Public Schools should not teach the Bible. While there may be some relevance to understanding the role of the Bible in American history, given that Christianity is the majority religion in this country, no way should public schools be teaching the Bible. Support of the Bible and Christianity will be totally implicit in the discussions.

Its called Separation of Church and State

In the early 1960's, after a move, my parents moved me from a parochial grammar school to the Lynn Public Schools. Suddenly, instead of the Baltimore Catechism, we started our 5th grade day with the Lord's Prayer. (I had never heard "for thine is the kingdom", etc. before). A few years later, I went back to Catholic school. I can honestly say that learning about other religions had no effect on my Catholicism. (In fact, my wonderful teacher leading us in the prayer was Jewish. Thank you Mrs. Cort!) If Texans don't like Muslims prosyletizing, they shouldn't do it themselves.

No. Plain and simple. This is America, not Saudi Arabia.

Looks like Texas is trying to one-up the Taliban!

We are talking about HISTORY classes here now having religious undertones? What? Science has already been taken over in Texas by the creationist movement and now history? No wonder why other countries are exceeding us in science!

According to a recent Wall Street Journal article (Iinked below), Texas is also trying to eliminate Thurgood Marshall from textbooks (you know, the Supreme Court Justice) and Cesar Chavez because they are voices of the people who represent the democratic process.

They will instead list evangelical leaders such as as Billy Graham as "great American minds"

Religious education belongs in Sunday school, not public schools. Why isn't Sunday school enough for some people?

The reason why this matters? Texas is a textbook publisher's cash cow. Many publishers try to take Texas books and market them to other states. Thus, the implications of braod use of these books need to be considered.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124753078523935615.html#mod=rss_Today%27s_Most_Popular

From a standpoint of Western Cultural literacy, I think it's important for students to have familiarity with at least portions of the Bible, especially the Old Testament. In particular the 'historical' books, the Pentateuch, Kings, Chronicles, Judges, Ruth, Esther etc. They should also be familiar with the key Prophets.

The Bible should be taught as literature, just as The Iliad, The Odyssey, The Aeneid, and The Metamorphoses are. Like them, it should be presented as a mythology. Because of the place of primacy holds in English letters, the King James Version should be the primary text. The Oxford Study Bible can be used as a reference for contemporary scholarship. The baudlerized texts preferred by Evangelicals, like 'The Good News Bible', should be banned from the classroom.

Like it our not, America was founded on Judo-Christian principles, as such it's part of our history and part of the fabric of America.

Religion shouldn't be force fed, but failing to learn about the Bible means failing to learn about American history.

This is insane, its saying that Texas favors Christianity over any other religion. My high school teaches a religion studies class, covering a wide variety of religions and how they have impacted history through war, politics, you name it. But requiring, or even allowing, public schools to teach a class on the Bible would have the writers of our constitution furious. I hope this goes to court.

love it so glad that school systems are for once introducing the bible into the curriculum.

p.s. i am 20 yrs old and went through a school system never once learning about the bible or jesus

I was taught the "Bible as literature" in high school. As a non-Christian it was the most uncomfortable, preachy, and biased experience I've ever had with the Bible.

I do agree that it's an important piece of mythology, and one that is deeply imbedded in Western Civilization. As a history major, I couldn't really have understood the power structure of Europe without understanding the power of the church. However, this means I'm also informed about the Bible--how the books that make up the Bible were chosen, various theories on authors, and how those decisions were about the politics of the place and time than about anything "holy"

I plan to share the Bible with my daughter...as mythology. As one group of people's attempt to understand the world around them, no different from Greek Mythology's attempts to do the same hundreds of years earlier. However, I will not consent to her receiving instruction on the Bible in a public school....I've yet to see it done in a k-12 setting without a secondary agenda on the part of the teacher.

While we bomb Madrassas for being centers of religious extremism, our public school children are learning the Bible in class.

Does nobody see the irony in this?

The quote from Reddit is completely on point; while the bill purports to "neither promote nor disparage" any given religion, it completely contradicts itself by only requiring Biblical classes. It's an absurd piece of doublespeak. This is a thinly veiled attempt at forcing the Bible into a place where it simply doesn't belong

I am a rising senior at Newton South high school and sophomore year English classes are required to do a unit on the bible as a piece of literature. I myself am an atheist, but the bible is nonetheless an important part of today's society. It is true that the bible does not belong in the science classroom, however in an English classroom it is perfectly legitimate, even in a history classroom, as long as it is not taught in such a way that students are forced to believe in it. I do agree that if it is going to be taught it should be taught along with doctrines from other faiths (I wish Newton would do this!)

I think that students can take away Martin Luther King Jr's message without having to study the bible. There is plenty of time during post-secondary education to delve deeper, if students choose to do so. I agree with the Reddit.com commentator. Equal billing. Chistianity, while the most prominent, is hardly the only religion to impact the development of our country (even if our legal system and morality is based in Judeo-Christian tradition). If parents choose to teach their children about the bible, let them go to classes dedicated to such study, Sunday School.

Acton Boxborough Regional in Massachusetts had a senior elective that explored the bible and literature -- in the 1980's. No big deal! Public universities have religion departments! These explorations should not be expunged from public education.

Teach it as fiction or fantasy literature.

