... what version of the Bible that will be used. (Unless I missed it in the 30+ pages I read before tiring of the arguments.)

The fact remains that the bill has been passed, whether constitutional or not. And, I have a daughter who's a sophomore. While her younger brother has denounced the whole issue, stating he will refuse to take the class, I think she will opt in.

I've never forced religion of any kind down their throats and have never denied their exploration of any religion. Right now, she's into church and he is not. Fine by me... I feel they should find their own paths because I was not afforded that freedom.

That being said, I'm curious to know the version of the Bible they intend to use. My mother acted as if I'd asked what color the sky was when she gave her matter-of-fact response to the same question. "The King James Version, of course!"

When I asked how she thought the Catholics would feel about that she had no response.

Oh well, at least if my daughter opts in, I'll have a second-hand look at exactly what's being taught.

FWIW, I disagree with it being taught, but even as a 12 year old, I noticed a Bible in my public school library and thought it was a violation of church and state... This after having been in private schools until then.

Lastly, and a little off topic: Why do religious zealots get so squirmy when you ask questions they have no answers to? Like, if 'Thou Shalt Not Kill' then why was "God" supposedly on certain sides in armed conflicts in the Bible? (Armed conflicts that resulted in death.) And if 'Thou Shalt Not Steal' then why was Joshua, just this one time, supposedly told not to pillage Jericho after "God" supposedly brought the walls down? And if 'a woman's hair is her glory and a man's is his shame' why do all the paintings of Jesus have him as a pale white guy with long red hair? Hnmnm?

Look, it's simple. If they are doing any of the following:

*Teaching any religion as fact
*Teaching any religion from a religious standpoint
*Focusing on one specific religion while excluding others, i.e. requiring classes on Christianity to be taught while not requiring classes on other religions

The effect of the law is to endorse Christianity, violating the First Amendment. It is cut and dry, and it is amazing that the Texas legislature is stupid enough to do this, or immoral enough to violate their oaths to uphold the United States constitution in such a brazen manner.

__________________
"The government of the United States is in no sense founded on the Christian Religion." ~ George Washington / "I do not find in Christianity one redeeming feature." ~ Thomas Jefferson / "A just government has no need for the clergy or the church." ~ James Madison

"All political power comes from the barrel of a gun. The communist party must command all the guns, that way, no guns can ever be used to command the party."

-Chairman Mao

http://imgur.com/ESOy.png

[quote=The effect of the law is to endorse Christianity, violating the First Amendment. It is cut and dry, and it is amazing that the Texas legislature is stupid enough to do this, or immoral enough to violate their oaths to uphold the United States constitution in such a brazen manner.[/QUOTE]

I completely agree, and surprise, I'm a native Texan.

Nonetheless, it is what it is and will be taught until someone WINS a challenge in court. As a single mom, that won't be me, but I still wanna know which darned version of the book will be taught.

As I see it, a volatile can of worms has been opened -- a proverbial Pandora's Box. Notice the disagreement simply on this board? It'll be much worse at school board meetings around the state and NOT because of constitutionality issues... but because of denomination and doctrine issues.

If you'll recall the man who called the constitution "that god(*)(*)(*)(*) piece of paper" (Duh, Duh, Dubya) was our fumbling governor before becoming ruler of the once free world!

From what I can see, most Texans don't give a rat's butt about the constitution. But they do insist you believe exactly as they do or simply burn in hell. Therein lies the divisiveness of this bill -- no two denominations have the same doctrines and frankly all hell's gonna break loose!

Neat story!

There's no wording in any American law that specifically mentions "separation of church and state". There's the first ammendment, which forbids the government from passing a law establishing an official religion for the country. Having a Bible in the library isn't any more unconstitutional than having a copy of the Quran, and neither is any of the stuff that the "god botherers" do.

Establishing an official religion specifically means that the government can't say that Southern Baptism, or Sunni Islam, or any other religious doctrine, is the official religious doctrine of the United States. It was a direct reaction to the policy in England, where the "Church of England" was the official religion of England. The policy was explicitly implemented because establishing an official government religion restricts people of other religions, and persecutes them as a matter of the law.

