Texas Public Schools now *required* to teach the bible

[OutHouse]

Originally posted by: guyver01
Texas public schools now required to teach the Bible

As of the 2009-2010 school year public schools in Texas are now required to offer a high school elective course on the literature of the Bible and history of that era. House Bill No. 1287 explains that the course ?must be taught in an objective and non-devotional manner that does not attempt to indoctrinate students as to either the truth or falsity of the Judeo-Christian biblical materials?. It goes on to say that schools can add courses on other religious texts if they would like, but only the one on the Bible is required.




Looks like the 1st amendment is now dead.
Any bets on which amendment is next?

its a elective, so what. i took a elective bible lit class when i was a senior in a Colorado public high school in 1987, i need the credits i thought it would be interesting. we just looked at the bible and its historic value as the most read book in history. we didnt pray or were we preached at. there was nothing wrong with the class at all and i did get some value out of it.

 

[seemingly random]

Originally posted by: Citrix
... i took a elective bible lit class when i was a senior in a Colorado public high school in 1987, i need the credits i thought it would be interesting. we just looked at the bible and its historic value as the most read book in history. we didnt pray or were we preached at. there was nothing wrong with the class at all and i did get some value out of it.

I did too. It was treated as an influential novel, not literature - it's not that well written. I remember calmly discussing some of the old testament and writing some papers. The main thing I remember is all of the violence. Fortunately though, I didn't live in the bible belt. I have no faith that there will not be abuses where some teachers use it to proselytize - or bring in "special guest lecturers".

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: CallMeJoe
but the amendment does restrict the states to actions within the scope of the United States Constitution.

full incorporation has never been a doctrine of even a minority of the court. only 1 justice has ever thought full incorporation was the outcome of the 14th amendment. so, no, that statement is wrong.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: lupi

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: lupi
wow, vic on the side of reason for a change.

I'm always on the side of reason, it's you who consistently lets partisanship cloud your judgment. I could make that exact same logical argument on an entirely different issue and you would disagree if that's what your partisanship told you to do.

If describing yourself that's an excellent post.

You're rubberband and I'm glue? That is AWESOME!

 

[CallMeJoe]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: CallMeJoe
but the amendment does restrict the states to actions within the scope of the United States Constitution.

full incorporation has never been a doctrine of even a minority of the court. only 1 justice has ever thought full incorporation was the outcome of the 14th amendment. so, no, that statement is wrong.

You are correct, I definitely overstated the scope of the Incorporation Doctrine; however, as pertains to the current discussion, the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment is very certainly one part of the Constitution that binds state actions.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: CallMeJoe

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: CallMeJoe
but the amendment does restrict the states to actions within the scope of the United States Constitution.

full incorporation has never been a doctrine of even a minority of the court. only 1 justice has ever thought full incorporation was the outcome of the 14th amendment. so, no, that statement is wrong.

You are correct, I definitely overstated the scope of the Incorporation Doctrine; however, as pertains to the current discussion, the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment is very certainly one part of the Constitution that binds state actions.

I dissent!...

In the '47 case of Adamson v Ca. Black spoke on behalf of the four dissenting Justices in the case who all agreed that all of the BoR should apply to the States. They did not prevail but later the Court did reverse on this and on a few other decided cases and applied 'almost' all the BoR restrictions to the States... I think Civil trial and one other bit..

Not that that changes anything about the issue. It is all about using a bible versus other religious 'texts' to teach ... well.. as the 1287 indicates..

imo

 

[CallMeJoe]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: CallMeJoe

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: CallMeJoe
but the amendment does restrict the states to actions within the scope of the United States Constitution.

full incorporation has never been a doctrine of even a minority of the court. only 1 justice has ever thought full incorporation was the outcome of the 14th amendment. so, no, that statement is wrong.

You are correct, I definitely overstated the scope of the Incorporation Doctrine; however, as pertains to the current discussion, the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment is very certainly one part of the Constitution that binds state actions.

I dissent!...
In the '47 case of Adamson v Ca. Black spoke on behalf of the four dissenting Justices in the case who all agreed that all of the BoR should apply to the States. They did not prevail but later the Court did reverse on this and on a few other decided cases and applied 'almost' all the BoR restrictions to the States... I think Civil trial and one other bit..
Not that that changes anything about the issue. It is all about using a bible versus other religious 'texts' to teach ... well.. as the 1287 indicates..
imo

My earlier statement did indeed imply that the Fourteenth Amendment, through the Incorporation Document, subjugated the States to the Entire Federal Constitution. You are correct that more of the Bill of Rights applies, but I limited myself in my mea culpa to the First Amendment, as that is the one pertinent to the discussion at hand.

 

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: halik
ACLU will sue, they will drop this crap and life moves on.

The ACLU has no standing to sue. The only people that will be able to sue over this are
1. Texas School Districts
2. Students who feel that their religion should be offered as well.

 

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: CallMeJoe

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: CallMeJoe
but the amendment does restrict the states to actions within the scope of the United States Constitution.

full incorporation has never been a doctrine of even a minority of the court. only 1 justice has ever thought full incorporation was the outcome of the 14th amendment. so, no, that statement is wrong.

You are correct, I definitely overstated the scope of the Incorporation Doctrine; however, as pertains to the current discussion, the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment is very certainly one part of the Constitution that binds state actions.

Yes but in this case state actions specifically say courses must meet supreme court guidelines regarding religious courses. Heres a hint, the Supreme Court HAS NOT banned religious courses from public schools.

