Georgia approves bible as textbook

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

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!

I'm imagining a government-appointed "advisor" sitting in the class and observing, taking notes and reporting back to the Politburo, I mean headquarters, if he notices any doctrinal impurity in the class. I'm imagining a renegade Christian teacher mysteriously disappearing at night.

[faith 0]

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.

I lived in Georgia. My son was born there. Trust me, some of their churches do "snake handling" as a religious excercise. Science and safety have nothing to do with it. Oh yeah, and tongue speaking is an official language. Give me a break.

Edited March 30, 2006 by faith

[Yaads 0]

Other religions/religious subjects are already taught in school - from a historical standpoint. In highschool I learned all about the greek gods and goddesses, the practices of the Hindus and Buddhists, some of the African beliefs, Roman Catholicism (South American studies), mythical studies of the Native American Indians, and so on. They were the beliefs and traditions of the different groups of people that we studied. It was played off as historical and the history of a certain time and group of people. When you learn about different groups of people their religion/traditions/beliefs are apart of them and their history. It is ok for all these other religion/traditions/beliefs but then it isn't ok for the Christian history of America to be taught, even from a historical standpoint, because it is to controversial??? Sounds hypocritical to me! Like it or not America was founded by Christians on Christian beliefs and traditions...I know that is not the case now a days but it is Americas history and I think it needs to be taught.

As for Georgia allowing the Bible to be used as core material...it is an elective course - students CHOOSE to be in the class. As long as it is taught historically there is no reason for it to be any different than learning about the Greek gods.

[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...

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?

You are in all likelihood spot on. But good luck trying to prove it - the course hasn't even started yet. I think the state legistlature has no recourse but to accept the class as it was propsed (facade or not), and keep a close eye on the actual content, pulling funding when(if?) it proves necessary...

[KarenCee 3]

Oh man this is getting good.....

[Fuzzness 2]

Other religions/religious subjects are already taught in school - from a historical standpoint. In highschool I learned all about the greek gods and goddesses, the practices of the Hindus and Buddhists, some of the African beliefs, Roman Catholicism (South American studies), mythical studies of the Native American Indians, and so on. They were the beliefs and traditions of the different groups of people that we studied. It was played off as historical and the history of a certain time and group of people. When you learn about different groups of people their religion/traditions/beliefs are apart of them and their history. It is ok for all these other religion/traditions/beliefs but then it isn't ok for the Christian history of America to be taught, even from a historical standpoint, because it is to controversial??? Sounds hypocritical to me! Like it or not America was founded by Christians on Christian beliefs and traditions...I know that is not the case now a days but it is Americas history and I think it needs to be taught.

In Georgia, the christian right-wing has a different agenda. They're not interested in teaching you the historical stuff. They want to recruit. They want to "save" you. Not every state is the same.

[Saddle Bronc 124]

I lived in Georgia. My son was born there. Trust me, some of their churches do "snake handling" as a religious excercise. Science and safety have nothing to do with it. Oh yeah, and tongue speaking is an official language. Give me a break.

Churches which place emphasis on this sort of thing (in both LEF and C&MA, it's termed "trying to prove Holy Spirit by rituals", and is not looked upon favourably) are, unfortunately, not restricted to GA.

[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?

You are in all likelihood spot on. But good luck trying to prove it - the course hasn't even started yet. I think the state legistlature has no recourse but to accept the class as it was propsed (facade or not), and keep a close eye on the actual content, pulling funding when(if?) it proves necessary...

I think it's a case that bears watching. I think that other states will quickly follow suit. I think it's an issue that can potentially lead to many other bigger issues. And that scares me to death.

I lived in Georgia. My son was born there. Trust me, some of their churches do "snake handling" as a religious excercise. Science and safety have nothing to do with it. Oh yeah, and tongue speaking is an official language. Give me a break.

Churches which place emphasis on this sort of thing (in both LEF and C&MA, it's termed "trying to prove Holy Spirit by rituals", and is not looked upon favourably) are, unfortunately, not restricted to GA.

I never said it was restricted to Georgia.

[iteq 0]

imagine the outcry if a state decided to do the same with Islam? What would the difference be in offering an islamic class in the public school on the same grounds as this christian class? A 'history class' which uses the khoran as a textbook in proving christianity is a wrong religion?

[Mand 1]

It gives the state's Department of Education a year to approve the curriculum,

Source

As I have only been here since September, I am still not aware of the workings of each state...and probably never will be! But, wouldn't this Bill also have to be passed through various other channels before it is implemented? And if implemented, wouldn't the Dept. of Education also have to monitor it's progress?

[faith 0]

It gives the state's Department of Education a year to approve the curriculum,

Source

As I have only been here since September, I am still not aware of the workings of each state...and probably never will be! But, wouldn't this Bill also have to be passed through various other channels before it is implemented? And if implemented, wouldn't the Dept. of Education also have to monitor it's progress?

when something like a school issue comes up, it very often is unofficially approved by the dept of ed before it even becomes an issue. meaning: the schools and the dept of ed want to do it so they get a politician to propose it. Getting it approved by the dept of ed is a technicality.

Sure they have to monitor it's progress. But how many high schools are in Georgia? They won't have someone in there at all times monitoring it. It will take a complaint from someone that they are deviating from the lesson plan for them to take action.

[Saddle Bronc 124]

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.

Plenty of debate, but high schools will generally go for the "dumb down" approach and use the easiest to understand version--which in this case (as easily 95% of the students will be US-born) is the NIV.

(personally, I like the KJV better--but I've learned that unlike in AB, paraphrasing Shakespeare is not part of US high school English class).

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

When do we start burning the the rest of the books?

Soon.

[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!

I'm imagining a government-appointed "advisor" sitting in the class and observing, taking notes and reporting back to the Politburo, I mean headquarters, if he notices any doctrinal impurity in the class. I'm imagining a renegade Christian teacher mysteriously disappearing at night.

teehee

[Saddle Bronc 124]

Seems like many have missed the point that the courses are ELECTIVE (implies market-driven); if they're not-at-all popular, they'll soon be forgotten.