Kentucky Senate Passes Bill To Teach Bible Classes

Remove all ads!

Right, Ragusa. I suppose the same goes for Catholic priests as well? Pity.

 

Here's the problem with that logic: there is no preference given. Other religions can have their own classes, too. Nothing's stopping them. This bill specifically gives a layout for how the most relevant (given US culture) class would be built, but this 'roadmap' could easily be adapted to any religion.

Of course, I don't expect to convince you. You've detected a faint whiff of 'religious indocrination' depsite the incontrovertable proof that the class is entirely voluntary, and the fact that any religion could do the same. I suppose I can't reasonably expect you to change your mind.

Actually, no. From the law, a literary historian (you know, one of those 'liberal arts' degrees) would be best qualified to teach these classes.

 

Except for the fact they there is no demographic majority for that in Kentucky and will not be in the foreseeable future, which suggests very strongly that your point about the theoretical ability of people of other faiths and cultures to enact a similar bill is a mere theoretical possibility that for that very reason fails to convince.

Sure, Kentucky is a place rich in literary historians who have specialised in Hebrew scriptures. Probably most Kentuykians look at scripture from a clear literary history angle. That is probably why the proud state of Kentucky is home to the Creation Museum. Because Hebrew scriptures and the Holy Bible are just eminently influential literature. So influential in fact, that a lot of folks go so far as to take it literally. Now, when you take things literally, knowing the right translation is of paramount importance.

 

Considering that the bill itself only proposes a hypothetical class, I fail to see a problem. In addition, you seem to be admitting that the problem isn't with the law, but with the demographics of the state. Tell me, would you also consider it racism if all the hospitals in the state averaged only 7.5% black doctors? Because that's a reflection of the demographic of the state, too.

What the hell are you talking about? Even if this passes, I'd be shocked if there were more than 3 such classes that actually formed in the entire state, and they don't need to be experts in Hebrew scriptures. They need to be experts in literary and cultural history. They need to be able to point out where things like A.D. and "carry your cross" came from, not sing the Psalms according to their original (and lost) meladies. I swear, you're making less and less sense in this thread.

 

First, what part in the Kentucky constitution formulation about, I paraphrase, majorities giving preference to religion or whatnot, by law or practice, is it that you don't understand? The very point of that clause is to prevent imposition of preference, overt or covert, by the state and its organs and the majorities they represent. When majorities wanted to force Jehova's witnesses to speak the pledge of allegiance that was eventually understood to be unconstitutional - majorities be damned.

Second, you wouldn't recognise a joke when you ran into it nose first. I said, obliquely, by way of sarcasm, that this bill is very probably about religion classes with a literature spin put on it, and that the re-framing as 'literature classes' - after all the Bible is a really influential book (haw-haw) - can't really dispel that notion (that you prefer to deny).

I concede that it is theoretically possible that you could be right and that this indeed has nothing whatsoever to do with religion, but I also gather that it is improbable.

Religious conservatives long wanted to get religious studies back on the curriculum, and have consistently failed because of the constitutional implications. And now there is such a bill that offers Bible-as-literature classes instead?

I expect the lawmakers to reflect to an extent the views of their constituents, and they appear to be pronounced enough to make that museum economically feasible. The Creation Museum and its location (probably chosen to cater to a local audience within reasonable driving distance) give a glimpse on what they are likely like. And even when we assume that there is a majority of Kentuckyians in favour of religious classes, or Bible-as-literature classes - they would still engage in (probably unconstitutional) religious favouritism by promoting their preferences through law or policy.

 

What about making a class that examine religious texts from a literary standpoint. You can break the year down into parts and have part for the Bible, one for the Torah, one for the Koran, etc. In fact, given the similarities of the texts in the Old Testament, Torah, and Koran, you can even discuss differences in interpretation between the books.

 

Aldeth,
that would be interesting indeed, but oddly, there appears to be neither a majority nor a legislative interest for such a law in Kentucky. Naturally, that's simply and solely because only the Holy Bible is an eminently influential book, much unlike the Torah or the Koran.

 

Yes, BUT with the decidedly evangelical narrative. You do realize that we have been in the last days for the last 258 years? Right?

 

Why stop there? What are the biggest religions in the world? Are not Hinduism and Buddhism large as well? I would think that we have more Asians in the US than Muslims.

