District 2 board adopts Bible course

Posted by bhippey on August 14, 2007 at 8:07 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I do not agree with bringing religion into the schools. It is a controversial issue, and always will be. I think that the fact that they made it an elective course, is a decent decision. At least it is not mandatory. This way, the kids can decide if they want to learn it. It is not forced upon them.

Posted by newbattleaxe on August 14, 2007 at 8:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Which version of the Bible will Laura Knotts be using in her classroom? Let's hope she's prepared to teach several versions, or somebody, or somebody's parents, are bound to be offended.

Those who oppose teaching the Bible as literature because that means teaching "...other faith-based books such as...the Torah..." must be under-educated. The Torah is part of the Bible.

And, I wonder what the "more than 30 items that still need correcting" are before River Oaks Middle School can open. This sounds very fishy to me.

Posted by Savion on August 14, 2007 at 8:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)

OK!! Usually I just read the paper and don't comment about the articles, but here we go----KEY WORD in the article is ELECTIVE---if you or your child don't want to take course then DON'T. I believe that there are so many problems in the world because we want to take anything dealing with GOD out. Just my opinion and my beliefs!! Have a BLESSED DAY!!!!!

Posted by kingsacura on August 14, 2007 at 9:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Way to go Dorchester, It's about time. They should of never took the bible out of school.

Posted by majorjohnson on August 14, 2007 at 9:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Wow, wonder how they will teach the book of Leviticus? All that menstruation (Lev 15) and such. And stoning, and women can't go to church after having a child for a certain period of time (longer for a girl child than a boy) and even then she has to sacrifice a lamb or two turtles and a pigeon. It's certainly one of the books that has had the greatest effect, dietary laws, stoning homosexuals (only the male ones), rules of cleanliness and sacrifice. The dietary rules alone probably affect more people than any other part of the bible, as both Jews and Muslims still follow them.

But the biggest problem will probably be folks like Savion, who will insist that their version of salvation be what is taught. Teaching the bible as literature and maybe pointing out the many inconsistancies rather than teaching that Christianity is the only the way to achieve purity and everlasting glory will be protested as heretical. Have fun
district 2...hope your legal fund is well provided for.

Posted by hawneena on August 14, 2007 at 9:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)

This is great that kids that want to study biblical history will now have that option. Being that it is an elective course then children are not required to take it. There should always be a choice for people to read and study the Bible if they so choose. For those that are against it; then it will not be forced on them. I hope other districts follow suit.

Posted by hawneena on August 14, 2007 at 9:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)

People should also take notice that this course is only offered to sophmores, juniors, and seniors. It is a study of Christianity and should be taught based on the facts of the Bible and not based on any teachers' personal opinions.
Since students are required to take other history courses then why not offer them the choice of studying something in which their interests might lie. After all this country was founded on Christianity and that fact is even brought out in the study of American history.

Posted by blondjes on August 14, 2007 at 10:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)

this is great, i probably haven't been in a church in a year, but i do know that the bible does help people, a few months ago on the news they did a study and it said that children brought up with religion are more likely to stay out of trouble and be more well rounded then those who don't have it in their lives, i know this to be true, i was brought up in Christian private schools but in 8th grade i was thrown into a public school and it shocked me how rude many of the kids were and how much they cursed, the kids in my private school were taught that is not how you treat people, its just not Christian like, i don't have kids yet and rarely go to church (which i know i should and hope to start) but when i do have kids i want them to have religion in their lives, they will be going to private Christian schools i feel bad for those children who don't have a religion because nobody cares enough to let them know about it, i took an old testament class in college and it was very interesting, i think these kids will enjoy it. if they offered other religous classes i think that would be good too. i do think religion DOES belong in our schools, i for one haven't seen any negative effects from it only good ones and good people.

Posted by sc23 on August 14, 2007 at 10:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The Bible has had a tremendous impact on history. No one can deny that. It also provides a plethora of history, studies in prophecy, law, wisdom through proverbs, literature, and poetry/music through psalms. Not to mention the Bible being one of the best selling books of all time. The Bible teaches good morals from story to story, respect for elders, respect for others, obedience, kindness, humbleness, self-control/patience, clear conscience, peace, love...and the list goes on. Sounds like a good combination for the children in our society and adults alike.

