Group says Bible course riddled with bias, errors

[Judi Lynn]

Aug. 1, 2005, 9:26PM

Group says Bible course riddled with bias, errors
Producers of the curriculum taught in Texas schools charge censorship
By JIM VERTUNO
Associated Press

AUSTIN - A religious watch-dog group went on the attack Monday against a Bible study course taught in hundreds of schools in Texas and across the country, complaining it pushes students toward conservative Protestant viewpoints and violates religious freedom.

The Texas Freedom Network, which includes clergy of several faiths, said the course offered by the Greensboro, N.C.-based National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools is full of errors and dubious research that promote a fundamentalist Christian view.
(snip)

Kathy Miller, president of Texas Freedom Network, said her group looked at the course after the Odessa school board voted in April to offer a Bible class. It asked Southern Methodist University professor and biblical scholar Mark A. Chancey to review the class curriculum. Miller said Chancey was not paid for his work.

Chancey's review found the Bible is characterized as inspired by God, discussions of science are based on the claims of biblical creationists, Jesus is referred to as fulfilling Old Testament prophecy and archaeological findings are erroneously used to support claims of the Bible's historical accuracy. He said the course suggests the Bible, instead of the Constitution, be considered the nation's founding document.
(snip/...)

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/metropolitan/3291664
(Free registration required)

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

1. shouldn't be allowed

if it is teaching lies like that. The fundies can argue the religious aspects, but to say that the Constitution was not our founding document is obviously false. Of course these bozos would rather have our military and government workers take a pledge to support protect and defend their version of the Bible, I'm sure.

[NoPasaran]

2. TFN's report is online

http://www.tfn.org/religiousfreedom/biblecurriculum/execsummary/

[fasttense]

3. This is why teaching the bible in school is stupid.

There are so many differing and conflicting views on what the bible says and means that very few organized religions can come to agreement on it. Just look at the split between Catholics and Martin Luther. No matter how they water it down, no matter how they edit it out, one religion will be promoted over another. Perhaps what they should teach is either Catholicism, Baptist philosophies or Lutheran dogma. If they picked one religion and taught the bible from that religions point of view then they may get it right. Oh wait the churches already do that.

[The Icon Painter]

9. Did You Really ...

mean to say 'Baptist philosophy'? Have you ever talked to a real hard-shell Baptist? They don't believe in philosophy. That's all that big words, citified stuff. They stand on the word of g-d which is the only truth, not nothing like no philosophy. Sweet jeezus, these christianists are a disgusting crew!

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

29. And Lutherans (most of them) aren't very dogmatic...

They're moving toward a more ecumenical stance (which admittedly angers many Lutherans, but not this one). On those "mysteries of the faith" issues, I think that most Lutherans are willing to allow for mystery.

[fasttense]

52. I think just about any religion has some dogma

but I have to agree the Lutherans are pretty cool. Though my husband was raised Southern Baptist, I was raised Catholic and we currently attend a Lutheran Church. Which is why I chose those three religions. I have some experience in all of them.

[reprobate]

44. Not just christians, any religion based on mythology is anti-reality.

[teknomanzer]

72. Religions are all based on some mythology...

This does't make them bad or anti-reality. Mythology is metaphor. I refer you to Carl Jung and Joseph Campbell. Religious mythology and the mysteries that form the basis of almost all religions point to psychological phenomena which is expressed symbolically in myth. The mistake is made when myth is accepted as fact rather than metaphor. There is a reason why articles of faith are called mysteries... Fundamentalists are missing all the clues and find themselves trapped in dogmatic belief rather than seeking the way to spiritual enlightenment.

[reprobate]

83. Agreed. And Campbell also said that the mistake the west makes.....

....is to try to concretize the mythology. It is when this happens that they lose sight of the phychological basis of their myths and fall into the trap of control. It is when this happens that it becomes anti-reality.

[fasttense]

51. My husband was raised Southern Baptist but he

is not one of the crazy ones. There are a few Southern Baptist who don't believe the bible is a scientific document.

