Schools to offer Bible courses

[BlackAndBlueEyes]

Here's the article. (http://www.dentonrc.com/sharedcontent/dws/drc/localnews/stories/DRC_bible_courses.f088d091.html?npc)

Now.

Two part question.

Question 1 - Do you feel that this is okay? If you're going to answer this one, make sure you read and understand the entire article. I got blasted, flamed, and pariahed on the forum where I found this article because I said that I wouldn't mind the class being in school--so long as it remained objective in its.... ah, I'll voice my opinions soon enough. I want to hear yours.

Question 2 - This stems from said flaming and trolling on other (read: mostly atheist) forum. Why are people so friggin' afraid of religion?

Let's keep this discussion civil, kthnxbai.

[Godhand]

Mostly because it's inherently worthless and the funding could be better spent on science classes.

[Call me J]

As long as its an elective and there is an interest in it among the students, I don't care. I would never take such a class, nor do I think it is the most productive way a high schooler could spend their career unless they want to become an ancient historian/religious studies major in college, but far be it from me to tell other people what to do with their electives.

[Visla Eraclaire]

1) It's perfectly fine if they do everything they say they're doing and actually teach it in the proposed manner. Though one questions if (though they aren't required to) they're teaching historical perspectives on any other religious texts. I would bet not.

The last paragraph is troubling. "Required curriculum" meaning a school must have it or a student must take it? Either way, not particularly appealing. Teach children science and how to reason well, instead. It's far more useful than biblical trivia.

2) History gives people sufficient reason to fear majoritarian religion, insofar as they are not members thereof (and in some cases even if they are). In short, the philosophy of most religions is faithful (i.e. not thoughtful, but impulsive or irrational) obedience. Any belief, held strongly enough and without consideration or moderation from reason, can be dangerous.

[Christoph]

I think it's fine. As has been pointed out already, it's an elective. Nobody has to take it. And besides, it's certainly got some value whether you like religion or not. Religion is a very large factor in the evolution of human culture, and understanding it can help you understand culture. So yeah, it's all good.

[Auryon]

1) I think it's perfectly fine if they want to teach this class, since, in my understanding, this class will not be required for students to take. Plus since the outlook on the subject will be neutral I see no conflict with the law. The Bible has influenced the world over the centuries, and its effects are not lightly noticeable, so I see the historical foundation/excuse for people to study the bible.

2) Meh, I had written this long-ass paragraph with my answer but I think it all summed-up to this: People are afraid of being controlled.
People do not like the idea of following a set of rules that to them may seem illogical. When they find themselves raised under the name of a religion they might feel as if their liberties where being deprived, plus, nobody likes being forced (by religious law) to wake up early and attend mass on Sundays. Not to mention the constant condemning of acts you might enjoy doing, like eating and sex. Aside from true religious who enjoy their faith, people just feel that their liberties are being threatened by large "fanatic" organizations.

[Serilliant]

The notion of it being "neutral" and from a "literary standpoint" I believe is a bunch of nonsense designed to get around the constitutional hurtles. A course in the literature of a single religion without similar courses in the literature of others screams to me religious favoritism. The fact that it's Texas puts more fuel on my fire of suspicion.

This type of class is appropriate for college students, but not for high school students. I feel uncomfortable making a final judgement without first seeing the course's syllabus or without speaking with the instructors, but I highly, highly doubt that everything is/will remain on the up-and-up.

[Empyrean]

It's fine, as long as students are actually interested in taking it and as long as it remains an elective. You know, offer it, but don't force it.

Though honestly, I don't see what the big harm is in a class on it or two. It's an integral part of any culture, whether you like it or not, and learning about it could be constructive in ways most people wouldn't think it would.

I went to a Catholic high school, so religion classes were part of the curriculum. But you got to chose which ones you took after you became an upperclassman, so I picked World Religions and learned quite a bit from it. None of the classes I ever took pushed anything on anyone, they simply informed you. "Here, there's this religion, this is what the people who follow it believe and this is how they make it part of their lives." They recognized that the people taking the classes all believed different things, so they didn't want to force anything on anyone.

As long as they keep that in mind, it's fine.

[Shell]

Come on people, an Elective for teaching the bible? they already have that, It is called sunday school. It is taught at church and should stay at church. This is not ok in my opinion. By putting it in actual School you have suddenly made a new way for people to force a religion on their kids. forcing any kind of belief on your kids is not ok.

I am appalled that this is even happening and yet not surprised in the least. I am not afraid of religion myself, per se, but what I am afraid of are those people who have nothing better to do than preach their religion onto other people. They all should be taken into a backyard and... (Dang it, why do I have to be civil. this is one of the few points I can't be very civil on. Mainly because I know too many people who I liked until they tried to push religion onto me.)

[Serilliant]

It's an integral part of any culture

Really? The bible is an integral part of any culture? You sure about that one?

[A Nony Mouse]

Really? The bible is an integral part of any culture? You sure about that one?

I would argue that yes it is.

[Godhand]

How exactly would you argue that?

[Breaker]

Really? The bible is an integral part of any culture? You sure about that one?

I went with the assumption that she meant religion is an integral part of any culture, which is debatable in itself, but the bible is an integral part of north american culture, which is the culture that this discussion is about, no?

[A Nony Mouse]

How exactly would you argue that?

The Bible is an integral part of Christianity.

Christianity has formed much of the world's history, culture, etc. since it began. The early church had nearly the same power as any empire of the time and how many wars were fought in the name of a Divine Creator? The Crusades shaped a large portion of Medieval times, the Inquisition had a significant impact, the Salem Witch Trials; all of these stem from Christianity and zealots who enforce it. The Bible (held as the law to which these zealots look) could easily be seen as a large reason why these things happened. Although, people's interpretation of the Bible would be a more accurate culprit.

Then, nearly any other culture has been affected by this Christian culture in some way: either attacked by it, subjugated by it, proselytized by it, whatever. America was founded on ideas formed from Christian ideals and it's a major world leader today. Maybe if America were founded on Buddhist ideals the world would be a better place.

Regardless, the advent of Christianity began a history of violence that cannot be refuted. Seeing as how the Bible is at the center of this religion, I would hold it as one of the most integral pieces of any culture since 0 AD.

Granted, pre-history cultures weren't very much influenced by the Bible since it didn't exist, so I'll give you those :)

[Empyrean]

Really? The bible is an integral part of any culture? You sure about that one?

