Georgia approves bible as textbook

[KarenCee 3]

IF it stays in the context of historical/literature then it might have some value. But I can absolutely guarantee you that it won't. Georgia is a republican state, very staunch conservatives pretty much have the majority here. This won't stay as a historical/literature course...the conservatives will find a way to promote their belief system.

Religious instruction has its place, but it isn't in the public schools...and I hope I haven't offended anyone with that statement.

Edited March 30, 2006 by KarenCee

[Sister Fracas 5]

well.. I think it'd depend on how the class is gonna be taught..

if it's taugh from an strict historical context, and how does the laws affected and are basis for our modern laws, or kinda like history channel documentaries on the bible.. then I think it's fine.. the Bible is indeed a very interesting book..

but if the class is 'and remember how Jesus Christ our savior helped us, and is calling sinners to repent' and all that #######.. then, I dont see the point

spot on!

I have to admit that I don't feel any unease about it as an elective class, or with the use of the Bible as the core text for the class. Obviously the method of teaching needs to be monitored to ensure that it doesn't become a haven for religious zealots, but that could be said of any religios education curriculum. I think it's a shame that they couldn't broaden the scope of the comparative religion course to cover it more, but if they feel there is a demand for it then all well and good.

[Saddle Bronc 124]

well the main problem depends on the translations.. would they use king james or roman catholic bibles? there are different books.. also there are different translations for the king james one.. there's a 100% literal translation (the one neo-calvinists use, yes.. another fancy term lol).. and the normal one.. although the Bible would be interesting for linguistics.. and how the different translations evolved and their meaning..

and also some books were basis to different laws i think.. i kinda find some similarities between lex romana and leviticus for example..

Most likely NIV--as a lot of Americans cannot understand the Shakespearean English of the original King James Version (KJV) or even the "modern British English" of the New King James Version (NKJV).

Due to having to paraphrase passages from Shakespearean plays (one each year; for grade 12, it was "Othello" a real snooze-inducer), I can understand KJV without problems.

Edited March 30, 2006 by sriniv

[Mand 1]

On Monday, the State Senate passed a bill providing money to high schools that offer elective classes in the Bible, and setting specific guidelines for those classes. The bill was approved by Georgia's House of Representatives last week.

The bill creates two courses, the History and Literature of the Old Testament Era and the History and Literature of the New Testament Era, that can be offered as electives. It gives the state's Department of Education a year to approve the curriculum, but it requires that the Bible itself, not a textbook, be the core material used. Supplementary materials can also be used.

Source

I actually have no problem with this. It's elective, students are free to choose. I also imagine and would hope that this course, like any new curriculum being introduced into schools, would be closely monitored.

[KarenCee 3]

well the main problem depends on the translations.. would they use king james or roman catholic bibles? there are different books.. also there are different translations for the king james one.. there's a 100% literal translation (the one neo-calvinists use, yes.. another fancy term lol).. and the normal one.. although the Bible would be interesting for linguistics.. and how the different translations evolved and their meaning..

and also some books were basis to different laws i think.. i kinda find some similarities between lex romana and leviticus for example..

Most likely NIV--as a lot of Americans cannot understand the Shakespearean English of the original King James Version (KJV) or even the "modern British English" of the New King James Version (NKJV).

Due to having to paraphrase passages from Shakespearean plays (one each year; for grade 12, it was "Othello" a real snooze-inducer), I can understand KJV without problems.

And there will be those who want a certain version taught too. When it comes to translations there is a huge debate as to which one has been "translated" correctly.

[faith 0]

Is everyone avoiding the fact that this is in violation of separation of church and state?

[Jenn! 918]

Is everyone avoiding the fact that this is in violation of separation of church and state?

I think that the fact that the course is elective rather than mandatory should enter in as a qualification.

[faith 0]

Is everyone avoiding the fact that this is in violation of separation of church and state?

I think that the fact that the course is elective rather than mandatory should enter in as a qualification.

It doesn't matter that it is an elective. It's still letting the school receive government funds to pay for a religion class. That, my friends, is the problem here. Take away their federal funds and then they can do whatever they want.

[Jenn! 918]

Is everyone avoiding the fact that this is in violation of separation of church and state?

I think that the fact that the course is elective rather than mandatory should enter in as a qualification.

It doesn't matter that it is an elective. It's still letting the school receive government funds to pay for a religion class. That, my friends, is the problem here. Take away their federal funds and then they can do whatever they want.

But if the class is taught from a historical perspective rather than a call to worship.....

[faith 0]

Is everyone avoiding the fact that this is in violation of separation of church and state?

I think that the fact that the course is elective rather than mandatory should enter in as a qualification.

It doesn't matter that it is an elective. It's still letting the school receive government funds to pay for a religion class. That, my friends, is the problem here. Take away their federal funds and then they can do whatever they want.

But if the class is taught from a historical perspective rather than a call to worship.....

ok then by your standards then they should have to offer classes about Budda, Jewish faith, Islamic, Catholic, Protestant, methodist, the list goes on and one because HISTORICALLY there has always been more than one faith. And how about equal time for the atheists? Wiccans?

If you think pooping on our constitution is ok, then that's your right I guess. However, the constitution is supposed to be the supreme law of the land. Why is it ok for the states to decide that they don't have to follow that?

In my eyes, this is just as bad as Missouri trying to make Christianity the state religion.

[Jenn! 918]

Is everyone avoiding the fact that this is in violation of separation of church and state?

I think that the fact that the course is elective rather than mandatory should enter in as a qualification.

It doesn't matter that it is an elective. It's still letting the school receive government funds to pay for a religion class. That, my friends, is the problem here. Take away their federal funds and then they can do whatever they want.

But if the class is taught from a historical perspective rather than a call to worship.....

ok then by your standards then they should have to offer classes about Budda, Jewish faith, Islamic, Catholic, Protestant, methodist, the list goes on and one because HISTORICALLY there has always been more than one faith. And how about equal time for the atheists? Wiccans?

Yes.

[faith 0]

Is everyone avoiding the fact that this is in violation of separation of church and state?

I think that the fact that the course is elective rather than mandatory should enter in as a qualification.

It doesn't matter that it is an elective. It's still letting the school receive government funds to pay for a religion class. That, my friends, is the problem here. Take away their federal funds and then they can do whatever they want.

But if the class is taught from a historical perspective rather than a call to worship.....

ok then by your standards then they should have to offer classes about Budda, Jewish faith, Islamic, Catholic, Protestant, methodist, the list goes on and one because HISTORICALLY there has always been more than one faith. And how about equal time for the atheists? Wiccans?

Yes.

But that's not in their gameplan. They are using a bible.

[KarenCee 3]

Phrasing this as a history course is where it got passed....technically speaking, if taught from a historical viewpoint IS a separation of church and state...at least that's how I'm guessing the lawmakers see it. I'm not a politician (THANK GOD!) so I'm just guessing on that one. We all know there are ways around most any law or regulation. They will state that the bible will be used as any other textbook too...and I know there will have to be a curriculum in place approved by the GADOE before the first class can be held.

Edited March 30, 2006 by KarenCee

[Sister Fracas 5]

I don't see a conflict with separation of church and state in these courses "History and Literature of the Old Testament Era and the History and Literature of the New Testament Era".......HOWEVER....as KarenCee has said, I don't trust that it will stay that way, but spin into something entirely out of line.

Edited March 30, 2006 by Frances

[Fuzzness 2]

teaching it as a historical class is how they will get it in place. after that, I guarantee it will change into a recruitment class for the southern baptists.