Oklahoma schools in revolt over Bible mandate

[Balthazzar]

From what you've stated so far, the Bible would be required reading in public schools. This would change the status quo from what it is now--the exclusion of teaching biblical doctrine in public school classrooms. Note that Bibles are not now banned from public school libraries, and no schoolchild is prevented from such instruction in the home or places of worship. If that is not what you advocate, then state clearly what you do advocate.

Doctrine, I will suggest is an entirely different kind of beast. To teach "doctrine" would imply authority to tell a Baptist student that baptism isn't necessary. I'm pretty sure no one wants to interfere with personal interpretations, etc. being responsible for what would likely be deemed an abuse of position. However, as an academic and as proposed, I would think it to be much more accommodating to increase an understanding of "world history" and the impact it has had on society and our social structures.

 

[Copernicus]

Doctrine, I will suggest is an entirely different kind of beast. To teach "doctrine" would imply authority to tell a Baptist student that baptism isn't necessary. I'm pretty sure no one wants to interfere with personal interpretations, etc. However, as an academic and as proposed, I would think it to be much more accommodating to increase an understanding of "world history" and the impact on society and our structures.

And I'm pretty sure that the whole idea of forcing Bibles into the K12 curriculum is intended to interfere with "personal interpretations, etc" of schoolchildren. This is not about increasing anyone's understanding of world history. It is about imposing your opinion of world history and others who share it on children who would not otherwise have to learn it.

What you seem to be missing here is why the original framers of the Constitution thought it important to ban an establishment of religion in the First Amendment. Why was that considered a needed amendment to the core document? This is what needs to be taught in our schools, but making children read passages from the Bible in public schools makes it very difficult to teach that fundamental message about our democracy. There is a reason why we have a secular democracy and not one in which religion is taught to schoolchildren.

 

[Balthazzar]

And I'm pretty sure that the whole idea of forcing Bibles into the K12 curriculum is intended to interfere with "personal interpretations, etc" of schoolchildren. This is not about increasing anyone's understanding of world history. It is about imposing your opinion of world history and others who share it on children who would not otherwise have to learn it.

What you seem to be missing here is why the original framers of the Constitution thought it important to ban an establishment of religion in the First Amendment. Why was that considered a needed amendment to the core document? This is what needs to be taught in our schools, but making children read passages from the Bible in public schools makes it very difficult to teach that fundamental message about our democracy. There is a reason why we have a secular democracy and not one in which religion is taught to schoolchildren.

The 1st amendment is precisely what I am suggesting is to be honored. The bias association in terms of National policy and laws, not dismissed, but acknowledged to an extent that we live in a biased nation who shuns the practice of religion and those who belong to them, who likewise appear to negate the many nations around the world, suggesting they are insignificant due to our denial to accept them as anything relevant or worthy of our inclusion.

No doctrine. No religious laws.

Now, world history, human history, and the sociopolitical dynamics associated with the religious texts that have literally shaped this worlds landscape are worth understanding.

I'll pass on forced indoctrination and add to the practice of, a warranted "albatross."

That's a bird, by the way. "The bird", specifically.

We typically flip them, but some might suggest it's how we fly our "FY" sign.

 

[Copernicus]

The 1st amendment is precisely what I am suggesting is to be honored. The bias association in terms of National policy and laws, not dismissed, but acknowledged to an extent that we live in a biased nation who shuns the practice of religion and those who belong to them, who likewise appear to negate the many nations around the world, suggesting they are insignificant due to our denial to accept them as anything relevant or worthy of our inclusion.
...

It seems obvious from the content of your posts that you want the exact opposite of the 1st amendment. Requiring Bible studies in the K12 curriculum negates that amendment. Your bland assurances that it is all about teaching "world history" and "culture" is Christian nationalist doublespeak for religious indoctrination. The schools already teach social studies and literature without the religious indoctrination that would inevitably get injected into classroom-mandated Bible studies. Any Christian children in public schools who want to focus on Bible studies can form an extracurricular club for that purpose. You have given us no reason to think that all schoolchildren need to join that club.

