Texas may require schools to carry elective on Bible

[IJ Reilly]

Legislation calls for an 'objective and nondevotional' course.

HOUSTON — The Lone Star State could become the first in the nation to require all public high schools to offer an elective course on the Bible.

Hearings continued in the Legislature last week on a bill that calls for school districts in Texas to offer a class on "the history and literature of the Old and New Testaments eras" if at least 15 students sign up.

The bill was written by state Rep. Warren Chisum, a West Texas Republican who teaches Sunday school at a Baptist church. He said the course would not treat the Bible as a "worship document" but would promote religious and cultural literacy by "educating our students academically and not devotionally."

The bill, which says the class is to be taught in "an objective and nondevotional manner," does not provide funding or training for school districts and teachers.

This presents a problem because most high school teachers aren't qualified to teach the Bible as a historical or literary text, said Kathy Miller, president of the Texas Freedom Network, which describes itself as a mainstream watchdog "to counter the religious right."

"The fear is that teachers with limited training and no guidance will be called upon to teach a course for which their experience draws largely from Sunday school," Miller said. "It would be difficult for them to keep their own religious perspective out of the classroom. You can almost hear the lawyers lining up."

A study conducted for her group by Mark Chancey, a religious studies professor at Southern Methodist University, found that of Texas' 25 public school districts with a Bible course, 22 districts' offerings had a Christian slant.

"When teachers don't have solid training in biblical studies and 1st Amendment issues, then they fall back on what they know from prior knowledge," Chancey told state legislators last week. "Courses end up being sectarian, often despite their best intentions."

He said one teacher showed students a PowerPoint presentation titled "God's Road Map for Your Life." Included was a slide called "Jesus Christ Is the One and Only Way." Another teacher taught students that NASA had found a missing day and time that corresponded to a biblical story of the sun standing still. One school showed "VeggieTales" videos, which feature computer-animated Christian vegetables that talk.

"We have hard data on what's happening in Texas Bible classrooms, and it's troubling," Chancey said.

Chisum's legislation says the Bible would be the primary textbook for the class. It allows but doesn't require the classes to include secular books or those from other religions.

Critics say that by using the Bible as the main text — instead of a book about the Bible's influence on history and literature — the bill favors a curriculum that's more devotional than scholarly. Chisum dismisses that contention.

"It just makes sense to use the Bible if that's the course that you're talking about," he said. "It's the most available book in the world."

Julie Drenner of Texans for Family Values, who testified Thursday in favor of the bill, said the legislation left the course's curriculum up to teachers and school districts.

"The best way for policing any education requirement is at our local school level, and any complaints are best heard by people at the local school level because they're the ones elected and directly accountable to the people in their district," Drenner said.

Chisum is chairman of the state House Appropriations Committee, the second most powerful position in the chamber. The bill is coauthored by 52 of his 149 colleagues.

In February, Chisum circulated an anti-evolution-education memo from a Georgia legislator that contained links to a website that alleged international Jewish conspiracies. Chisum later apologized, saying he had not read the memo carefully before distributing it to House members.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-bible15apr15,1,6999959.story

[bill4588]

I hate the fact that a school would ever teach a religion. It doesn't belong in the school environment because religion is a matter of choice. Would it be ok for a school to teach racism/sexism/or another religion such as hinduism? I think not.

[it5five]

I don't think there is a problem offering a class teaching the bible as literature. In fact, there was such a course at ASU (might still be, not sure. The guy that taught it for years retired). The difference between a course being required at all Texas high schools and a course being offered at a large public university is that the professors at universities are capable of teaching such a class; high school teachers aren't. The professor at a University level knows how to keep the class from promoting any particular point of view.

"The fear is that teachers with limited training and no guidance will be called upon to teach a course for which their experience draws largely from Sunday school," Miller said. "It would be difficult for them to keep their own religious perspective out of the classroom. You can almost hear the lawyers lining up."

Hits the nail on the head.

[Desertrat]

Seems to me to be better to have an elective comparative religions course, Senior year...

Anyhow, there's no mention of any introduction of a companion Senate bill, which would need to pass--assuming the House bill gets out of committee.

The only real selling point is the "elective" aspect, SFAIK. It's one of those harmless things that doesn't hurt in conservative counties, and won't create a lot of excitement in the "separation" crowd.

'Rat

[Queso]

If you want to teach the Bible as literature, how about it gets included as one module of many in Literature Studies? Devoting so much teaching time to one book would not be tolerated for any other title. This entire idea is simply to convey by another method the idea that the Bible is worthy of special treatment, in all aspects of life.