I agree with PaulQ. If the Bible (using the King James Version, which was the version known to the Founding Fathers and the masters of English-language literature) is taught in the same classes as Plato's Dialogues, the Iliad, the Odyssey, the Aeneid, and the tales of Scandinavian mythology, and taught in the same way, then this might be acceptable. But there is certainly no acceptable rationale for having it in the public school classroom in any other context.

Of course if the Taliban supporters who want to inflict religion - THEIR religion -- on captive audiences, they should be forced also to point out how the Bible was used to justify slavery, domestic violence, lynchings, and other pretty scummy things.

Kids know about the bible today? Your'e kidding, right?

Seriously, there is no reason that it can't be taught as part of history, and it should be. I'm all for teaching about other religions as well, in a historical context. You can't include everything - there are simply too many of them. And since Christianity has a large role in American history, I think it should be a large part of the class. If the teacher wants to add a couple of other religions (assuming they have some historical context), that's fine as well. BUT, there can be no biases - either way.

Yes, selected readings from the Bible should be taught along with selected readings from all the major religions. Why anyone would want to graduate children with them being completely ignorant of the various beliefs and practices of the world is beyond me. There is a huge difference between teaching kids about religion and teaching them to believe in religion.

Let them go to Sunday School to learn this fiction. I'd rather more time was spent on learning to read, or geography. Many Americans can't point to Africa on a map or construct a normal sentence.

The reason we have free public education in the U.S. in the first place is because a number of the Founders, like Dr. Benjamin Rush, were concerned that without such education, American children would not be able to read their Bibles. Rush, a signer of the Declaration of Independence who became known as "America's doctor" because of his contributions to public health, wrote that the Bible "...should be read in our schools in preference to all other books from its containing the greatest portion of that kind of knowledge which is calculated to produce private and public temporal happiness." So the cultural and educational inversion from which we now suffer includes the notion that the thing for which public education was initiated must be expurgated from said education.

For all those who say it should be taught as "history", you would have to teach everything, including the parts about selling children into slavery and killing people who work on Sunday's. Gotta take the good with the bad, right?

I don't understand what the BIBLE has to do with American history, as much as Christianity. We learned about the Great Awakening in US History class without delving into the life of Jesus or the parables of the Old Testament and I feel like I have an appreciation and an acceptable depth of knowledge on the effect of religion on American society. No student needs to study to Bible to know this, though, they just need to study American History. The argument of the Texas board of education is fallacious, dishonest, and certainly not in the best interests of the students.

Hey cn,

Speaking of "normal" sentences: you should have written "I'd rather more time WERE spent on learning to read..." rather than "was". The subjunctive form is required here.

Mythology can be taught in an objective way (Greek, Roman) but only if there is reasonable certainty that no one actually believes any of it. This is just a backdoor attempt to mak public schools madrasses.

OTC--
America was not founded on Judeo-christian principles. It was founded on the principles of a new religion called Liberalism that drew a distinction between faith and reason.

I actually agree that a study of the perversion of the Bible in America would make for an interesting class, but its not appropriate for high school aged children.

To Schlippo: There is no irony because the children being taught the Bible in the States aren't crashing airplanes into buildings or blowing themselves up on buses.

The thing that I find most interesting is that everyone in the country believes the separation of church and state to be law. The only law concerning the relations of church and state are found in the First Amendment, which says that the government can't infringe upon the church. There is no mention of the church every being kept out of the government. The "separation of church and state" that we have today is the result of judicial legislation from the Supreme Court; there is no federal legislation about it whatsoever. However, the United States has never been a Judeo-Christian based state (Treaty of Tripoli, 1797). Despite this, it is clear that the Christian religion and the Bible influenced the Founding Fathers and even some of the nation's modern leaders, such as Dr. King, Jr., as Mrs. Alphonse pointed out.

The Bible should be taught in school - it is THE best-selling book of all time and one of the most influential of all time. What matters is how it is taught. It can be taught without biases, as it should be, even in a church. In a history class, its influences on this country should be taught the same way the influences of the Judaic and Muslim faiths on the Middle East are taught - to leave them out would be a grave error. In an English class, it should be used as a piece of literature, much like Paradise Lost or Shakespeare is. Most archetypes used in writing today can be traced back to the Bible, a fact that is key to understanding modern literature. The best case is to teach it in a "World Religions" class, as it was done at my private high school and my public university. The job of schools is to educate and create informed discussions; its tough to do that when you censor influential literature.

Good point Gradstudent6
Teach about Christianity, the KKK, racism, xenophobia, but leave the Bible oit of it. The Bible has nothing to do with Christianity's effects on the building of America. Whether the Bible has anything to do with Christianity at all is another issue for another forum.