Posted by bhippey on August 14, 2007 at 10:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)

BLONDJES: I find it very hard to believe that kids who are brought up without religion in their lives are as horrible as you claim them to be. I was brought up without religion in my household. I did, however, go to youth group a few times, to see if I liked it. I didn't, and that's OK! I was never in trouble, had good grades all throughout my school years, and have a great career. I am married and have a 17 month old. Religion will not be taught in our household, and if he chooses to go to church when he is older, so be it. But I will not sit here and read the bible to him from the day he is conceived til the day he moves out. That's ridiculous. If he wants to learn it, he can pick a religion and read as much as he wants to about it. But if he doesn't take an interest, I severely doubt that he will become some out of control child, who cusses, has unprotected sex from the age of 14, and goes on killing sprees. And I cannot believe you said that kids without religion or more rude than Christian kids. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. I'm sorry, but that is funny. You will probably come back and say that I was ride to you in the comment, because you already know I was brought up without religion in the home. Also, just because children go to PUBLIC SCHOOL does not mean they aren't religious. It means maybe their parents cannot afford private religious schools. And I had tons of friends that went to Catholic school and HATED IT because it was a religious school that their parents forced them into. It's about letting the children decide. Not forcing it upon them.

Posted by bhippey on August 14, 2007 at 10:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)

rude not ride in my last comment. Sorry, fat fingers.

Posted by mac0cm4 on August 14, 2007 at 10:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The problem is that PUBLIC money is being spent on this. Make it elective - fine - but the students that choose to take it should pay for it, not the taxpaying citizens. If you want this thinly veiled attempt to circumvent separation of church and state in your schools, then you pay for it. Give it time before they have a group of other people wanting their religion offered in school as well.

Religion should not be taught in public schools paid for by public money, it sets a dangerous precedent.

Posted by yeayea on August 14, 2007 at 10:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)

All the major religions are taught in college, so why not prepare them for that in high school, but teach the major religions. Ignorance allows for prejudice. If people in America just take time and allow their minds to expand and listen to the ways of the world then they wouldn't be so scared of a Islamic man walking down the street. I'm a conservative white republican who believes in educating young minds and allowing them to make their own ideas about people after they learn about them.

Posted by bhippey on August 14, 2007 at 11:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Mac: I agree with you. 100%

Posted by hawneena on August 14, 2007 at 11:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)

mac, taxpayers also have to pay for other elective courses. Look at all the money that goes into sports programs. I, personally, would rather see money going towards educating the mind, not that I have anything against sports. Sports can also be participated in outside of school through the rec. depts.
People who send their kids to private school have to pay the same amount of taxes as public school parents. That would be fine if schools offered other religion courses. Expanding one's mind is never a waste of money.

Posted by bhippey on August 14, 2007 at 11:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Yeayea: Not everyone is scared of "an Islamic man walking down the street" Just because you are not religious does not mean you are close minded and you don't listen to the ways of the world.

Posted by bhippey on August 14, 2007 at 11:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)

HAWNEENA: I agree with you about the sports programs. But the way some schools, and sadly, parents see it, is that some sports teams bring in money.

Posted by bkeelin on August 14, 2007 at 11:45 a.m. (Suggest removal)

It seems like the ones who oppose this have already reviewed the curriculum and know that it is going to be a class on Christian beliefs. From what I understand it is going to be a class about literature and the influence the Bible has had throughout the many different literary genres. "Me thinks thou dost protest too much." Those who oppose the Bible certainly have the right to do that but in the end you will find and probably already know that you oppose the TRUTH.

Posted by bhippey on August 14, 2007 at 11:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)

What about the people who are either Agnostic or Atheist? What foul and obnoxious things would you like to say about them? I suppose you think they are wrong for not believing what a lot of others do believe in. If we base beliefs on what we read then Unicorns, Vampires, Werewolves, Centaurs, and other things, REALLY DO EXIST!!!!

Posted by blondjes on August 14, 2007 at noon (Suggest removal)

i did not say all kids who go to public school are bad, i went to public school for 4 1/2 years because my family finally moved to an area where the schools were good, and your statement also confirms what the news says about children in poor communities who go to public school are more likely to commit more crimes because religion is not in their curriculum, and most children who are not taught about religion are most likely to not want to learn about it and pass that down to their children, its a fact, and i'm sorry if you don't like the statistics but they don't lie, i'm a firm believer that atheism is just another form of egotism, and thats MY belief, i'm glad these kids will have a choice to learn something some of their parents neglect showing them

Posted by bhippey on August 14, 2007 at 12:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