[obeygiant]

Maybe they should offer an elective on the Koran and Torah as well. Then have everyone read Dianetics... :)

[IJ Reilly]

Seems to me to be better to have an elective comparative religions course, Senior year...

Had that in my high school. It wasn't even an elective -- it was required. I expect it broadened many minds.

Over the intervening 35 years, the thinking on this changed quite a lot, at least in some places -- and not for the better.

[Thomas Veil]

An elective on comparative religion wouldn't be objectionable; but focusing on the Bible to the exclusion of other holy books certainly is.

I don't care what they say, their intentions are not "objective and nondevotional". (And doesn't that phrase remind you a little of "fair and balanced"?)

[it5five]

I don't care what they say, their intentions are not "objective and nondevotional". (And doesn't that phrase remind you a little of "fair and balanced"?)


Exaclty. Considering the guy that introduced this has previously shown himself to be super Christian.

[macdaddy121]

What is the problem with making it an elective? If you want to take it, take it. If you don't want to take it, don't take it.

I do they they will face stiff opposition if they don't offer other forms of religious books as electives as well.

I doubt they would be considering this if there was not some form of a push by some group of people some where. Either kids take the class or they don't. If they don't then you cancel the class. Seems simple enough.

[Blue Velvet]

What is the problem with making it an elective?

Because schools will be compelled to use limited resources i.e. staff, rooms, materials to support this?

[macdaddy121]

Because schools will be compelled to use limited resources i.e. staff, rooms, materials to support this?

Why would it be limited resources?

[miloblithe]

Why would it be limited resources?

Well, because schools' resources are finite. Essentially, to create a new class, they'd be canceling another. What does this replace?

[TheAnswer]

Why would it be limited resources?

Because unless they are infinite, they are limited. Last time I went to school, there were not infinite numbers of staff, classrooms and supplies. In most cases, schools don't even have sufficient classrooms, staff and supplies to teach the basic subjects well...so I suspect BV's question boils down to something like: "How many kids won't end up learning math, but will be able to quote the Bible."

[Blue Velvet]

Why would it be limited resources?


Since this seems to compel all schools, then I assume that includes public schools, which in most economies, are constantly having to prioritise spending.

Let's turn this around. Why exactly should schools be compelled by law to offer these classes? Why should the Bible alone receive this treatment?

[macdaddy121]

Since this seems to compel all schools, then I assume that includes public schools, which in most economies, are constantly having to prioritise spending.

Let's turn this around. Why exactly should schools be compelled by law to offer these classes?


As far as I know the Texas public school system is one of the most well funded school systems in the country (Heard from two different teachers in Texas about the limitless supplies they are able to receive, and from my wife who was a teacher in Louisiana and was told on many different occasions about the funding that Texas gives their public schools). Again, this is word of mouth and I have not done any research on the topic. That does not mean to go spend a ton more because you can but the whole point is to educate the kids then why not give them more options. I believe that classes are dropped and added quite often. So this would probably not be that big of a deal to add this class and hire one teacher who has a religious degree of some sorts and buy some Bibles (which will probably be donated by local churches just to try and get these kids to be educated on what the Bible has to say). I don't see a whole lot of costs issues coming from adding this class.

Why should the Bible alone receive this treatment?

I said in my previous post that they will probably have to add other religious books as electives. I don't see how they will be able to get away with teaching one religion and not another.

However, on that note, why are some classes taught more than others, like languages?

But like you asked.....I don't know that it should be a law. I think it should go into the curriculum like all of these other classes and they can be offered if the school feels like it would be used by the students. I think it should be like the other electives available to these students. Not a law but an option.

[macdaddy121]

Because unless they are infinite, they are limited. Last time I went to school, there were not infinite numbers of staff, classrooms and supplies. In most cases, schools don't even have sufficient classrooms, staff and supplies to teach the basic subjects well...so I suspect BV's question boils down to something like: "How many kids won't end up learning math, but will be able to quote the Bible."

It's not Math v Bible but it is Architecture History v Bible (example). The core classes will still be in tact but there will be another option for which elective to take. And I don't see a problem if a kid wants to take Bible over Math as an elective and all his core is done. Just like I don't see a problem with a kid taking Architecture History over Bible or Sociology.

[IJ Reilly]

I said in my previous post that they will probably have to add other religious books as electives. I don't see how they will be able to get away with teaching one religion and not another.

