Democrats want literacy class on Bible (in Alabama public schools)

By Taylor Bright
Huntsville Times
Thursday, Dec. 1, 2005


MONTGOMERY - Democratic lawmakers are pressing for a uniform Bible literacy class in Alabama's public schools. At a news conference today, the legislators plan to announce they will push in the Legislature early next year a bill that would allow local school boards to offer "Bible literacy" classes as elective high school courses.

House Majority Leader Ken Guin, D-Carbon Hill, and Speaker of the House Seth Hammett, D-Andalusia, were expected to make the announcement.

.......

Opponents say the Democrats' bill sanctions one religion; Republicans say Democrats are stealing their ideas.

The course will center on "The Bible and Its Influence," a book published by the Bible Literacy Project, a Virginia group that promotes knowledge of the Bible.

"It's very needed and there's a loss of Bible literacy," said Sheila Weber, spokeswoman for the Bible Literacy Project. "From our perspective, this is an educational gap in public education."



http://www.al.com/news/huntsvilletimes/index.ssf?/base/news/1133432353291420.xml&coll=1

A, B, C...

"The NIL/NALS report confirms once again that Southern US states continue to have the most deplorable social conditions in the country, including the highest rates of adult illiteracy. Mississippi ranked worst among the 50 states, with every third adult in the state, 30 percent of its adult population, placed in Level I. Louisiana has the second highest illiteracy rate with 28 percent of its adult population in Level I, followed by Alabama, Florida and South Carolina, each with 25 percent. In these states the combined Level I and Level II literacy rates would push the level of illiteracy and near-illiteracy to nearly 70 percent of the adult population."

http://www.wsws.org/news/1998/oct1998/ill-o14.shtml

Maybe they should work on just the literacy part for awhile before becoming too concerned with the Bible.

And comprehending what's actually in that book, instead of what they're spoon-fed in church, they'll run away from it as fast as they can.

Reading the bible turned me into an atheist. To quote George Washington,"The Yahweh of the old testament is a demon".

they taught it as fiction or better yet, alongside Greek myth, where it belongs.

Greek mythology is very important to our culture

They need to focus a lot more on the basics. From a purely financial standpoint, they should be very discriminating on the electives they offer.

one. We definitely live in a culture that is very influenced by the Bible. Certainly there are plenty of other faiths, but this one particular one is influencing us now. It would be good for young people to understand just how and why this is so.

I think I prefer a comparative approach, however.

This would be a difficult class to teach from a neutral perspective.

Bible in Church, History and Science in school. That's called secularity, laicity or separation of Church and State...

or else choose a private religious school

(and by extension, religion) out of history and current events? How can you teach the Middle Ages, the Reformation, the Restoration, the Puritans, the NeoCons, without an understanding of it?

negative influence it has had on human history. Just as it not necessary to devote an entire course to the Magna Carta before understanding law, and certainly not at the high school level.

are not memorizing the Magna Carta and spouting it off at every opportunity and using it as a basis for voting, behavior, etc.

I look at it like this. If your kid is completely "protected" from the Bible myths and knows nothing about them, is it not easier for him/her to become the victim of a cult (and I consider fundies a great BIG cult)?

Wouldn't it be better for him/her to be familiar with all the beliefs so he/she could have a belief system in place for the inevitable evangelicals he/she will run into in life?

Now, my kids learned this stuff in Sunday School, so that was covered. So when the JW's and the Mormons came calling, none of it was new to them.

Mostly I'm playing Devil's advocate here. I've already expressed that this is a tough one and I'd be more comfortable with a comparative approach. But the wider one's education is, the better. Of course, I'm a teacher and a bit prejudiced in that regard.

(1) if it's taught as an elective; and
(2) if it's taught as literature; and
(3) if it's taught in a comparative context -

then I believe it's useful knowledge for any member of our society to be aware of. And I think you're right about its usefulness in protecting kids from cults.

...then our kids are generally better protected from the kind of people who are just itching to get their feet in the door.

An objective look at, say, religious scripture and its effect on history, might be generic enough to avoid enshrining Judeo-Christian tenets above others, and might be acceptable--as an elective--in public schools. Installing the Bible exclusively, or preferentially, seems a clear violation of the principle of separation of church and state.