[libhill]

79. By crackies

that's right - all we need is the Word of God, we don't read all that monkey Darwinism, Greek philosopher, intellectual hipp-eye stuff. I got my assault rifles, an' my Bible, an' that's all I need. 'Till them good Republican fellers makes a law that if'n you all don't believe our way, we kin done kill ya.

[noonwitch]

15. My school had a "Bible as Literature" class

I didn't take it, my brother did. He said it was interesting, but the teacher taught it as literature, not religion. I think it is fitting in advanced lit classes, in which you are discussing Shakespeare and works of Elizabethan age literature, to discuss the King James Bible and how it fits into the history and the evolution of the English language.

[mbperrin]

20. For Shakespeare, you need the Geneva Bible.

He was long dead when the KJV was written.

Thanks.

[WinkyDink]

26. KJV

KJV = 1611;
Shakespeare's death = 1616.
Unless, of course, you mean Edward DeVere (1604).

[mbperrin]

56. Should have said dead as a writer. He retired around 1604.

The point is, he used the Geneva Bible, wouldn't have had the KJV during his life as a writer.

Don't even start with Edward DeVere. :crazy:

[lolly]

65. Tempest generally dated 1610 or so

Still to early for James' Bible, which of course relied heavily on Geneva and other English versions for its translation.

[papau]

24. I agree

:-)

[libhill]

80. No argument here -

n/t :)

[Pacifist Patriot]

39. I disagree.

Too much of our language--idioms, axioms and jokes among other references are dependent upon basic knowledge of the Bible. Cultural literacy shouldn't be abandoned because on group has laid claim to a font of beautiful ancient writings.

I think it is entirely possible to be taught as a literature course without diving into the theology...or developing theology to be more precise...found in the Bible.

[mknmehappy]

47. I agree, good point.

[annabanana]

4. And this is a surprise because?................. ...........eom

[Sgent]

5. I'm not surprised

But to be this dumb (and obvious)... From the report

One passage asks students to consider how the use of “simple monosyllabic words” in a passage of Old Testament poetry was typical of the Hebrews. Yet while the words in these passages may be monosyllabic in English translations, they are quite different in Hebrew and Greek. How English syllabification provides insight into the ancient Hebrew mindset is not explained.

<snip>... And people wonder why plagerizing is rampant

Inadequate Citation
The curriculum is shockingly lax when it comes to properly crediting sources – inexcusable in any scholarly writing at either the high school or college level. For example, the wording of the sections titled “Pilate” and “Herod,” which constitute pages 195-196 in their entirety, is identical to that of passages from the articles “Pilate, Pontius,” and “Herod the Great” in Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia 2001. No source is cited. In fact, a considerable amount of the curriculum’s content – Dr. Chancey estimates one-third or more of its pages – is reproduced word for word from its sources (both cited and uncited), often for pages at a time, though the curriculum does not note this or indicate that permission has been granted to reproduce these passages.

<end>

Not only do they teach a protestant bible, but apparently believe that the KJV is the one true translation.

[jmowreader]

42. Many Protestants think the KJV is the only "true" Bible

If you can stand to search through Chick's site, you'll see that he teaches the KJV was sent down by God and every other translation of the Bible was written by Satan himself.

Apparently Satan has nothing better to do than to write Bibles.

[Viking12]

43. Thou shall not steal??????

I hope MS Encarta or some other victim of the theft intellectual property makes a holy case about the plagiarism.

[papau]

6. other than the "creationists" - the views expressed are reasonable IMHO

Sometimes the cries of the left seem silly to this leftest - but then I am not an atheist - indeed I am a Christian.

peace

:-)

[Sgent]

7. As a Jew

I would be offended to have a sectarian Baptist viewpoint of the bible taught to my children. I think knowledge of the Bible -- including the gospel and other new testament books, is a required part of a broad education and citizenship in this country.

That being said, if you actually read the report, this text and curriculum is terrible. The report is written by a Methodist professor of religion at SMU, and is very damning in what is in the curriculum, from both a scholarly and religious point of view.

[papau]

10. I read the link - and that was nothing to worry about - And New Testament

is an obvious problem if you are Jewish and one tries to teach it from a religious/Christain point of view.