Assuming this bill passes -- then no, there's no reason to make this assumption, unless the state is successfully sued. They will attempt to hide behind the fig leaf (no pun intended, for a change) of teaching the "Judeo-Christian" Bible, because the Old Testament is included. If teaching neutral courses about world faiths was the purpose, then this is the bill the legislators would be advancing.

[jessica.]

Unfortunately there is the keyword: require.

In College I opted to take a course on the Bible as Literature. It was by far one of the best literature courses I ever took. The class was unevenly divided. There were 15 students and three were clearly not there for the religious benefit; me being one of the three. The other 12 were downright upset that we would not be reading the new testament. I was informed in 18 weeks at least twice that I would burn in hell. However, this course really opened my eyes to the bible itself. I had read it before and will read it again, but I read it for other reasons. Now in this class I saw what a wonderful piece of literature it is. Don't agree with me, just know that's how I feel.

Do I think the elective should be offered? Yes. Do I think it should be required of schools? No. Mixing Church and State is wrong and this is clearly mixing things up too much.

[macdaddy121]

Unfortunately there is the keyword: require.

Do I think the elective should be offered? Yes. Do I think it should be required of schools? No.

I agree.

[halfprep455]

Like I said earlier, this country is slowly becoming a theocracy! Why should someone who is not religious have to pay (tax dollors) for their childern to be tought religion? It has no place in public schools. I hope this goes to the supreme court and is struck down! In fact, I hope the legislators who try to enact this law are fired or even inprisoned for intentionally trying to undermine the Constitution! If the school is so diehard on teaching religion, then a class on Islam, Buddhism, Judiasm, Hinduism, Atheism, Sikihism, Janeism, Taoism, Scientology, Satanism, Agnostisism, Dieistism, Zoroastrianism, and every single other religion that has ever existed should equallly be tought!!!!!

[yg17]

If I want to learn about the bible, I go to church. Just like if I want to learn about things that matter to me, I go to school. Thats how it needs to remain. You don't see people going to church to learn how to do calculus.

[hulugu]

Assuming this bill passes -- then no, there's no reason to make this assumption, unless the state is successfully sued. They will attempt to hide behind the fig leaf (no pun intended, for a change) of teaching the "Judeo-Christian" Bible, because the Old Testament is included. If teaching neutral courses about world faiths was the purpose, then this is the bill the legislators would be advancing.

Bingo. There's my concern about the bill, and indeed any bill that 'requires' the teaching of religion in schools.

Incidentally, I went to a Catholic school which included as an elective course World Religions. Taught by a Carmelite priest, the class included not only selected readings of a world's holy books, but also lectures by members of various faiths. One week was the Hare Krishnas, another was a Orthodox Rabbi. We also visited churches and a Zen monastery. If this is the kind of experience the Texas legislature wants students to enjoy the language should reflect this. Otherwise, it's just another sly and cynical attempt to turn our schools into Christian madrassas.

[halfprep455]

I am willing to bet that this law will end up in the supreme court in a few years. I would challange it if I were going to school or had kids going to school in Texas.

[macdaddy121]

Like I said earlier, this country is slowly becoming a theocracy! Why should someone who is not religious have to pay (tax dollors) for their childern to be tought religion? It has no place in public schools. I hope this goes to the supreme court and is struck down! In fact, I hope the legislators who try to enact this law are fired or even inprisoned for intentionally trying to undermine the Constitution! If the school is so diehard on teaching religion, then a class on Islam, Buddhism, Judiasm, Hinduism, Atheism, Sikihism, Janeism, Taoism, Scientology, Satanism, Agnostisism, Dieistism, Zoroastrianism, and every single other religion that has ever existed should equallly be tought!!!!!

Why does someone who doesn't send their kids to public schools have to pay (tax dollars) for their children to be taught nothing? There are many questions that can be asked very similar to this that have nothing to do with one elective religion class. This is an elective.....no one has to take it if they don't want to.

You contradict yourself by saying it has no place in school and anyone who tries to see this through should be fired and even imprisoned! Then you say that they should teach all of them if they are going to do it. Is it against the Constitution to teach religion in public schools or not? You say it is and then say well, if your going to do it then teach all the religions. However, I don't think this is a religion class as much as it is a Bible class.

[macdaddy121]

If I want to learn about the bible, I go to church. Just like if I want to learn about things that matter to me, I go to school. Thats how it needs to remain. You don't see people going to church to learn how to do calculus.

:rolleyes:

There are plenty of classes in school that people don't NEED to learn but they learn them because they are told they need to have "x" electives. This is just another similar situation. It is a literature class on the Bible. No different than a British, American, 1900's lit class.....