I meant religion itself, not the Bible in particular. I'm sorry if that came out weird.

EDIT: A Nony Mouse makes a good point, too - that North America was founded on, in part, Christian ideals. I think it's a bit much to be so afraid of religion in schools, particularly if it's only being OFFERED as an elective. That's not exactly pushing it in anyone's face. People can choose to take it if they like. Maybe they don't have a church to go to or another alternative to learn about their own, or anyone's, religion.

EDIT 2: I forgot about mentioning this, I know someone else did. If it seems that they're playing favorites by only offering a course that instructs about Christianity, maybe the availability of professors to teach other religion classes is limited. If enough people want something different, it might be good for them to possibly go about adding another religious elective for a different kind of religion.

[The Writing Writer]

Come on people, an Elective for teaching the bible? they already have that, It is called sunday school. It is taught at church and should stay at church. This is not ok in my opinion. By putting it in actual School you have suddenly made a new way for people to force a religion on their kids. forcing any kind of belief on your kids is not ok.

I am appalled that this is even happening and yet not surprised in the least. I am not afraid of religion myself, per se, but what I am afraid of are those people who have nothing better to do than preach their religion onto other people. They all should be taken into a backyard and... (Dang it, why do I have to be civil. this is one of the few points I can't be very civil on. Mainly because I know too many people who I liked until they tried to push religion onto me.)


They aren't teaching the Bible. They aren't walking around campus waving it through the air screaming " REPENT SINNERS! THE HOUR OF OUR LORD IS AT HAND! " They are studying the Bible itself, not preaching Christianity. From what I gathered, they want to study the literature of the Bible and understand what about it's story is so influencial. People are plenty capable of studying a piece of literature without becoming emersed in it's story. Nobody's forcing anything on anyone.

As far as it being limited to Christianity, my guess is that, given the area in which the class is being offered, this particular subject was the most widly accepted. I expect that based on the success of the coarse being offered, other similar classes are likely to be offered in the future. I.e. The study of the Qur’an.

[A Nony Mouse]

EDIT 2: I forgot about mentioning this, I know someone else did. If it seems that they're playing favorites by only offering a course that instructs about Christianity, maybe the availability of professors to teach other religion classes is limited. If enough people want something different, it might be good for them to possibly go about adding another religious elective for a different kind of religion.

Yeah, you have this same bias with language classes. How many of your high schools offered Japanese classes? Or Russian classes?

[The Writing Writer]

Yeah, you have this same bias with language classes. How many of your high schools offered Japanese classes? Or Russian classes?

An excellent point. We are mostly offered Spanish and French. If you ever wondered why, just take a look at our two neighboring countries.

[Empyrean]

Yeah, you have this same bias with language classes. How many of your high schools offered Japanese classes? Or Russian classes?

My high school offered German, French, Spanish, and Japanese.

Unfortunately, it costs a surprising amount of money to add classes to a high school curriculum. I would love to learn Russian, but for the school there has to be adequate funding for the class, someone qualified to teach it, and students who want to learn it. If there is at least two of those present, the high school should definitely be on their way to making it happen.

Actually, I'm seeing more and more high schools offer diverse classes to their students - Japanese and Russian included. If what I'm seeing is correct, then there'll be less of a bias when it comes to electives offered. I always thought it would be cool if there were more classes like the ones offered at the college I attend - stuff like cultural anthropologies and stuff that combines psychology, religion, and culture into one, or several, diverse classes.

But then, I digress.

[Zook Murnig]

I, as well, find it suspect that this is happening in Texas. Hell, it's right there in the Bible Belt of it, too. It might start out as a study of the piece of literature that is the Bible, but give it a few years. It may or may not turn into a way to push Christianity in schools. I'd like to see the course take a broader stroke than just the Bible, and cover two whole semesters of excerpts from various religious texts, if they're so keen on making it part of the curriculum. The Old and New Testaments, the Quran, the Vedas, the Mahayana Sutras, the Torah vs. the Christian Old Testament, the Kitáb-i-Aqdas, and other scriptures.

But really, they'll do it either way.

As for why people are scared of religion, it's not so much that they're scared of religion itself. After all, it's the fanatics that do the damage. I know it was just a movie, but I fully think that we need to listen to the words of Rufus the Thirteenth Apostle in Dogma. Don't just blindly believe something. Have an idea. Ideas can be changed.

[Nymph and Dragon]

Considering the teacher is a history teacher, I'm curious as well to see what the curriculum entails. The Bible has a habit of not making much sense when it isn't properly read, and it's pretty nonsensical that a class would proclaim studying the Bible if it were just going to study the historical circumstances surrounding the Bible. You can't study a religion's text's without having some grasp of its purpose, which I'm sure people are already misconstruing as blatant evangelizing. The whole Bible is centered on the message of redemption through Jesus, so if they're going to try to rip it apart to just use the kosher bits that don't offend any of the atheists then it'll be a pretty worthless class because it won't give a holistic view of the Bible.

[Visla Eraclaire]

The whole Bible is centered on the message of redemption through Jesus, so if they're going to try to rip it apart to just use the kosher bits that don't offend any of the atheists then it'll be a pretty worthless class because it won't give a holistic view of the Bible.

Yeah, the whole Bible except that whole Old Testament thing (amusingly the "kosher bits," in fact). Man, forget that garbage. </sarcasm> I suppose in a supremely arrogant way you could say it all leads up to Jesus, but that would be a real stretch, considering the wildly different tones and purposes of the two books, which should really be considered separately.

I really don't think that teaching the Bible as a piece of historical literature does it a disservice. It's probably more cogent in that form than as a guide to living.

Also noteworthy, teaching it historically rather than religiously is a little bit more important than not "offending atheists", it's being constitutional. I think people other than atheists value the establishment clause.

I'm going to get out of this topic before I cross any lines...

[A Nony Mouse]

As for why people are scared of religion, it's not so much that they're scared of religion itself. After all, it's the fanatics that do the damage. I know it was just a movie, but I fully think that we need to listen to the words of Rufus the Thirteenth Apostle in Dogma. Don't just blindly believe something. Have an idea. Ideas can be changed.

QFT

[Crystal Suncrest]

They aren't teaching the Bible. They aren't walking around campus waving it through the air screaming " REPENT SINNERS! THE HOUR OF OUR LORD IS AT HAND! " They are studying the Bible itself, not preaching Christianity. From what I gathered, they want to study the literature of the Bible and understand what about it's story is so influencial. People are plenty capable of studying a piece of literature without becoming emersed in it's story. Nobody's forcing anything on anyone.