 

[anna.]

It is a well-aimed (amicable) first step towards the inclusion of religiously themed content in public schools.

It's neither well-aimed nor amicable. There is no need for "religiously themed content" in public schools.

You want that? Find a private religious school.

 

[Pogo]

Doctrine, I will suggest is an entirely different kind of beast. To teach "doctrine" would imply authority to tell a Baptist student that baptism isn't necessary. I'm pretty sure no one wants to interfere with personal interpretations, etc. being responsible for what would likely be deemed an abuse of position. However, as an academic and as proposed, I would think it to be much more accommodating to increase an understanding of "world history" and the impact it has had on society and our social structures.

So you do have it wrong, No-one is legally teaching doctrine one way or another now, that is largely why the present law is what it is, so that schools do not teach doctrine and it is left to the parents and churches and why if you looked at it from a Muslim or any other non-christian position you would see that inserting a bible into every class room and requiring it to be taught from would be teaching doctrine whether it is the teachers preferred doctrine or this guy Walkers.

Step back from your idea that Bibles are a good idea in class and realize that no matter what you teach from the Bible you will be stepping on some religion's toes. You will be lucky if they are not yours and so the Bible is taught in its historical and literary significance in the appropriate classes and not elsewhere which is what Oklahoma is trying to do.

 

[Heyo]

Or an effort was made, supported, accommodated, and a deal was made creating a win/win between a unified bilateral. Moving forward is not off the agenda, (I wouldn't think) and it was suggested that these would be easy to produce.

What is a "unified bilateral"? (No hits on DuckDuckGo, so it seems that's a term you made up.)

And the win/win situation, who wins? Trump gets the money and Walters gets a job in Trump's administration? And the taxpayers pay for both?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Now, world history, human history, and the sociopolitical dynamics associated with the religious texts that have literally shaped this worlds landscape are worth understanding.

You don't need to teach the Bible to understand world history (more accurately, history of the West after Christianity infected Europe), no more than one must teach Zues to understamd Greek history or teach of Heracles amd Hercules to understand how different cultures influence each other.

 

[Pogo]

What is a "unified bilateral"? (No hits on DuckDuckGo, so it seems that's a term you made up.)

And the win/win situation, who wins? Trump gets the money and Walters gets a job in Trump's administration? And the taxpayers pay for both?

I'm beginning to think that @Balthazzar is one of those people that believes that current politics etc. is all as revelations or whatever source they choose is playing out right now and Gog and Magog etc are in charge and doing what they said they would do in the babble.
There is no talking to these people in their Armor of God pajamas.

 

[Balthazzar]

It seems obvious from the content of your posts that you want the exact opposite of the 1st amendment. Requiring Bible studies in the K12 curriculum negates that amendment. Your bland assurances that it is all about teaching "world history" and "culture" is Christian nationalist doublespeak for religious indoctrination. The schools already teach social studies and literature without the religious indoctrination that would inevitably get injected into classroom-mandated Bible studies. Any Christian children in public schools who want to focus on Bible studies can form an extracurricular club for that purpose. You have given us no reason to think that all schoolchildren need to join that club.

I understand where you are coming from and why. You hold the same position I held over 10 years ago when the issue came up with the 10 commandments being removed from federally funded public places, and when it was deemed inappropriate to pray with a team as a team, etc. I've changed my stance since, and this is due to the ongoing effort against religion in general.

I honestly don't care if it is included in the classroom as an academic. I am ok with it, so long as it's not taught in a way that is aimed to convert or indoctrinate the students. If it is handled as an academic, and in terms of social world dynamics and human history, borrowing from the influence it has had on the world, it could be most beneficial to include the text along with an appropriate way to acknowledge its influence, from art to literature and music, and on to how it has influenced the nations in the realms of international world government and foreign policy.