I don't understand why this gets any serious debate. When the Bible is a schoolbook, and the Koran is not, guess what message is sent to Muslim Americans?

and if they want to know more they can read it at home. Maybe they can make a special report in an history class, someday

this is a fallacious argument. What the kids need to know is maths, language, science, geography, computers etc...

millions and millions of kids in Europe don't read the Bible in public schools (would be illegal) and they are not less prepared to get a qualified job... Their average skills are superior to American kids, at least for OECD countries...

why not the Koran too ? and Buddha ? etc...

Are schools public "madrassas" like in Pakistan or a place to be taught KNOWLEDGE ?

I'm sorry, I don't buy it. The Bible is NOT IMPORTANT. It's only a LITTLE part of the total human history. Do we live in the centuries of Enlightment or in the Middle-Ages ?

EVEN IN THE MIDDLE-AGES UNIVERSITIES IT WAS A LITTLE PART OF EDUCATION.

Do they allow Mythology at all? If they can't read from the bible in a Mythology class, then they should be able to read from any Mythology text. Basically it doesn't make much sense.

when they study Ancient Rome, Greece etc...

In other words there is normally an EQUAL teaching of all mythologies (Bible included) in history, since it's important for the study of cultures.

The fact is that this knowledge is important as other types of knowledges. But it's not specially central.

to SINGLE OUT a special study of a special book, can only have a purpose : stealth teaching of religion with tax payer money.

I think it is in breach with the 1st amendment...

I don't buy the we need it for culture crap... how many hours a week ? hours a year... WHY JUST THE BIBLE. WHY NOT DARWIN ?

cm'on

I would like to see someone argue, with the constitution in mind, for a requirement of "comparative classes" when religion is taught.

:toast:

Exactly so, and well-stated.

But careful, Darwin is not the founder of any religion of which I'm aware.

:)

could have taken Einstein...

but to stay within the matter of history it could be all philosophers
through ages and specially those of the Enlightment :

Descartes, Kant, Hobbes, Locke, Diderot, Voltaire, Jefferson, Adam Smith.... They are as much, if not more the founders of today's rational thinking...

Those guys have as much to say than Abraham, Isaiah (spelling?), Job or whoever can be considered as a moral reference...

understanding of the bible? Easy. I do it all the time. The culture and politics of those periods (before the NeoCons, anyway) wasn't about the bible. The Church, in all its forms, played a large role, yes -- but I can easily present a thoughtful, informed, fully realized and even semi-objective picture of those periods without delving into the bible once.
You're conflating the book and the religion.
And how on earth do you "understand" a book that makes absolutely no sense, anyway?

Our understanding of Christian traditions and social structure to the exclusion of the other 75% of the people on this planet is what causes most of our wars.

It'd profit us more as a society (and fill in a true knowledge gap) if we had Qur'an, Tao or Tripitaka study classes.

one. We definitely live in a culture that is very influenced by the Bible.

It does not logically follow that one must study the bible to understand that culture. Indeed it really isnt the text of the bible so much as the people and circumstances it has been involved in that have shaped our culture. The bible and christianity should certainly get thier fair time during social studies and history courses. There is no need for a seperate class on the bible and certainly no need to teach the contents of the bible most of which is significant only to believers.

I know the bible came up a great deal during my education and I am pretty fully able to comprehend its role in our culture without ever having studied the texts comprehensively.

Certainly there are plenty of other faiths, but this one particular one is influencing us now.

And it will be influencing us even more if we teach thier scriptures in public schools. The idea that we should be teaching everyone the dominant religion because it is the dominant religion strikes me as rather unconstitutional.

It would be good for young people to understand just how and why this is so.

Which they would not learn in a bible literacy course. If you want to know why the bible is important to our culture you need to study european history, not the bible.

I think I prefer a comparative approach, however.

Absolutely. The bible's place in school is in actual educational contexts. It can be used in courses on literature, ancient history, etc and it can be referenced in history, social studies, and current events courses. And if a school wants to have theology courses that address christianity in the context of all religions thats great.

A bible literacy course is a bible study, and there is no secular justification for having specific and dedicated bible courses in public schools unless perhaps the school offers a rediculous number of electives including other scripture studies.