 

[CallMeJoe]

Originally posted by: Wreckem

Originally posted by: CallMeJoe

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: CallMeJoe
but the amendment does restrict the states to actions within the scope of the United States Constitution.

full incorporation has never been a doctrine of even a minority of the court. only 1 justice has ever thought full incorporation was the outcome of the 14th amendment. so, no, that statement is wrong.

You are correct, I definitely overstated the scope of the Incorporation Doctrine; however, as pertains to the current discussion, the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment is very certainly one part of the Constitution that binds state actions.

Yes but in this case state actions specifically say courses must meet supreme court guidelines regarding religious courses. Heres a hint, the Supreme Court HAS NOT banned religious courses from public schools.

I never implied that they had; this particular fibre started with a question of why the Federal government would have any involvement in a State matter. If the program is indeed structured to avoid the potential Constitutional pitfalls, then I agree that the Texas program would survive.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: CallMeJoe

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: CallMeJoe

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: CallMeJoe
but the amendment does restrict the states to actions within the scope of the United States Constitution.

full incorporation has never been a doctrine of even a minority of the court. only 1 justice has ever thought full incorporation was the outcome of the 14th amendment. so, no, that statement is wrong.

You are correct, I definitely overstated the scope of the Incorporation Doctrine; however, as pertains to the current discussion, the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment is very certainly one part of the Constitution that binds state actions.

I dissent!...
In the '47 case of Adamson v Ca. Black spoke on behalf of the four dissenting Justices in the case who all agreed that all of the BoR should apply to the States. They did not prevail but later the Court did reverse on this and on a few other decided cases and applied 'almost' all the BoR restrictions to the States... I think Civil trial and one other bit..
Not that that changes anything about the issue. It is all about using a bible versus other religious 'texts' to teach ... well.. as the 1287 indicates..
imo

My earlier statement did indeed imply that the Fourteenth Amendment, through the Incorporation Document, subjugated the States to the Entire Federal Constitution. You are correct that more of the Bill of Rights applies, but I limited myself in my mea culpa to the First Amendment, as that is the one pertinent to the discussion at hand.

Well... to be honest... I was trying to post my reply to the post you quoted... cuz that is the one that I dissent against... One gets clutzy when one gets older, I guess.. anyhow, sorry to have posted using your quote... Moonbeam will be getting my a cane soon... heheheh

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: seemingly random

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
A lot of the bible is fiction and a lot of it is not.

The problem is deciding which is which.
...

It's big of you to admit this.

I am not a religious nut. I do not even go to church.

I do believe in god and consider myself a Christian, but I am a sceptic.

I am probably very close to Jefferson when it comes to beliefs actually. Pro god, not so pro religion.

 

[ZeGermans]

hey texas people just wondering what it's like to only be in the united states because mexico wanted to free your slaves

 

[ZeGermans]

REMEMBER THE ALAMO! *doesn't know everyone that fought and died there did it to preserve slavery and deserved their fate*

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I am not a religious nut. I do not even go to church.

I do believe in god and consider myself a Christian, but I am a sceptic.

I am probably very close to Jefferson when it comes to beliefs actually. Pro god, not so pro religion.

Do you consider claims of Jesus being God nonsense? If not, you really aren't particularly close to Jefferson it comes to beliefs.

 

[Mani]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Actually it's kind of cool that Texas would allow a class on a book full of incest, adultery and beastiality.

I always wondered why republican politicians seemed to get off to it.

 

[seemingly random]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: seemingly random

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
A lot of the bible is fiction and a lot of it is not.

The problem is deciding which is which.
...

It's big of you to admit this.

I am not a religious nut. I do not even go to church.

I do believe in god and consider myself a Christian, but I am a sceptic.

I am probably very close to Jefferson when it comes to beliefs actually. Pro god, not so pro religion.

I never thought you were a religious nut. Maybe a political nut but not a religious one. In fact, I don't remember you ever bringing up religion pro or con. I wouldn't have been surprised if you came out as agnostic or atheist like some of the hardcore right wing here.

Only recently have I noticed any mention of god/religion from you. I figured it was another avenue of attack on those who don't agree with your views. No big deal. I imagine though that some religious folk would be greatly offended by what you stated since they insist that every word is true in the bible (don't know which translation to which they are referring).

I don't care if someone believes in a god or not. I'm a solid doubter and don't foresee any change to this. The problem I have with some of the religious and all of the fundie religious is when they attempt to force their views on me through legislation, attempted social ostracization, intimidation and innuendo.

 

[tealk]

Originally posted by: guyver01
Texas public schools now required to teach the Bible

As of the 2009-2010 school year public schools in Texas are now required to offer a high school elective course on the literature of the Bible and history of that era. House Bill No. 1287 explains that the course ?must be taught in an objective and non-devotional manner that does not attempt to indoctrinate students as to either the truth or falsity of the Judeo-Christian biblical materials?. It goes on to say that schools can add courses on other religious texts if they would like, but only the one on the Bible is required.


AMEN!

 

[WHAMPOM]

Originally posted by: tealk

Originally posted by: guyver01
Texas public schools now required to teach the Bible

As of the 2009-2010 school year public schools in Texas are now required to offer a high school elective course on the literature of the Bible and history of that era. House Bill No. 1287 explains that the course ?must be taught in an objective and non-devotional manner that does not attempt to indoctrinate students as to either the truth or falsity of the Judeo-Christian biblical materials?. It goes on to say that schools can add courses on other religious texts if they would like, but only the one on the Bible is required.


AMEN!

With that stipulation it will be teaching from an empty book.