As for teaching the precepts and specific doctrine in the schools, I am opposed to this. I'm also opposed to a bias based on a religion in our governmental policies and laws. This would create too much bias, and if one is enabled this would in effect enable all to act in like manner. This is specially what many of us have been so concerned about in years past with the issue. Understanding that religious nations sometimes aim to force their laws and penalties on their citizens has been a subject of concern for several decades if not more. This will never be even remotely satisfactory for anyone. So, despite your presumption that I am advocating a theocracy, I am not. I'm an American who values our 1st amendment rights.

The bland assurances whatever you may think they are, are less about assurance and more so about expectations that professionals will be placed into position for the task of teaching the academic as history, art, social influence, and the dynamics involved as opposed to the doctrine so many presume will be forced on the students. If this is ever going to happen, someone will be required to take the first steps.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Banning bibles from our schools as proposed - for its historic content and impact on our global society, and how that influence relates to human social dynamics, and how artists from around the world have drawn inspiration from the content therein, is what many are supporting. What's next ... banning LBGT attendance or to segregate to such an extent that we are forced to assemble in our respective demographics?

While our bruises from some types of people last longer than others, if we don't allow the wounds to heal, they likely never will.

I think you know perfectly well that "banning bibles from schools" can be taken two ways, and that there is a huge difference between them. I regret to tell you that Christians want schools to teach the "truth" of the Bible. But first, other religions do not consider the Bible to be "true" in the way that Christians do, and there is an immense amount of the Bible that internally demonstrates that it certainly can't be literally true. Thus, you are left with interpretation -- and interpretation of the Bible is a religious activity, and in accordance with the Constitution, public schools do not do that.

The second way is to ban teaching the "Bible as literature" from schools, and I would certainly not advocate that. Clearly the Bible is human literature. In my view not the best, but that's a subjective judgment and who am I to say? As a life-long reader of English literature, I am possibly more aware than most of just how much the Bible has contributed -- in titles alone, of both fiction and theatre and music. I have no issue at all teaching that.. But public schools must assiduously avoid teaching, or even hinting, that the Bible represents some kind of overarching truth.

 

[Balthazzar]

What is a "unified bilateral"? (No hits on DuckDuckGo, so it seems that's a term you made up.)

And the win/win situation, who wins? Trump gets the money and Walters gets a job in Trump's administration? And the taxpayers pay for both?

I utilized the phrase and yes, I made it up. I utilized it to imply what it is. Trump is selling books aimed to meet the needs of a proposed inclusion of the bible in Oklahoma public schools.

 

[Balthazzar]

I'm beginning to think that @Balthazzar is one of those people that believes that current politics etc. is all as revelations or whatever source they choose is playing out right now and Gog and Magog etc are in charge and doing what they said they would do in the babble.
There is no talking to these people in their Armor of God pajamas.

Mine are invisible and I typically keep them covered up with a t shirt and camo pants. I wear slacks sometimes, also but when I do I ditch the t-shirt and wear a button down, and I even wear a tie every now and then. By the way, they're not really pajamas. Well, mine aren't but maybe you're privy to something I'm not.

If I told you I was atheist, would you believe me? I wouldn't because I'm not. I'm a theist and I have been abused by the those with the armor of Gawd, myself.

The point is, I may not even be a Christian. I'm not Islamic, nor do I prescribe to what most consider to be Christianity. I still support the inclusion of the bible as a literary text and as an integral part of world history.

 

[Pogo]

I utilized the phrase and yes, I made it up. I utilized it to imply what it is. Trump is selling books aimed to meet the needs of a proposed inclusion of the bible in Oklahoma public schools.

Which is illegal in this country. Creating a contract as a public entity with the predetermined specification that only a specific company can fulfill is not what public business is about, that is why there are laws against it. You seem to have lost any concept of fair play and ethics so long as you like the potential outcome.