LISTEN TO ME. NOT EVERYONE IS A BAD PERSON BECAUSE THEY DO NOT BELIEVE IN GOD. WHO ARE YOU TO JUDGE THOSE WHO DO NOT FOLLOW YOUR BELIEFS AND/OR CULTURES. I DON'T SIT HERE AND SAY YOU ARE A GOD LOVING PRUDE WHO HAS NOTHING BETTER TO DO THAN JUDGE PEOPLE. AND PARENTS WHO CHOOSE NOT TO TEACH THEIR CHILDREN AND NOT BEING NEGLECTFUL OF RELIGION. IF IT IS NOT THEIR BELIEF WHY TRY TO EXPLAIN IT TO A CHILD. ARE YOU GOING TO SIT DOWN AND TRY TO EXPLAIN ADVANCED PHYSICS TO A 3 OR 4 YEAR OLD, KNOWING DAMN WELL YOU DON'T EVEN UNDERSTAND OR KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT IT. I HOPE NOT. AND HOW EXACTLY DO YOU GET EGOTISM OUT OF THIS? YOU'RE JOKING RIGHT? YOU WANTED TO LIGHTEN THE MOOD? HOW DOES MY STATEMENT CONFIRM ANYTHING. IT'S ALL OPINION. SHOW ME THE STATISTICS. I'D REALLY BE INTERESTED IN SEEING THIS LUNACY. MAYBE IN NORTH CHARLESTON THESE ARE FACTS, BUT NOT EVERYWHERE. I REFUSE TO BELIEVE IT UNTIL YOU PROVE IT TO ME. IF I CHOOSE NOT TO BELIEVE IN GOD, THAT'S MY RIGHT, AND IF YOU CHOOSE TO, MORE POWER TO YOU. I WILL LET MY CHILD MAKE HIS OWN DECISIONS ABOUT RELIGION. AND IF HE HAS ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT IT, HIS FATHER WILL BE MORE THAN HAPPY TO GO OVER THE BIBLE WITH HIM. FOR MY HUSBAND HAS A MOTHER WHO IS ALL ABOUT THE BIBLE AND GOD. SHE IS, HOWEVER, EXTREMELY PUSHY ABOUT IT.

Posted by bhippey on August 14, 2007 at 12:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Hey CVS. How are you doing! Where has Charlene been? Anyone know?

Posted by JOL on August 14, 2007 at 12:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I do not normally comment but I am appauled at what I am reading in these comments. I praise the school for trying to educate our kids in all areas. We are all entitled to our opinions and I believe the ones that would like should be allowed to take this class. I pay taxes also so my children should be able to take this elective course paid by my tax money. If your child should not that is fine also. I do not judge you because of your choice of belief so do not judge me because I am Christian and choose to believe the bible and feel it should be offered in public school. What are you afraid of? God is loving god and god of peace I choose to follow his example.

Posted by bhippey on August 14, 2007 at 12:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Why do people have to be afraid of something to not embrace it.

Posted by bhippey on August 14, 2007 at 12:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm sick of people thinking that we are either ignorant or scared. It has nothing to do with it.

Posted by mkhaynes on August 14, 2007 at 12:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I am a product of District 2, a Christian, and have a degree in Religion. I think offering this class as an elective is a good idea - and electives about Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism, and Islam, as well as other lesser known religions should also be offered. But no one has come forward to sponsor a law to have "religious studies" added as an elective. Of course this is an effort by someone to get God back into school, and an under-handed effort to get Christianity into school. Taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for it, it's not constitutional. End of story. Religion is a good thing - children should grow up in a home where they are taught the difference between right and wrong and responsibility for their actions - religion is one way to do that. I'm sure the girl who was moved from a private school into a public school in the 8th grade had a terrible time - 8th grade was awful. I think that because she went from an environment where religion was a major focus to an environment where the absence of it was glaringly obvious, her feeling was that the lack of religion in the school was the cause of the misery. Nope, that's just 8th grade. I'm sure the public school was a lot bigger than the private school, and unfortunately, she was probably surrounded by a lot more people who came from different homes and families, some of them religious, some of them not. Not being Christian, not believing in God, doesn't make a person bad, just like being a Christian doesn't make a person good. Ultimately, people are people. We have to be responsible for ourselves and our actions. Some people find the guidance for that in the church, other people find that in themselves. That's not what this course is supposed to be about - but based on the comments in this blog, there's going to be trouble for the district.