I would answer this, but Zook did already. Let's take a quick look:


It might start out as a study of the piece of literature that is the Bible, but give it a few years. It may or may not turn into a way to push Christianity in schools.

My point exactly. This is the ultimate truth. While at first the will study the literature of the bible, I suspect it will soon turn into studying the bible itself, then studying christianity.

In fact, I see no way to study the literature without studying the other two. homework assignments might include reading portions of the bible and trying to figure out what was meant in said passage. That in itself is pushing christianity.

[Visla Eraclaire]

Can't resist... religion-related... thread

As much as I am against the idea, I have to disagree that being assigned to interpret a biblical passage would be indoctrination. Being told that there is a correct answer to that assignment would be indoctrination. The question alone is a legitimate route of intellectual inquiry.

[A Nony Mouse]

In fact, I see no way to study the literature without studying the other two. homework assignments might include reading portions of the bible and trying to figure out what was meant in said passage. That in itself is pushing christianity.

I had a Bible class last year in college and we studied the historical impact of the Bible, the various interactions between different books of the Bible, and even the language used and what that meant. Never did we interpret the Bible as a homework assignment.

I believe that these classes typically could encourage intellectual thought, stimulating discussion, and improved reading comprehension. However, I do agree that there are those who would take it too far. With the right faculty, this could be a great thing to introduce in high schools.

[Visla Eraclaire]

I think the problem is that, from what I read, it's being implemented system-wide. Not everyone school is going to have the sort of person that makes this class worthwhile and appropriate. I would go so far as to say most won't.

With all the conditions ideal, this course would be an enlightening experience. Conditions are never that ideal. Especially not in Texas.

[A Nony Mouse]

Especially not in Texas.

Endgame.

[Gem]

As much as I am against the idea, I have to disagree that being assigned to interpret a biblical passage would be indoctrination. Being told that there is a correct answer to that assignment would be indoctrination. The question alone is a legitimate route of intellectual inquiry.


But you are still asked to read a religious book, right?

[A Nony Mouse]

But you are still asked to read a religious book, right?

Si. Which in and of itself is not a horrible thing ;)

[Visla Eraclaire]

I've read a lot of religious books over the course of my education. Just because you read something doesn't mean you're being indoctrinated or forced to believe or any other unconstitutional aim. Unless you completely lack intellectual fortitude, you can absorb something as literature without believing it as the (ahem) Gospel Truth.

Personally, I'd see it as no different from reading Greek Myth. The Bible is just Judeo-Christian Myth. The fact that modern living people live by it shouldn't change the text itself and prevent it from being read objectively, or even subjectively but without bias from the instructor as to the subjective conclusion.

[Gem]

you have a good point, but you don't study the history of a myth as in depth as how I imagine they would study the history of the bible. Also, let's look at it from the opposite angle. looking at a religious book and labeling certain parts of it as fiction would be equally as bad.

[Visla Eraclaire]

Oh, the myth label is solely on my end. I don't presume that instructors would teach things that way.

I think most of this discussion and the problem of phrasing things in a way such that they are unbiased just shows that the whole thing is a bad idea. It's fine for college where there's more flexibility in teaching style, more competence on both sides of the lectern, and so forth. High school kids should get the basics down. If they're intellectual enough to enjoy this sort of material, they'll end up going to college anyway.

Our public school systems have enough trouble keeping up with all the dictates of All Sense Left Behind, without creating their own problems.

[A Nony Mouse]

Our public school systems have enough trouble keeping up with all the dictates of All Sense Left Behind, without creating their own problems.

Amen.

On another note, one could study the Greek Mythology as in-depth as one could study the Bible. I also had a course on this. :D

[Visla Eraclaire]

As did I. I actually got my only C in college in it. The crazy man teaching us actually expected to memorize the family trees of pretty much everyone. I understand that we need to know if someone is the son or nephew of Zeus. But we were supposed to know Jimiciles, Heracles' third cousin, who was notable for nothing save that relation.

[Nymph and Dragon]

I suppose in a supremely arrogant way you could say it all leads up to Jesus, but that would be a real stretch, considering the wildly different tones and purposes of the two books, which should really be considered separately.



Considering you lack of explanation for calling the Jesus connection "a real stretch", I was a little curious about your seemingly confident response, but you explained yourself clearly in a later post when you said:


I've read a lot of religious books over the course of my education. Just because you read something doesn't mean you're being indoctrinated or forced to believe or any other unconstitutional aim. Unless you completely lack intellectual fortitude, you can absorb something as literature without believing it as the (ahem) Gospel Truth.

Personally, I'd see it as no different from reading Greek Myth. The Bible is just Judeo-Christian Myth.

See, the problem is that you don't know what you're talking about. "Wildly different tones and purposes"? Can you cite that, or is that one of your own deductions? Having taken classes with professors who have PhDs in Biblical studies, I really would like to know how you think the OT does not lead up to Christ. You could ramble ignorantly about how Jews use the Scripture as their religion's holy book as well, but even then you'd be contradicting yourself because a huge-- if not the biggest-- part of Judaism is the expectation for a long-awaited Messiah, a king who will come and free the faithful from the oppression of the rest of the world. There's a lot of themes and subtle parallels that would probably go over your head, so I won't go into it, but this prediction of a Christ is what makes up the Old Testament. The New Testament then goes on to show how Jesus is the fulfillment of those prophecies, the long-awaited Messiah who came to free the descendants of the people in the OT. Where on earth do you get the idea that the Old and New Testaments should be viewed separately?

You can call the Bible a myth if you don't know any better, but if you're basing your views on hearsay and uneducated derision, don't go around pompously acting as if you have the right to make authoritative declarations about it.

[Saxon]

Nymph, what you've just said is a great example why we as a nation try to seperate church from state. I mean, we could all go about and say that we can look at the bible rationally and take courses to study it for better understanding, but even when you're having an educational debate on whether or not certain things in the bible hold more weight than other things, people get offended. Religion isn't a science nor a course that should be handed over to the public care-free, people die over things like this. Religion runs deep in our culture, and as much as some of us want to have a better understanding of it, it has no place in a public school when it can literally become a powder keg.