Which is why it should not be taught in public school at the early grades.

But the put down of the course was "bias" and "wrong" and I did not see much of that beyond creationist.

[Solly Mack]

8. This sounds reasonable to you?

"...course suggests the Bible, instead of the Constitution, be considered the nation's founding document."

Biblical law over secular law as a "founding" document is reasonable to you?

Because once someone believes the Bible (a religious book) is the basis for the principles, values and laws of a country - instead of a secular Constitution, aren't we talking theocracy?


That is the definition of theocracy isn't it? (government) Founded in and based upon a (specific) religion?

(the·oc·ra·cy ( thç-ŏk ' rə-sç ) n. , pl. -cies . A government ruled by or subject to religious authority. - religious authority in this case being the Bible since it's reasonable to call it the "founding document")

And you find that reasonable?

You believe what you believe and that's fine....I'm just curious.

You really find that kind of thinking reasonable?

[papau]

11. Yes - the principles - as coded in the Constitution - can be traced to

other writings.

Why does this upset you?

[Sgent]

12. How about the 4 page listing

of playgerised works -- probably 50 or more in all?

how about the fact that they teach the bible as a protestant version, not even mentioning the acrophobia or different system used in Judaism.

How about the umpteen new theories on scholarship espoused by this book, which find no support in academic literature?

I personally have no problem with the academic teaching of the bible -- both hebrew and new testament. This curriculum fails to be an academic work in hundreds of ways. Read the report and not just the link.

[papau]

18. I did not read the report - so I can not answer your specific questions -

I agree as to the "teaching" of only the protestant version, and not even mentioning the acrophobia or different system used in Judaism.

I do not know of the "umpteen new theories on scholarship espoused by this book, which find no support in academic literature?"

I would gladly read the report if someone would post a link.

I doubt that I would disagree with your review in many areas - but again I have not read the report.

[Bridget Burke]

25. Here's a link to the report.

You can read the whole thing in PDF. An Executive Summary and list of Academic Endorsements are also available.

www.tfn.org/religiousfreedom/biblecurriculum/

[papau]

27. Thanks :-)

:-)

[teknomanzer]

73. Um... hate to nitpick but...

acrophobia is the fear of heights, so it totally makes no sense in the context of what you have written. Perhaps the word you are looking for is "apocrypha"? If you were referring to books excluded from the bible, I believe thats the word you wanted to use there.

[JNelson6563]

13. "Other writings"

that is a different assertion than "bible-based" as there are other writings that are far more civilized and enlightened than the bible.

I sure would hope "other writings" were a source of influence, as were histories of other lands and peoples.

Julie

[papau]

19. True - indeed "bible-based" needs definition.

:-)

[Solly Mack]

14. Nice try - but "other writings" does not mean the bible

by itself, if at all...since codes of law are older than the Bible

and my question was not

"Do you think it's reasonable to teach the Constitution comes from many (other) writings?"

Which isn't what the article claims either, btw. It clearly says otherwise.

My question was:

"Do you think it reasonable to teach the Bible as the founding document for America's government instead of the Constitution?"

Which is what the article clearly states. Nothing about "other writings(plural) - just the Bible.

There is a HUGE difference in those 2 questions.

Thank you for answering my question and letting me know you support the Bible being taught as the founding document on which America's government was built and shaped.

[papau]

21. Bible as the only founding document is obviously wrong - but I

thought the reference was the items that the drafters referred to in writing the Constitution.

As you know, German was by only a few votes not our "national lanuage" for the purpose of this affiliation. And indeed the drafters thought voluntary affiliation - not a Lincoln asserted one country that should not be ripped assunder - when they signed the Constitution.

Indeed the contestualist on the Court (Scalia, et. al.) would be hard pressed to justify what you and I think is the meaning of the founding document on which America's government was built and shaped.

Indeed the founding document on which America's government was built and shaped is an interesting term, as the Charters in the beginning, and the various Presidents of the United States in Congress Assembled that came before Washington, would all have interesting comments.

I suspect at least one of those Presidents would not have a problem discussing the Bible as the founding document on which America's government was built and shaped.

