Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Here are 2 sentences that summarize your wrong viewpoint (first), and the right viewpoint (second). Based on your previous posts, I rather think the difference will escape you.:
Teaching the Bible as it pertains to history and culture is not prohibited.
Teaching about the Bible as it pertains to history and culture is not prohibited.
Perhaps you would be happier in the religion sub-forum.
That's what I meant. I'm not saying that a teacher can advocate the Bible, what I meant was he can teach about the Bible.
The state has no proper role at all to play in religion. It is charged simply with protecting the free exercise rights of citizens from the wanton abuses of whackos and zealots.
Exactly - the first Amendment protects all religions, not just the ones that happen to be popular at the time. Bible study has no place in public school, and we all know full well it wasn't really voluntary. Those types of things never are.
Yes, you are wrong. A teacher can in fact teach creation so long he's not trying to convert people.
It is flat out illegal for a public school system to allow the teaching of creationism. It is flat out illegal for an individual teacher to "freelance" into material advancing creationism.
Webster v. New Lenox School District was a court case in Illinois in which social studies teacher Ray Webster sued the New Lenox School District 122 in New Lenox, Illinois, which he accused of violating his First Amendment right to free speech for stopping him from teaching "creation science" in class. The court found however that the school district had a right to restrict Webster to teaching the specified curriculum, and that in any case, the teaching of "creation science" was illegal, having been ruled to violate the establishment clause by the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Edwards v. Aguillard.
Webster appealed the ruling, but the US Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit affirmed the District Court's ruling, deciding as well that teaching creation science for any reason was a form of prohibited religious advocacy.
Teaching the Bible as it pertains to history and culture is not prohibited.
As you know full well, that is NOT what is meant by "teaching the Bible." In any case, the book has no historical or cultural merit or value at the K-12 level.
What's interesting is the difference between teaching about something in a science or health class versus teaching about something in a current events class.
Exactly. It's a PUBLIC SCHOOL. So, the bible has no place there. Period
Th very same people would freak out if the children were studying another the sacred text of a faith other than Christianity, most of those parents would be up in arms.
There is a place to study holy books - it's called your place of worship - or a private school affiliated with that faith.
Not public school.
Exactly.
If Christian institutions are not required to pay taxes then they should have no influence on our public schools.
It is flat out illegal for a public school system to allow the teaching of creationism. It is flat out illegal for an individual teacher to "freelance" into material advancing creationism.
Webster v. New Lenox School District was a court case in Illinois in which social studies teacher Ray Webster sued the New Lenox School District 122 in New Lenox, Illinois, which he accused of violating his First Amendment right to free speech for stopping him from teaching "creation science" in class. The court found however that the school district had a right to restrict Webster to teaching the specified curriculum, and that in any case, the teaching of "creation science" was illegal, having been ruled to violate the establishment clause by the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Edwards v. Aguillard.
Webster appealed the ruling, but the US Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit affirmed the District Court's ruling, deciding as well that teaching creation science for any reason was a form of prohibited religious advocacy.
Nowhere did I said anything about advocating creation. What I said and three links supporting me said is that you can teach it as long as its not mandatory or you're not trying to convert people. You blatantly ignored the sources I linked.
As you know full well, that is NOT what is meant by "teaching the Bible." In any case, the book has no historical or cultural merit or value at the K-12 level.
That is your opinion. Students are taught ancient history and the Bible deals with. Teachers can mention the Bible as it pertains to a region/era being discussed.
Maccabee, you are -- in my view -- intentionally crossing the thin line between teaching about something, and teaching something.
Let me give an example of something not about the bible, per se. In our school system, at least back when I was still a principal before retirement, abortion (and some other topics) could not be taught about in the sex ed course. Students could only ask questions in the class by writing their questions on index cards. The teacher would then answer the questions that were allowed, but for questions/topics not allowed, the teacher would literally read a statement that went something like this: "I'm sorry, but I'm not allowed to answer that question. You should ask your parents to discuss that issue with you." On the other hand, abortion could be discussed from a news perspective in social studies classes during current events lessons, particularly if the current events were brought into class by the students.
I used to teach earth science. We taught the SCIENCE of evolution, but we did not require students to believe in it. That was up to them and their parents. And, although it really wasn't discussed much back then, a teacher could have brought up creationism and briefly discussed that it is another -- but non-scientific -- theory about the origin and evolution of life.
The problem I have with folks like you is that you don't want your churches to have to teach the science of evolution and abortion, but you want our schools to have to teacher religion. And I know that you're going to say that schools are tax-payer supported institutions, so they should have to teach religion. But in a very real sense, churches are tax-payer supported since they don't have to pay taxes.
You don't teach your religion in school, and I won't teach my science in your church. That's putting it pretty simply.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