Trying to subvert the constitution to push your religion onto people regardless of your beliefs or the form of language you use is wrong, whether you make it voluntary or not. Show me a person that can look at religion without any bias and I'll ask you to consider how many thousands more of those kinds of people you need to teach that kind of course. Also, I'd argue that if you were to offer teaching the Bible in high school, you have to include every other religion as an option from Hinduism to Islam, and that includes the off-shoot religions like Wicca and Satanism. It'd just be a domino effect that leads to a clusterfuck that in the end will benefit nobody.

Also, regardless of whether you're personally offended by it or not, the truth of the bible is based on perspective. Therefore, in some eyes it is considered a mythology.

[Visla Eraclaire]

The New Testament then goes on to show how Jesus is the fulfillment of those prophecies, the long-awaited Messiah who came to free the descendants of the people in the OT. Where on earth do you get the idea that the Old and New Testaments should be viewed separately?

You can call the Bible a myth if you don't know any better, but if you're basing your views on hearsay and uneducated derision, don't go around pompously acting as if you have the right to make authoritative declarations about it.

I have the right to make decisions about my own beliefs. You have a right to make decisions about yours. The only pompus thing here is you presuming I'm uneducated because I disagree with you.

I'm not going to waste my time citing things. No amount of citation would help me demonstrate my point to someone with an attitude like yours. Notwithstanding the point that proving something to you that I already know gains me nothing. Unlike many belief systems, mine doesn't require me to convince anyone else of its truth.

As a closing point, would you like to tell all the Jews of the world that you don't know where they get the idea to view the two books separately? I'm sure they'd find that adorable.

Another perfect demonstration of why this doesn't belong in highschool, as Saxon says.

[The Prophet]

I went to a Christian school, and had four seperate professors throughout my career there that had PhDs in religious fields. THE CLASSES WERE A WASTE OF TIME. My school was considered one of the best religious institutions in the state, and the Bible classes were STILL a giant waste of time. Half the students were only in the class to satisfy graduation requirements, and the other half already knew all the information that was being taught from their time in Sunday School/Church.

It is important, in my eyes, to have at least a basic knowledge of the three books that most influenced human history - the Tanakh (Old Testament), the New Testament, and the Koran - but I believe this study should not take place in public high schools. The students are immature, the teachers are frequently biased. No matter the bias of the teacher (for or against Christianity) there will always be students to challenge what they say much like Nymph challenged Visla. There were plenty of disagreements in my college-level philosophy course - I shudder to think what would happen in highschool-level religious courses in public schools.

I guarantee the class would spend half (or more) of it's time arguing about what is or isn't true. All it takes is one smartass comment from a student to completely ruin the class period. Examples: 'Why is it important to study Christian mythology?' 'If you don't believe in Jesus, you're going to hell.'

Both were actual comments I heard in my Bible course, and both ignited some of the most retarded debates I've ever heard in my life.

[Nymph and Dragon]

You're right, Saxon, in that religion is an issue linked to people's personal beliefs and is therefore more involving than more superficial topics, but I don't see why that has to be a bad thing. What's wrong with a little emotional involvement in academic pursuits? In religion, as in most important topics, people are going to come with preconceived biases, but as I think you said, there really is no way to approach religion unbiased. If you were Muslim, would you trust an American to teach a class on the Koran after all the anti-Islam brouhaha since 9/11? Maybe not, but such classes are still being taught, and the best that we can hope for is that the knowledge imparted through the class does more good than the harm of a negative bias. If kids care enough to take the class, maybe they ought to consider talking to people who view the Bible from an opposing slant. If not, then like many of the classes that I have been in and only done the minimum workload requirement, it will be a waste of time. As Billy Blanks likes to say, "You have to give some to get some.":D

I don't expect everyone to agree with my religious beliefs, but I would wish that when attempting to have a conversation about a scholar-worthy subject the participants make an effort to engage on a scholarly level. No, I don't expect that in a high school classroom, having argued such topics therein, but even when the questioner seems more interested in getting a reaction than actually finding out about the religion, I think it's good to be challenged in one's beliefs and to test the mettle of what we put our faith in. You'll get stupid conversations in any class with debatable theories; but one can still learn when surrounded by morons. What bothers me is that since religious questions aren't universally considered academically justifiable, people feel as if they can make assertions and statements that they picked up on the street or that they base on stereotypes and misconceptions that get subconsciously absorbed into their personal theology and then act as a foundation for groundless, un-researched arguments. I think this class is a great idea for helping to get rid of those, even with the downside of a biased teacher.

But that's why I wanted citation, Visla, because I'm tired of hearing the same stereotypical arguments that people pick up on Atheist chatbaords adn then adopt as personal truth. And by default of being a "Bible" class and not an "Old Testament" class, the designers imply the connection between the Old and New Testament. If they were offering an OT class alone then I would be happy to acknowledge that the class was being taught from a more Jewish than Christian angle and accept such claims, but given that the context of our discussion is a class on the entire Bible, it doesn't make sense for you to claim that the two don't relate when they clearly do.

[Zook Murnig]

And by default of being a "Bible" class and not an "Old Testament" class, the designers imply the connection between the Old and New Testament.

It actually says in the article that the first semester is a whole course on the Old Testament, and the second semester has a separate course for the New Testament.

[He'll Scream]

It actually says in the article that the first semester is a whole course on the Old Testament, and the second semester has a separate course for the New Testament.


Pwn.

[Tshael]

As long as it's an elective, I don't think it's a problem. Yeah, it could be a way to get kids who express an interest in studying religion to actually conform to Christianity, but I think that older teenagers have the right to choose their own beliefs. When I was 16/17, I was gearing up for a life in the ministry. I've been ordained. And for all my blind faith, I'm not ruined. It's only made me more secure in my paganism now. Yeah, teenagers might not be fully mature (though, really, Justice, I don't know where you get off gently implying that public high school students lack maturity to study the Bible, when let's face it.... people in glass houses and all that.) but mature or not, everyone deserves to have the chance to make their own decisions. No, it's not fair that there's going to be a course that studies the Bible when we all know that they aren't going to have ones focusing on the Koran, the Torah, any number of Buddhist and Hindu writings, or the mythology around paganisms or all the old Egyptian gods and goddesses. But life isn't fair, and sometimes you have to pick between options that aren't fully spread out for your wants and needs.

[Saxon]

But life isn't fair, and sometimes you have to pick between options that aren't fully spread out for your wants and needs.