But in fact - the statement requires one to forget that the founding document is only the Constitution - and it must stand on its own

Which makes "contextual" interpretation by the neo-cons invalid, in my opinion.

But back to the report - is there a link to the actual report?

[redqueen]

33. SO Not the Bible

The documents that most influenced our Constitution, BOR, etc. are:

The Declaration of the Rights of Man
The Bill of Rights of 1689
The Magna Carta
The Athenian Constitution by Aristotle
The Iroquois Constitution / The Great Binding Law Gayanshagowa

The Bible would come after these 5 documents. Not before.

[Mountainman]

16. You are grounded in the fundie way of discussing this issue aren't you?

"Why does that upset you?" You've got to be kidding!

Why did the founding fathers author the first amendment to the Constitution?

It upsets me because it allows the teaching of religion in public schools if you follow that line of thinking!

It is not upsetting that ideas in the Constitution are taken from many philosophies but that claiming they come from biblical teachings is a fundie propaganda tool.

[papau]

22. philosophies can not have biblical origin/reference because of why?

The USSC has 4 "contextualist" Judges - 2 of which see nothing else - and they read the comments of the 1780's to determine what is meant.

Your problem - my problem - is a great deal more urgent than determining the origins of Western Thought and the US Constitution.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

30. The Founders were clearly spiritual men...

But few of them (none that I know of, anyway) were sectarian. All of them would acknowledge the existence of God and would, I suspect, grant that the Bible represents the word of God. And while scripture provided the basis for their philosophy, it did not mean that they wanted to live in a country grounded in religious dogma.

Not for nothing, these same spiritual men were the same ones who established the concept of the seperation of church and state. They knew precisely what happens (both in England and in their own colonial experience) when the church starts writing and enforcing the law.

Teach the history of religion in schools is a great idea, but unfortunately, the same fundies who want it taught would never allow a truthful discussion.

Recommended Reading: "Religious History of America" by Edwin Gaustad. Good Stuff. He's recently written a biography of Roger Williams, which I intend to read as soon as I'm done with "Our Godless Constitution."

[papau]

31. Thanks for the info - Edwin Gaustad is on my list for the next library

run

:-)

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

32. His "Religious History..."

was very good, but quite slanted. It extolled the virtues of liberal faith groups but tended to gloss over some of religion's more depraved moments. Fundies wouldn't like it because Gaustad clearly disapproves of their behavior.

[mbperrin]

58. Anyone mention the Jefferson Bible yet?

You know, the one Tom wrote, left out the miracles and ends with Jesus in the tomb?

[Coastie for Truth]

81. I mentioned it -- along with

Forrest Church's The Separation of Church and State and Mark Whitten's The Myth of Christian America : What You Need to Know About the Separation of Church and State.

But that stuff don't count in Red States cause it's Unitarian.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

86. Isn't Bush supposed to be getting some kind of "Jefferson Award"?

Do the fundies know about Jefferson's sordid history?

[Ian David]

35. All ten commandments have been over-turned by US law except for one...

Thou Shalt Not Steal is the only one of the 10 commandments still enforced by rule of law.

In fact, the first four commandments were over-turned by the very first amendment to The Constitution.

If "the" bible is a founding document, it is only in so far as it was the document that drove most of us out of Europe throughout history.

[sendero]

37. Nor did these principles..

... originate with the Bible. How far back do you want to go?

The important concepts in our constitution, checks and balances, our justice systems, show me where they are in the Bible.

If you are talking about "thou shalt not kill", pulhease, this didn't pop up 2000 years ago.

[anaxarchos]

57. True, but...

a lot more Rousseau than Martin Luther, don't you think?

More anabaptist than baptist?

The democratic constitutions are pretty stridently secular. Saying they have a common root to religious works is to so abstract away from the practical meaning of the words as to lose all meanings. After all, the democratic revolutions were in opposition to the church as well as to the monarchy... no?

[Zhade]

68. Because IT'S DEMONSTRABLY FALSE.

It's a LIE. You are supporting a LIE.