This would be a difficult class to teach from a neutral perspective.

I would say its impossible, because the very nature of the course gives the bible and its contents a prominance that is in itself not neutral.

The Qu'ran and the Vedas have had at least as much influence on history/culture as the Bible. A "Bible literacy" class aims to promote religion.

This is unconstitutional and reprehinisible.

You would have mythology from all over. Native American, Asian, Christian, ect... That would need to use the bible, but would be a perfectly good use of it and I don't think that violates the separation of church and state.

However, that is not the case with this story in Alabama, I just wanted to point out some grays in this issue.

a comparative approach would make me more comfortable. Now, the fact is that there are a huge number of Christians in this country, so educated people should understand what they believe.

If I ever move to India I'll be studying up on the Hindu faith..not as a believer, but as an observer.

For example, this "Rapture" stuff. I think people who don't believe in that need to understand that some people do, because it helps frame their behavior.

And I agree that people should have a familiarity with it just because it's so influential...but the place is Mythology or a comparative religions class, not a dedicated class solely on the Bible. The latter is just fundies trying to stealth recruit for their cult using taxpayer money.

so right, and the question that would need to be asked: show me the chapter and verse where the term "rapture" appears? If this is taught then one is teaching a concept of one's religion over another, or better yet one denomination ie Baptist, vs Seventh day adventist.... Two different views on that one issue....

And they have literally freaked out on me, CURSED at me, stuttered, said it's in there, said they don't spend time talking to "Doubting Thomases," etc.

The Rapture is absolutely not Biblical, nor is it implied.

Not going to give a bible study here, but in 1Thessalonians 4:17 "caught up" (NIV version) is where rapture comes from.

I had two years of Koine Greek/NT commentary in college, and we spent a weeks on this and other non-scripture points (ie Purgatory, refusing blood, etc.) NO legit commentary of Biblical historian will cite this belief as Scriptural. It's the same as the snake handlers and poison drinkers: it's one tiny piece of scripture totally misinteroperted... like Revelation being future events, when it was definitely written in "code" about current events.

So when did the second coming of Jesus occur?

This is a "Bible literacy" class. By it's very definition, it's not comparative.

a more comparative approach.

we shouldn't look at that case while deciding this one. For example, we shouldn't make a statement about "no bibles in public school," because we would be outlawing mythology classes.

I think that is a good point. Comparative classes would be best, but does the constitution have a "comparative" clause or has there been a ruling by the supreme court over comparative classes? If not, then we could be up for a fight with ourselves.

If you teach religion, you have to teach them all equally, as per the Establishment Clause. Our religious "history" is irrelevant. We've had different creeds here since the founding (even Muslims, if you consider the slave communities that preserved Islam).

There is no reason the Bible should be singled out over other religious texts.

Texas school districts are currently pushing a similar class on the Bible:

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/7656551/

These two classes are identical, but no one on DU would be caught supporting the one in Texas.

They are both illegal.

A myth they're trying to push as special, when it's not.

Not with MY tax dollars, they won't!

Let's be real, here. The Bible has had a much larger influence on American and European history than the Quran or the Vedas.

There's nothing unconstitutional in teaching about the Bible. That need not involve any religious favoritism at all. In fact, the last thing fundamentalists want is academic study of Christian literature and history. The more that is done, the more it is apparent that fundamentalism is nuts, and that Christianity is just another religion.

and that must be kept in mind here as well. The mythology of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam is nearly identical in many ways.

For both of the new religions, the bloodthirsty and tribal Yahweh was a problematicaly god. Christianity fixed this (a) by changing his nature to include a friendly avatar in the form of Jesus, and a spiritual comfort in the form of the Holy Spirit, and (b) by theologically undermining parts of the Old Testament, either reading them allegorically, or creating some dispensational system. Islam takes the more straightforward approach, claiming the previous scriptures were corrupted.

Neither of these fixes make much sense, when closely examined. 'Tis interesting what people can convince themselves to believe.

it is most defifintely unconstitutional.

If you want a comparative religion or theology course, fine.

A "Bible Literacy" course won't cut it.

I would argue that the works of Hobbes, Hume and Locke were far more influential to our history than the Bible.

It would be better if they offered more than just the bible though. It is a toughy.