Most will admit there were a lot of things that didn't matter to them until they HAD to take it in school. This is an option for kids interested in understanding the writings and the literature of the Bible to study that.

[macdaddy121]

I am willing to bet that this law will end up in the supreme court in a few years. I would challange it if I were going to school or had kids going to school in Texas.

Have you challenged any other literature class?

[halfprep455]

Have you challenged any other literature class?

None of the literature classes that I have had have been unconstutional! It is not a public schools place to shove religion down students throats.

[FreeState]

I'd have no problem with a comparative religion class - in fact I took one in High School that filled a history requirement for graduation (in the 80's).

Having said that, does anyone else find it odd that the religious right always complains about public schools saying that the schools should stick to the basics, (reading, writing and arithmetic) but now they want to teach the Bible? I just do not get it. Seems they want to have their cake and eat it too.

[solvs]

I suspect the people who will be the most angry about this would be the religious types. Teach comparative literature, and suddenly you're beliefs are reduced to mythology. Teach the Bible, and suddenly your kids are learning a brand of Christianity that isn't the same as your own. In theory this would be a good idea. In practice, not so much.

[takao]

i had the subject "Religion" in school mandatory for 12 years for 1-2 hours a week
but it was more of an ethics/"class community" thing anway despite being supplied with new testaments (colored pink)
actually i think we looked into the book a few times perhaps once per year
it also included discussions about different faiths later

but mainly we were doing some painting stuff or doing collages for posters, interviews with people down the town center

of course everybody got straight As just for having all the papers we got during the year together at the end

[macdaddy121]

None of the literature classes that I have had have been unconstutional! It is not a public schools place to shove religion down students throats.

You must not have read the quote the OP provided. This is not religion being shoved down anyones throat. This is only a literature class on the writings of the Bible. No one is forced to take it and it is a class that students can take ONLY if they WANT to take it.

[IJ Reilly]

You must not have read the quote the OP provided. This is not religion being shoved down anyones throat. This is only a literature class on the writings of the Bible. No one is forced to take it and it is a class that students can take ONLY if they WANT to take it.

Now, that's a matter of opinion. Schools will be forced to offer the course, and will be forced to find someone to teach it. Also, as stated in the article, it's been found that a very substantial percentage of these supposedly neutral courses end up being religious in content, if only because they are taught by teachers who don't know any other way of approaching the subject. Also, as I said earlier, if the purpose was to educate high school students on world religions, then this is what the legislation would be worded to require. In fact this effort is a thinly disguised Christianity delivery device.

[leekohler]

Now, that's a matter of opinion. Schools will be forced to offer the course, and will be forced to find someone to teach it. Also, as stated in the article, it's been found that a very substantial percentage of these supposedly neutral courses end up being religious in content, if only because they are taught by teachers who don't know any other way of approaching the subject. Also, as I said earlier, if the purpose was to educate high school students on world religions, then this is what the legislation would be worded to require. In fact this effort is a thinly disguised Christianity delivery device.

I agree- requiring all public schools to offer classes on the Bible in any way shape or form is clearly wrong. If the school would like to offer that class- fine. But to require it is clearly not.

[dornoforpyros]

You know I actually see no problem with this.

If a community has enough parents/students that are interested in taking the course then what's the problem with being required to offer it? It seems to be schools are there to serve the communities they reside in. And if the communities want an elective on bible studies for their children than who are we to judge?

Why should a parent who wants their child to learn about the bible in school be forced to go private? Everything taught in a school takes funds/resources away from somewhere else, some communities decide sport is more important then arts, others decide the bible is more important than science. It's not up to us on the internet to decide what's best for each community.

[leekohler]

You know I actually see no problem with this.

If a community has enough parents/students that are interested in taking the course then what's the problem with being required to offer it? It seems to be schools are there to serve the communities they reside in. And if the communities want an elective on bible studies for their children than who are we to judge?

Why should a parent who wants their child to learn about the bible in school be forced to go private? Everything taught in a school takes funds/resources away from somewhere else, some communities decide sport is more important then arts, others decide the bible is more important than science. It's not up to us on the internet to decide what's best for each community.

You're correct in the sense that If this is what the community wants, then they should be able to have it. However, for state government TO REQUIRE IT BY LAW, is NOT. That smacks of state endorsement of a particular religion. Trust me, if you went all around Texas, I doubt every community wants this.