 

The part where no actual preference is given. This bill doesn't actually benefit any religious group in any way other than just starting a conversation, and it does that almost as well for any religious group of any kind.

Again the critical difference is force. There, someone was trying to force someone else to do something. Here, no one is forcing anyone to do anything.

If you honestly don't think the Bible has been an influential text in Western culture, then you're blind, deaf, and dumb to that culture. On top of that, the bill specifically states exactly that. So, no, I didn't take it as a joke or sarcasm. Joke failed.

Because of your biasses. And, I'l readily admit, because of my biasses, I'm more than willing to give people the benefit of the doubt (with the certainty that the ACLU and the like will step in if anything goes too far). The unbiassed reality of the bill, though, is that it presents this as a literary study class, not a religion or history class.

You do realize, don't you, that this isn't the first time a class like this has been held? Classes like this are regularly held in many school districts throughout the 50 states. Many have been challenged on constitutional grounds, as well, and courts have upheld the school's right to teach these classes so long as it is a literary and cultural study, not religious indoctrination.

And again, Ragusa, you are ignoring the actual facts. The reality of the bill is that it allows solely Torah-based classes as well. There's nothing on the Koran, of course, but the Koran's influence on western culture isn't nearly as large yet. It's nothing compared to the Ten Commandments, the stories of Noah, or Moses, or Sodom and Gomorah, or any of a slew of other things in the Torah or Old and New Testament in terms of cultural impact in the US.

This would be good for a Religions of the World class (which have also been done before), and there's usually (very brief) coverage of all of these in World History classes, but this bill is about a literature and culture class.

 

NOG,
all I see is a bunch of yahoos who have never gotten over the fact that they can't have obligatory bible classes (and obligatory school prayer) any more, so they want the next best thing - which is to have elective bible-as-literature classes instead. Which says 'circumvention' and 'in name only' so clearly that I can hear it from across the Atlantic.

It is worth keeping in mind that bible-as-literature classes are very probably a preliminary step, until they get enough like minded folks on the state and federal supreme courts to overturn the relevant precedents and have real obligatory bible classes again. To get the idea, just look at what happened in Iowa when the state supreme court judges dared to rule that same sex marriage was legal - the local yahoo's there voted three of them out, re-stacking the court as a first step to repeal that ruling.

I see that the supposed moderation in the Kentucky bill, the fact that the course is elective, is simply the result of limits imposed by the (currently) legally doable. It is likely not what they really want - have their obligatory bible classes back.

You miss the big picture and overlook that these bills are activist bills proposed by activists who are part of a diverse and decentralised grass roots movement. You just had to listen to the last election cycle and the prevalence of the meme asserting that 'America is a Christian Nation'. They are intent on rolling back secular humanism's baneful influence on American society. Their agenda goes beyond the scope of single bills (as underlined by the the multitude of such bills [on issues like: bible lessons, creationism, abortion, gay marriage etc pp] nationwide in the US). The Kentucky bill is not an isolated example for bills that just happen to be popular in Kentucky.

 

No doubt - and my previous post was not meant ot imply that you could only use those three. They were just given as examples. I even put "etc." after the list to show I was open to more options as well.

Here's the thing: In Kentucky I don't there'd be enough student interest to offer a class the was strictly based on, for example, Hinduism. But perhaps one that examined religious texts across religions would get enough interest.

 

Aldeth,
yes, of course.

My sole point was that, if the location of the Creation Museum is any indication, in Kentucky there are probably a lot of god fearing Christian folk, who may find the class 'bible-as-literature' just brilliant (and who might even prefer traditional bible lessons).

Be that as it may, despite presumable majority support for that, limiting the class to Hebrew scripture as literature probably still means giving preference for Christianity over other religions.

That 'bible-as-literature' is just the second best thing that'll have to do (for now) instead of traditional bible lessons is relevant since it concerns the motives for legislating - after all - bills don't fall from the sky and legislators have intentions and pursue goals, and they do rarely write them into their bills. One has to consider such bills in the broader context.

 

I know. Which is why I think you need to take off your glasses. They have pictures painted on them.

Yes, because this has happened with all the other bible-in-schools classes that have been taught throughout the US in the last few decades, right?