NationStates Jolt Archive

COMMENTARY: This is usually the sort of thing Republicans agitate for, but now Southern Democrats seem to be advocating teaching the Bible in public schools. WTF, over? :)


Democrats in 2 Southern States
Push Bills on Bible Study (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/27/politics/27religion.html?th&emc=th)


By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK
Published: January 27, 2006
WASHINGTON, Jan. 26 — Democrats in Georgia and Alabama, borrowing an idea usually advanced by conservative Republicans, are promoting Bible classes in the public schools. Their Republican opponents are in turn denouncing them as "pharisees," a favorite term of liberals for politicians who exploit religion.

Democrats in both states have introduced bills authorizing school districts to teach courses modeled after a new textbook, "The Bible and Its Influence." It was produced by the nonpartisan, ecumenical Bible Literacy Project and provides an assessment of the Bible's impact on history, literature and art that is academic and detached, if largely laudatory.

The Democrats who introduced the bills said they hoped to compete with Republicans for conservative Christian voters. "Rather than sitting back on our heels and then being knocked in our face, we are going to respond in a thoughtful way," said Kasim Reed, a Georgia state senator from Atlanta and one of the sponsors of the bill. "We are not going to give away the South anymore because we are unwilling to talk about our faith."

In Georgia, the proposal marked a new course for the Democratic Party. The state's Democrats, including some sponsors of the bill, opposed a Republican proposal a few years ago to authorize the teaching of a different Bible course, which used a translation of the Scriptures as its text, calling it an inappropriate endorsement of religion. The sponsors say they are introducing their Bible measure now partly to pre-empt a potential Republican proposal seeking to display the Ten Commandments in schools.

In Alabama, a deeply religious state where Democrats support prayer in the schools and a Democratic candidate for governor recently introduced her campaign with the hymn "Give Me That Old Time Religion," the Bible class bills reflect Democrats' efforts to distance themselves from the national party.

"We have always had to somewhat defend ourselves from the national Democratic Party's secular image, and this is part of that," said Ken Guin, a representative from Carbon Hill, leader of the Democratic majority in the State House and a sponsor of the measure.

Democrats in other states are moving in the same direction, jumping into a conversation about religion and values that some party leaders began after the 2004 election, when President Bush and the Republicans rode those themes to victory.

In Indiana, Democratic legislators are among the leaders of a bipartisan effort to preserve the recitation of specifically Christian prayers in the Statehouse. In Virginia, Gov. Timothy M. Kaine relied heavily on religious themes and advertised on evangelical radio stations to win election last fall; Democratic Party leaders have called his campaign a national model.

In an interview, Howard Dean, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, promised that Democrats would do a better job talking about values to religious voters. "We have done it in a secular way, and we don't have to," he said, adding, "I think teaching the Bible as literature is a good thing."

Christian conservatives, however, say they have been pushing public schools to offer courses on the Bible for decades, and Republicans in both Alabama and Georgia say some schools already offer such electives.

"Their proposal makes them modern-day pharisees," State Senator Eric Johnson of Georgia, the Republican leader from Savannah, said in a statement. "This is election-year pandering using voters' deepest beliefs as a tool."

Saying he found "a little irony" in the fact that the Democratic sponsors had voted against a Republican proposal for a Bible course six years ago, Mr. Johnson added, "It should also be noted that the so-called Bible bill doesn't use the Bible as the textbook, and would allow teachers with no belief at all in the Bible to teach the course."

Betty Peters, a Republican on the Alabama school board who opposed the initiative in that state, also dismissed the initiative as "pandering." Democrats, she argued, had adopted a new strategy: "Let's just wrap ourselves in Jesus."

[ This article is two pages long. To read the second page, go here (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/27/politics/27religion.html?_r=1&pagewanted=2&th&emc=th). ]

Revenge of the Dixiecrats!

Revenge of the Dixiecrats!

Beat me to it lol. Historically, Southern Democrat == Republican, Southern Republican==Scary

Revenge of the Dixiecrats!

Eh? Aren't they republicans now?

-----
As to the article?

Hmmm why even have a democratic party in those states?

Who said the democrats are trying to become watered down repubs? ;)

Well they will probably get overturned in the scotus if not sooner. They we get a series of threads about States rights again. ;)

Eh...I don't want religion taught in public schools. At all. Why? Because everytime the state cooperates with the Church, the Church suffers. The "free market" for religion with any particular "brand" being subsidised is why America is so religious; every faith must compete ferociously to gain followers, without any advantages.