Posted by wegwam on August 14, 2007 at 1:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

this is great news. it is an elective people. you do not have to take this course. i advocate having as many electives as feasibly possible. more choices should be given to children today in high schools. (trade courses, languages, religous studies, phys ed, etc...)

to the people who say they do not want his/her tax dollars paying for this. according to your logic, if my child is not learning disabled i dont want my taxes paying for classes for learning disabled students. or my child is not in honors courses, therefore my taxes shouldnt pay for honors classes or the textbooks that go into honors courses. (both ludacris)

hawneena, i realize you are not advocating taking phys ed classes out of schools. this is not meant to attack you. today in america we have an obesity problem which leads to numerous health problems. phys ed in school is needed just as much as chemistry or algebra. countless studies correlate exercise to brain development. if we teach better health habits in school then we can avoid many health issues facing our country.

Posted by bhippey on August 14, 2007 at 1:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I just don't understand how all the "Christians" who have a problem with the agnostics and atheists can cast judgement on them. Doesn't the bible say something about not judging others? Help me out here. I'm sure someone in here knows that part.

Posted by bhippey on August 14, 2007 at 1:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Sports teams these day are not for "physical fintess" purposes. Trust me. I went to Summerville High, the football team was for monetary purposes. I played sports, and so did my husband, not because we were out of shape and needed to lose weight, but because the competition was fun and so was the sport.

Posted by kingsacura on August 14, 2007 at 1:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Thanks CVS
JOL you are so right. We pay taxes also. If they need money for it take it from the free and reduced lunch program.

Posted by lizzyjames on August 14, 2007 at 1:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Taxpayer dollars so a public school can teach the Bible? And Joe Pye claims the school budget is "bare bones"? Don't ask taxpayers to pay more & no bond referendum, clearly Dorchester District 2 has more money than they know what to do with.
There are plenty of churches located in Dorchester District 2. Are the high school kids not attending them? Can't they find a church? Are they too sleepy to go on Sunday? Are they watching football on Sunday?
Studying religion is just fine, but not at the taxpayers expense. Bible study is taught in church. This is a special interest class in a district lacking a curriculum for skills needed in the work force. This is why we have a high drop out rate, no vocational training. At least when they drop out of school, they will know the bible?

Posted by bhippey on August 14, 2007 at 1:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Also, if an obese child tries out for the baseball or football team, there is a physical and tryouts that need to be passed. Do you really think that an obese child can pass those with flying colors? I don't think so. You have to be physically fit to join a team. Unless you want to play golf. No physical there. No offense golfers.

Posted by bhippey on August 14, 2007 at 1:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

lizzyjames: FANTASTIC!!!!!!!

Posted by wegwam on August 14, 2007 at 1:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

bhippey obviously you confuse phys ed courses with sports teams.

no where in my post did i mention "sports teams"

i also went to summerville and played on several sports teams there.
do you realize that a majority of the money for the football team is raised through a booster club (summerville exchange club) and that the other funding comes from ticket sales for the football games. and that the band funding comes from concession stands at said football games

Posted by wegwam on August 14, 2007 at 1:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

bhippey, it is apparent you pick and chose what you wanted to out of my comment.
if children were taught proper health along with phys ed it would create good habits that would never go away.

you are also wrong about golf go walk 18 holes with a golf bag in the heat/humidity and tell me it is not physical.

Posted by bhippey on August 14, 2007 at 1:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I misread. Sorry. Phys Ed is needed. There were quite a number of overweight kids at my school when I went. None of which took Gym.

Posted by bhippey on August 14, 2007 at 1:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

People pick and choose what the read about my posts. So why is it only wrong when I do it. And I have played golf. My husband and I go about every 6 months. That's what golf carts are for! HA!

Posted by mac0cm4 on August 14, 2007 at 1:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Well, in the end, the school system in SC will still be near the bottom of the barrel compared to the 49 other states. But at least they can pray about it.

To whoever offered the comparison as to sports being elective. Sure, intramural sports are elective, however sports don't cater more or less towards a particular sect of people. Boil this down to what it really is: The pro-religion in schools people found a way to thinly veil their circumvention of church and state. Fortunately for them, this is the Bible belt, and that's the only way it passed the senate.

Religion is a double standard - it always has been. Everyone complains when say, Jehovah's Witnesses come to their door, but no one says a word when another church comes to their door. As I offered before, can you imagine the outcry if there was a Wiccan church going door to door to recruit? The easiest way to avoid all this crap is just not endorse one religion or the other, therefore the schools should play it safe and just leave it out, or make the students who want to take it pay for it.

Last time I checked most churches have FREE Sunday school or the like for their members. So why are we paying for it in the public schools?