[converted_democrat]

87. I'll tell you why it bothers me..........

Does seperation of church and state mean anything to anyone these days?

[Bridget Burke]

17. Please consider the source of this curriculum.

The National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools has been running this campaign for some time. Here's their website:

www.bibleinschools.net/

Check out their links page. It begins with a ringing endorsement by the Mel Gablers. The link is dead (as is Mr Gabler) but this tribute from Concerned Women of America is enlightening:

Mel and Norma were the seeds of a veritable parent revolution for school improvement who used the Texas process for textbook adoption to press their case for accuracy and fairness in teaching our country's heritage -- all of it -- to our children. They stood almost alone for decades in building a grassroots parent movement in favor of textbooks and school curriculum that upheld decent social standards, basic principles of decentralized government that safeguard every person's individual freedom, the religious basis of our society that the liberal-left nihilists have tried so hard to censor from teaching and learning in our schools, and basic academic freedom and honesty.

www.cwfa.org/articles/7095/CWA/misc/

Others links lead to Creationist & Dominionist sites--those more interested in political power than true religion.

And check out this summary of the Texas Freedom Network's critique of the curriculum:

The problems detailed by this report – a blatant sectarian bias, distortions of history and science, numerous factual errors, poor sourcing – reveal a curriculum that is clearly inappropriate for the 1,000 public schools the NCBCPS claims use its materials. Indeed, such schools would do far better by considering other Bible literacy curricula for what could be an enriching part of their students' learning experience.

www.tfn.org/religiousfreedom/biblecurriculum/execsummary/

From another page at TFN.ORG:

“I'm all for teaching kids about the Bible. We do it in our church every Sunday,”said Rev. Ragan Courtney of The Sanctuary, a Baptist congregation in Austin. “But this curriculum is disrespectful to families who do not share a specific brand of Christian faith. No public school student should have to have a particular religious belief forced upon them.”

Apparently he's just another one of those "silly leftists" who does NOT think the curriculum is "reasonable."

[papau]

23. Thanks - the additional info helps place the info in a new light - but the

newspaper article by itself said nothing that I would jump on - except creationism.

No religious curriculum is "reasonable" in a public high school or grade school.

[me b zola]

48. Hey, the fundies want to secede

They plan on living in their own little theocracy. I support all people who want their religion in our secular world to join the fundies in fundyland. Feel free //cough// to have all of the bible studies you desire in your schools in fundyland.


Do you really believe that Atheists are the only ones who understand the need to keep religion out of government as well as government out of religion? It doesn't take much reading on this board to realize that the majority of Christians and other people of faith understand the need for the separation of church and State. I am one of them.

[Zhade]

67. You're kidding, right?

"Jesus is referred to as fulfilling Old Testament prophecy"

Inappropriate in public taxpayer-funded schools.


"archaeological findings are erroneously used to support claims of the Bible's historical accuracy."

Erroneously, because there ARE no such findings that prove the bible to be anything more than myth.


"He said the course suggests the Bible, instead of the Constitution, be considered the nation's founding document."

This is, of course, blatantly untrue. The bible was IN NO WAY the country's founding document - and this is the one example that worries me most that you don't find objectionable.

[getmeouttahere]

28. Is this something new, or specific to certain regions....

of the country? Admittedly, I graduated from high school 21 years ago and don't have children so I don't really have much knowledge as to what is taught in school, but in Southern Oregon in the early 80's and before, we didn't have anything resembling a bible course in public schools. It is patently absurd to me.

[Bridget Burke]

38. Yes, it's new.

The National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools was founded in 1993 to "bring back" Bible classes. Here's the fact sheet from the Texas Freedom Network; note their Right-Wing background:

www.tfn.org/religiousfreedom/biblecurriculum/ncbcps/

They claim that 1000 schools in 36 states use their curriculum. But no real data are available.

I started my education in the 50's in semi-rural Texas. Public Schools all the way. There were NO Bible classes at all. No official prayer, either--except for the occasional game or assembly. We started every day with the Pledge & "My Country 'Tis of Thee."

[tammywammy]

70. I graduated high school in 1999

And there wasn't a Bible course (and this is in Texas).

