Georgia approves bible as textbook

[Sister Fracas 5]

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.

*shudder*

[Jenn! 918]

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.

Agreed.

[faith 0]

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.

they'll be teaching them how to speak in tongues and handle snakes

If this was truely a historical class they would not be using the bible as the CORE textbook. They would be using a textbook with the bible as a supplement. I've taken lit classes (many of them) that's how they work.

[Saddle Bronc 124]

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

Your question shows you actually misunderstand the meaning of it.

It was set up so the STATE (or federal government) could not establish a church as official religion (nor could it PREVENT the establishment of a religion/church). As the courses are elective (as jenn stated), there is no violation of this.

[faith 0]

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.

Agreed.

then why is the bible the core textbook for it. if it's supposed to be History and Literature of the Old Testament ERA Wouldn't that stand to reason that there is other literature out there that should be considered as well instead of just the bible?

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

Your question shows you actually misunderstand the meaning of it.

It was set up so the STATE (or federal government) could not establish a church as official religion (nor could it PREVENT the establishment of a religion/church). As the courses are elective (as jenn stated), there is no violation of this.

actually, from a school's perspective I understand it quite well. You cannot receive certain federal funding in a school if you teach religion. I believe you are misunderstanding how the system works on funding and how the law reads.

[Jenn! 918]

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.

they'll be teaching them how to speak in tongues and handle snakes

If this was truely a historical class they would not be using the bible as the CORE textbook. They would be using a textbook with the bible as a supplement. I've taken lit classes (many of them) that's how they work.

A primary source is usually preferable to a secondary one, from an academic perspective.

If you're going to teach a class about, say, "The Great Gatsby", wouldn't "The Great Gatsby" be your central text?

[faith 0]

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.

they'll be teaching them how to speak in tongues and handle snakes

If this was truely a historical class they would not be using the bible as the CORE textbook. They would be using a textbook with the bible as a supplement. I've taken lit classes (many of them) that's how they work.

A primary source is usually preferable to a secondary one, from an academic perspective.

If you're going to teach a class about, say, "The Great Gatsby", wouldn't "The Great Gatsby" be your central text?

sure but this is about the ERA of the old testament and the new testament the way the title reads. So it would stand to reason that they are leaving out all other literature of that era.

[KarenCee 3]

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.

Agreed.

then why is the bible the core textbook for it. if it's supposed to be History and Literature of the Old Testament ERA Wouldn't that stand to reason that there is other literature out there that should be considered as well instead of just the bible?

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

Your question shows you actually misunderstand the meaning of it.

It was set up so the STATE (or federal government) could not establish a church as official religion (nor could it PREVENT the establishment of a religion/church). As the courses are elective (as jenn stated), there is no violation of this.

actually, from a school's perspective I understand it quite well. You cannot receive certain federal funding in a school if you teach religion. I believe you are misunderstanding how the system works on funding and how the law reads.

Well, that's how they're getting around all this....by calling it a history class. I'm sure there will be supplements to the class, just so their backsides are covered legally. The fact that it is an elective is also another way of getting this installed...the students don't have to take it. Making it a choice rather than a requirement is another point in their favour.

[Fuzzness 2]

don't you all just love how threads of a religious or political nature grows so quickly?

[Jenn! 918]

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.

they'll be teaching them how to speak in tongues and handle snakes

If this was truely a historical class they would not be using the bible as the CORE textbook. They would be using a textbook with the bible as a supplement. I've taken lit classes (many of them) that's how they work.

A primary source is usually preferable to a secondary one, from an academic perspective.

If you're going to teach a class about, say, "The Great Gatsby", wouldn't "The Great Gatsby" be your central text?

sure but this is about the ERA of the old testament and the new testament the way the title reads. So it would stand to reason that they are leaving out all other literature of that era.

Yes, I do think you're right about that. I didn't notice the "Era" there. But for the life of me, I can't imagine what other texts from that "era" they would be looking at...

[Sister Fracas 5]

then why is the bible the core textbook for it. if it's supposed to be History and Literature of the Old Testament ERA Wouldn't that stand to reason that there is other literature out there that should be considered as well instead of just the bible?

Sure, but be annoyed for the right reason....not that they are using the bible as a textbook, but that this course will probably morph into something else down the line. I say if they don't stick to the course guidelines, then snatch the course from the curriculum before they can say amen!

[Saddle Bronc 124]

they'll be teaching them how to speak in tongues and handle snakes

To learn how to handle snakes, one can visit the Tennessee Aquarium in Chattanooga (which has extensive displays of various reptiles). Or (in GA), it's possible--though not desirable--to learn this as "OJT" as snakes (including copperheads and coral snakes) do enter house compounds.

As for speaking in tongues, foreign languages are already offered as electives.

If this was truely a historical class they would not be using the bible as the CORE textbook. They would be using a textbook with the bible as a supplement. I've taken lit classes (many of them) that's how they work.

It covers two very specific eras, those in Old Testament and New Testament. For these, the technique of using Bible as core (and outside documents such as the Chronicles of Medes and Persians, stele of Sennacherib, Egyptian tombs, etc) is correct.

Edited March 30, 2006 by sriniv

[Jenn! 918]

I say if they don't stick to the course guidelines, then snatch the course from the curriculum before they can say amen!

Amen to that!

[KarenCee 3]

then why is the bible the core textbook for it. if it's supposed to be History and Literature of the Old Testament ERA Wouldn't that stand to reason that there is other literature out there that should be considered as well instead of just the bible?

Sure, but be annoyed for the right reason....not that they are using the bible as a textbook, but that this course will probably morph into something else down the line. I say if they don't stick to the course guidelines, then snatch the course from the curriculum before they can say amen!

When I was a freshman in college, I took an Old Testament History course (a requirement since it was a private college) and it was taught from a purely historical viewpoint....I enjoyed it thoroughly. Not once did the professor try to "save our souls" or convert anyone. I learned a lot about the OT from Prof. Adams. I just hope this is done the same way in our public schools.

Edited March 30, 2006 by KarenCee

[faith 0]

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.

they'll be teaching them how to speak in tongues and handle snakes

If this was truely a historical class they would not be using the bible as the CORE textbook. They would be using a textbook with the bible as a supplement. I've taken lit classes (many of them) that's how they work.

A primary source is usually preferable to a secondary one, from an academic perspective.

If you're going to teach a class about, say, "The Great Gatsby", wouldn't "The Great Gatsby" be your central text?

sure but this is about the ERA of the old testament and the new testament the way the title reads. So it would stand to reason that they are leaving out all other literature of that era.

Yes, I do think you're right about that. I didn't notice the "Era" there. But for the life of me, I can't imagine what other texts from that "era" they would be looking at...

I couldn't name any offhand, but my point is they are trying to label this class as something as it's not. I mean seriously, if there is nothing else of that age (which I'm sure there has to be something) then call a spade a spade and call it a bible class. Not literature of that era and be all "ooh we can't find anything else of that era so let's teach the bible". And how "historically" are they going to present this? As a work of fiction? As a theory? Or as fact?