Public schools having classes specifically on the bible, but they are not required... hmmm... That isn't easy...

running around spouting about the bible and some of it isn't true. maybe a bible for dummies course would help.

As an ex-fundie (in whom the mythology never 'took', it was so not proven or believable), I can tell you that 'bible literacy' is fundiespeak for 'being able to recognize the Truth as presented only by the Word of the Lawd'.

It's totally a breech of the SoCaS.

...'bible literacy' is fundiespeak for 'being able to recognize the Truth as presented only by the Word of the Lawd'.

Whose Bible is it, anyway? What interpetation of it would the class be based on? Catholic? Protestant? Mormon? Snake handler?

:crazy:
rocknation

They just keep trying to out-Jesus each other.

This is just another underhanded attempt to force Christianity on everyone. And it's disgusting that it's being done by people with "D" after their names.

from cover to cover then made to follow the laws in Leviticus and explain what's going on in Ezekiel and Revelations.

Christian Fundamentalism would plummet.

why RELIGION needs to be taught in public school at all? :shrug: If there's a problem with "Bible literacy," shouldn't that be handled by the church and/or a religious institution that is QUALIFIED to teach such things? Why is it necessary to spend TAX PAYER DOLLARS to enhance the RELIGIOUS education of public school students? Will they offer the same type of religious education assistance to children of other faiths? Their parents pay taxes, too! :eyes: :grr:

On edit: If they insist on bringing Christianity into public schools and making non-Christians foot the bill, then it should be part of a "Comparative Religions" course that examines the social, political and cultural influences of various religions.

The argument is that the Bible is part of the literature that most influenced American literature and history. In that context, I see no more problem with a course on the Bible, than I do with a course on Shakespeare, or a course on Dickens.

The question is whether the school can teach about the Bible, in academic fashion, without pushing religion. It is done all the time at the university level.

they are not pushing to get the Bible into public schools because of its influence on literature and history. They want Christian beliefs taught in public schools using tax payer dollars, so they are cloaking their agenda in an academic wrapper.

Not some notion that teaching about the Bible is inappropriate in a secular setting.

There's a place for that, it's called college.:D

Its an ELECTIVE.

I wasn't a fan of Home Ec...I didn't take it.
I wasn't a fan of Industrial Tech (or 'Shop' class)...I didn't take it.
So you aren't a fan of the Bible....don't take the damn class!

This isn't required curriculum...this is an elective. Sure, maybe there should be an elective to go over Islam, an elective to learn about Hindu, or Judaism. But I would wager that 90% of the this school district's students would take a Bible class first.

Sometimes I think the blind anti-religion crowd gets more and more ridiculous everyday.

Part of the problem is that you see a few posts and think that everyone is rejecting it, that isn't true. Look at my posts for example.


There is a Constitution issue here that shouldn't be ignored even if you are ok with it. We have to do what the Constitution has said is ok.

Is it ok to spend public tax payer money for a class that teaches one religion, even if it is an elective?

That is not an easy issue.

Its an ELECTIVE.

So?

I wasn't a fan of Home Ec...I didn't take it.
I wasn't a fan of Industrial Tech (or 'Shop' class)...I didn't take it.
So you aren't a fan of the Bible....don't take the damn class!

By that logic you could literally offer a course called "You should become a christian today." and it would be fine as long as it was an elective.

Sometimes I think the blind anti-religion crowd gets more and more ridiculous everyday.

Yes, how dare they object to having a scriptural study course in public schools. It is rediculous of us to expect our tax money to not support religious education. It is rediculous to expect that when we send our children to school they will be offered courses based on important knowledge and skills and not the desire of the majority of the community that thier holy book be taught in schools. It is rediculous of us to think that having a course studying one religion's holy book might be a violation of the establishment clause.

And from DEMS.

Thanks, guys. Another reminder why I'm one of those independents you claim to want to attract. Not with shit like this, you won't!

Give the Fundamentalists exactly what they want, and watch it backfire spectactularly. The kids will go to class with their parents' blessings. But which version of the Bible will they use? Will the kids start asking why their class Bible has the book of Judith and Macabees in it, but their parents' bible doesn't? Will the parents come ungled because their kid comes home with a verion that doesn't agree with their church? (like the KJV inerrancy adherents?) Then the Dems can say, "But... But... You WANTED us to teach a bible class!?" and then remove the class because it offends too many of the Talibornagains.