Posted by wegwam on August 14, 2007 at 1:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

golf carts are a luxury that competitive golfers (high school, college, and pro) dont have.

mac0cm4,
you make some valid points about our state's education system. everyone knows our schools are near or at the bottom. total reform is needed at the state level.
however, dist 2 is one of the premier districts in the state and is above the natl average in many categories. obviously they have been doing something right.

Posted by bhippey on August 14, 2007 at 1:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I know my senior year at Summerville we got to keep whatever text books we wanted because they were all being replaced. That's one of the luxuries District 2 has. Money. They can afford the things they need and/or want.

Posted by mkhaynes on August 14, 2007 at 1:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Exactly, mac0cm4. Wegwam, you're missing the point. The problem with this particular course is not about taxpayers dollars going to fund electives - the problem is that this elective crosses the line separating church and state. This is unconstitutional, it is un-American, and it is wrong. Why there is such an uproar about either putting God into our public schools or keeping him out, and people don't even know how to spell?

Posted by majorjohnson on August 14, 2007 at 1:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

If you look at a lot of the posts supporting this you see a pretty common theme, one I pointed out in my earlier post. People who are Christians expect it to be taught from a Christian perspective, even though the NT is the smallest part of the bible. Almost everyone who is supportive expect it to teach belief, to have it teach moral biblical principals rather than it's relation to literature. I believe the school district expects the same, and this is nothing more than a back door, dishonest means of doing it, by diguising it as something it isn't in order to inject religious teachings into the school cirriculum.

Christians have been doing this for many years...the ten commandments hanging here will make people think about Christ and make them better people....oh, we can't do that? We really meant it's a historical document and we just put it there for historical perspective. Prayer in the morning led by staff...oh, we can't do that? We meant voluntary prayer led by students..oh, we can't do that either? We meant a moment of secular silence...really! It's pretty telling that Christians will say anything, even outright and very obviously lie, in order to subject other peoples children to their religion. They don't do it for their children, their children are raised in Christian households. They do it because they don't think you are raising your child right and want to use the schools to expose your child to their religion.

Hmmm...where else do they do that? Oh, Muslims do that too! Strange isn't it, that the two religions that spun off of off the OT both are strongly evangelical and believe in the use of force of government to indoctrinate and force that belief on the populace. The religion that is actually based soley on the OT doesn't do that.

Posted by wegwam on August 14, 2007 at 2:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

first lets see if this IS unconstitutional. since the phrase "seperation of church and state" never appears in the constitution

"the Fort Dorchester High instructor who will teach the course, explained that the class would focus on the Bible and its influence in language, arts, linguistics, culture and heritage." -p and c article.

as i do not have a syllabus of the course, i must go on this previously quoted information. lets apply the "lemon test" Lemon v Kurtzman (403 US 602 [1971]).
First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion; finally, the statute must not foster "an excessive government entanglement with religion."

1. to teach the influences of the bible in language, arts, linguistics, culture and heritage. this seems to be a secular legislative purpose.

2. as long as it does not advocate christianity or inhibit it. check

3. well this is the sticky one, huh? what is an "excessive entanglement". i am not a supreme court judge but this seems to pass at first glance.

now, i would imagine this course would require constant supervision from admins. to make sure it is carried out properly. believe me if this course advocates or inhibits christianity i do not support it. with my limited knowledge of the course, it does not appear that is the intended nature of said course.

farewell friends i look forward to your responses. unfortunately i must be away from my computer for the next 6 hours or so as i have to attend to the farm. thank you all and have a great day.

Posted by bkeelin on August 14, 2007 at 2:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

People think they are being judged by Christians, wrong. The Bible is the one who set the standard, not the Christians who follow it. Josh McDowell wrote a book, "Evidence that demands a Verdict". It is a compelling book that provides the evidence and statistics for the Bible as true and accurate. Those who don't believe in Christ don't have a problem with Christians they have a problem with God, take it up with Him. A person is not bad because he or she doesn't follow Christ, Christ had to die and rise from the grave because we are all BAD!!! It is only by our faith in Christ as Lord and Savior, and acceptance of His gift of grace that we are saved from the eternal fire and torment for ever. This is God's word whether you want to believe it or not. People can believe the sun revolves around the earth if they want to but that doesn't make it true, just like believing in another religion doesn't make it true either. There is one God and he gave us an instruction manual for this life and the next. We can either follow it or not, but don't complain about the consequences if you don't, and don't get mad at someone who is trying to tell you that the stove is really really hot.