Would somebody PLEASE do their research?!! Nowhere in the US Constitution or any other document from our founding fathers is any mention of "separation of Church and State". It was a quote from a letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote to Baptist minister in regards to a letter of concern that some churches at that time had about the newly written 1st ammendment. (See TJ's letter to the Danbury Baptist Assc. 1802) The fear was that our government would conform to ONE DENOMINATION much like England did and have too much power running the nation. Today all that is heard of that is that phrase over and over without ANY regard to it's context. Fact: For 170 years prior to

Engle vs. Vitale (the case that struck down school prayer) the word "church" in "church and state" was commonly known to mean a federally wstablished denomination. In 1962, the court explained that it NOW would mean ANY religious activity performed in public. By 1962 the courts not only removed prayer but also: Bible reading, religious classes and religious instruction.
I challenge anyone reading this to do some research on our society since that time and do a comparison between the rate of:
Violent Crime
Divorce
Teenage Pregnancy (Western world)
Voluntary Abortions
Illegal Drug Use
Illiteracy

You can be the biggest opponent to the Bible and what it teaches, argue all day about personal rights and Christians "shoving the Bible down your throat". But stats don't lie. This country was founded and dedicated to God and his principles. We elbow Him out of our lives, guess what, He elbows us out just the same. The state of this nation is in dire straits without Him. What is going on in Texas is a GOOD thing. If anyone thinks he's spiritual and has any connection with God at all, put your pride down and actually pray and ask God yourself what He thinks about it. I promise you, it'll turn out for the better.

It's elective folks, take it easy. If you don't want to have your child exposed to the "bible" don't let them step in the classroom. Please read:""Even though the courses are elective, not mandatory, and are supposed to focus on how Christianity has influenced American history and society, some parents are furious."

"

This Texas bill is based on the legal parameters from the United States Supreme Court "We agree of course that the State may not establish a "religion of secularism" in the sense of affirmatively opposing or showing hostility to religion, thus "preferring those who believe inn no religion over those who do believe." Zorach v. Clauson, supra, at 314. We do not agree, however, that this decision in any sense has that effect. In addition, it might well be said that one's education is not complete without a study of comparative religion or the history of religion and its relationship to the advancemenet of civilizaation. It certainly may be said that the Bible is worthy..."

movingtarget, what in the world are you talking about? "The Bible has nothing to do with Christianity's effects on the building of America" ??!? Huh? What does that mean?

Proeducator-- It can't be taught without biases when such a large portion of the populace get all nutty just thinking about it. Too many people place their own self-worth and beliefs in various aspects of it. Greek and Roman mythology are appropriate at the high school level because, while much of it is also found in the Bible, no one actually considers themselves believers in Greek or Roman mythology.
Besides, do you seriously think a believer is going to be ok with the Bible being discussed objectively? Some believe it is the Word Of God.
They won't take kindly to it being mocked and otherwise disected.

And yes, Christians have done things just as bad as Muslims. Even in America's short history there's ample evidence of racism, xenophobia, persecution, pogroms, gaybashing, what have you. All done in the name faith.

@Movingtarget- If it can't be taught without biases, how is it allowed to be taught at public universities? Even Harvard (private, I know), one of the most liberal universities in the states, has a School of Divinity. It can easily be taught without bias. And who says a believer has to be teaching it? I'm sure plenty of non-believers would be willing to teach it, the same way non-Muslims teach classes on the Koran, non-Jews on the Torah, etc.

People have done awful things in the name of faith, Christian, Muslim, Jewish- all of them. But let's not forget what atheists, agnostics, and the non-religious have done: Lenin, Stalin, Mao Zedong, Khmer Rouge... the list is just as long, the body count possibly higher.

I don't know Jim. How do you think it does? I am aware that we had slavery for the first 80 years, but it was as unamerican in 1789 as it is in 2009.

There is no doubt that Christianity has impacted the path the country has taken to becoming what it is. We have Thanksgiving because of Pilgrims, we have a face to attach to Halloween because of the Puritans. Christmas has become the largest secular event in the world, mostly because of America's culture of materialism. But the Bible has nothing to do with it.

I'd like to comment but unfortunately the reviewer would delete what's I'd like to write those Texas morons.

Hey Schlippo, more irony for ya: we try to coerce dirt-poor Afghan farmers not to grow opium poppies, a product that can be of great medicinal benefit, yet remain the world's principal purveyor of tobacco, which is responsible for far more morbidity and mortality than opium ever has or ever will be.

Opium farmers bow to Mecca five times a day. Tobacco farmers read the bible and praise the lord.

In university, regardless of "public", and don't be fooled by the term, or private, one chooses one's own course of study. By the age of 19-22 one is hopefully mature enough to study things objectively, and that is what university is for. High school is a mandatory course of study, even if some courses are electives, there little room for objectivity.

Before I hit the sack tonight, I have to give a shout-out to Kenneth de Benedictis. Props for a strong post, and amen.

NO. NO. NO.

NOT in the public school system.

What ever happened to Bible Study classes for those who would like their children to participate in this curriculum outside of the public school venue? Are these classes no longer available?

Jim Nagle -- your "correction" in post 23 is incorrect. Before attempting to correct someone else, perhaps you should review a book on usage.

OTC,

"As the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen "

Treaty of Tipoli, 1797

The United States was founded on the rational principals of the Age of Enlightenment. It is 'Christian' only to the extent defined by Thomas Jefferson when he said "I embrace the moral teachings of Jesus; I reject the revelations of scripture", which is to say not really 'Christian' at all.

They still have those classes and they're overflowing. What we have here is an attempt to backdoor maddrass teaching in America. The Legislature knew an elective would not raise too much of a row. But it won't be an elective for long, and like I said earlier, you can not expect 50,000 teachers in Texas to discuss the Bible objectively.
Lest we lose sight of the reality, this is a political move designed to appease a population of voters who were dissatisfied with secular teaching.