Eh...I don't want religion taught in public schools. At all. Why? Because everytime the state cooperates with the Church, the Church suffers. The "free market" for religion with any particular "brand" being subsidised is why America is so religious; every faith must compete ferociously to gain followers, without any advantages.
I partially agree with this... the public schools should also have courses on the studies of other religious text. let the student choose which text, but all must be equally offered.

that way, the Government (On any level) cannot be accused of favoring "any One" religion.

Eh? Aren't they republicans now?

The Dixiecrats are like the Sith... you think you've defeated them and years later, they strike when you least expect them to!

Democrats in both states have introduced bills authorizing school districts to teach courses modeled after a new textbook, "The Bible and Its Influence." It was produced by the nonpartisan, ecumenical Bible Literacy Project and provides an assessment of the Bible's impact on history, literature and art that is academic and detached, if largely laudatory.

Except for the laudatory part I have trouble envisioning a decent course on history. literature and art that doesn't include the influences of the Bible...
Provided the course also shows the other side of the coin (witch trials, inquisitions, dark ages etc.) I see no problem. Denying religions had impact on society is silly.

First of all, there is this-

Democrats in both states have introduced bills authorizing school districts to teach courses modeled after a new textbook, "The Bible and Its Influence." It was produced by the nonpartisan, ecumenical Bible Literacy Project and provides an assessment of the Bible's impact on history, literature and art that is academic and detached, if largely laudatory.
So while it is a study of the bible, it is not a Bible Study, per se. Please, don't pretend not to know the difference. It embarrasses all involved.

However, I still disagree with it. Despite how much the curriculum focuses on the art and influence it still only teaches from one source, implying a superiority, thus an endorsement of one religion over others. It's a good half step in the right direction, but still only a half step. Which is not enough.

To a degree, I actually agree with this-
"This is election-year pandering using voters' deepest beliefs as a tool."
Especially when they pretty much say it outright-

"We have always had to somewhat defend ourselves from the national Democratic Party's secular image, and this is part of that," said Ken Guin, a representative from Carbon Hill, leader of the Democratic majority in the State House and a sponsor of the measure.

In an interview, Howard Dean, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, promised that Democrats would do a better job talking about values to religious voters. "We have done it in a secular way, and we don't have to," he said, adding, "I think teaching the Bible as literature is a good thing."
But this-
"Their proposal makes them modern-day pharisees,"
Betty Peters, a Republican on the Alabama school board who opposed the initiative in that state, also dismissed the initiative as "pandering." Democrats, she argued, had adopted a new strategy: "Let's just wrap ourselves in Jesus."

seems a little much, and all the hand-wringing seems a little disingenuous, considering-
...after the 2004 election, when President Bush and the Republicans rode those themes
What is it? "Hey, they're using our plays!!!" Oh wah.
and this-
In an interview, Howard Dean, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, promised that Democrats would do a better job talking about values to religious voters. "We have done it in a secular way, and we don't have to," he said, adding, "I think teaching the Bible as literature is a good thing."
-seems to miss the damn point all together. Of course it's set up that way, slugger, otherwise it's state taught religion...and thus against the constitution.

Pandering meets partisanship, no one wins. Everyone looks stupid.

Like I had said earlier, it's a good half step but misses the point in about the same way Mr. Johnson does. I can't say that it will or won't work to gain democratic votes to pander to the religious groups like this. I can say I don't approve of the method.

My spell checker(yes, I have a spell checker, no I don't always use it because it's clumsy and I don't always care) did some weird things to this post that took a long time to fix, so sorry if this treads ground that was covered while I was fiddling with it all.

Aren't they just offering to study the Bible and discuss what it says, rather than trying to make people believe that what it says is right? The latter seems rather republican-like but if they are only studying it as a piece of literature then it could include everyone; i.e. athiests, agnostics and theists trying to decide for themselved what the Bible means and whether it could be true rather than actually telling the students what to believe.

Just my opinion, but I think the notion of studying the effect of the bible on history and civilisation in schools is a pretty good one. When people are going to try to instill religious values in some states anyway, it makes sense to educate people about the background and contexts of the book, so that when push comes to shove, they can make their own decisions based on an in-depth analysis and understanding of the issues rather than just being bought over or repulsed by persuasive marketing techniques (or not so persuasive, in many circumstances).

The question lies, though, in who teaches the material. The trick is to avoid having an unfair slant on things in any particular direction. Every teacher has an agenda, and unless the teachers are phenomenally good at what they do, you're bound to have some bias in the personal interpretation of the text. Perhaps, rather than a regular class with a set text, a course of hour-a-week discussions with different speakers would be more effective.

Just my opinion, but I think the notion of studying the effect of the bible on history and civilisation in schools is a pretty good one. When people are going to try to instill religious values in some states anyway, it makes sense to educate people about the background and contexts of the book, so that when push comes to shove, they can make their own decisions based on an in-depth analysis and understanding of the issues rather than just being bought over or repulsed by persuasive marketing techniques (or not so persuasive, in many circumstances).