True, life isn't fair, but on the same token, religion isn't a fundamental need. Sure, some might argue that it betters society and it has a lot of weight on our morals and philosophies, but that isn't a need. If a public school decides that they want to start teaching religion, even the history of it, they need to be aware that they'll have to open the door to all religions for study. Sure, life isn't fair, but when it comes to a subject like this it should and must be represented fairly and equally or it shouldn't be represented in schools at all.

Also, if a person is curious about religion and decides to take it upon him or herself to learn about an area that interests them, then it should be up to them to read the books, study and learn it themselves to decide for themselves what they think is right rather than have somebody spoon feed it to them.

[Crystal Suncrest]

Nymph, what you've just said is a great example why we as a nation try to seperate church from state.

I would argue we don't try hard enough. look at our currency for example. Does "In God we trust" ring any bells?


As long as it's an elective, I don't think it's a problem.

Oh, really? In my experience it is the parents, not the kids who choose the classes for the most part. I don't care if it IS an elective, It gives parents another way to push religion onto thier kids.

[A Nony Mouse]

If a public school decides that they want to start teaching religion, even the history of it, they need to be aware that they'll have to open the door to all religions for study.

Why is that again? I think I missed the part where we decided that.
I'm just gonna jump back to the language example again:
Who had every language available as a class in high school? Mandarin, Russian, Swahili, etc.
I don't see why a school should have to offer more than one religion class. That being said, I'd like to see them offer a study of the Koran and the Torah at the very least.

C'mon, let's be realistic; if there isn't enough interest in a class, the district isn't going to bother to implement it. They can just ignore the three students asking for a particular subject.

And:

Oh, really? In my experience it is the parents, not the kids who choose the classes for the most part. I don't care if it IS an elective, It gives parents another way to push religion onto thier kids.

I picked my classes... not my parents. Just sayin'

[Tshael]

Oh, really? In my experience it is the parents, not the kids who choose the classes for the most part. I don't care if it IS an elective, It gives parents another way to push religion onto thier kids.

In most American high schools, the students themselves choose their classes. In any event, if a parent does choose a Bible class elective for their kid, chances are the child is getting more than enough Christian propaganda at home that a class won't be anything more than what they're already used to hearing.

[Zook Murnig]

On that note, I feel it's necessary to bring up my example. I spent about five years of my childhood in a church-run Christian daycare. We had prayer before every meal and snack, and bible study curriculum during the summer months. That's in addition to vacation bible school.

As some of you know, I'm not exactly the "model Christian," though I consider myself to be a pretty good one most of the time. A lot of stuff was pushed at that daycare, including propaganda against gays and, now that I think of it, a subliminal military structure. But I made my own decisions, and despite the gay-hate preached there, I have several gay and bisexual friends who I wouldn't change for the world. Despite the witch-hating and heathen-hating taught, I study and practice Qabalah, and am dating the pagan above.

And all that stuff was during some of my more formative years. Not late teens, when we tend to be set in our stances already. No matter what is pushed, kids will make their own decisions.

[A Nony Mouse]

am dating the pagan above.

Off topic, I know, but I love this line.

Continue.

[Crystal Suncrest]

In most American high schools, the students themselves choose their classes. In any event, if a parent does choose a Bible class elective for their kid, chances are the child is getting more than enough Christian propaganda at home that a class won't be anything more than what they're already used to hearing.

Point taken

[Serilliant]

I'm just gonna jump back to the language example again:
Who had every language available as a class in high school? Mandarin, Russian, Swahili, etc.
I don't see why a school should have to offer more than one religion class.

The difference, of course, being that while high schools do not offer all languages, they do offer more than one. Offering a single religion-based class on the Bible suggests favoritism, while offering classes on only, say, four foreign languages suggests only budget constraints.

Further, speaking broadly, the topic of foreign language is much more deeply ingrained into high school academics and is part of the Fundamental Six(tm): English, History, Mathematics, Science, Foreign Language, PE. Religious studies are already available through other sources (see also: Church) and are unnecessary in public high schools.

And before you suggest that this course is 'History' or is 'Literature', keep in mind that these types of courses in high school never focus on only a single work. In History classes, history is viewed through the lens of many different primary and secondary sources. In 'Bible class', history is viewed through just one. Further, in English classes, students read a variety of texts. Could you imagine spending an entire school year on 1984?

The problem is that religion is too charged a topic for high schools. Either the administrators are lying about trying to to teach it from a purely historical or literacy perspective, or they're failing to understand that the nature of such a class is going to devolve either into endless "Christians are whacky" debates or into inappropriate teacher-led sermons. Either way, the purpose is subverted. (Unless, of course, the purpose is such teacher-led sermons as I suspect).

My fundamental point is that: yes, religious studies are fascinating, but inappropriate for the maturity level of teenagers, irrelevant to high school studies, and questionable from Texas school administrators.

[A Nony Mouse]

My fundamental point is that: yes, religious studies are fascinating, but inappropriate for the maturity level of teenagers, irrelevant to high school studies, and questionable from Texas school administrators.

As good a closing point as any... I concede.

[Nymph and Dragon]

It actually says in the article that the first semester is a whole course on the Old Testament, and the second semester has a separate course for the New Testament.

As did the Old Testament and New Testament classes that I took at my Christian college. That doesn't mean that they're taught as two entirely separate entitites; the bulk of my NT class was spent showing how half of the passages tied in directly to OT ones because many don't make sense outside of that context. And, to be honest, I never once read anything in the NT during the OT class because everything in it was prepping us for what we would learn in NT. Don't get me wrong, it's definitely a complicated and meaningful book on its own, but the story of the OT is unfinished and doesn't get concluded until the NT. It's pretty sweet literature, even if you don't believe it.

And, Zook, I am almost personally sorry for the fact that you can remember hate-filled propoganda from your church-run daycare. It's sad that the church has become a symbol of exclusion and hatred when it was never intended to be so cultish.

On that note, if my school offered a course studying the Koran, I would love to take it so that I could get a more realistic portayal of Islam rather than the terrorist-focused slant that America chooses. I've heard people say that the Koran is actually a peace-promoting book that has very few passages telling Muslims to kill all infidels. The Bible has some of those, and if they're taken out of context then they can be just as damaging to a religion's reputation. I wouldn't expect to be converted to Islam through such a class, even if the teacher was a Muslim (which I would prefer, given his insider's insight), but it's so much easier to relate to people when you can see where they're coming from.

[Crystal Suncrest]

I would argue we don't try hard enough. look at our currency for example. Does "In God we trust" ring any bells?

