Why schools should be teaching the Bible


#1

Have you ever sensed in your own life that “the handwriting was on the wall”? Or encouraged a loved one to walk “the straight and narrow”?

Have you ever laughed at something that came “out of the mouths of babes”? Or gone “the extra mile” for an opportunity that might vanish “in the twinkling of an eye”?

If you have, then you’ve been thinking of the Bible.

Teaching the Bible is of course a touchy subject. One can’t broach it without someone barking “separation of church and state” and “forcing religion down my throat.”

Yet the Supreme Court has said it’s perfectly OK for schools to do so, ruling in 1963 (Abington School District v. Schempp) that “the Bible is worthy of study for its literary and historic qualities. Nothing we have said here indicates that such study of the Bible or of religion, when presented objectively as a part of a secular (public school) program of education, may not be effected consistently with the First Amendment.”.

Roma Downey and Mark Burnett: Why Public Schools Should Teach the Bible - WSJ.com

I wonder why if it is constitutionally allowed that we havent been able to introduce the Bible into school curriculum


#2

The simple answer is without God all fails


#3

The context would be Comparative Religion where kids would learn about ALL major religions and in that case the Bible and the Koran for example could exist side by side in the classroom. Of course…then you open the door to the Wiccans as well! :smiley:
Better to keep it in Church on Sundays and in the home…otherwise the kids might be coming home from school with some distinctly disturbing ideas from their liberal teachers about the Bible and other faiths. :smiley:


#4

the article is pointing out that the Bible goes far beyond that

the conclusion sums it up nicely

Interestingly enough, the common desktop reference guide “The Dictionary of Cultural Literacy” best sums up the Bible’s value as a tool of cultural literacy. Its first page declares: “No one in the English speaking world can be considered literate without a basic knowledge of the Bible.”


#5

I used to keep a list of commonly used expressions that come from the Bible - just off the top of my head. I’d add others as I came across them.

How many people know that the expression “the skin of my teeth” comes from the Bible?

(Job 19:20) My bone cleaveth to my skin and to my flesh, and I am escaped with the skin of my teeth.


#6

The case cited in the article was the case where BIBLE READINGS as a requirement for all students was outlawed. (Abington required students to read 10 verses a day followed by a recitation of the Lords’ Prayer which was also recited at public events.)
In addition to quickly declaring this unconstitutional Justice Clark wrote:
"… the Court was of the feeling that no matter the religious nature of the citizenry, the government at all levels, as required by the Constitution, must remain neutral in matters of religion “while protecting all, prefer[ring] none, and disparag[ing] none.”

“We repeat and again reaffirm that neither a State nor the Federal Government can constitutionally force a person ‘to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion.’” Neither can constitutionally pass laws or impose requirements which aid all religions as against non-believers, and **neither can aid those religions based on a belief in the existence of God as against those religions founded on different beliefs." **

“The short answer, therefore, is that the religious character of the exercise was admitted by the State. But even if its purpose is not strictly religious, it is sought to be accomplished through readings, without comment, from the Bible. Surely the place of the Bible as an instrument of religion cannot be gainsaid, and the State’s recognition of the pervading religious character of the ceremony is evident from the rule’s specific permission of the alternative use of the Catholic Douay version, as well as the recent amendment permitting nonattendance at the exercises.** None of these factors is consistent with the contention that the Bible is here used either as an instrument for nonreligious moral inspiration or as a reference for the teaching of secular subjects.**”

**AND NOW we come to the money quote which shows clearly how the authors of the WSJ article have quote-mined this decision to make it seem favorable to their point of view. **

"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 advancement of civilization. It certainly may be said that the Bible is worthy of study for its literary and historic qualities. Nothing we have said here indicates that such study of the Bible or of religion, when presented objectively as part of a secular program of education, may not be effected consistently with the First Amendment. "

The portion is RED is what the article uses. In PURPLE is the TRUE meaning of the Justices comment as I first said earlier in the thread. **The BIBLE is fine and worthy as part of a SECULAR comparative religion study. **Not as an exclusive source for study in the public schools.

The Court is QUITE clear in this opinion that they will look VERY carefully at any use of the Bible in public schools and that they will not permit:
**" that a majority could use the machinery of the State to practice its beliefs. "
**
The authors of the WSJ article…clearly have an agenda that seeks to use a partial Supreme Court quote to insert the Bible back into school curricula under the guise of simple cultural education. Kinda like the Creationists now calling themselves ID’ers. Ain’t gonna work. The courts have been clear.

But be my guest if you want to bring the Bible back in your public schools and teach it on equal footing to the writings of Confucius, the Koran, and American Indian Oral traditions among other sets of belief. Anything less will find your town with a big and expensive losing lawsuit and higher property taxes for all.

