Interesting Reactions
Wednesday, I posted in response to the weekly Christian Views Symposium, answering the question "Should the Bible be taught in Public Schools?"
A couple others responded (THANKS for the posting, the links, and the thoughts), and while the answers were what I expected, they came from places I guess I didn't really expect. As a refresher, my answer (in brief) was "Let people decide for themselves, not the federal government." Owlish Mutterings, a blog I really enjoy and respect, went with a no answer, but also mentioned a fear of "tyranny of a majority." Whenever I see that phrase, I immediately wonder if a tyranny of the minority is any better. Andy, writing at the Charlotte Capitalist, another blog I really like to read (but man, those ads still take forever to load on my system), also says no, because he thinks the ideas in the Bible are dangerous. Logically, then, to enforce the "no Bible in schools," you must have a central, powerful, federal government to enforce that. I know neither Owlish or Andy support a huge federal government. So what's left? How do you say that no bibles are allowed in any school in the entire country without having a federal bureaucracy to enforce it? Why should such a decision be made for everyone else by some? Why shouldn't people be able to govern themselves in this issue and others? And why does it matter to you if people somewhere else want the Bible in schools that they pay for? Just wondering.
Comments
1
I'm going to disagree on your assessment that in order to enforce "no bible in schools", you have to have a central, powerful, federal government to enforce it theory.
First I believe that bibles should not be in the school, why? Because when I was in HS my class was forced to read the bible as part of our education. There were non-christians in my public school and no matter how anyone wants to justify it, you are still promoting one religion. When one of them refused, he received a failing grade. I don't think that is right, it is an individuals choice as to which religion they follow.
So, how does the government enforce it? It doesn't. That is what civil suits are for. I don't expect the feds nor state to patrol each school/teacher. However I expect the parents to do it. If the local public school is teaching from the bible, koran, or any other religious book, then the parent should first contact the school to complain. If they don't cease, then they need a lawyer. Your money theory comes into action here. After the school looses so much money on lawsuits I don't think they will continue to allow it to be taught.
First I believe that bibles should not be in the school, why? Because when I was in HS my class was forced to read the bible as part of our education. There were non-christians in my public school and no matter how anyone wants to justify it, you are still promoting one religion. When one of them refused, he received a failing grade. I don't think that is right, it is an individuals choice as to which religion they follow.
So, how does the government enforce it? It doesn't. That is what civil suits are for. I don't expect the feds nor state to patrol each school/teacher. However I expect the parents to do it. If the local public school is teaching from the bible, koran, or any other religious book, then the parent should first contact the school to complain. If they don't cease, then they need a lawyer. Your money theory comes into action here. After the school looses so much money on lawsuits I don't think they will continue to allow it to be taught.
Posted by: Contagion at November 04, 2005 08:38 AM (Q5WxB)
2
I'm trying to see how you cannot have a federal government enforcement -- if it's up to the courts, that's government. And nearly any case can end up being filed and, and heard by, a federal court, which will then lead to the supreme court, which means the federal government gets to make the rules.
And unfortunately, as long as the schools are a monopoly run by the government, they will NEVER run out of money. They honestly don't care about the "loss" of money due to a lawsuit, because they'll just get more -- from the local people, the state, and the feds. That's exactly what happened when the local district lost the segregation cases recently -- they just demanded more money from the state and county to pay for the "losses."
And unfortunately, as long as the schools are a monopoly run by the government, they will NEVER run out of money. They honestly don't care about the "loss" of money due to a lawsuit, because they'll just get more -- from the local people, the state, and the feds. That's exactly what happened when the local district lost the segregation cases recently -- they just demanded more money from the state and county to pay for the "losses."
Posted by: Ogre at November 04, 2005 09:03 AM (/k+l4)
3
Good slant on big government. You should read what they are doing in Indiana at www.neoconrush.blogspot.com read the atricle about monkeys on trial. Keep writing - save the species.
Elliot
Elliot
Posted by: Elliot``` at November 04, 2005 10:10 AM (u47+G)
4
Thanks for stopping by, Elliot...that link led to another link that seemed just rather silly...?