You have heard the word motive and you do realize that not all of them are in the best interests of you and others?

 

[Balthazzar]

I think you know perfectly well that "banning bibles from schools" can be taken two ways, and that there is a huge difference between them. I regret to tell you that Christians want schools to teach the "truth" of the Bible. But first, other religions do not consider the Bible to be "true" in the way that Christians do, and there is an immense amount of the Bible that internally demonstrates that it certainly can't be literally true. Thus, you are left with interpretation -- and interpretation of the Bible is a religious activity, and in accordance with the Constitution, public schools do not do that.

The second way is to ban teaching the "Bible as literature" from schools, and I would certainly not advocate that. Clearly the Bible is human literature. In my view not the best, but that's a subjective judgment and who am I to say? As a life-long reader of English literature, I am possibly more aware than most of just how much the Bible has contributed -- in titles alone, of both fiction and theatre and music. I have no issue at all teaching that.. But public schools must assiduously avoid teaching, or even hinting, that the Bible represents some kind of overarching truth.

If that's all they are in it for, then I'm with you on the 1st.

The upcoming months and years have me in anticipation. I've already stated my position as to how this ought to be handled in the school systems. Standing by . . .

 

[Balthazzar]

Which is illegal in this country. Creating a contract as a public entity with the predetermined specification that only a specific company can fulfill is not what public business is about, that is why there are laws against it. You seem to have lost any concept of fair play and ethics so long as you like the potential outcome.

You have heard the word motive and you do realize that not all of them are in the best interests of you and others?

It is likely expected to pass, leaving the rest of the publishing world and would be interested parties with a nice and potentially profitable opportunity to fulfill orders in other States.

 

[Pogo]

Mine are invisible and I typically keep them covered up with a t shirt and camo pants. I wear slacks sometimes, also but when I do I ditch the t-shirt and wear a button down, and I even wear a tie every now and then. By the way, they're not really pajamas. Well, mine aren't but maybe you're privy to something I'm not.

If I told you I was atheist, would you believe me? I wouldn't because I'm not. I'm a theist and I have been abused by the those with the armor of Gawd, myself.

The point is, I may not even be a Christian. I'm not Islamic, nor do I prescribe to what most consider to be Christianity. I still support the inclusion of the bible as a literary text and as an integral part of world history.

Which is a far cry from what is being attempted in Oklahoma. The object there is to indoctrinate school children in a specific understanding of the Bible.
All of the rest about literature and history is already a part of the curriculum and no one is arguing against it or trying to ban it.

you have been mislead by some unscrupulous organizations and in fact it appears that your position is that this ploy is against your principles even though on the surface it claims otherwise.

 

[Pogo]

It is likely expected to pass, leaving the rest of the publishing world and would be interested parties with a nice and potentially profitable opportunity to fulfill orders in other States.

There won't be any significant other orders as the whole scheme will be outed as graft just like Mayor Daly in Chicago when he guaranteed contracts to his supporters. That is all this is is another case of governmental graft.

 

[Pogo]

It is likely expected to pass, leaving the rest of the publishing world and would be interested parties with a nice and potentially profitable opportunity to fulfill orders in other States.

The scheme is illegal, go commando without your AOG smalls and realize that this is just a scheme for Ryan Walker to get the state of Oklahoma to spend 3 million dollars of its money to support a particular presidential candidate in the hope that if he wins, said president would give him a high profile and valuable position in his administration. The rest of the publishing world will not respond because this is not a request for a new form of the Bible for the public, but a scam being perpetrated by two people and not a population.

Ah forget it, somehow

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I still support the inclusion of the bible as a literary text and as an integral part of world history.

Sadly for your support of the Bible, it actually has little to say about the actual history of the world -- focused as it is on the (largely) invented history of the Jews. It's impact on history, has been very great, usually by justifying the unjustifiable.

If you desire, I could write at greater length about my view.