The question lies, though, in who teaches the material. The trick is to avoid having an unfair slant on things in any particular direction. Every teacher has an agenda, and unless the teachers are phenomenally good at what they do, you're bound to have some bias in the personal interpretation of the text. Perhaps, rather than a regular class with a set text, a course of hour-a-week discussions with different speakers would be more effective.
Wow. It'll suck for the Jewish kids.

Not to mention everybody else who isn't a Protestant.

Just my opinion, but I think the notion of studying the effect of the bible on history and civilisation in schools is a pretty good one. When people are going to try to instill religious values in some states anyway, it makes sense to educate people about the background and contexts of the book, so that when push comes to shove, they can make their own decisions based on an in-depth analysis and understanding of the issues rather than just being bought over or repulsed by persuasive marketing techniques (or not so persuasive, in many circumstances).

The question lies, though, in who teaches the material. The trick is to avoid having an unfair slant on things in any particular direction. Every teacher has an agenda, and unless the teachers are phenomenally good at what they do, you're bound to have some bias in the personal interpretation of the text. Perhaps, rather than a regular class with a set text, a course of hour-a-week discussions with different speakers would be more effective.
The idea, as I said the longer more rambly post, is a good half step. All things aside, the bible and christianity have had a profound effect on art, literature and civilisation. To deny that would be damned silly. Is it really a high school level class? Maybe not. And it gives preference for one religious text and religion which creates an implication of superiority, thus endorsement, and also excluding other religions in their influence on art, literature and society is as damned silly as ignoring christianities influence. That the senators proposed as just a bible survey and not a religious survey supports claims of pandering, really. But the ones throwing that rock are doing it out of glass houses...

Eh...I don't want religion taught in public schools. At all. Why? Because everytime the state cooperates with the Church, the Church suffers. The "free market" for religion with any particular "brand" being subsidised is why America is so religious; every faith must compete ferociously to gain followers, without any advantages.
Excellent point! Well said. :)

I take it you missed the first five words of the article when you thought wtf.

separation of church and state -- it's served us well for so long. period.

I take it you missed the first five words of the article when you thought wtf.
As is usual for you, you "take it" wrong.

Eh...I don't want religion taught in public schools. At all. Why? Because everytime the state cooperates with the Church, the Church suffers. The "free market" for religion with any particular "brand" being subsidised is why America is so religious; every faith must compete ferociously to gain followers, without any advantages.

But this *possibly* isn't about the interests of "the" Church (which one btw ?), but about giving kids a decent course on history, art and literature.

Vegetarianistica']separation of church and state -- it's served us well for so long. period.

PLease tell me how you can teach the aforementioned subjects referring to western countries without mentioning Christianity.
I do think including some Arab, Asian etc perspectives would be nice though.

If they want to teach about the Bible as far as Literature goes, then maybe they should introduce a class on Religion in general. Not endorsing the beliefs of any of the religions mind you, but in a Literary sense. They could cover a different religion every few weeks. They should include Athiest publications as well.



I find it amusing that they portray Alabama as a "Deeply religious state" when its one of the most prejudice states in the Union. I live in Georgia, so I cant throw too many stones....we have a large number of people who are still mad because they ended slavery.

I find it amusing that they portray Alabama as a "Deeply religious state" when its one of the most prejudice states in the Union. I live in Georgia, so I cant throw too many stones....we have a large number of people who are still mad because they ended slavery.
Sigh. I've run into a mercifully small few here in NC who are like that as well. They're usually total rednecks with a KKK leaning. It amazes me that such people still exist in the 21st Century. :(

Sigh. I've run into a mercifully small few here in NC who are like that as well. They're usually total rednecks with a KKK leaning. It amazes me that such people still exist in the 21st Century. :(


These people are the reason so many think that Southerners are all redneck Neanderthals who look like something out of Deliverance.

Personally, I think that it's a good way to make sure Christians have actually read some of their scripture. I definitely get the impression that a lot of them haven't (can't blame them, though - Job and Isaiah make me wish I couldn't read).

Of course, whether it's a good idea in general depends on how they actually do it... could go either way, really. If it is history-oriented, then it's a reasonable book to choose as something that has affected the world for centuries. Obviously the Qur'an has too, but not so much in the US-and-western-Europe, which is (I gather) what US history lessons tend to focus on. However, if they turn it into teaching religion, rather than about religion... then the line has been crossed and I'll start working on a banner to raise.

If politicians being morons is something completely different, I'll eat my hat. And to turn this conditional statement into something certain: I own no hats.