If that wasn't enough of an example, how about the Pledge of Allegiance.

"...One nation, under GOD..."

In fact, dig deep enough into this topic, and you may just find the ultimate reason to NOT put any kind of bible class in school. there was a huge controversy a while ago about having to recite the pledge in schools. Now, it is part of our culture, sure, but the words "Under god" are part of the problem. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_Allegiance_criticism)

if something as small as that causes controversy, well....

'Nuff said.

[Tainted Bushido]

If that wasn't enough of an example, how about the Pledge of Allegiance.

"...One nation, under GOD..."

In fact, dig deep enough into this topic, and you may just find the ultimate reason to NOT put any kind of bible class in school. there was a huge controversy a while ago about having to recite the pledge in schools. Now, it is part of our culture, sure, but the words "Under god" are part of the problem. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_Allegiance_criticism)

if something as small as that causes controversy, well....

'Nuff said.

Look man, I get you want separation of church and state, but you're digging now. Thats not the point of this thread. The point of this thread is to discuss the fact that Texas schools, are holding classes that teach about the bible. Texas is already part of the notorious bible belt which makes it suspect to begin with. As for the whole in god we trust, its hard to change something that has been around since the founding of the country. One nation under god however was an addendum to the pledge which drew out all the controversy back when it happened. No need to beat that dead horse anymore.

You have to remember that this country began with Protestants who wanted to escape religious persecution. This country was founded with Religion at the heart. It wasn't until the country began tearing itself apart that they had to separate the two, because it was getting as ridiculous as England. Some argue we didn't do enough, some argue we did too much. The point is that this class is more of a subtle way of saying Christianity in all its forms is better than other religions.

As Serilliant pointed out, you don't need classes devoted to every religious text, only classes devoted to a couple others, but they aren't doing that. They have ONE class on ONE text.

I'd argue that people at that young an age couldn't look at it intellectually. There will be bible thumpers and agnostics in that room, and its going to turn ugly. This is high school where something as stupid as what you wear can cause fights. They've opened a can of worms, and I can't wait to see how many fights erupt in the school over opinions expressed during those classes.

[Visla Eraclaire]

All my ideas originate on Atheist chatboards. I am a puppet of the vast anti-christian conspiracy.

LOL disregard that, I suck cocks.

[Heart of Zaga]

I'd argue that people at that young an age couldn't look at it intellectually. There will be bible thumpers and agnostics in that room, and its going to turn ugly. This is high school where something as stupid as what you wear can cause fights. They've opened a can of worms, and I can't wait to see how many fights erupt in the school over opinions expressed during those classes.

I don't think that's even a valid claim. Yes it's high school, not kinder garden; of course they can see it intellectually, most of them can with any piece of literature, I don't see how the bible is any different. Anyone who would willingly enroll in these classes would do so because they are interested in the matter, hopefully being competent enough to "understand" the book. I think it has been mentioned enough, this is an optional class and I highly doubt bible thumpers and agnostics will be taking the courses. The purpose of the class is to explore the text, not the religion, people's religious opinions are irrelevant.

[The Barbarian]

Unlike many belief systems, mine doesn't require me to convince anyone else of its truth.



Awesome. If you're a girl, I'd love to bake you a cake or pie.

If you're a guy, I'm buying you a beer.

Serilliant made every point I could ever make (the sly bastard) and so much more. Instead of being raised a "Christian", I was rasied Catholic (see also: Christian.(What? Two names? What?)) and being in that school since kindergarden to 3rd grade really shaped my view on religion. I don't know how they did it during those grade for you Zook, but when I'd ask a question like, "But what about the dinosaurs? The museum has fossils but dinosaurs are never mentioned in the Bible. And how did people come from Adam and Eve? Does that mean their children had incest and we're all related?"

I literally asked those questions from a purely curious view at the tender age of 9. I was promptly sent to the Principal Nun for a "talking".

So to add my own dirty pennies to the pile, I don't think its such a good idea for them to offer it in high schools. Like they said, we have Sunday schools and those assholes you bang on your door at 7 am asking if you found "Jeeezuz" while you scratch your head wondering if the pistol in the draw near the door is loaded. And for you lucky people who get to choose their fates, a lot of kids don't. Just remember that. Suuuuure, we live in America...just someone never told the old Southern States that.

And why people are afraid of religion....eh....the death toll? We're not afraid of Big Macs and Kools yet because they haven't killed as many people...so far. Nor as creatively either. The day I hear someone got an axe in the head because they asked for a Marlbro instead of a Camel is the day I clean my Kimber very thoroughly. Letting a fruity little club tell you how to run your life is the quickest way to killing your neighbors because they pray to a different invisible man than you do.

(Oh and my apologies if I wasn't eloquent enough for you people who might be thinking I wasn't. I prefer to speak as the common man/woman does because you have all already done such a wonderful job of raising the bar of intellecualism, that some of you may tend to forget that the cattle that are herded by a religion might have trouble sounding out the syllables to some of the words you chosen to use.) ;)

[Lavinian Pride]

I don't think that's even a valid claim. Yes it's high school, not kinder garden; of course they can see it intellectually, most of them can with any piece of literature, I don't see how the bible is any different. Anyone who would willingly enroll in these classes would do so because they are interested in the matter, hopefully being competent enough to "understand" the book. I think it has been mentioned enough, this is an optional class and I highly doubt bible thumpers and agnostics will be taking the courses. The purpose of the class is to explore the text, not the religion, people's religious opinions are irrelevant.

When I say agnostics and Zealots will take the course, I mean that literally. People interested in the text, and not the religion will take the course, while people interested in the religion not the course, will take it as well. All it would take is a single comment about how fictitious that the story of the bible is, and the "bible thumping" students would become angry.

Just because these are students taking the course doesn't mean their opinions won't differ. The ones going into it for the fact that its a secular course are going to quite possibly get in trouble for treating it as such to the bible thumping ones. Even in California I have heard stories about kids getting violent when the bible is referred to as a fiction. Don't assume that I'm being pessimistic about it. I'm being real about it. Bible Thumpers will take it to understand their work more and potentially form a closer bond with god. Agnostics will take it to see what the fuss is about in a non-pressured situation.

A mix of Agnostics and Bible Thumpers in such a charged atmosphere will lead to fights. I gaurandamntee it. You can't look at something intellectually when you let emotions get in the mix. I have rarely seen a topic of the Bible not get emotional when its discussed from a secular viewpoint.