Posted by: Ogre at November 04, 2005 10:37 AM (/k+l4)
5
Excellent questions, Ogre. I'm suspicious of anyone fighting to ban the study of religious writings of any kind in schools, that sounds to me like they're trying to enforce education in a different religion - atheism (Oh yes it is..).
I think it's impossible to teach religion in a completely unbiased way, yet the various spiritual beliefs practiced around the world are such an important part of human history, culture and philosophy that any exposure to any one of them is better than none - ideally, schools would teach religion as a broad subject, comparing and contrasting beliefs.
It's not the job of schools to convert children - let's face it, they do a pretty poor job of that! But it is their job to educate.
As far as litigation... enough with the lawsuits already! Take your kid to a church-run school if you want to overdo the religious aspect, or allow parents to select a school that *decides and publishes* its own religious education policy.
There's far too much time and effort wasted in litigation - and every decision embodied in law restricts flexibility and options, and feeds somebody else's lawsuit.
I think it's impossible to teach religion in a completely unbiased way, yet the various spiritual beliefs practiced around the world are such an important part of human history, culture and philosophy that any exposure to any one of them is better than none - ideally, schools would teach religion as a broad subject, comparing and contrasting beliefs.
It's not the job of schools to convert children - let's face it, they do a pretty poor job of that! But it is their job to educate.
As far as litigation... enough with the lawsuits already! Take your kid to a church-run school if you want to overdo the religious aspect, or allow parents to select a school that *decides and publishes* its own religious education policy.
There's far too much time and effort wasted in litigation - and every decision embodied in law restricts flexibility and options, and feeds somebody else's lawsuit.
Posted by: GeekBrit at November 04, 2005 10:51 AM (p950D)
6
I just cannot understand why we can't let people govern themselves. Get government COMPLETELY out of education, of course, and none of this would even be an issue!
Posted by: Ogre at November 04, 2005 10:58 AM (/k+l4)
7
When you say federal gov enforcement I'm picturing the FBI/US Marshals/some other agency patroling the schools to make sure there is not a bible in the class room. What I'm saying is that IF they make the law saying no religion (of any type) should be taught in a public school. Let it go at that. If, IF the courts worked properly the first time a case was brought up in a local court, it wouldn't have to go any higher. It's plain cut and dry yes/no. Did you or did you not teach from a religious book/writings. Yes = Fine, No = No fine. Keeping it at the local level. Yes, maybe the first time this happens it might get to the Supreme Court, but if, IF the courts actually enforce the law not create a new law then it wouldn't go back.
Your assessment of schools and funding is flawed. Many of our local school districts here in Illinois are in financial trouble over segregation lawsuits, and have been for years. The last couple of tax raises has been voted down because they have mismanaged what money they had AND the lawsuits were regarding things they knew about and should have changed.
Geekbrit: The lack of teaching religion in a school is not promoting atheism. Atheism is a belief there is no god/higher being. They are not confirming nor denying a god. If they said, "we wont teach from the bible because there is no god." That would be promoting atheism. If I go to a school that doesn't teach latin, it doesn't mean they are saying latin doesn't exist.
Now, the flipside of this arguement is that if they want to keep the bible in school, to keep it fair they need to give ALL other religious writings equal time. IE each year have a religion class with a week dedicated to every different religion that is active.
Your assessment of schools and funding is flawed. Many of our local school districts here in Illinois are in financial trouble over segregation lawsuits, and have been for years. The last couple of tax raises has been voted down because they have mismanaged what money they had AND the lawsuits were regarding things they knew about and should have changed.
Geekbrit: The lack of teaching religion in a school is not promoting atheism. Atheism is a belief there is no god/higher being. They are not confirming nor denying a god. If they said, "we wont teach from the bible because there is no god." That would be promoting atheism. If I go to a school that doesn't teach latin, it doesn't mean they are saying latin doesn't exist.
Now, the flipside of this arguement is that if they want to keep the bible in school, to keep it fair they need to give ALL other religious writings equal time. IE each year have a religion class with a week dedicated to every different religion that is active.
Posted by: Contagion at November 04, 2005 11:16 AM (Q5WxB)
8
The local vs. federal is good in theory, but that's not how our system of government works. If you don't like a result of a judge, you can take it to a higher judge. The only way to prevent that would be to make the law local -- which is what I want.
