Oh heck no...that is a bad idea, first you have to assume that the teachers are capable of teaching that subject, and then 2nd doing it without bias to any religion would be impossible. IMHO, a bad idea. DD
agreed on all accounts. Just keep it out. I already have enough problems wiht how they teach regular subjects.
Me too. It'll get thrown out by the SC after a large pile of our tax dollars are spent fighting for it in court, and in the meantime, some chumps will use this "law" to preach their own brand of religion in public schools, where religion doesn't belong. I agree with weslinder that the Bible should be taught, but in literature classes as part of a secular curriculum. If people want religion, they can have all they want at home, in meetings with friends, and in places of worship. We all have that right, thank goodness, because we live in the United States of America. I wish stupid members of the legislature, and other governmental bodies, would either stop trying to impose their own beliefs on others, or stop using this issue for political gain, the most common reason this stuff even comes up. D&D. Replicant City.
It seems like all school districts go through funding issues, but when there are political pet causes like these, money magically appears. Typical political rot... As someone else mentioned, how the class is taught, since the wise legislators didn't seem to put down any guidelines, will open an expired can of worms. If it somehow survives litigation, Atheist teachers will get stoned by conservative groups and over zealous teachers will test the law to the max. There's a lot to be learned from the Bible's influence on literature, but the subject itself is too overwhelming and charged. I'm also amused by the notion of a standardized test for this course. If in doubt, always pick "C" for Christ.
Yet another reason why if I ever move back to Texas, my kid will be going to private school.....the govt meddles too much.
Rick Perry spoke at my high school's graduation last week. He was the biggest idiot ever. Gave the kids the worst advice. Stuff like "Never trust a skinny chef, don't go to barber shops, don't ever try to look for question marks in the 10 commandments," blah blah blah. And then he highly criticized the 10% rule and took some shots at OU, LSU, and Arkansas, which was totally uncalled for considering that some students were going there. Didn't even acknowledge the kids going out of state. All he did was praise A&M and said he could live with UT. And then when the kids were taking graduation pictures, he hit on their moms by tightly hugging them and acting in a flirty way with them. He's worse than Bush.
I read an article in Time about this. Our kids and teachers are intelligent enough to learn it without violating the Constitution. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1601845,00.html Great article. No reason to be scaredy cats.
It would be a fine elective , especially if you can keep fundamentalist interpetation out of ithe course.. Also, no proselytizing of the kids , which would be so hard for some of these folks. A literary, historical or comparative religious approach would be ideal. I would have had encouraged my son take it. A light or perhaps once over reading of the Bible should be encouraged as part of a general education
I will gladly volunteer to go from school to school and teach a class on the Houston Rockets. I will show our history, our fan website, discuss our team and raise up the next generation of Rocket fans across the state. Or if you are a Maverick or Spur fan I will use my alternate Bible Class materials in place of the Houston Rockets. I am not worried about what they teach my children don't pay attention anyways.
If they can pull off a Wiccan or Church of Satan course without a hitch, or they require people requesting one religion's course to learn about another religion as well (request a Christian course, make Islam or even Atheist Studies pre- or co-requisites), I guess I can live with it.
I bet when you get a little older you'll be a little less angry about having a Governor speak at your school's commencement. He probably thought it was necessary to make jokes because he was nervous about speaking to teenagers: I already feel this way, and I'm not even 30.
Did anybody read this? http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1601845,00.html Or are you to busy being scared?
Rhester, I'm not sure you could keep from proselytizing.for Christianity I would gladly go from school to school instructing school kids on politics and economics, if I could be paid more than a school teacher.
I'm certainly for teaching the Bible in schools, but the class in that article doesn't sound good to me. It's teaching Biblical principles without necessarily connecting them to Christianity. To me, that doesn't really meet the separation clause. What is necessary in high schools is a treatment of the Bible just like students get of Greek and Roman Mythology. They need to set aside time in a literature class and study a survey of the Bible as well as selected passages. Then they can understand literature from Chaucer to Tolkien. A knowledge of the Bible is necessary to understanding Western literature, that has nothing to do with religion.
I'm torn on this one. I dont see any problem with kids who *want* to learn about the major religions (as mentioned in the article..the subject matter would consist of the tenets of Judiasm, Christianity and Islam). It never hurts to learn about things that form such a basis of so much of this earth's cultures. but Like others, I have my doubts about whether it would be used to try to convert the students or heavily skew the teaching to favor one religion over others. Also..Im not real comfortable with government legislating it.