And when it comes down to it, taking all Bibles out of the libraries does the same thing to everyone that wants to read a Bible, from any religion, that the Church of England did to the Puritans, except that the official government religion being established is Atheism.

Because the lesson is not simply not to kill. It's to obey God. In every conflict, the Israelites had the Ark of the Covenant directly in front of their army when they fought. The specific message of the Bible is not to let God do the killing, and don't go around doing it yourself unless you've got the visible hand of God directing you, not just in spirit, but in reality. Never assume that God's on your side. Only hope that you're on God's side in any fight.

They also spoiled Egypt when they left behind Moses. And they were following a pilliar of fire/cloud out of town. Again, if the pillar of cloud tells you to take stuff after it blows up your slavedriver's cities with a bunch of plagues, then it's probably ok to listen to the cloud. In the absence of the cloud, follow the general rules you're instructed by the cloud to follow.

Because everything that was added to the teachings of Jesus after about 200 A.D., including the picture of "White Jesus", including the name "Jesus" its self (his real name is "Yeshua". It's Hebrew), is completely made up. It was added to the faith when Constantine hijacked Yeshua's teachings, and turned Christianity into a fun fad, rather than a meaningful faith. Christmas, Easter, and White Jesus are all completely Pagan concepts that have no basis in the Bible at all. In fact, most of what Christianity does is in direct violation of Jesus' teachings, as they're written in the Bible.

I'm probably the biggest religious zealot you'll ever meet. I've got no fear at all about answering those types of questions, because they're excellent, and thoughtful questions.

__________________
My blog: http://itsnotateamsport.com/

The government can endorse any religion, or every religion. What violates the Constitution is when the government establishes one doctrine as the official religious doctrine of the state. Approving a generic history class about the significance of any religion does nothing to make that religion the state's official religion any more than teaching evolution establishes evolution as the country's official theory for how life came into being.

__________________
My blog: http://itsnotateamsport.com/

No, it cannot. That amounts to establishing a state religion - the religion or set of religions, or even every religion, endorsed by the government. Such an action is a betrayal of the founding principles of this country.

Again, wrong. The government cannot favor one religion above another, or above no religion.

I agree, however, requiring school districts to offer a generic history class of one religion, and one religion only, plus leaving wording in the bill allowing schools to make it MORE than a general history class, violates the Establishment clause by failing the tests of Secular Purpose, Primary Effect, and the Lemon Test.

__________________
"The government of the United States is in no sense founded on the Christian Religion." ~ George Washington / "I do not find in Christianity one redeeming feature." ~ Thomas Jefferson / "A just government has no need for the clergy or the church." ~ James Madison

"All political power comes from the barrel of a gun. The communist party must command all the guns, that way, no guns can ever be used to command the party."

-Chairman Mao

http://imgur.com/ESOy.png

Fine. point taken. At the same time, this class is not an endorsement or advocation of the faith in question in any way. I could hold a class on Islam that listed Islamic charities at the same time that it listed the horrible things terrorists have done in the name of Islam, and it would be no more of an endorsement of Islam than a history class is an endorsement of slavery or Civil Wars. It's also not mandated study. The only mandate is that it be offered as an elective.

First and foremost, there's nothing at all in the law that opens it up to interpretation as a devotional study. The law specifically forbids the class from being taught by a preacher, and the teachers are required to take training in administering the class in an objective fashion. Your assertion to the contrary is unfounded. Second, there's no law against having any other religious document be the subject of the same genre of class.

And third, and I've stated this five times already, the class is not only devoted to one religion. It's devoted to the choice between two distinct sets of documents. One of them is the foundation of the Christian Faith; the other is the foundation of the Jewish Faith.

Fourth, it's specifically stated in the law that any and all religions can, and should be discussed, to accomodate the religious preferences of all students under the program.

__________________
My blog: http://itsnotateamsport.com/

You could indeed offer such a class, but I highly doubt that the effect of this law is simply going to be offering an objective perspective on the history of Christianity. A class could be constructed to do so, but it is very doubtful that it would include a study on the Bible.
Since the law requires the class to be taught about one religion, and no other religions or religious perspectives receive the same treatment, its effect is to endorse the Christian viewpoint or to place Christian history and beliefs as more important than those of other standpoints.
It doesn't matter; the inclusion of the Jewish doctrine is incidental due to its own inclusion in Christian doctrine.
Indeed, that is an attempt at fending off a court case from the ACLU, but it doesn't change my point that it gives special treatment to Christianity (or Judaism and Christianity, if you really want to be specific.)