If the local school district says no Bibles in school, that's fine, there's no federal law that's oversight. But if a different local school district says it's OK, then the same standards should apply.
Do you think you school districts will go bankrupt? Do you honestly think that they will stop existing? I'd LOVE it if they did, but there is absolutely no way the state or federal government will let that happen. No matter what financial trouble they're in, they WILL be bailed out -- with your money or mine (federal).
If the local school district says no Bibles in school, that's fine, there's no federal law that's oversight. But if a different local school district says it's OK, then the same standards should apply.
Do you think you school districts will go bankrupt? Do you honestly think that they will stop existing? I'd LOVE it if they did, but there is absolutely no way the state or federal government will let that happen. No matter what financial trouble they're in, they WILL be bailed out -- with your money or mine (federal).
Posted by: Ogre at November 04, 2005 11:27 AM (/k+l4)
9
Hey Ogre:
Thanks for the link. On one level, this is a political issue. I agree with you, no public schools. Parents should make the decision about how to educate their children. I don't recommend teaching the Bible to anyone including my children. If others choose to do so, that is their call. (Au contraire, GeekBrit).
But the issue goes much deeper than politics. The issue is metaphysical and epistemological. What is the nature of reality? I say existence exists and that is it. Pretty simple. The religious say, "No, there is a God, who is super natural, above reality, who creates existence." That is a contradiction.
Also epistemologically, belief in God is just that. Belief. Faith. Taking the leap. Any attempts to discuss God in scientific terms do not make sense because then you would have to prove God exists and that he is part of existence. Just saying that the universe exists and something must have created it (Intelligent Design Theory - uhhh, Hypothesis) is just an assertion with no science to back it up.
Thus, the real question is, "Do you wish your children to learn how to objectively understand reality, how to think, and how to gain knowledge or do you wish them to learn how to just believe what someone else tells them."
That is the question. The political question is important, but not as significant.
All the best...
Andy
Thanks for the link. On one level, this is a political issue. I agree with you, no public schools. Parents should make the decision about how to educate their children. I don't recommend teaching the Bible to anyone including my children. If others choose to do so, that is their call. (Au contraire, GeekBrit).
But the issue goes much deeper than politics. The issue is metaphysical and epistemological. What is the nature of reality? I say existence exists and that is it. Pretty simple. The religious say, "No, there is a God, who is super natural, above reality, who creates existence." That is a contradiction.
Also epistemologically, belief in God is just that. Belief. Faith. Taking the leap. Any attempts to discuss God in scientific terms do not make sense because then you would have to prove God exists and that he is part of existence. Just saying that the universe exists and something must have created it (Intelligent Design Theory - uhhh, Hypothesis) is just an assertion with no science to back it up.
Thus, the real question is, "Do you wish your children to learn how to objectively understand reality, how to think, and how to gain knowledge or do you wish them to learn how to just believe what someone else tells them."
That is the question. The political question is important, but not as significant.
All the best...
Andy
Posted by: The Charlotte Capitalist at November 04, 2005 12:33 PM (8vJzx)
10
Certainly there's a much deeper philosophical issue at work here -- but even on that one, I defer to the individual -- if you want to teach you child that we're all living on a dandelion weed being carried around by an elephant, more power to ya!
And as you mention, if we get government out of the damn education business, we could all just decide for ourselves. What a concept!
And as you mention, if we get government out of the damn education business, we could all just decide for ourselves. What a concept!
Posted by: Ogre at November 04, 2005 12:59 PM (/k+l4)
11
Ok Ogre:
I am not going to let you off the hook that easy. Yes, we are in agreement that parents should decide how to educate their children in a free education market, that is no public schools.
So, let's pretend that we are in that situation. And let's focus upon that word "decide". "Decide" implies looking at the reality (facts) of the situation and based upon what your senses perceive and your mind forms into concepts and then links them logically you make a decision -- as with anything -- writing a computer program, buying a house, etc.
But the whole notion of God, and that The Bible is in complete opposition to the process of deciding. It is going on faith or the unknown. And you nail it perfectly with another alternative "teach your child that we're all living on a dandelion".
