12:55 PM. Reason : ]

3/6/2013 12:49:40 PM

What are the ends...

a) ideally?
b) as you currently perceive them to be?
c) as they're likely to be?

[Edited on March 6, 2013 at 1:03 PM. Reason : .]

3/6/2013 1:02:54 PM

^^ shooting this bill down would not prevent schools from creating this class

3/6/2013 1:18:34 PM

Quote :

"haha i know. especially ours. exactly why we should study it. "

Already do.

Quote :

"if anything, an objective examination would demonstrate how much the religious right has missed the mark."

Says who?

Quote :

"but if the right introduced a bill, let's play politics and shoot it down BC IT MUST BE RELIGIOUS TYRANNY! "

If Elizabeth Warren herself introduced this bill I'd send her a fucking e-mail too. It didn't just happen to be a Republican that introduced it.

Quote :

"to be honest, they probably were being conservative jacklegs trying to BRING AMURICA BACK TO GOD and stick it to the liberals. but i think the ends override their political motivations in this case. but like it's been said, this doesn't really change anything anyway. i just don't get why people feel so threatened by Bible study"

It's not just bible study. It's bible study in public schools. It's changing the national anthem. It's changing the national motto. It's dedicating prayers at every public event. It's on every courthouse. It's on the fucking money! How much is enough? For a country supposedly founded on the idea that people can believe whatever the fuck they want, Christians are just not satisfied unless everyone else is goosestepping to their march.

And I'm not referring to everyone that self-identifies as a Christian here, of course.

3/7/2013 2:15:50 PM

TJ had some thoughts on "harmless" insertions of specific religious references in law:

Quote :

"“The bill for establishing religious freedom, the principles of which had, to a certain degree, been enacted before, I had drawn in all the latitude of reason and right. It still met with opposition; but, with some mutilations in the preamble, it was finally passed; and a singular proposition proved that its protection of opinion was meant to be universal. Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed, by inserting the word “Jesus Christ,” so that it should read, “a departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;” the insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and the Mahometan, the Hindoo, and the Infidel of every denomination.""

Life and Selected Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Modern Library 1993 edition, pp. 45 and 46.

Reminder also that John Adams studied Hinduism http://usreligion.blogspot.com/2013/03/reading-about-hindoos-with-john-adams.html

[Edited on March 11, 2013 at 11:42 AM. Reason : .]

3/11/2013 11:41:17 AM