I'm pretty sure that if a rich Muslim billionaire decided to push for a
Koran-based curriculum in US schools, people would be outraged.Let's keep schools and church separate, they way the Founding Fathers
This is not a good idea. I don't want public schools teaching my children
about religion. We do that at home. The Bible is already able to be taught as
a work of literature. Many school texts discuss various passages of the Bible.
A study of world religions, with the intention of exposing kids to
other cultures and mutual understanding; yes. Letting one group interpret
sacred text for public school kids, no.
I have no issue with a bible type course being taught as an ELECTIVE and paid
for by an individual.However, the minute the taxpayer starts funding
a "bible class" the red flags go off.As Vern pointed out,
the same "religious freedom" crowd would be outraged if this were a
wealthy Muslim and the class taught about the Quran. The issue here
is certainly not about "religious freedom". It is about pushing the
Christian religion in schools at taxpayer expense.
Instead of teaching science and reality based education, Oklahoma is going to
try to keep kids in the dark-ages. If he wants to fund a private school, and
parents choose to send their children there, fine, but not in public school.
What a waste for good young minds.
This guy wants to eventually make this a required course - that's his goal.
Presumably he would not be in the same camp of those who want to offer voucher
for private schools, which could (theoretically) include Muslim Madrassa schools
that teach the Islamic view of life, truth, etc.It's probably a
safe assumption that this guy would be vigorously opposed to a similar course
offered on the Book of Mormon.And this is the same guy that everyone
on the Right is lining up supporting, against Obamacare?Do you folks
even know who you're hitching your wagon to?
Hmmmm. I wouldn't have a problem (and would be thrilled that my children
would have the opportunity) if the class contained text from major religions.
By only having the Bible represented smacks of having the state approving of
just one religion. I also find it high disturbing that the "pilot"
program is located in the town where the corporate headquarters is locate. That
give Hobby Lobby waaay too much influence in my book.
This is not about "standing up for religion", this is an arrogant
$Billionsaire provoking an arguement for a publicity stunt.If it was
truely about relgion, Why not have a tax paid Holy Koran based public
school?How about Utah adopting the Book of Mormon?Face it, this doesn not pass the Supreme Court smell test, he's looking for
another publicity stunt.
If they want to learn the Bible, they should go to a church run private school
or learn it on their own time. There are reasons we should separate church and
state. Many may not believe this until another faith is telling you how to live
“Green explained that his goals for a high school curriculum were to show
that the Bible is true”And…“The same
Supreme Court ruling that… "Nothing we have said here indicates that
such study of the Bible … when presented objectively as part of a secular
program of education.”Whenever someone makes a state like
“the Bible is true” or “the Church is true” I’m
always baffled as to what they mean. It’s like saying “the Roman
Empire is true” which in terms of both grammar & logic is about as
nonsensical as saying 1+1=Thursday.Anyway, assuming Green’s
view is that every word/claim in the Bible is literally true, he does realize
the two quoted views above are mutually exclusive, doesn’t he?
I'm LDS and would love to see Bible study offered in the school. But
mandatory? I think that is stepping on somebody else's rights. As an
elective, it is a good idea, but schools need to recognize that not all people
interpret the Bible the same. Therefore, there may be a problem with
establishing "right and wrong" answers on questions of doctrine
Therefore, it would be hard to teach the subject without bias. When I was a kid,
many students were allowed an hour away from school for Catechism every week. In
Utah, many schools provide during school hours a non credit period for seminary.
So it seems like something could and should be worked out without violating
somebody else's religious rights. In the case of Utah, I assume that any
religious group that is interested and committed would be allowed to have a non
credit course for students of other persuasions.
Wow. Every person, so far, who has commented agrees: this is a bad idea. This is so far out of the mainstream and has so many places to create
problems. Starting with the argument that "if the Bible, then we should
include..." Islam. Wicca and Pagan writings. Buddhist texts and Hindu
writings. The Tao Te Ching. And on and on. How about science and
math? But this is hand-in-hand with their other actions. Hobby Lobby
has a case in the Supreme Court about "religious rights." Not one
corporation or group has filed a brief supporting their position. Not one, not
even Chik-Fil-A or others that are openly right-wing and religious. Their agenda seems to be a problem on every front.
We are not Christian. My kids are being raised in Buddhism and Taoism, with
exposure to a wide variety of other teachings. When my kids are at
school I want them to learn math and science and history and English. Not be
indoctrinated into a religious view I have found to be negative and harmful. This is a very dangerous movement and I hope it gets challenged very
quickly and the courts shut it down.
Even if the Bible were only taught in an academic sense, considering how
significant a book it is both domestically and internationally, the idea of not
studying it, even just for the sake of diversity and humanities, is baffling.
I can see this type of lesson in a high school senior-level or college-level
elective comparative religion type of class. It does not belong in high school
as contemplated by Green. Once again he proves that he is trying to impose his
version of religion on society. He needs to study the Constitution, and
respecft the limits it draws. This type of "class" is unacceptable, and
incompatible with a public school environment.
@Jamescmeyer 7:37 a.m. April 21, 2014Even if the Bible were only
taught in an academic sense, considering how significant a book it is both
domestically and internationally, the idea of not studying it, even just for the
sake of diversity and humanities, is baffling.------------------The problem here is that Green hasn't created a class that will
look at the Bible critically and analytically+ Study of the Bible would be
acceptable in a critically-based high school senior-level or college-level
elective comparative religion type of class. That's not what Green is
contemplating -- he's created a class curriculum that validates it, and is
attempting to indoctrinate students who are at an impressionable age. In other
words, he's using a public school class as a missionary proselyting tool.
That crosses the line from potentially acceptable to absolutely unacceptable.
Having the separation between church/state is critical to having religious
freedom. It is not for Hobby Lobby owners to push their beliefs. That is the
direct responsibility of each parent. I personally see Hobby Lobby as using
Christ for political and economic gain. That's highly offensive to my
DeseretDebbie wrote:"...Hobby Lobby as using Christ for
political and economic gain. That's highly offensive to my faith."Mine, too!