A lot of you missed the part of the article where it said the class would be ELECTIVE not mandatory. Calm down.

Why is it that so many people are afraid of the Bible? The reason is because the Bible is not an ordinary book; it is the Word of God. It is alive and is able to teach us and convict us. Hebrews 4:12: "For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart."

Hey "Strunk and White"- I know that you are neither William Strunk nor E.B. White, and not only because they are both deceased, but because you do not understand or recognize the subjunctive mood. The verb "to be", when applied in the subjunctive, takes the "were" form regardless of the subject noun or person and/or tense of the subject pronoun.

Texas is becoming a socialist state. They are creating a socialist religious program.

How can private religious schools compete with the government run programs?

The Texas government is getting between me and my god. They are rationing what religious services I can get.

They are going to pull the plug on Grandma's old Bible.

Kenneth, you make several mistakes in your logic. Firstly a spiritual person is not a southern baptist. If I want my kids to get a religious education at the expense of my fellow taxpayers who is to say I'd agree with anything this course teaches?
Secondly, this country was not founded as a christian theocracy. Quite the opposite actually. On purpose. The coincidental "In God we trust" on our currency has no connection to the Christian God. And even if it did, and I must repeat it doesn't, how would this be any different than the UK keeping its queen on its currency.
And lets not even be tempted to discuss the religious beliefs of the founding fathers. Its technically irrelevent, but if you're still tempted you'll be very disapointed.

Proeducator and Kenneth: The Constitution does absolutely speak of separation between church and state. No, it does not use those words. It says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"; therefore, as our Court has long held, a government initiative to indoctrinate students in a religion would qualify as "establishment" of religion. This is not a new idea in our legal history.

The point of the article is, if you actually read it, that the bill itself is neutral and neither infringes on the free exercise of non-Christians nor establishes Christianity as the preferred religion -- but that in practice, it is troublesome; that is a devotional class rather than a neutral education class. And the "in practice" part matters. What seemed good in theory is turning into church service in school.

And to the poster who said it's no big deal because Harvard has a Divinity School: please, study law. There is a substantial legal difference between a private college and a public high school.

That all said, I love the idea -- in theory -- of a class in which the political influences of Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, etc., are taught. All these religions have informed history to a great extent. One does not need to be versed in the doctrines in a history class, but discussion is wonderful. A separate religion class, as Texas has, would be far more educationally sound if it explored other religious texts as well -- other religions have also had an enormous impact on international relations and current events.

Correction: Obviously I should not have used the word "tense" in connection with a pronoun. What I meant to convey is that the "were" form is used whether first, second or third person, and whether the subject is singular or plural.

Proeducator, powerful people do bad things. That's the rule, not the exception. But to imply that the socalled atheists have done more damage than the socalled theists is revisionist history. The 20th century mat be close to a draw, but there are somewhere between 19 and 49 more centuries that go in a unanimous decision.

Alas, I believe this discussion is in danger of going on a tangent. This is not the appropriate message board for some of this discussion. Lets try to stay on topic and if one wants to then one can start a thread on the Politics board.

@mt: While high school is mandatory, the class is an elective. I managed to go to high school and not take journalism, Greek, AP Chemistry and many others because they were electives. And how does it being an elective relate to its objectivity?

I, personally, am shocked by the liberals here who are supporting censorship.

One more thing Kenneth, you cite what amounts to the 4 Horsemen as examples of what happens when religion is removed from schools and/or the law. At best you're using spurious correlation and more likely you've got it backwards.
This discussion is further proof of the global success of evangelicalism. Crime still goes up as does misery. A great example of what rampant evangelicalism does can be found in Gaza, Afghanistan, etc. take your pick. The logical extension of this as it pertains to America is the teaching of creationsim. If and when this likelyhood comes to pass we will as a country will have to come to terms with being a not so major global power, for our children will have not only a second rate education, but will lack the basis to learn the basic skills required in the workplace which require emphasis on emprical evidence and the scientific method.

For starters this is no where in the same universe as censorship. What would you say is be censored? That's just a ridiculous comment that needs no further attention.

Yes, the class is an elective, and legally they snuck one in there. However, what if the claim of objectivity, which I've already commented is unattainable, is allowed to just fade away after a year or two. Then you've got maddrasses (un)teaching children at taxpayers expense. And what of peer pressure (this is the appropriate forum after all)? And what happens when it is not an elective.
Again, university is where one goes to study controversial subjects.

Sorry for all my typos. There is no edit function on the Mom board. And it is late.

mt- There is "rampant evangelicalism" in Gaza, and Afghanistan? Wow, I missed that one. I always thought there was rampant islamism in those places. I think you may have "evangelicalism", a term applied to the born-again, witnessing brand of Christianity, confused with strangle-hold Islam which aims to convert by the sword rather than by witnessing persuasion.