I know you don't advocate people doing that (I think). Think of the consequences of that or any other assertion. It is all subjective hippy like "whatever you feel man." In the end, is that the underlying view of Christians -- subjective reality, knowledge, morality, and thus politics...and art?
Tell me it ain't so Ogre.
All the best...Andy
I am not going to let you off the hook that easy. Yes, we are in agreement that parents should decide how to educate their children in a free education market, that is no public schools.
So, let's pretend that we are in that situation. And let's focus upon that word "decide". "Decide" implies looking at the reality (facts) of the situation and based upon what your senses perceive and your mind forms into concepts and then links them logically you make a decision -- as with anything -- writing a computer program, buying a house, etc.
But the whole notion of God, and that The Bible is in complete opposition to the process of deciding. It is going on faith or the unknown. And you nail it perfectly with another alternative "teach your child that we're all living on a dandelion".
I know you don't advocate people doing that (I think). Think of the consequences of that or any other assertion. It is all subjective hippy like "whatever you feel man." In the end, is that the underlying view of Christians -- subjective reality, knowledge, morality, and thus politics...and art?
Tell me it ain't so Ogre.
All the best...Andy
Posted by: The Charlotte Capitalist at November 04, 2005 09:36 PM (8vJzx)
12
Ok, several thoughts.
(1) There's a huge difference between studying The Bible and studying the history of religion.
(2) Not allowing Bible study is hardly the same thing as advocating atheism.
(3) Even though religions have some element of faith, I don't understand what is meant by "complete opposition to the process of deciding." Very few decisions are made purely rationally.
Is our current public school system perfect? Not by a long shot. Do I think we need a new, huge federal bureaucracy to make sure no one is teaching the Bible in schools? No. Would I have a problem with a student run, voluntary afterschool Bible study group? No.
I'm trying to figure out whether I'm more bothered by the idea of teaching Intelligent Design as a routine part of biology class, or an elective Bible study class. I'm not sure.
(1) There's a huge difference between studying The Bible and studying the history of religion.
(2) Not allowing Bible study is hardly the same thing as advocating atheism.
(3) Even though religions have some element of faith, I don't understand what is meant by "complete opposition to the process of deciding." Very few decisions are made purely rationally.
Is our current public school system perfect? Not by a long shot. Do I think we need a new, huge federal bureaucracy to make sure no one is teaching the Bible in schools? No. Would I have a problem with a student run, voluntary afterschool Bible study group? No.
I'm trying to figure out whether I'm more bothered by the idea of teaching Intelligent Design as a routine part of biology class, or an elective Bible study class. I'm not sure.
Posted by: owlish at November 05, 2005 01:39 AM (rzugH)
13
Interesting perspective, Andy. The way I'm reading that last comment of yours, however, implies that you (or someone else) gets to decide what is a "valid" decision.
Now I'm not one to support that there is no truth. I know there are things that are true and things that are not. But at the same time, I won't use the government to force my views on someone else.
Try to keep government and personal opinion separate here. If someone thinks we live on a dandelion, I might use my powers of persuasion to convince them otherwise. If I fail, however, I'm not going to get government involved and force them to admit that we're not. To me, that's freedom. I'll tell them they're wrong, but that's as far as it goes.
Owlish, thanks for stopping by for some more fun! I thought we were in agreement about not having a giant federal government overseeing education. But what is the alternative? If no school in the country is allowed to teach the Bible, HOW can that happen with federal oversight?
I'm not talking about armed federal goons at every school, but the only way it could apply to ALL schools is to have a federal law...and that needs judges and other people to support it.
Now I'm not one to support that there is no truth. I know there are things that are true and things that are not. But at the same time, I won't use the government to force my views on someone else.
Try to keep government and personal opinion separate here. If someone thinks we live on a dandelion, I might use my powers of persuasion to convince them otherwise. If I fail, however, I'm not going to get government involved and force them to admit that we're not. To me, that's freedom. I'll tell them they're wrong, but that's as far as it goes.
Owlish, thanks for stopping by for some more fun! I thought we were in agreement about not having a giant federal government overseeing education. But what is the alternative? If no school in the country is allowed to teach the Bible, HOW can that happen with federal oversight?