[Desertrat]

I guess I'd describe Texas as having a few areas where the folks are very strongly religious, but the majority of those who are religious are not all that noisy about it. The overall attitude is far more secular than the noise-makers would have it believed.

Again, this is just a House bill; there would have to be a companion bill in the Senate, and then a conference committee resolution of differences. I'd bet that time would run out before anything ever got called to a vote.

The present session ends on May 30th.

We're messed up here, due to a mis-interpretation of our state's constitution. Folks think the legislature is supposed to meet for 140 days every two years. Wrong. It was intended as two days, every 140 years.

'Rat

[mactastic]

...professors at universities are capable of teaching such a class; high school teachers aren't. The professor at a University level knows how to keep the class from promoting any particular point of view.
And just where do you get this particular bit of insight from? I know one HS teacher in particular who would be very good at teaching this subject matter, and several college professors who would be terrible at it.

Your attack on HS teachers is quite unjustified, IMHO.

[princealfie]

I think that we need to teach about every religious document honestly to get a broader perspective on life: Bible, Book of Mormon, Koran, Kumasutra, African folk tales, etc. etc.

All perspectives should be welcome...

[mactastic]

Can you imagine the froth on O'Reilly and Limbaugh's mouth if a school district in San Francisco decided to mandate that their district provide an elective course on the Koran to it's students?

[macdaddy121]

Can you imagine the froth on O'Reilly and Limbaugh's mouth if a school district in San Francisco decided to mandate that their district provide an elective course on the Koran to it's students?

It wouldn't be much differnet from the froth coming from most of your mouths about an elective course on the Bible.

[mactastic]

It wouldn't be much differnet from the froth coming from most of your mouths about an elective course on the Bible.I've said before that I'm OK with the Bible being taught as literature, so I hope you're not refering to me as frothing at the mouth...

[zap2]

Our school system is so broken, they need to focus on getting the basics right! I remember a few years back, a school some where in the South had to cut a day of school weekly because the didn't have the $$ to pay for things on that day!

[solvs]

It wouldn't be much differnet from the froth coming from most of your mouths about an elective course on the Bible.

Who's frothing? :confused:

[macdaddy121]

Who's frothing? :confused:

I was refering to one imparticular poster. Most of you was over doing it. Neither one of you. Sorry if you thought I was talking about you.

[hulugu]

It wouldn't be much differnet from the froth coming from most of your mouths about an elective course on the Bible.

I was refering to one imparticular poster. Most of you was over doing it. Neither one of you. Sorry if you thought I was talking about you.

Stop being coy, if there's someone who is 'frothing' please direct your comment appropriately. Otherwise you are merely playing a rhetorical game that allows you to insult all of us, allowing immediate retreat when called on it; a disingenious gambit in my opinion.

[Queso]

It wouldn't be much differnet from the froth coming from most of your mouths about an elective course on the Bible.

I was refering to one imparticular poster. Most of you was over doing it. Neither one of you. Sorry if you thought I was talking about you.
How can the word "most" be used to mean one? Surely in the singular it's all or nothing?

Tut. American education :rolleyes:

[macdaddy121]

Well after reviewing some of the posts, there is one imparticular post I was refering to but there are a couple of situations in which people have been quite irrate or upset at the fact that the Bible literature class would be taught as an elective. I don't want to name names and cause a you said this you said that but you can take your own time and review the posts if you would like to and you can see who has seemed fothy if you would like. I already said that I miss spoke by saying most and I apologized for catagorizing and generalizing all of you.

[it5five]

And just where do you get this particular bit of insight from? I know one HS teacher in particular who would be very good at teaching this subject matter, and several college professors who would be terrible at it.

Your attack on HS teachers is quite unjustified, IMHO.

I meant that in general, most HS teachers would have no idea how to approach the subject, and it's true. Yes, there are some very good HS teachers out there; I've had a few when I was in High School. There are also a lot of awful teachers in High School. The kind that are teaching just so they can coach one of the sports team, or the kind that became teachers just so they'd only work 9-10 months a year.

Again, in general, most college professors would be better suited for the subject, because if somebody is teaching a course in something at a University, they should have been studying that particular subject for some time, and contributed something to their field of study. When I took an Archaeology class, the professor teaching it had led numerous digs in the middle east, and had contributed to his field. When I took a film class, the professor teaching it had produced, and is still producing both independent and studio films, so he's knowledgable of the industry and capable of teaching the class. In High School, when I took an Economics class, the teacher had skated through college just so he could coach football, and we watched videos like "Top 10 Commercials" and the like.

See the difference?