The problem with the class is that in texas, the substantial majority of the populous is christian ands takes the book as the "Word of God." More often than not, there will be one of those people in charge of instruction in the class. This relates directly to the instruction on its influence on history for its use as the justification for such horrific acts as slavery, lynching, etc. will be downplayed. Also, the class, because it only focuses on the Bible, could be turned into a devotional class, regardless of how often that will occur. I'm not denying in anyway or aspect the Bible influence on people such as Dr. King or any of the founding fathers.

Mt, since Christianity has only been around for 21 centuries, I'd be willing to put money down that more non-Christians have been the killers and enslavers.

Jlen, while there clearly is a huge difference between Harvard and a Texas high school (I was not suggesting otherwise), those legal differences shouldn't affect the teachability of a subject.

Mt, since Christianity has only been around for 21 centuries, I'd be willing to put money down that more non-Christians have been the killers and enslavers.

Jlen, while there clearly is a huge difference between Harvard and a Texas high school (I was not suggesting otherwise), those legal differences shouldn't affect the teachability of a subject. I stand corrected on the wording of the Constitution, however. Good pickup.

How is this any different from those who are proponents of sex ed in schools. I bet all of you who are railing against the Bible being taught (as history and as an elective) in school are OK with your 6th grade kids being shown how to put a condom on a banana and told about all of the different variations in sexual partners, etc. Many sex ed/health classes are being taught by teachers who are putting their own beliefs about sex into the conversation and "indoctrinating" kids into a promiscuous lifestyle. I'd be willing to bet that those of you who wouldn't stand for your child to be in a class about the Bible are more than willing to send them off to be taught about sexual "freedom" from a stranger all in the name of progression.

How is this any different from those who are proponents of sex ed in schools. I bet all of you who are railing against the Bible being taught (as history and as an elective) in school are OK with your 6th grade kids being shown how to put a condom on a banana and told about all of the different variations in sexual partners, etc. Many sex ed/health classes are being taught by teachers who are putting their own beliefs about sex into the conversation and "indoctrinating" kids into a promiscuous lifestyle. I'd be willing to bet that those of you who wouldn't stand for your child to be in a class about the Bible are more than willing to send them off to be taught about sexual "freedom" from a stranger all in the name of progression.

"Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance; and I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together" - James Madison

This is clearly unconstitutional - not teaching the Bible itself, but requiring the Bible be taught. And I expect many of the "it's no big deal" people would be in an uproar if they found out their kids would be taught out of the Koran or Hindu or Buddhist or Tao texts.

@LilyWhite...

1-Not every sex ed class is like that.

2-To be a health teacher in MA, you need a Master's Degree and quite a bit of specialized training...not just any teacher is supposed to be teaching those classes.

3-That some teachers lack the correct training is the VERY reason it's often contracted out to professionals like Planned Parenthood.

What makes it different? Oh, just that sex ed teaches facts (just because YOU don't like that there are multiple sexualities or that knowing how to properly put on a condom prevents the spread of STD's and STI's and lowers the risk of accidental pregnancy doesn't make any of it untrue). There is nothing biased about explaining the truth about pregnancy prevention, and sexual health.

However...Sex Ed isn't taught such that if you disagree with their beliefs and abstain that you will spend eternity in hell. I've been told that plenty by Bible thumpers. And you can't tell me a Texas Classroom isn't home to a Bible Thumper.

Mt still- how is what you are saying not censorship? Keeping a piece of literature out of a classroom so students can't read it- what would you call it if the book were Fahrenheit 451? Censorship. A book - that's all the Bible is, regardless of whether you hold it to be fact or fiction. As a result, the Constitution cannot touch it, as it is not "an establishment of religion". It might be the foundational book to a religion, but it isn't an establishment of one. Also, I don't see anyone complaining about Christmas vacation or the long weekend they have at Easter. And

Everyone must remember that whoever teachers this class still has to follow a curriculum and answer to department chairs and other superiors, which should hopefully handle the objectivity matter.

"Again, university is where one goes to study controversial subjects." So high schoolers should be taught ignorance? They shouldn't be taught how to debate? How to try to understand someone else's opinion or viewpoint? Mock elections shouldn't be held to illustrate democracy in action? Students should be taught how to think and then be allowed to apply those skills.

For GOD so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For GOD sent His Son into the world, not to condemn the world, but that the world through Him, might be saved! John 3: 16 and 17

Jim Nagle, let me help you out. what you want is called the "subjunctive contrary to fact" and you have used it correctly in your original comment. Strunk & White would do well to brush up on their grammar. You might be better received if you weren't such a pedant.

Others: separation of church & state is meant to protect the CHURCH from the STATE, not the other way around. I see absolutely no problem with teaching selections from the Bible as literature as long as it is exactly that, the Bible as LITERATURE. A good deal of Western literature draws its imagery and inspiration from the Bible, and study of the Bible enriches study of literature. Having said that, I also think other religious texts could be taught as literature, but in general US lit classes could be more diverse.

If this was a course taught at UMass (or any other public university) would there be so much furor? It's an elective (I'm assuming history department) course.

Of course, you'd have to be an idiot to believe that is where the people putting this course together are really going. I'd expect in a couple of years a minor rules change will allow substitution of this as a "science class" so they don't have to be subjected the the Devil's teaching of "evolotion" or learn about those "reproductive organs" that can make babies.

The creationist (or "intellegent design") movement was dealt a serious blow, but they aren't the types to give up.

