Oklahoma schools in revolt over Bible mandate

[Brickjectivity]

Educators in Oklahoma are refusing a state order to incorporate the Bible into their lesson plans, setting up an inevitable showdown with the start of the school year just weeks away. State Superintendent Ryan Walters last week released guidelines to schools for how they should be integrating the Bible into classrooms, saying educators who are against the initiative “will comply, and I will use every means to make sure of it.”

The message from some schools in the state: Bring it on.

“I suspect that the first thing that will happen is he will target a specific school district or multiple school districts who he believes are not complying with his directive, those school districts will then have to make a choice as to whether to bend his whim or to sue,” said Rob Miller, superintendent of Bixby Public Schools. “And I can tell you that if Bixby was one of those schools that he selected to come after, we would file a lawsuit,” Miller told The Hill.

Walters’s guidance, which follows a June announcement of the mandatory biblical curricula for grades 5 through 12, says that lessons on the Christian text should emphasize its historical context, literary significance and artistic and musical influence. The guidance also says a physical copy of the book should be in every classroom, along with copies of the Ten Commandments, the U.S. Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. “And I can tell you that if Bixby was one of those schools that he selected to come after, we would file a lawsuit,” Miller told The Hill. . . .

But ultimately, Miller said the goal may be to garner headlines and get the mandate before the conservative-leaning Supreme Court.

“I believe that what the state superintendent intends, because he has voiced this out loud, is that he would like to be sued, because he would like to see this issue move through the court system to the United States Supreme Court, where I think there’s a faction of people who believe that the current composition of the U.S. Supreme Court might be favorable towards this type of policy,” he said.

https://thehill.com/homenews/education/4806459-oklahoma-schools-bible-mandate-ten-commandments-church-and-state/

The teachers can be sued. Of course they aren't going to comply. Worst case they get fired, but at least they won't be robbed blind.

 

[Pogo]

The teachers can be sued. Of course they aren't going to comply. Worst case they get fired, but at least they won't be robbed blind.

They can, yes but Oklahoma law says that school districts are responsible for the curriculum so they would have to be sued by the district.
The robbery is the state contracting to buy the unwanted and unneeded books from trump's side business, it only will affect the teachers in that there will be a 3 million dollar hole in the state's budget spent for no good use and that is before the legal fees that will be wasted in this losing cause.

 

[Balthazzar]

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.

I hope you're wrong because that's not how I understood what is being proposed at all. In any case, it's safe for me to inform you that our religious minorities are pushing back against the attempts to invalidate and remove us from our social and political worlds. The movement itself has been identified as "the new body" where religious rights end and only secular rights matter.

Wait, they matter ... they're just not allowed in public social settings.

This isn't good enough.

 

[Brickjectivity]

They can, yes but Oklahoma law says that school districts are responsible for the curriculum so they would have to be sued by the district.
The robbery is the state contracting to buy the unwanted and unneeded books from trump's side business, it only will affect the teachers in that there will be a 3 million dollar hole in the state's budget spent for no good use and that is before the legal fees that will be wasted in this losing cause.

I mean they can be sued by parents if they teach bible in school. (Can't they? Seems like it.) They might be civilly sued unless the legislature provides them protection. The governor has no skin in the game and probably would not be successfully sued. Teachers are sued for various things. Teaching bible and christianity to students is not a protected choice and can be construed in courts as either harm or waste of time possibly with standing for relief and damages. The teachers are being used as pawns for an agenda, and pawns are often taken.

 

[Balthazzar]

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.

It's not sad at all. It says nothing about how (the bible) has affected that which I have stated repeatedly as THE academic application that ought to be accepted with its inclusion. We can speak about the religious world and how that world has accompanied the bibles influence as part of history, which should be addressed anyway.

"Nope, this is a secular nation. We can't have any of that nonsense."

While we stand in this type of defiance, the rest of the world, much of which is fighting over religious ideals and disagreements between people, and over land, power, and who will become the most notable power player among us all as the end all be all "world leader", we have anti religious crowds saying:

"Nope, this is a secular nation, and we just can't accept anything attached to religion in our classrooms, not even included in lessons that pertain to world history, and cultural and sociopolitical dynamics between nations and cultures."