Posted by mkhaynes on August 14, 2007 at 3:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Wegwam - you're right, the phrase "seperation" of church and state does not appear in the Constitution. I read a little bit more about it on Wikipedia, it's based in the First Amendment, has its origins in the late 19th century with the Supreme Court... who interpret the Constitution and review the legality of laws and actions based on their interpretation of the Constitution and the amendments to it. Basically, my understanding of this principle is that we can't use taxpayers money to push religion, to support one religion over another - basically, it's supposed to help us, as a country, maintain the personal liberty that was granted to us in the Constitution. This is a liberty that was also given to man by God, in Genesis. I wrote in my first statement, earlier, that I'm sure that the intent of this course on paper looks legal, otherwise the school board wouldn't have passed it. And having a degree in religion, I understand that the Bible can be studied from a purely historical and literary perspective - most of the stories have their origins in earlier religions anyway, and similar stories are found in other Eastern religions. However, I think this is a bad idea and is going to cause more trouble than the course is going to be worth for the district. People on both ends of the spectrum, from the Christian fundamentalists who see the Bible as the word of God, to the atheists who, oddly, also see the Bible as the word of God, are going to protest the expenditure of taxpayer dollars to teach about the Bible in a public school setting because it will either be too secular or not secular enough.

Posted by majorjohnson on August 14, 2007 at 4:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Haynes makes part of my point, the separation is from a letter by Thomas Jefferson to a church, it's origins are not with SCOTUS. They did use it as part of their procedings though. Madison also believed that government should not have a basis in religion, and the first amendment was required by the states in order to ensure that the federal government would not advocate one religion over another, and they weren't worried about the Jewish or Muslim faith, they were worried about one denomination of Christianity over another. If you don't know it, Christianity has more denominations, each believing differently, than all other religions combined.

If you look at the posts here it's obvious that the Christians expect the bible to be taught from a Christian perspective. This is a can of trouble begging to cause problems whichever side of the old testament you fall on. It's gonna be a legal headache and expense for the schools system win or lose.

I also think if I recall, that the curiculum was developed by the National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools, a Christian organization formed expressly to find some means to inject the bible into school systems, using the literature and history angle, but actually as a means of evangelizing the Christian faith. They are an expressly Christian organization that spent a huge amount of money in order to find a means to do so. They didn't do that because they were concerned that literary links were not being told to your children, they wanted your children exposed to Christian doctrine because they don't trust that you are doing it yourselves. Their purpose is religion hidden beneath the sheeps skin of education. They learned that trick from a bible story...

Posted by newbattleaxe on August 14, 2007 at 8:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"They should HAVE never TAKEN the Bible out of school."

And, NO the USA was NOT founded on Christian principles. The USA was founded as a secular nation. Go ahead, Google it.

At my parochial high school, my junior year religion class was comparative religions, taught by a priest. Very informative. I'm now a Calvinist.

Posted by jammer on August 14, 2007 at 11:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)

way to go Dorchester 2 !!!! it's about time some school system stood up for the majority around here

you people can consider yourself secured in your jobs for life now, we'll vote you back in everytime...

if anyone has a problem with it don't send your child to that class, simple as that

we're tired of the people removing God out of everything, there's an old saying about that... don't complain to God when your life goes downhill and you're beaten, raped and maimed, you asked him to leave you alone...

this country was built on God and has been steadily falling every since people started removing him, hopefully this is a return for good

Posted by Matt_84 on August 15, 2007 at 1:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"Wow, wonder how they will teach the book of Leviticus? All that menstruation (Lev 15) and such. And stoning, and women can't go to church after having a child for a certain period of time (longer for a girl child than a boy) and even then she has to sacrifice a lamb or two turtles and a pigeon. It's certainly one of the books that has had the greatest effect, dietary laws, stoning homosexuals (only the male ones), rules of cleanliness and sacrifice."

Is that honestly a part of your argument, or are you just stupid? The course isn't about "teaching" Biblical precepts, but it seems you're apparently bent on thinking it is. What I find to so humorous about your comments is (1), you think archaic Jewish Old Testament law will be taught---which, if this is based on the same Bible that millions of people read, are laws that were done away with with the advent of Christ, and (2), in everyone of your posts you mention "The Christians", but fail to recognize exactly how inclusive the word Christian is: it covers the Catholics, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventists, and so many other sects...a significant amount of the population! You also say that the Christians are bent on seeing the Bible taught from their perspective---but has any single one of them denied that there should be Buddhism, Hinduism, and Shintoism classes as well? Also, it's worth mentioning that the Bible is predominately seen as a Christian book due to the inclusion of the New Testament from which Christianity originates.