The law does not change anything in Texas. The law does not require a class on the bible and any school was free to teach a class on the history of and literature in the bible before the law was passed. The law does require some mention of religion in school which is already met by what is taught in world geography about the crusades and the inquisition.

I went to public school in Mass. and when we studied mythology and the creation stories we also studied the creation story in the Bible. It is a book and there is no issue with using it in public school as such. It is when it becomes a religious doctrine that it's a problem. I'm sure in Texas it would be much more one-sided than my experience here and I would most likely opt my kid out of that class. But books aren't harmful to teach. Twisting what they say to fit an agenda is...

The course of modern history has been undeniably shaped by Christianity and the book that it bases its belief on, The Holy Bible. To NOT teach it would be depriving our students of much needed historical information. Heck our public universities teach it.

The Bible not only contains the basic religious tenets of Christianity, but also a long history of the people that claim its birthright. If we just ignored it as though it was just a "religious document" that would be severely underestimating and downplaying the role of religion in history.
The only question is then when does history turn into indoctrination? That's the real question, not whether or not to teach it.

@Susan "...separation of church & state is meant to protect the CHURCH from the STATE, not the other way around."

That is a ridiculous statement. You cannot have it only one way. It goes both ways, or it FAILS.

So, it's all hunky-dory and A-OK with you if the CHURCH takes over the STATE because the Constitution clearly doesn't protect it (as you imply)? What if somebody else's CHURCH takes over the STATE? What then?

This is the essence of the First Amendment, and the CONCEPT that we use the shorthand "separation of church and state" to describe. In other words, when SOMEONE ELSE can tell you - using the power of the government - how to act, how to think, how to worship, or whether or not you *should* worship - all using your own tax money to do it - that's a BAD thing.

This is not that hard to understand, but Christians seem to have a really difficult time with it - and it is precisely because they are a religious majority in Texas, and in America in general. It's a "can't see the forest for the trees" sort of thing I guess.

The only class the bible should be studied in is Fiction / Fantasy Literature 101.

In an ideal world, I would agree that the Bible should be taught in a public school. It's influence over history is important, and by leaving it out we are doing our children a disservice. However, when reality is taken into account, I think we need to keep the Bible out of public education.

The reality is the Bible cannot be taught objectively. As others have pointed, out to teach the Bible objectively would mean opening it up to analysis which wouldn't always be favorable. Do you think that the PTA board in Texas is going to stand for a class that presents the Bible unfavorably? What's going to happen to the student who points out contradictions and hypocrisy?

By teaching the Bible in a public school you are opening a battle you can't win. If you present the Bible in a truly objective manner, people are going to throw a fit that their religion is being disparaged. If you try to teach in a way that doesn't offend Christians or Jews, then you are showing a preference toward those religions.

According to the article, though, it's even worse. The Bible classes aren't simply avoiding controversial subjects- they are "explicitly devotional". This is clearly wrong, unless you happen to want Christian (and possibly Jewish, but I doubt it) pray at school.

It used to when America was a great country. We can all witness by today's media and government side show what our country has deteriorated into by eliminating the Bible from our schools and most of our homes and certainly from our elected officials.
Mankind will not change but God already knows that. He is in control. No matter what happens in Boston or in Texas.

While American kids already attend fewer school days than many other industrialized countries, why spend any more school time teaching them irrational, superstitious, ancient mythologies disguised as religion.

It is now the 21st century and no longer the dark ages. Any extra school time should be used teaching our kids math and science. Fast developing countries like India and China will be happy to see us focus more of our time on bible studies and away from competing with them in math and science. They will be happy to steal away our future jobs.

The Bible should be taught alongside other major historical texts that are frequently referenced in English literature: major Greek and Roman texts (The Odyssey, The Aeneid, Metamorphoses), Shakespeare, Paradise Lost, etc. It is one of the most referenced books and, untill recently, one of the few texts one could safely assume the entire audience had exposure to. To ignore the Biblical allusions of say...Flannery O'Connor or Faulkner or Twain or Melville or Hawthorne or any other dozen amazing and relevant authors would be to frequently miss much of the depth and importance of the text.

Yes, the Bible is inherently religious. Yes, there is a huge amount of cultural background noise that plays into what we think the Bible says and what the Bible actually says. Yes, these classes need to be taught with a certain amount of respect and grace, not proselytizing, but also not denigrating the text. It should be approached the same as any other piece of literature: What does this mean? Why did the author and/or authors choose to word it this way? Is there something more to this story? Where have we seen this before, and where can we expect to see it again? Themes, style, structure, allusions, connections...you know, the basics of literary analysis.

By that logic, we should teach atheism, too. As one cannot truly understand Communism without understanding Atheism. And, I would say Communism had more of an impact on this country than Rev. King.

just another case of people jumping at the chance to brain wash kids into believing what they want tthem to believe

I find this debate to b every interesting. I went to an independent high school and I remember that my freshman history class was centered around World Religions. Yep, you read that correctly the class covered many religions. Up until now I didn't realize that was such a problem. We even used a text book entitled "The Bible as Literature." My mother wasn't a fan of that one, but it was still informative nonetheless. Now that I'm a recently graduated student, I'm proud that I've been exposed to various religions in an objective manner. It's enabled me to understand cultural and historical references along with respect for religion. Mostly, I hope that the students in Texas that will take a class on Bible are taught in an objective and respective manner.