We did have a moment of silence during the announcements, but there wasn't forced praying...just be quite for a few seconds but you can still gather your books and such.

And we did the Pledge, but while most students did it, it wasn't mandatory.

[Ian David]

34. Be careful what you wish for. You just might get it...

So, some school district is teaching "the" bible in public schools.

The problem is, some people say that it's being taught in a way biased toward those OTHER christians!

Those who truly love "the" bible shouldn't want it taught in a public school. It should be taught in their own churches and homes in a manner consistent with their own personal and denominational beliefs.

Duh!

That's why we have all that stuff about how the guv'mint shouldn't be endorsin' no religion over another.

[VegasWolf]

36. As a NON-christian, I find this appalling. I'm afraid that these fundies

are teaching this particular christian philosophy as something
that is true as opposed to an idea some people believe. The idea
that the bible be used as a founding document is laughable.
King Constantine would be rolling in his grave. Wonder
if this "course" would even make any mention of the gnostic gospels.

If some people want this stuff as an elective course, then atheists
should be free to offer a comparative philosophical study of the
teachings of Neitze and Sartre.

[anotherdrew]

71. it surely would not mention gnostic gospels

These folks pushing this Yahwist religion (it's not even Christ like at all) and calling it christian would be the first to burn or otherwise kill anyone found in possession of such gospels. Just like has been done for the last 1700+ years. These people are nothing but brainwashed fools, and their leaders evil bloodthirsty hateful MEN.

[Megahurtz]

40. This is why there needs to be Separation of Church and State.

Human beings can fuck up and twist ANYTHING, especially when it comes to Religion.

[getmeouttahere]

41. Amen, Megahurtz....

how many different versions/interpretations of the bible are there? That's just for starters.

[Lindacooks]

45. Actually, the BIBLE is 'riddled with bias and errors'.

Like saying that insects have four legs, that men lived to be 700 years old, and oh yeah, there's the two creation stories: in one, there was water and God created land, and in the other, there was dust and God created water.

And have you ever studied Jesus' geneology? There are three different versions, all have different people named in them, and they are of different lengths. The God who understands quantum physics and string theory did not write that.

[teknomanzer]

74. Maybe the god who understands quantum physics...

DID write up three different geneologies - each one occuring in an alternate universe or a different dimension. :P

[Lindacooks]

84. LOL!!

That's probably not far off of a fundie's explanation.

:evilgrin:

[defiant1]

46. Hmmm...

It seems to me if we could just all agree that there is no god, we'd be able to get along easier.

god = arrogance of mankind

[Bridget Burke]

49. No, we should just get along.

People should be allowed to have their own beliefs and pass them on to their children. (Although children do become independant.)

We shouldn't all have to agree with you.

[defiant1]

50. That's cool....

I didn't mean on every single facet of my beliefs.

Just this ridiculous story that inspires men to commit acts of great evil.

[Bridget Burke]

53. Actually, this story is a sign of hope.

The group trying to cram the Bible into public schools has been active for some time under the radar.

But some Texas activists had the curriculum critiqued & got in the news. The people objecting are not just atheists & other non-Christians. They include Christians who would rather teach the Bible at home or in Sunday School.

[jwcomer]

69. Teaching children religion is child abuse.

That frightens a lot of people when I say it. But it is a completely defensible statement. Just a matter of properly defining abuse is all. People ought not be exposed to brain washing until they have reached adulthood and are able to defend themselves properly.

[bribri16]

54. Actually, most conservative Christians wouldn't want to know who those

people in scripture (especially OT)really were. And they certainly weren't blonde and blue-eyed. Moses' marriage today would have him ostracized by the Christian right.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

60. There was a poll recently...

I forget where I saw it (online or in print), but it showed that a shocking number of Christians know very little about the Bible. Very nearly a majority of them thought that the anti-Christian sentiment of "The Lord helps those who help themselves" had its basis in scripture. It was attributed to Ben Franklin.

So if they don't understand their own religion, why are they jamming it down our throat?