Why are bibles necessary in the classrooms? My guess is for referencing.

I may be wrong, but ...

Am I?

 

[Twilight Hue]

Trump supported type bibles that include the constitution, declaration of independence, bill of rights, and the pledge of allegiance, specifically.

Just remove the Bible part, and that's a pretty damn good pamphlet or book to distribute to the class.

 

[Pogo]

I hope you're wrong because that's not how I understood what is being proposed at all. In any case, it's safe for me to inform you that our religious minorities are pushing back against the attempts to invalidate and remove us from our social and political worlds. The movement itself has been identified as "the new body" where religious rights end and only secular rights matter.

Wait, they matter ... they're just not allowed in public social settings.

This isn't good enough.

It is what was set up over 200 years ago with our constitution, but it is obvious that you don't understand it either because no one is talking about banning anything or taking any religious freedoms away, only dealing with the law as it is already written.

 

[Pogo]

It's not sad at all. It says nothing about how (the bible) has affected that which I have stated repeatedly as THE academic application that ought to be accepted with its inclusion. We can speak about the religious world and how that world has accompanied the bibles influence as part of history, which should be addressed anyway.

"Nope, this is a secular nation. We can't have any of that nonsense."

While we stand in this type of defiance, the rest of the world, much of which is fighting over religious ideals and disagreements between people, and over land, power, and who will become the most notable power player among us all as the end all be all "world leader", we have anti religious crowds saying:

"Nope, this is a secular nation, and we just can't accept anything attached to religion in our classrooms, not even included in lessons that pertain to world history, and cultural and sociopolitical dynamics between nations and cultures."

Why are bibles necessary in the classrooms? My guess is for referencing.

I may be wrong, but ...

Am I?

You are and massively so, Christianity and its affect on western civilization has always been taught and will continue to be, this bill is only about religious indoctrination which you yourself disagree with.

 

[Pogo]

Just remove the Bible part, and that's a pretty damn good pamphlet or book to distribute to the class.

Yup and wouldn't be any problem, heck several of the documents were standard wall art in all the schools I ever went to. No problem. On the other hand, I don't want the five pillars of Islam on the wall just because somebody thinks everybody sees it as they do.

 

[Balthazzar]

It is what was set up over 200 years ago with our constitution, but it is obvious that you don't understand it either because no one is talking about banning anything or taking any religious freedoms away, only dealing with the law as it is already written.

That's why we're dealing with it, specifically. On one hand, this group is all pissy about Christians because they have more influence, this other group is disgruntled because they were criticized by a religious person, and this other group are those who were denied based on sexual orientation, and the other group didn't qualify because they didn't believe the same way, etc.

Then we have the groups who aim to enforce, employ, and enact religious rule and law in conquest and then you have people like me sweating it all out and standing on the 1st like our lives depend on it because ... well,

"This is a secular nation, the greatest nation on earth, and we won't allow religion in our schools because it causes too much trouble and makes people feel bad about themselves."

We need dialogue and to be able to relate enough to other people of other cultures who happen to live here in hope that we might be able to dismantle a religious war machine out to conquer the known world and rule it by force.

We are required to start somewhere, and our school systems would be most appropriate for educating our youth for the purpose of helping to maintain peaceful relations between the nations.

We're still a secular nation and we should still honor religious freedom and inclusion. Truth is, we need our school systems to become more accepting of various religious cultures and for the purposes stated above.

 

[Argentbear]

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.

Team or individual prayer was never deemed inappropriate. Using coercion to make the whole team pray was and still is inappropriate

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.

The problem is that the bible isn't a historical document or a cultural or social influence. The Church is responsible for that and sadly most of its social and cultural influence of religion is at complete odds with the bible.

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.

and how does using legislature to force a religious document to be taught to everyone work with the first amendment?

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.

it is being forced on the students and the Oklahoma legislature took that first step.

 

[Balthazzar]

Team or individual prayer was never deemed inappropriate. Using coercion to make the whole team pray was and still is inappropriate

It was deemed inappropriate, but it was also the case that enabled the inclusion of religious documents back in the school systems.

The problem is that the bible isn't a historical document or a cultural or social influence. The Church is responsible for that and sadly most of its social and cultural influence of religion is at complete odds with the bible.