Nothing is being forced down anyone's throat. But the world is filled with people like you, who at the slightest mention of God or Christianity begin to freak out as though they were being beaten on the head with scripture after scripture, when really---just be honest your with yourself---REALLY you're just afraid/hate the very concept of God himself, don't you? But that's just my opinion, my psychoanalyzation of you.

Tell me, why does this big, bad, EVIL course really bug you?

Posted by cic on August 15, 2007 at 6:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Oh really now? I'd like to know exactly which part of Christianity teaches that man has a right to self government, please, cite the book, line and verse, please.

This nation was founded on the concept of self government, man's right to self government, a concept not found in any version of any bible.

Our founders fought a bloody revolution against the Christian bible's form of government, the kingdom, and against the "Divine right of kings" to rule men.

The idea that this republic is founded on any religion is as historically ignorant as it is a threat to one of our basic freedoms, the freedom of, and from religion.

This nation is a secular representative republic, not a theocracy, sorry, but it says so in article 4, section 4 of the constitution, and lets not forget the restrictions against religion in the 1st amendment.

This is just another attempt to impose one particular religion upon us all, and I suspect the courts will strike it down as they always have and in so doing ensure religious freedom of, and from religion for us all, not just those pandering for votes or trying to get into their heaven ...

The bible as literature? Now that's a good one! It has more violence, rape, racism, and unimaginable cruelty in it than any other piece of "literature" known to man, to say nothing of being basically a book of coercion, "believe or boil" being the over all message.

I'm up to date on my ACLU dues, but I wonder how much the school district's taxes are going up to pay their lawyers in a losing cause, another attempt by those who just can't understand or accept the fact that freedom of religion also means freedom from religion in this secular representative republic.

Posted by majorjohnson on August 15, 2007 at 8:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)

lol....the bible is seen predominantly as a Christian book only by Christians! Jews and Muslims certainly don't see it that way, and religious scholars see the old testament as a Jewish book, only the new testament is seen as a Christian book. As far as the book of Leviticus and Gods laws being archaic, Both kosher and halal are 100% based on dietary laws laid out in Leviticus. Muslims still stone based on Gods laws laid out in Leviticus. Right here in South Carolina tatooing was kept illegal by Jake Knotts until a year ago, citing Leviticus and Gods law as the reason. Leviticus is the most quoted of Gods laws for maintaining that homosexuality be kept illegal. Sure is used alot for an archaic book that's been superseded. And you call me stupid?

As far as the term Christian being inclusive, there is no other religion in the world as segmented and divided as Christianity. There are more denominations of Christianity than all other religious denominations of all other religions in the world put together, and none of them believe the same thing. They can't even agree on how baptism should be performed or whether it is necessary.

These posts continue to prove my point. This is not about literature or history, it's about proselytizing Christianity. If I believed it was about education I'd support it, but I don't support turning government schools into religious indoctrination centers for Christian zealots.

Posted by Edwin435 on August 15, 2007 at 9:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I thought that tattooing was kept illegal was from a major hepatitis break out during the early 70's. May be wrong but I am fairly sure that this was the ammunition that kept it rolling all these years as well as the "criminal connotations" that was associated with it. I always thought that is should be legal but that’s for another day.

Posted by Reader on August 15, 2007 at 11:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)

From upstream: "There should always be a choice for people to read and study the Bible if they so choose."

Yes. It is called church.

Posted by bhippey on August 15, 2007 at 11:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)

What will happen to the church's youth programs once the children start taking these bible courses in school? I'm sure a lot of children will stop going to youth group and church, when they are learning the same thing at school.

Posted by mac0cm4 on August 15, 2007 at 11:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I have to agree with majorjohnson. It's a wolf in sheep's clothing (sound familiar?).

http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default...

It's par for the course with the double standard as it applies to religion. If you practice XYZ religion, you see no fault in whatever is done to promote it (including this class), regardless of how shaky the legal standing is (or the fact it's merely circumvention). XYZ'ers also don't care if any of the ABC or DEF practitioners get offended either. And when the non-XYZ people speak up then they're wrong, no matter what. Ridiculous.