[Visla Eraclaire]

I like how some people say that, "Well, they're in high school. They can handle it." And others say, "Well, they're in high school. They're immature."

There might be 1 or 2 exceptions, but I'm going to say group 1 is in highschool and group 2 is populated by adults who realize that high school was a cesspool of idiocy.

[Arsène]

And why people are afraid of religion....eh....the death toll? We're not afraid of Big Macs and Kools yet because they haven't killed as many people...so far. Nor as creatively either. The day I hear someone got an axe in the head because they asked for a Marlbro instead of a Camel is the day I clean my Kimber very thoroughly. Letting a fruity little club tell you how to run your life is the quickest way to killing your neighbors because they pray to a different invisible man than you do. Are you shitting me? Do you not understand that most of the war in religion hasn't been based on fanaticism? Sure, fanaticism was used to whip up support for cannon fodder troops, but power and greed were always the goals. The Crusades used God as a red herring. Perhaps your attention should change from "little clubs" to "the human desire for more."

Also:
*Marlboro


(Oh and my apologies if I wasn't eloquent enough for you people who might be thinking I wasn't. I prefer to speak as the common man/woman does because you have all already done such a wonderful job of raising the bar of intellecualism, that some of you may tend to forget that the cattle that are herded by a religion might have trouble sounding out the syllables to some of the words you chosen to use.) I think it's terribly ignorant of you to assume that everyone under the sway of religion is some sort of mindless and mildly retarded sheep. The fact remains that there is a big difference between having a religion, and following religious Dogma to the letter, even when you feel it is morally unjust.

And, to add a touch of irony:
*Intellectualism


EDIT:

I like how some people say that, "Well, they're in high school. They can handle it." And others say, "Well, they're in high school. They're immature."

There might be 1 or 2 exceptions, but I'm going to say group 1 is in highschool and group 2 is populated by adults who realize that high school was a cesspool of idiocy.

I'm of that school of thought that believes people are never mature enough when it comes to subject of religion. They might as well discuss it in high school so that they can better formulated their ideas later in life; which is, you know, the entire idea of high school.

[Visla Eraclaire]

I think it's terribly ignorant of you to assume that everyone under the sway of religion is some sort of mindless and mildly retarded sheep.

It is ignorant to assume everyone, but it's a fairly good rule of thumb when dealing with people who fervently hold an unverifiable belief on faith alone.

Also:
*Spelling corrections are not a valid method of argument

[Arsène]

Also:
*Spelling corrections are not a valid method of argument They are when Firefox comes with an automatic spell check.


EDIT:
In fact, I'll elaborate on that.

I wasn't using it as a method of argument. I just found some sadistic pleasure in correcting the spelling of someone, humiliating them. I cut my hand in sick pleasure and smeared the blood over my face to smell the bitter iron.

It was delectable.

[Visla Eraclaire]

They are when Firefox comes with an automatic spell check.

You know, you're right. You have just proven he isn't taking advantage of that feature, either because he doesn't have firefox, or doesn't care.

Good show, old sport!

Oh wait, you were arguing about religion and not spelling/grammar. Epic fail.

[Arsène]

Old Sport makes you sound smart. We should listen - no, I'm not going to flame.

Face Palm. Epic Fail Guy, "How I argued on interweb?" Enough /b/?

I'm not going to belittle you. You obviously know your stuff, and I respect you for that. If you don't have respect for me, that's fine. But I'm not going to back down on this.

I don't see the problem with teaching a class in high school about religion. It's not essential in our current education system that focuses purely on math, science, literature, etc. But that doesn't mean it's not a life essential. It's hard to deny the hold Christianity has on the United States. Learning more about Christianity could help those unfamiliar better cope when they do meet the religious, the zealous, the unibomber. Before I met religious people, I always felt superior to them. Hell, I felt they were crazier than those people who think the Force is real. But talking with them has taught me a lesson that it's outright stupid to assume I'm right on this. Who's to say God doesn't exist? Hey, he might really hate us fags! Live and let live, because I want to get along with people as best I can. I may disagree, but I'd like to understand where people are coming from. No one's as one-dimensional as "I love the Jesus and hate the heathens." There's obviously a reason why they feel that way and why they find comfort in that. Maybe they've been taught that the only way they can get into heaven is to feel that way. Maybe their parents taught them this because their parents actually believe it and feared for their child's soul. Who knows?

Obviously it would be nice to have schools offer other types of religious classes. Texas only offering the Old Testament and New Testament isn't just a reflection of Texas, but the country. There is no doubt that people, and often people in power, are dominated by Christianity. There are other religions, but none so influential to the United States as that.

Kids in high school might be too immature to discuss religion. But I'll bet you what comes up in that class will stick with them for the rest of their life, for good or bad.

[Visla Eraclaire]

Old sport makes me sound sarcastic. "Sounding smart" is something I don't try for. Generally, I "sound smart" if you agree with me, and I'm "ignorant" if you don't. How shocking. Also, the "sounding smart" argument is an interesting avenue for someone who corrects spelling, isn't it?


Maybe their parents taught them this because their parents actually believe it and feared for their child's soul. Who knows?

Being hateful and ridiculous "in good faith" isn't really a defense. Just because someone sincerely believes something doesn't make it better. I'm sure many murderers sincerely believe their victims should die. Shall we release them?


Obviously it would be nice to have schools offer other types of religious classes. This is far from obvious. One is problematic enough. While more would generate more equality it would be a gross misappropriation of taxpayer funds.


Kids in high school might be too immature to discuss religion. But I'll bet you what comes up in that class will stick with them for the rest of their life, for good or bad.The purpose of high school is not to create a compelling experience, especially not one that will probably be negative.


I'm of that school of thought that believes people are never mature enough when it comes to subject of religion. They might as well discuss it in high school so that they can better formulated their ideas later in life; which is, you know, the entire idea of high school.

Sounds more like college to me. High school is for minimum competence. Most of the dregs that pass through it will never have to formulate an idea. They'll just parrot, like they would before the course, like they would after.

And to repeat once more for clarification, you backing down would not make a bit of difference to me. The beliefs of other people, especially those who are wrong, do not concern me. Arguing with them is, however, an innate good. Take how you feel about spelling and then replace correction based on memorized fact with actual intellectual exercise.