Your first point is erroneous, the second is on spot, and third is opinionated.

and how does using legislature to force a religious document to be taught to everyone work with the first amendment?

It opens a door for more inclusive texts and documents of other world religions. I disagree with it being taught as a tool to convert students into the Christian faith, but its historical relevance is important enough for the inclusion, if only for referencing, as needed and in accordance with world history, which I'm sure would be often enough to require it present for that purpose.

it is being forced on the students and the Oklahoma legislature took that first step.

What's being forced on the students? An education? World history? Learning about past, present, and very likely future world politics and government, and the bibles impact in that dynamic as a text, having been utilized in association with governments who operate under its principles?

We live in a secular nation, but not every nation, nor every political world power shares that stance. Cultural diversity is one thing, but world history and government is another. To equip our future leaders effectively, we should at the very least equip them with what is needed to maintain peaceful relations, namely understanding how vital the role of religion is in the world and how offensive we can be by negating the people who adhere to them as a culture.

 

[Revoltingest]

What's being forced on the students? An education? World history? Learning about past, present, and very likely future world politics and government, and the bibles impact in that dynamic as a text, having been utilized in association with governments who operate under its principles?

When the Bible was taught in my school back in the day
(before Abington School District v Schemp in 1963),
Christians had only positive, prescriptive, & proscriptive
things to teach....nothing negative, eg, its history supporting
slavery, murder, torture, conquest, genocide.
So we should expect that when Christians nowadays want
the Bible taught, it will include proselytizing, but will skip
the unsavory history.

 

[Copernicus]

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.

If you honestly don't care, then why make the effort to change the status quo and require students in public schools to study the Bible? It seems obvious that you do care. And it also seems that you have a doctrine regarding how it is taught, because you want teachers to "acknowledge its influence" in a way that you approve of, even though not everyone is going to agree with you on your personal take on that subject.

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.

Look, you are not fooling anyone except maybe yourself if you believe what you write here. You are pushing a core tenet of Christian nationalism doctrine, which ignores the separation of church and state. Mandating Bible studies in school is never going to be just an academic pursuit, especially not in the Bible Belt where you live. I think you know that, no matter how much you might deny it here.

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.

So you intend to force professionals to go along with your ideas for teaching their subject matter. You want them "placed into position for the task of teaching academic history, art, social influence, and the dynamics involved as opposed to the doctrine so many presume will be forced on the students." Hence, you want your doctrine to replace whatever you imagine theirs to be, even though you are not yourself one of them. All of your claims not to want any particular doctrine taught simply fall apart when you actually say what it is that you want.

 

[Heyo]

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.

You are confusing cause and effect. The Trump bible was there first, then Walters aimed to fill Trump's coffers by ordering a specific bible that only Trump could handle. If your conscience doesn't tell you that that is wrong, at least the law should. Walters' behaviour is criminal.

And for the inclusion of "the bible", it is also unlawful, as proposed. The main goal for the First Amendment was primarily to stop different sects of Christianity fighting for control. Walters, by ordering a specific version of the bible, is promoting those sects who use that specific translation. Catholics wouldn't like that. Mainline Protestants wouldn't like that. The JW wouldn't like that.
Europe has seen a bloody, 30-year war between Christian denominations. England had heads rolling in the fight between Anglicans and Catholics, and Northern Ireland had a religious war between Christians in our lifetime. That's a fact for the history books.

 

[gotti]

*GASP!*

"SUPERINTENDENT WALTERS!!!"

In all seriousness - this is pretty ****ed.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

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.

That is like saying it is ok to use creationism to teach as science in schools
It is certainly not OK.
Forcing the teaching of the bible in any form is teaching religion. There is no other possible reason to do so. There are far better books to teach about literature , history, and about society.

 

[Balthazzar]

If you honestly don't care, then why make the effort to change the status quo and require students in public schools to study the Bible? It seems obvious that you do care. And it also seems that you have a doctrine regarding how it is taught, because you want teachers to "acknowledge its influence" in a way that you approve of, even though not everyone is going to agree with you on your personal take on that subject.



Look, you are not fooling anyone except maybe yourself if you believe what you write here. You are pushing a core tenet of Christian nationalism doctrine, which ignores the separation of church and state. Mandating Bible studies in school is never going to be just an academic pursuit, especially not in the Bible Belt where you live. I think you know that, no matter how much you might deny it here.