I have absolutely no problem with a class on the bible as history, or as cultural influence. It IS relevant to American culture, no matter how people try to deny it. The knee-jerk reactions that the Bible is "religion" and of itself is similar to the way that the literal "bible churches" view the bible. (It seems sometimes that they worship the Bible rather than God, IMO)

You've got that right!

My concern is with the current trend to teach kids what to think, instead of how to think. Adding "Bible Literacy 101" with only pur gasoline on the flames.

universities. I really don't see much of a problem here. If it were a required course that would be something else altogether.

If we were talking about an extremely large and well funded primary school who could afford to have massive numbers of electives on specialized subjects including multiple scripture study courses you would have a point.


But most public schools arent like universities and in the context of the course offerings of most public schools a bible study class is not appropriate.

public universities should not allow religious studies majors. Here at UW-Madison there is no doubt that there is more than just tuition money funding the religious studies program here. An analytic course on the Bible is not threatening at all, particularly when there is the choice of taking the class or not.

Personally, I probably would not take it, but that's my decision and mine alone. I think such a class could train students to look critically at the Bible rather than simply listening to some screaming preacher. Make no mistake, if this class was a requirement for all students, I would be outraged. I have long advocated for the serperation of church and state and believe that our founding fathers intended for this to be a secular republic. However, this class I do not see as a threat to secularism in this country.

It is a fairly important line to draw.

If this is truly a church and state issue public universities should not allow religious studies majors.

Did you even read my post? The fact that universities have religious studies majors is what justifies narrow courses on religion in univirsities and not primary schools. There is no violation of the establishment clause involved in educating religious studies majors. It is not an endorsement or support for a religion, it is a perfectly legitimate course of study in a university.

Primary schools dont graduate religious studies majors. They graduate people with a basic education. There is no educational justification for a narrowly focused scripture study course in a primary school making it rather obvious that the purpose of the course is to provide religious education in public school.

Here at UW-Madison there is no doubt that there is more than just tuition money funding the religious studies program here. An analytic course on the Bible is not threatening at all, particularly when there is the choice of taking the class or not.

Right, in a university this is true. But Universities and Primary schools are very different places.

Personally, I probably would not take it, but that's my decision and mine alone.

Yes, if you want to take a bible study course, you have every right to go take one, but that doesnt mean it is ok for the government to fund a bible study course as a public school class.

I think such a class could train students to look critically at the Bible rather than simply listening to some screaming preacher. Make no mistake, if this class was a requirement for all students, I would be outraged. I have long advocated for the serperation of church and state and believe that our founding fathers intended for this to be a secular republic. However, this class I do not see as a threat to secularism in this country.

It is a violation of the establishment clause and thus a grave threat to secularism.

This is obviously not going to get anywhere as we simply have different interpretations of the issue.

The PATRIOT Act was sold as no big thing since it would only affect those who are not American citizens, and be limited to investigations of terrorism. The ink was hardly dry on *'s crayon signature before police and other law enforcement types across the nation were using it to go after suspected drug dealers, medical marijuana movement, etc. And about not affecting American citizens? Well, the Padilla case put the lie to that one.

Fundamentalist Christianity is like water trying to find a way into your house. If you block one route it'll seek out another. "Moments of silence" suddenly include saying prayers aloud. The scientific method is corrupted by creationism and then "intelligent design", which is a pig with lipstick.

Fundies are like Bop'em dolls -- you knock their arguments down with facts and logic and they spring back with the same crap. Righteousness is a powerful motivator.

They don't even have to make it "officially" required. They could just "strongly encourage" their students to take that class as their elective and put "peer pressure" or even "superior pressure" on the students if they don't take it. It could get ugly.

and only offers a very limited number of electives, one of them being bible study, it will likely force some students to take the course.

Simply allowing the option is not anything that bad in my opinion. Forcing a class is very significant and would be a severe breach of the establishment clause.

I think if there's any group of people who needs a Bible literacy class more, it's the red-state blockheads in Alabama.

Then maybe they wouldn't equate Bush with Jesus anymore, know what I mean?