It's unfortunate when let our faith hinder knowledge. Children should be taught about the cultural and historical importance of The Book and other mainstream religions. Either teach about all of them or none of them within the classroom setting. I think having a class that focuses only on one religion is unfair, it would be better to have one that surveys religion. Similar to introductory religion courses taught in college.

71: Brent. Chill out --- there is no need to call people names. All I said was that the intent behind the idea of separation between church and state was to protect people's religions from interference from the state, not the other way around. If you read the First Amendment, it says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." There is nothing here that says it works the other way around, People mis cite FA all the time, as they are doing here.

This will not fly, and as in every other similar case it will be ruled unconstitutional. It matters not that this is an elective. The fact that there is no structured teaching method and materials will assure the teachers who choose to teach this will be Christians who find it a great way to try to 'save' some kids.

There is no reason any parent cannot teach their kids about the Bible for free in their churches. The way this law is set up, it is sure to fail constitutional muster.

I doubt if this will pass constitutional muster, but even if it does - it's unwise. Once this principle is established, it follows that in Muslim majority neighboods, it will be OK to force the Koran into the public school systems. In a neighborhood dominated by Mormons, their book... etc. Pack of fools who put their personal religion above the needs of other citizens.

I am against religious teaching in public schools however, the Bible is perhaps one of the greatest collections of Judaic writings the world could ever hope to have. In my book, I openly speak against the Bible as religious text; however, I recognize that it is a valuable text to understanding not only Jewish history, but also American history. BUT- other religious texts are just as valuable to understanding American society. Regardless of that- IF a school classroom setting can present the Bible as a literary text and a guide to understanding aspects in American history then what’s the harm?

Jim Nagle-- Right, I should have used the term fundamentalism. Same thing anyway.

First day of class reading from the Bible:

"Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.
Love never ends. As for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away. When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I gave up childish ways.
For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I have been fully known.
So now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love."

1 Corinthians 13:4-13

Proeducator says "since Christianity has only been around for 21 centuries, I'd be willing to put money down that more non-Christians have been the killers and enslavers.

You'd lose. Save for the Crusades the first 1700 years or so of the common era have been dominated by christians killing christians in the name of Christianity. Frequently nonchristians were killed too, but the former is so much more interesting.

Catcherintherye-- I really don't know where to begin to address your rambling. Is it censorship to keep Hustler magazine out of 2nd grade? No, it is not. Is it censorhip to keep The Protocols for the Elders of Zion out of high school? No, it is not.

Like I said above, to teach about the influence Christianity has had on America does not require discussing the Bible, any more than an eglish class requires Fareinheit 451.

And no, high schoolers should not be taught ignorance. That's kind of the whole basis for my objection.

To C -
1.) Not all religion or "Bible" classes will be like that.
2.)I would assume that the teacher who teaches a Bible class would also have to have the same education as any other teacher in the school system - be it health or another subject - I don't think they are going to be contracting the local preacher to do the job.
3.)As if planned parenthood doesn't have it's own agenda . . . I'll leave it at that.

And if you want to look at it this way - Just because you don't believe that the Bible is an important part of literature and history does not mean that that is not a fact. I did not state nor do I believe that alternative lifestyles are unacceptable. What I do believe is that each family/household has unique and different views about sex and what is appropriate and what is right and wrong and how it should be taught- the same way that each family/household has different views about religion and how it should be taught and used. Both issues are deeply personal and families/people should have the right to teach their children what they believe is right and wrong without the bias of a teacher who may or may not hold the same beliefs.

Why the uproar? They're not only TEACHING the Quran/Koran in some California public schools, they are PRAYING from the Quran.

Why should this be allowed, yet NO discussion or inclusion of the impact of the BIBLE on our country's (and the world's) history.

Granted, most people today are really into this "separation of Church and State" thing - except in the case of the Quran - but that is no reason to ignore the fact that the Bible USED TO BE IMPORTANT to people in this country.

i dont think you need a whole year long class about the bible being taught by seemingly subpar unprepared to teachers for a kid to understand the way the bible is referenced in literature. if a piece of literature references the iliad a whole year of greek literature is not required. just take some time to incoporate a sufficient understanding of the aspect referenced. you dont need a whole year to grasp the idea of the metaphor of the biblical promised land mlk jr references. its high school, not grad school. what id love is some class that incorporates teaching on all major religious beliefs, a sort of mini anthropology/sociology class but not this.

whole yea

Kenneth DeBenedictis is a really funny non fact based comment

Truth of the matter the bible is just as important as mythology book. It is full of magic and war stories. But it should be taught as myth because there is no such thing as ghosts, zombies, and demons. We don't take any other epic story from that era seriously so it should not be taken seriously either. If you think the world is only a few thousand years old and believe in talking snakes and huge boats full of every known animal and a zombie you probably should have been paying a little more attension to your studies. If you take a second and look at all the facts you will realize it is just a fictional story not something anyone should live their life by.

But hey who am i to tell people what to believe i think our society can be competent one day, and that my friends is the silliest belief of them all.

i think that we should have some study of the bible in the classroom but the no one should be allowed to advocate.