So you intend to force professionals to go along with your ideas for teaching their subject matter. You want them "placed into position for the task of teaching academic history, art, social influence, and the dynamics involved as opposed to the doctrine so many presume will be forced on the students." Hence, you want your doctrine to replace whatever you imagine theirs to be, even though you are not yourself one of them. All of your claims not to want any particular doctrine taught simply fall apart when you actually say what it is that you want.

It's certainly not necessary. I'd love to avoid going much further than our 1st amendment to negotiate peace with our neighbors. Most aren't able to discuss much when holding contrary views without stepping on toes and insulting the other parties. Typically, this is due to not being informed well enough to understand a position, or simply not having the ability of character. It could go either way. We could end up with a huge mess moving forward with negated populations who understand the politics of other populations around the world, yet separated from the mainstay secular application in how we negotiate as a secular nation, or we could end up not having a choice, but be required to submit to forced efforts aimed to establish peace, and possibly be required to stand to protect our freedoms. The discussion we've been in is about making an effort to include the texts as an academic, understanding it could go terribly wrong...from incompetent teaching methods and/or disagreeable student and parent opposers, who hold true to the premise that they should not be required to stomach the religious drivel we know will eventually be spewed from those damn Christian Nationalist. Or it could work out fine. We simply don't know how this will turn out.

Meanwhile, people around the nation and world are locking and loading in anticipation of our 3rd because ... This seems to be in the works and may be inevitable for us to be required to defend ourselves and our communities, and in a way that has not been necessary to this extent since the civil war. So, it may not be necessary to include the bible or other religious texts in our schools and it may or may not be useful if they are, so for this reason "I really don't care".

It's a gamble anyway and life is uncertain, and people ARE against it.

At the moment the notion is stirring the pot, but ... If not in our school systems, I am certain you and those like you will see people like us (those who are ok with the inclusion) in the political arena better equipped than the average - "We didn't think it would be fair to be forced to study religious material in schools" type, and due to simply understanding a need to accommodate a position able to bridge a few divides to help the efforts aimed to increase peaceful relations between our neighbors and nations.

 

[Balthazzar]

That is like saying it is ok to use creationism to teach as science in schools
It is certainly not OK.
Forcing the teaching of the bible in any form is teaching religion. There is no other possible reason to do so. There are far better books to teach about literature , history, and about society.

If this is your stance, I won't argue your point. I will inform you that I am against a global and/or national theocracy aimed to enforce religious rule and penalty. I will also inform you that I hold a secular position in the aimed intent. I may have Christian roots dating back to the old Abrahamic variant, but I also understand that this world has many types of governments to which those who reside in those areas are subject to.

I am in favor of democracy. I am in favor of an educated and capable population and voter base, and a well-equipped pool of citizens from whence our representatives will be chosen in the future.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I am not sure where "democracy" fits with the enforced use of the bible in schools.. or how it fits in any way with the constitution.

I find it very hard to name any country with a fully democratic political system. Or if that would be a good idea anyway. It is fairly evident that western style democracy usually leads to the lowest common denominator and such things as populism in government .

However good alternatives are very hard to find.
The Chinese model has a lot going for it. For them at least it has produced great efficiency and success in providing for it's people in every way, in the past forty years it has risen from a third world also ran, to arguably the most advanced country in the world. It has the most advanced infrastructure and manufacturing and scientific industries. And among the best educational, healthcare and local government business support systems anywhere...and the safest and cleanest environment for it's people to live. With virtually no street crime or personal harassment.
And. While it promotes secularism it also supports and helps many religions and their infrastructure, with the condition that they comply with Chinese regulations and social and political norms.

China has demonstrated not the slightest interest in changing the social norms, governments, nor religions of its trading partners. It is prepared to trade and partner with any country on an equal basis without preconditions. Provide those things are reciprocated.
It has demonstrated it's willingness to trade with counties as diverse as the. USA and North Korea. Or Israel and Palestine. Unlike the USA it does not surround its trade agreements with hegemonic conditions or restrictions. Except when suffering such restrictions itself, and then only as a reciprocal counter measure.