From what I can see…we don’t need any MORE courses in high school (which is the ONLY logical place for comparative religion)… we need mastery of the basics and elimination of the peripheral.


#7

Why does one part of the constitution control states as well as the federal government but in the case of the 2A it’s up to the states?
If a state wanted to teach religion it can’t, yet can restrict the 2A, yet can’t restrict the 4A, 5A, 6A etc.


#8

“Nimrod, the might hunter.”


#9

Nope…you have it wrong. The amendments apply to BOTH the Feds and the States. The COURT will always determine whether laws that somewhat impinge on a particular amendment…(whether the Feds or the States make the laws)… are permissible.
EXAMPLE the state CAN pass a law saying you can’t yell fire in a theater unless there is one. THAT infringes my first amendment rights…but is right and necessary.
EXAMPLE a Courthouse MAY keep a display of the 10 commandments as PART of a historical depiction of law through history.(Also showing other lawgivers). A courthouse may not erect JUST a monument of the 10 commandments as that represents a violation of the establishment clause with a clearly religious display and religious intent.
As to the second amendment. It was JUST incorporated to be an INDIVIDUAL right by the Court for the first time in 2008 so we have 200 years of STATES government how guns would and would not be allowed within their boundaries…and numerous state laws. Since 2008 the states may not infringe our INDIVIDUAL RIGHT to keep and bear arms and multiple court cases are working their way through the system to determine which EXISTING state laws are like the “fire in the theater” law and legal regarding guns…and which are like the 10 commandments monument and illegal.
And the anti-gun lobby is as passionate as the anit-abortion lobby and always trying to find some way to get rid of guns (like requiring insurance!) so vigilance is always necessary.

Though many of US have always said the 2nd is an individual right to keep & bear…there was NEVER a confirming Court case until Heller followed shortly by McDonald in Chicago. Our individual gun rights are more secure than they have ever been legally…but there is still lots of bad existing law to get rid of in the years ahead!


#10

We chew, as does the court, regarding the constitutionality of religion in the public, public schools, now the public square. The constitution expressly states that government can not ESTABLISH a state religion, that is all, but the courts being the proactive guardians of misaligned justice, have chosen to allow the elimination of God from our life. It now has come to those Christian universities, to remove all things of God from those very institutions that were set up in the Name of God.
The question of reading the Bible in schools is an ACLU litigious equation. But we must remember this, we STILL can develop Christian based schools, where we CAN read the Bible. Christianity is not something for the minute, the hour, the day, but every part of you life. I am not religious for an hour or two on Sunday, but I am a Child of God, God IS my Father and as such I am totally His at all times. There fore if we want Christianity taught to our children, then it is UP TO US, to find the platform from which to do so.


#11

I think religious studies should be kept out of K-12 curriculum. If you make a secular comparative religious class a mandatory part of curriculum, then some types are going to be upset that either their religion was excluded or placed on even grounds with ones they don’t believe in, or worse yet, they deem some parts of the course sacrilegious in relation to what ever denomination or sect they belong to. If you make the study exclusively about the Bible from a religious stand point, you still run into the same conflicts as many groups of Christians have different beliefs just within their own religion. In one single classroom you can simultaneously be seen as “cramming religion down the throat” of one parent’s child and “secularizing the religion” of another. This is something that is more effectively taught at home and at the church/temple/whatever. I’m not opposed to the major religions being discussed in a world history class in the context of how/when they first appeared and an outline of their general beliefs, and even that can rustle the jimmies of the overbearing.


#12

Yeah sure teach it. Along with the quaran, bhagavad Gita, Satanism, and everything else. Is this serious? I absolutely am not okay with them the bible in school. What happened to kids deciding religion for themselves instead of indoctrination from day 1?


#13

We’re not talking about teaching religion. We are talking about teaching our own language, from one of its greatest sources. Did you know that the English language was not standardized until Shakespeare, and the King James Bible?


#14

BOP where does it say kids decide religion for themselves? especially when they don’t know what religion is. ‘Religion’ may be taught in school but A relationship with Christ is taught in the home. One of the major reasons the moral decay is so rampant in this nation is there is no morality. The home has abdicated it’s responsibility in teaching the Judeo/Christian ethic, of teaching God’s Law, of maintaining a wholesome ethos within the home structure.
It is the parents responsibility to teach their children, not the school, not the Church, not the neighborhood. Yes it is encumbent on the schooll, Churches , and neighborhoods to stand alongside the family unit and give additional instruction and enciuragement. BUT IT MUST BE THE FAMILY!