I'm not talking about armed federal goons at every school, but the only way it could apply to ALL schools is to have a federal law...and that needs judges and other people to support it.
Posted by: Ogre at November 05, 2005 07:13 AM (7PCNv)
14
Hey guys:
Not sure where you guys keep coming from with "having a big federal bureaucracy to keep the Bible out of schools". Doesn't make sense how you are coming to that conclusion.
With respect to deciding what a valid decision is, is like saying who decides the truth. The truth is what it is. Existence exists. Things are what they are and act in accordance to their nature.
Teaching Intelligent Design has nothing to do with discussing existence in a rational manner. Intelligent Design simply says, "All this stuff is here. Something or somebody must have created it. But we are going to ignore all the truth that has been discovered thus far about the origins and history of the universe. We are just going to say God did it -- with no evidence, proof, or facts. And we are then going to make it as equal as evidence, proof, or facts."
So take the political discussion out this. The question is "Why should the Bible and Intelligent Design be taught in schools". And you have given no reason as to why it should or what objective value it brings to students. I say they brings none because there is nothing objective about them.
Andy
Not sure where you guys keep coming from with "having a big federal bureaucracy to keep the Bible out of schools". Doesn't make sense how you are coming to that conclusion.
With respect to deciding what a valid decision is, is like saying who decides the truth. The truth is what it is. Existence exists. Things are what they are and act in accordance to their nature.
Teaching Intelligent Design has nothing to do with discussing existence in a rational manner. Intelligent Design simply says, "All this stuff is here. Something or somebody must have created it. But we are going to ignore all the truth that has been discovered thus far about the origins and history of the universe. We are just going to say God did it -- with no evidence, proof, or facts. And we are then going to make it as equal as evidence, proof, or facts."
So take the political discussion out this. The question is "Why should the Bible and Intelligent Design be taught in schools". And you have given no reason as to why it should or what objective value it brings to students. I say they brings none because there is nothing objective about them.
Andy
Posted by: The Charlotte Capitalist at November 05, 2005 09:48 AM (8vJzx)
15
Andy, you're providing your personal judgement and forcing that upon others. Regardless of your objectiveness, you're still telling others what they can and cannot do.
Posted by: Ogre at November 06, 2005 09:15 PM (7PCNv)
16
Ogre:
"Regardless of your objectiveness, you're still telling others what they can and cannot do."
What are you talking about, Ogre? I am expressing my opinion. When you say socialism is bad, for example, are you telling others what they can and cannot do? No.
Another example -- should homosexuality be taught to first graders? Now, I don't think so. But if you say "No", Ogre, are you telling others what they can and cannot do?
Please explain this bizarre statement of yours.
Also -- you still have not explained why the Bible should be taught in schools. You have yet to make a case.
Andy
"Regardless of your objectiveness, you're still telling others what they can and cannot do."
What are you talking about, Ogre? I am expressing my opinion. When you say socialism is bad, for example, are you telling others what they can and cannot do? No.
Another example -- should homosexuality be taught to first graders? Now, I don't think so. But if you say "No", Ogre, are you telling others what they can and cannot do?
Please explain this bizarre statement of yours.
Also -- you still have not explained why the Bible should be taught in schools. You have yet to make a case.
Andy
Posted by: The Charlotte Capitalist at November 10, 2005 07:29 AM (Vn6rV)
17
Here was your opinion, Andy: "Teaching Intelligent Design has nothing to do with discussing existence in a rational manner."
By taking that opinion and then applying that to a school to decide what will be taught in the school, that's putting your opinion on others, isn't it?
As for teaching the Bible in schools, I never tried to make a case for it -- I simply said that if the people of one school district want it, it should be no business of anyone else's to stop them from doing it.
By taking that opinion and then applying that to a school to decide what will be taught in the school, that's putting your opinion on others, isn't it?
As for teaching the Bible in schools, I never tried to make a case for it -- I simply said that if the people of one school district want it, it should be no business of anyone else's to stop them from doing it.
Posted by: Ogre at November 10, 2005 09:07 AM (/k+l4)
Processing 0.0, elapsed 0.0084 seconds.
18 queries taking 0.0048 seconds, 25 records returned.
Page size 21 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.