[teknomanzer]

75. The gods help those who help themselves...

comes from one of Aesop's fables... I believe Aesop was a pagan. Imagine that. A pagan's moral ending attributed to Christian scripture.

[NickB79]

55. Jesus fulfulled the Old Testament prophecies?

Didn't Jesus pretty much throw out the Old Testament? That's how it was explained to me when I asked why Christians can eat pork and shellfish, even though it is an abomination in the Old Testament. I recall something about a story where Jesus and his followers were gathering grain on the Sabbath to eat, and people told them they were sinning for working on the Sabbath, and Jesus pretty told them to buzz off?

[TrogL]

59. He threw out many of the old Rites

as they were no longer relevant.

That Jesus fulfilled Old Testament prophecies is hardly heresy. I don't understand what the problem is here.

[Bridget Burke]

61. If the Bible is studied as literature, is "heresy" relevant?

I seem to remember papers being graded on Content & Form. Does the new curriculum add Theological Purity?

[NickB79]

63. See, thats what I never understood

Did Jesus specify which rites to disregard and which ones not to? How do we know which ones to pick and choose from from the Old Testament?

[TrogL]

64. That's where it gets tricky

Definitely the meat thing was gone and as far as I understand it the ceremonial rites are out as well, which kinda kills off the whole "abomination" and "unclean" thing which renders most of the anti-gay "clobber" passages mute.

[pelagius]

66. There's more statements against usury than there are...

...about homosexuality in the Bible, but I ain't holding my breath until the Christian Right starts picketing Visa, Mastercard, Amex, et al.

Credit card debt has ruined more lives in the US than any "gay agenda" ever has.

[teknomanzer]

76. The bottom line of the teaching is...

Ritualism and mere observance of law and tradition is not a substitute for genuine love, and compassion. "What a man puts in his mouth does not defile him. What comes out of his mouth does."

[VegasWolf]

62. If they want to study the bible as literary fiction, well, that's their

choice. I would prefer Isaac Asimov myself.

[anotherdrew]

77. there is a case to be made for teaching about religions

Teach _about_ NOT _of_ religion. Look in the new Harpers, there's a big story about how most people in the US don't even know _anything_ about the religion 85% of us claim to be. Maybe, just maybe.... if we had good education about religion (all mind-you, focus on some more than others by relevance) people would KNOW that talk of the bible being 'literally true' is hogwash. (most of them seem to think that literally means 'really really' btw). What they mean is that they believe it is the 'word of god' which really is different from 'literally true'. Also maybe there wouldn't be SO many people willing to overlook the parts about doing "good works". Maybe there would be more focus on the new rather than the old testament. I think it _could_ be a good thing if done right. I would say people might want to look at English education system here, as they DO teach religion in school, yet somehow it works out quite nicely (kids who really don't want to be exposed get to go to another classroom or the library commonly).

Probably too late for that now though, we're probably gonna have a civil war of some sort I suspect, the fundamentalists are way too up in arms and I hate to say it but they seem to be breeding a next generation too.

[ShockediSay]

78. Same way Taliban taught Koran -

with a power grabbing political takeover pocket lining agenda.

After a lot of independent Bible study of my own, I don't think anyone of the hard right winger slingers truly understands the Bible.

Take f'rinstance this intelligent design canard. The God of the Bible is there for the true believer, as a matter of Faith, not as a matter of science. If you need science to prove the Word of the Bible, (and "the Word was God" John 1:1)you don't have true faith.

And who says God didn't create evolution? or any other scientific fact?
Ans: false prophets preaching false gospels, all as described particularly in the last book of the Bible.

[genieroze]

82. Oh for ^%$#@#$% sake. What's wrong with these nutbags.

"Chancey's review found the Bible is characterized as inspired by God, discussions of science are based on the claims of biblical creationists, Jesus is referred to as fulfilling Old Testament prophecy and archaeological findings are erroneously used to support claims of the Bible's historical accuracy. He said the course suggests the Bible, instead of the Constitution, be considered the nation's founding document."

[hayu_lol]

85. This thread needs to be bumped up for a while...

are their any DU'ers in that area of Texas who know more about what is going on?