Get one of those giant, unabridged Bibles and make them read the text WORD FOR WORD. They may, then, they'll understand true Judeo-Christianity.

Does it make me a little nervous? Yes. But it's an elective literacy course. It's not being forced on students, and the problem with the Fristians in this world is that they are woefully ignorant of the book they are worshiping. We need them to have access to the real words in the bible, because their churches have no interest in promoting any sort of knowledge.

It becomes a hell of a lot harder to talk in black and white when you see the bible contradicting itself over and over. These people need this exposure. It will hopefully either make them good atheists or good christians...or maybe it will make them seek out something that feels more authentic.

So long as this is strictly a literature class, it's no different than one on shakespear or on homer. Such a class shouldn't preach the christian faith, but should show:
- its own influence on other literature
- its influence on historic events:
- its interpretive contribution to history:
- the history of its own evolution...yeah evolution in a bible class...the bible has at least 3 writers, has entire chapters that have fallen by the wayside, others that have been altered or enjammed to encapsulate 2 competing versions of the religion...and a God that seems to evolve himself, as if with the times.

Those are the things I learned in my bible as literature class. It was a college course, but I don't think with the proper curriculum, this would be a bad thing at the high school level.

WHO will teach it? And HOW will they teach it? What POV? That's the rub. IF it could be taught 100% objectively, as a history/cultural/literature class, I'd have no problem with it. But, it won't be. It will be taught as a Fundamentalist propaganda class, from a Fundie political viewpoint. Come on, you know it.

Religion was one of my minors in college, and even on that level, with excellent professors, it was different to keep the viewpoint out of the class presentation.

studying the christian holy book.

I think it would be something of a miracle if even a small percentage of those classes resulted in a secular analysis of a historical/cultural document.

Again, it was a fascinating class when I took it in college, and could be in high school, too... but there's no way it'll work.

their plan for success is to spend educational time teaching the bible. Brilliant!

:sarcasm:

This would no doubt displace other courses.

But this is bullshit.
It's being promoted by ONE book--well two if you count the bible and ONE group.
I like the bible. It's a fascinating blend of history and myth and it has had an enormous influence on human culture. But there are many ways of teaching it, interpreting it-- there are fragments that most have never heard about found, as well as entire books that never made it in. There are common words and phases taken literally in English that meant something else in the original language. Some of that stuff is still under debate. Do they want to take the book of Job, for instance, or Revelations, and "teach" what it "really means?"

I'm not a biblical scholar, obviously, but wasn't it basically codified by King James? He started the "it" bible.

We could start with the conversion of Saul aka Paul, who in my opinion stretched the teachings of Jesus as far as he could and barely kept them recognizable. He wasn't hanging out with hookers and sinners, he was out there kicking some serious ass getting converts.

How about with Constantine. Do they still teach about his religious conversion in schools and his expansionist war? I mean, shit they just made a movie about it. Some of this sound like it belongs in a basic history course to me. What happened to history courses? Do they leave out biblical influence? Didn't we hear about the Puritans coming to America to escape religious persecution ad naseum?
Do they really want to teach St. Thomas Aquino, or St Augustine? Both extremely intelligent, influential minds of their time. Do they really want to teach about early Christianity? Not the throwing the Christians to the lions stuff, but how the evolving church itself repressed and persecuted "cults" like the Heretics and the Gnostic's because they didn't tow they line?

I see NO way the design or teach a class like this and do it any kind of justice. There are people who devote their entire lives to studying the bible and still don't have all the answers.
What the fuck do they think they are going to teach children? And what the hell is "bible literacy?" Really?

influence Christianity. Christmas, Easter, and lots of other events and practices were originally based upon Pagan holidays and practices.

christians.

:shrug:

that the Bible is the literal word of God, they might clean up the gene pool when they read "Write these words upon your chest."

Clearly this effort to educate people about the silliness of literal Biblical interpretation is well intentioned, but you know this will become just another combustible issue as fundamentalist parents and church groups try to hijack this. As a former teacher, I sure as hell wouldn't want to teach this. The Bible is fascinating, but the fallout will be too much for anyone to take...I can just hear the parents now.