My high school offered a Bible as Literature class, as does my college. Neither are mandated by law and neither focus on the tenets of the religion, but focus only on what greatly effects the narrow topic chosen. Public institutions must be very, very careful when discussing anything to do with religion.

__________________
"The government of the United States is in no sense founded on the Christian Religion." ~ George Washington / "I do not find in Christianity one redeeming feature." ~ Thomas Jefferson / "A just government has no need for the clergy or the church." ~ James Madison

"All political power comes from the barrel of a gun. The communist party must command all the guns, that way, no guns can ever be used to command the party."

-Chairman Mao

http://imgur.com/ESOy.png

Nothing in the law backs up your assertions that the class is anything other than a history class. This entire tirade against "Bible study classes" as you're defining them is mental masturbation, because classes as you describe them are against the Constitution, as well as being against this specific law, as it's written.

And you can assert that government "has to be very careful" all you like. The Constitution mandates that government not establish an official religion. It also forbids government from limiting the rights of people to practice their own faith, even in public, and even in a school, even when the individual works for the government.

And I want to make one thing very clear here. I am not even a "Christian", as you're defining them. I'm a person of great faith, but I don't think that the dogma of any church, and especially not the mainstream Christian church, bears any merit at all. I don't think it should be preached to anyone, much less to school children, much less on the government's dime.

But not only do i find no problem with teaching kids about the historical influences religion has had on this country and the world, I think that it SHOULD be mandatory. I don't even think it should be an elective. Religion has, and continues to play an extremely important role in politics and society. Churches only teach their dogma. They don't teach about the mistakes the church has made over the millenia, and they don't teach enough about how the church shapes politics in societies. For people to be properly informed and educated about society, they must be educated regarding religion's influence in that society. It has nothing to do with worship. It has everything to do with knowledge.

And it should be insanely obvious that Christianity and Judaism are the only two classes that are mandated, simply because no other religion has had any but the slightest, most miniscule influence over the development of our society. Our political alliances with Saudi Arabia are over oil. Our alliance with Israel exists for one reason: the Bible, specifically Revelations. If people aren't educated about that dynamic, whether the dynamic is beneficial to our society, or detrimental, it needs to be open to discussion in the halls of learning in this country. To do otherwise is to perpetuate woeful ignorance of what makes American society tick.

I'd argue that the political and social dynamics of faith in our society are vastly more important to understand than perhaps any other aspect of our history, yet it's completely pushed out of schools because of an arbitrary interpretation of the Constitution that anti-religious zealots use as a hammer to beat their agenda across. The result is that it harms us all.

__________________
My blog: http://itsnotateamsport.com/

On the government dime, no person or organization can favor one religion above another. Period.

Absolutely! My point is that if the original assertion in the OP is true, that teachers are going to be using this to teach Christianity, then the primary effect is that of endorsing a religion. I think a very similar class could be constructed entitled something along the lines of "Religious influences on the culture of the United States", focusing on Christianity but also going into other religious influences, and still be both appropriate for a high school and in line with the First Amendment.
Our alliance with Israel exists because of political AND religious reasons. The secular politicians in our government support Israel because they are one of our few allies in the Middle East and are situated in a very strategic area; the original support both came from a feeling of Judeo-Christian solidarity and an urge to recompense them over the Holocaust. Other religions have had an impact on this society, especially the Native American religions.
I agree, but I am still not convinced that this law will not be used as an excuse to begin bible-thumping in classrooms.

__________________
"The government of the United States is in no sense founded on the Christian Religion." ~ George Washington / "I do not find in Christianity one redeeming feature." ~ Thomas Jefferson / "A just government has no need for the clergy or the church." ~ James Madison

"All political power comes from the barrel of a gun. The communist party must command all the guns, that way, no guns can ever be used to command the party."

-Chairman Mao

http://imgur.com/ESOy.png