[The Barbarian]

Are you shitting me? Do you not understand that most of the war in religion hasn't been based on fanaticism? Sure, fanaticism was used to whip up support for cannon fodder troops, but power and greed were always the goals. The Crusades used God as a red herring. Perhaps your attention should change from "little clubs" to "the human desire for more."

Right, because those few people who really wanted that power and that were that greedy could rally so many people together by saying "I want his land and his money! Die for making me rich!"

Wake up. I give you that learning about the way the masses of people followed religion was to have something to live for, hope for, and die for in the end of their lives back in the old days, but it was the few assholes who saw them as sheep that created the bloodshed. I don't want to start a 9/11 chat, but look at how we are suddenly balls deep in the Middle East since 2000. Religion has been the oldest user of this tactic and by swaying the ignorant, fearful people you can create these empires or periods of time where you rule like the British did at one point. "The sun never sets on the English Empire."

Human desire is to survive. Greedy men take that desire and twist it by saying they need these other things to survive. Like for example the neighboring country that happens to not believe in the local mythology that your followers do. Religion can only hold people in place and make them do these horrible things if the people are to stupid to say, "Hmmm....these things seem a bit much."

Oh and I don't use Firefox for Althanas. But thank you Visla for speaking on my behalf how spellcheck arguements can be the deciding factor in such a debate. I was a little sleepy when I typed that up and was getting ready to crash for the night when I came across this thread. To think I'd be humiliated over a spelling error would assume I'm a mindless sheep who will be dutifully going to church tomorrow at 7 am because I'm told too, not because I want too.

That's the difference, Arsène.

[Arsène]

Being hateful and ridiculous "in good faith" isn't really a defense. Just because someone sincerely believes something doesn't make it better. I'm sure many murderers sincerely believe their victims should die. Shall we release them? Right. I'm glad this didn't go down the avenue of "the nazis thought they were..." yet, but I can see it coming soon. There is a difference between a feeling and an act. One might lead to the other, but not in all cases. There's a line we have to draw, and I'm pretty sure murder is over it.


This is far from obvious. One is problematic enough. While more would generate more equality it would be a gross misappropriation of taxpayer funds. That's true, which is why religion classes are mostly in private institutions. I used "it would be" in something of a hopeful sense. "It would be nice if there was no more war," idealism, that sort of thing, you know?

[Visla Eraclaire]

That's true, which is why religion classes are mostly in private institutions. I used "it would be" in something of a hopeful sense. "It would be nice if there was no more war," idealism, that sort of thing, you know?

If we're talking about ideals. Hell, forget religious classes, "It would be nice if there was no religion."

[oren]

1. As an elective it would be a good idea as a course since it is giving the freedom to choose whether a student wants to take it or not, but it does bring up a point that if the Catholics/Christians, whatever you want to call them, can have a Bible course why isn't there a course on the holy scriptures for the Muslims, Jews, and other religious sects. It can get very touchy if people thought like that all the time.

It also depends on the public school (Excluding Catholic schools since they seem to already have some form or religious study), if it were applied to my high school war would break out between religious students there since 1/2 of the school are Muslim and Christian/Roman Catholic (it's true Veatrix!), and the majority of the other half are Hindu and some are Jewish.

2. I wouldn't say aethiests are afraid of religion. I have friends that are aethiests and they just don't believe in a god/ supreme being. A miracle has to have a scientific explanation to them because "God" to them hasn't shown an actual form for them to believe or has actually given them a sign saying "I'm here to give you this miracle!" I know if I were to sit there and have a religious discussion with any one of them I would be hitting a wall repeatedly. At the same time, unlike SOME of the hardcore aethiests that sit there and try to conform and convince you that Religion is a bunch of bullshit created by some dead guy to explain what science has explained today, they are very open to the idea that religion could have some ounce of truth to it, just that the science proves most of it and therefore Religion is just a bunch of folk tales, end of story.

[Arsène]

If we're talking about ideals. Hell, forget religious classes, "It would be nice if there was no religion."

If there was no religion, there'd be no Christian Rock. And if there was no Christian Rock, than how would we make our assumptions of bad music? I don't know about you, but I usually tend to have CR as my absolute zero.

[Visla Eraclaire]

If there was no religion, there'd be no Christian Rock. And if there was no Christian Rock, than how would we make our assumptions of bad music? I don't know about you, but I usually tend to have CR as my absolute zero.

"Lost my dog, truck, wife" style country and "kill all the white people" music will always fill that slot for me.

Also, I know a guy who played wizard rock... so I mean. Hey, Christian rock sometimes actually has a good, if confused, moral message. Usually it's just praise God and be submissive whelps, but ya know, there are exceptions. Whereas, come the fuck on... Wizard Rock? For the fortunately unaware, that's total morons singing songs about harry goddamned potter.

When I found out people actually did that, and there was a "scene" and that it was bigger than 5 dorks with wands, I died a little inside.

[A Nony Mouse]

"Lost my dog, truck, wife" style country and "kill all the white people" music will always fill that slot for me.

I agree.

Also, there are two groups of christian rock for me: (1) praise and worship styley and (2) groups who happen to be christians.

I dislike group 1 and like some of group 2; 12 stones, project 86, skillet, norma jean, the mint, decyfer down, etc.

so don't lump them all together :)

[Visla Eraclaire]

To me "Christian Rock" only implies group 1. If you start calling group 2 Christian Rock, do we have to define every band by the religion of their members when it affects nothing?

[A Nony Mouse]

To me "Christian Rock" only implies group 1. If you start calling group 2 Christian Rock, do we have to define every band by the religion of their members when it affects nothing?

Well, it does affect things... but I see what you're saying. Still, you'll find some of these groups in music stores under Christian Rock, so...

[Skie and Avery]

For the fortunately unaware, that's total morons singing songs about harry goddamned potter.

When I found out people actually did that, and there was a "scene" and that it was bigger than 5 dorks with wands, I died a little inside.

Hey! That's my band!

Sirius, bo Birius, fee fi fo Firius, SIRIUS!

Put your waaand arm in, put your waand arm out, put your wand arm in and you shake it all about, you do the...ooops. Sorry Neville.

[Serilliant]

a) Althanas is not a chat room

b) This is not a Christian rock thread.

Stop it.

[Visla Eraclaire]

I see someone doesn't believe in the theory of thread evolution.

Althanas is evidently srs business. Beware free-form discourse.

Is anyone still arguing that the bible courses are a good idea? Actually a good idea, that is, not that we exaggerate the extent to which they're bad or that they COULD be good if it were an ideal world...