The Bible should not be taught at schools because many students may not practice the same religion and they may find some of the teachings offensive. Many students may believe that things that are said in the Bible are false because they believe more in science than they do in the teachings. School's should not be required to teach it but may have a class in it if the students choose to take it they can sign up for it. I think the Bible belongs and should stay in a church if students and families want to study it they can attend church if not they do not have to be forced to do so.

I didn't need the Texas schools to tell me the Good News. Thats why we have the church and the home. If religion promotion is so vital how about discussing the revelations to the Prophet, the emergence of the Budda from a lotus blossom, and what about the 14 Dreams?!?

I think this is awesome. I always do my best to show my daughter how disgusting, sexist, racist, vile and stupid the bible is. Her favorite verses are the ones about beating children or women when they do not listen properly. Taken at face value the class is to offer a non-christian(or 'religious' view) of the bible. There are more than a handful of professors and teachers who have volunteered to teach this class - they will demand critical examination. It is about time this was demanded of our youth

show high

Like it our not, America was founded on Judo-Christian principles, as such it's part of our history and part of the fabric of America.

Religion shouldn't be force fed, but failing to learn about the Bible means failing to learn about American history.

The United States was not founded on founded on Judo-Christian principles. The United States was founded on Secular principles and the founding fathers where Deist not Christian.

I like Ghandi's view on this: "It is the duty of every cultured man or woman to read sympathetically the scriptures of the world. If we are to respect others' religions as we would have them respect our own, a friendly study of the world's religions is a sacred duty." It would be nice if schools in Texas or anywhere USA were in this biz.

Since everyone here has a somewhat different opinion on what the public school system should present, perhaps home schooling should become the norm. Then we wouldn't have to rely on the agendas pushed by the NEA.

The National Education Association General Counsel, at their recent annual convention said what makes the group effective is, "not because of our creative ideas, it is not because of the merit of our positions, it is not because we care about children, and it is not because we have a vision of a great public school for every child. NEA and its affiliates are effective advocates because we have power."

So, basically - they could CARE LESS ABOUT YOUR KIDS. They simply want power, and the freedom to wield it however they want.

Is this the organization that you want in charge of the public school system? Do you know what agendas they push? Do you know what they want to shove down the throats of YOUR kids???

I would be MUCH more afraid of the NEA than elected courses on Bible literacy and it's historical affects on western civilization...

It's time to stop yelling the general chant of this society and actually research what is happening in the school systems!

Don't "go with the flow" - even dead fish swim downstream!!!

I'm not here to argue or "force" my beliefs on anyone. I just sat here and read every post on here and I find it rather unfortunate that so many of you have no clue what you are talking about. I must agree with "c's" first post.....just because you don't believe something doesn't make it untrue. The rest of that post was for the birds....but on this, he/she made sense. I've studied the bible myself for a long time and have found that it proves itself to be true over and over and continues to do so today. There are many unbiblical artifacts that have been scientifically discovered that prove what the bible has stated all along. Not to mention the countless prophetic evidence that has proven true. When I watch the news now, it parallels itself to a 'T' with what's stated in the bible. I find it extremely hard to believe that any of you have actually read the book and can still honestly find no truth to it whatsoever. Common sense tells me that. You can sit here and bash each other with all of your beliefs or lack of and it still doesn't make you look any more intelligent, regardless of what big words you may use. It shows me that you havn't researched your options.

I do strongly believe in what the bible says. After researching it for so long, I'd be a fool not to. I feel bothered by the fact that not only do you take such little time and effort in trying to figure out the real truth, but now you are determined to make sure your children are hidden from it as well. If the bible continues to show us history in advance, (and I wholeheartedly believe it will) many of you are in a world of hurt very soon!

Wow! This is GREAT! Go Texas! You guys aren't afraid of anything. Most of the postings I've read today reflect a lot of fearful people.

Take it one step further, Force Darwins Evolution of Species out of Texas Schools by mandate and law , Mandate The Bible in By Law. Nuff Said

As a teacher, I can just about promise you that they can say it's an elective, but only JrHigh/SrHigh students have electives. Eventually everything is pushed further down the learning age groups as needed recognition strategies.Everything studied is then run out to the playground by students for further discussion. One more opportunity for children to enforce family ideals and beliefs on playmates with families that may have differing beliefs and have every right to have their beliefs, if not directly supported by the school, at least not held forth as secondary to the rest of the culture. By investing money, personnel time and funds to the study of the bible, that will be exactly the message the school would be enforcing.
My suggestion is that if you want to raise your children as intelligent citizens with a real understanding of democracy, that you find a way to leave Texas and the other two states willing to pass this kind of legislation. By the time these laws are successfully challenged, your children will have spent their childhoods being indoctrinated into ignorance.

I will never understand how a citizen living in any free country, particularly connected to western civilization, could be considered well educated without having read at least the laws and history of the Old Testament and all of the New Testament, save perhaps the book of the Revelation of Jesus Christ to John (It is not, the Book of Revelations, as those ignorant about it tend to refer to it.) Whether one wants to own the tennets of the Christian faith, follow them, is another matter. A comparative religious course could be a fine separate course; a good study of the Bible is a foundation for understanding the rise of western civilization.