Their website is fairly free from links to the Usual Suspects--although their next book will be "The Bible and American Civilization": www.bibleliteracy.org/Site/index2.htm

Their "competition" is the National Council On Bible Curriculum In Public Schools. "By their Links shall Ye judge them!":
www.bibleinschools.net/

Some commentators think the "Literacy" thing is just a way to "Get the Bible Back in School!"--& they approve!

It's time to get the Bible back in public schools. And not through the back door of creationism disguised as Intelligent Design.

America is a Bible-soaked nation, from the Puritans to Abraham Lincoln to Martin Luther King Jr. Without a basic grasp of the Bible, it is impossible to understand the well springs of our country and the basis of Western civilization. Which is why it is a scandal that Bible education has been chased out of the schools and why the work of the Bible Literacy Project to put it back there is so admirable.

www.nationalreview.com/lowry/lowry200510140801.asp
("Basis of Western civilization"? What about those Greek & Roman guys? Not to mention the role of Islamic civilization in preserving & disseminating the classics. "Back in public schools"? My schooling began in the 50's, in a semi-rural Texas district. We NEVER had Bible classes. For one thing, the Southern Baptist & Methodist kids would have argued with the Pentecostals & Jehovah's Witnesses. And my Roman Catholic comments would have thrown everyone into a tizzy.)

And some have called Bible Literacy Project "Communitarian"--"Could this be part of the 'end of time' Deception":
www.crossroad.to/articles2/05/bible-literacy.htm
(Of course these guys hate Harry Potter--but they also distrust Tolkien. Since they fear the Bible Literacy Project--I don't.)

Rhetorical question I know.

ID is superfically less religious than creationism which is what makes it so dangerous and I see that trend on this issue too. The titles of books are designed to appear objective yet it is quite obvious that the overall goal here is to push the bible.

The Texas Freedom Network ("A Mainstream Voice to Counter the Religious Right") has an editorial from the Dallas Morning News that criticizes the National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools & applauds the Bible Literacy Project.
www.tfn.org/religiousfreedom/biblecurriculum/media/dmnmckenzieoped/index.php

The Anti-Defamation league prefers the Bible Literacy Project's book.
http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=56326

Here's another idiot exclaiming about the evil that is the Bible Literacy Project.
www.montanasnews.com/articles.php?mode=view&id=2990

If a school is going to have a Bible course, the one the Democrats recommended is definitely better. Do they NEED a Bible course? (Haven't the jokes about "Alabama" & "literacy" already been told?)

Let us remember our youth, when we sat in awe as our respected teachers imparted unto us pearls of wisdom. How we still treasure those thoughts... (How we silently scorned the boring old creeps & learned the minimum needed to pass the test...)

The ongoing idiocy is endless: you can't exist without god. Pay dearly as we fuck you out of any fairness, and kiss the hand that slaps you.

They can get their friggin' "Bible literacy" there!

de Christmas ornaments and Easter bunnies in (public) elementary school in the 60's, we NEVER spoke about all of this religious stuff. You know, in the "good old days," according to Falwell?

Similar classes are already taught in Alabama so the main threat appears to be standardization of a course for one groups choice of Bible version.

I wonder if the group would support the Catholic Bible with its extra books in the Old Testament or even the redacted Bible Thomas Jefferson produced?

I would support only a standard course comparing a number of significant religions including Native American beliefs, pagan religions, atheism, and others that DUers can add to the list.

on the fundies.

The whole point of modern fundamentalism is to tell people "shut up, don't think, and do what you're told."

I can't imagine a single essay assignment that wouldn't confuse the kids about what they've been told in church. :D

Worst schools in the country? Let's get rid of science and add bible classes!

My statement was based on personal experience with Alabama's public school system.

Yes, we have this problem in Louisiana, too.

That the Bible says very little about homosexuals, and a lot about loving your neighbor and helping the poor. :D

is absolutely horrible -- see http://www.tfn.org/religiousfreedom/biblecurriculum/execsummary/ for a review by an SMU Professor of Religion which is absolutely decimating.

This book seems to be recieving support from both Jews and Protestants, which is unusual in itself -- as they have widely different interpretations. If this is the case, it seems the course remains objective, which would make it constitutional.

I would like to see an indepth review -- which I haven't found. I also haven't seen any response to this book by the usual suspects (AU, ACLU, etc).