Posted by bhippey on August 15, 2007 at 11:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I think that if you are going to teach one religions bible, then all religions need to be taught as well. You will get Jewish people that are pissed that their way isn't being taught, or Muslims....Damn Christians and their underhanded BS. Major Johnson is right on about this whole thing. I think I may have pissed off a lot of people in my earlier postings, but they only got mad because I don't agree with them. That's how they are. If you don't believe in what they believe in, you are wrong. Let one more bible thumping A**hole tell me I am going to hell for not conforming, and I swear to their god, I will snap. Who are they to judge the people that are different from them. In the bible it says
Matthew 7
Judging Others
1"Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you

So therefore, what? All of these "christians" who are judging others for not following their beliefs will be judge by their god. How is that going to look? Being hateful to others? I don't think He'll appreciate it. It's a good thing I don't believe in God. Or else I too would be in trouble.

Posted by Matt_84 on August 15, 2007 at 3:09 p.m. (Suggest removal)

majorjohnson: Please, go further into detail in regards to how this program will "indoctrinate" anyone. Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't being indoctrinated mean that either it is being forced on you, you are willfully accepting it, or both?

What part of ECLECTIVE don't you understand? Your obvious hatred of religion is the only thing that's really driving you to hate this course. I sure as hell don't see any college students complaining about a course they DON'T HAVE TO TAKE.

Posted by Matt_84 on August 15, 2007 at 3:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Oh, and by the way, typing "lol" at the start of your comments doesn't make you look any smarter; in fact, it gives you the appearance of a know-it-all kid. Though I'm not sure if you knew that...

bhippey: "So therefore, what? All of these "christians" who are judging others for not following their beliefs will be judge by their god. How is that going to look? Being hateful to others? I don't think He'll appreciate it."

Oh do shut up with the "OMG CHRISTIANS AER TEH HIPORCITES!"
spiel. As many Christians as I've known in my lifetime, I haven't met a single hateful one. At worst some Christians I've known are somewhat judgmental of each other, but then again, so is EVERYONE.

By the way, not believing in God isn't going to change your outcome if turns out that God does indeed exist. Not very smart of you, in my opinion, but hey, it's your life buddy.

Posted by mkhaynes on August 15, 2007 at 8:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

If you're going to join in the conversation, it's only polite to review what's already been said.

Matt_84, you've been lucky not to meet a hateful Christian (think Jerry Falwell). You are right! This class is an elective and the children don't have to take it if they don't want to - the problem is that TAXPAYER DOLLARS WILL BE PAYING FOR IT, whether 5 kids take it or 50 kids take it, and that is unconstitutional. In college, the student is paying for the classes they take, not you or me.

Anyone who can look at a law that was funded by a Christian organization with the goal of bringing the Bible into the classroom as literature or from a purely historical standing, trying to get around the ACLU and every single ruling the Supreme Court has ever made on the subject, and NOT see it as a thinly veiled attempt of trying to get a toe in the door, to make one little crack in the separation of church and state, is either lying to themselves or blithely unaware of the potential consequences. Which you, probably, would not have a problem with - until the government began questioning whether or not you were a true Christian, you only gave us 50% of your income last year, that's not quite enough love so we're going to take 75% this year...

Christianity is evangelical, the goal of our religion is to convince people to become Christian. You did it yourself, Matt_84, when you said that believing in God is a way of covering your butt, so why not?

I don't think majorjohnson hates religion, and I know for a fact that I don't. Read the earlier posts. And typing "lol" at the beginning of his (or her) posts doesn't make him look smarter, but his grasp of the English language and ability to spell DO.

Posted by newbattleaxe on August 15, 2007 at 9:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Again I ask, which version of the Bible will be used? King James? RSV? Catholic? Several versions? If this teacher doesn't use several versions, she will be teaching religion, specifically either Protestantism or Catholicism.

Since Catholics are a definite minority in the Lowcountry, she will probably not use a Catholic version (my guess.) Lawsuit time!

Posted by mac0cm4 on August 17, 2007 at 11:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)

And lawsuit time it is. It will be hashed out in the courts, like it was in Florida.

Posted by ConcernedDorchesterCitizen on September 2, 2007 at 8:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Well I have had a chance to review all of the comments. I would like to add some facts.
Fact 1: The syllabus released by the school is the table of contents for the textbook - The Bible in Its Influence. No where in the syllabus does it state HOW the class will be taught.
Fact 2: The board passed this class without seeing a curriculum only the syllabus. WHY
Fact 3: From the date of passage (8/13/07) to the first day of school (8/20/07) please explain how a teacher could be hired and trained, school books purchased, standards and a curriculum be set?
Fact 4: The teacher is not putting any information up the school website - WHY?
Fact 5: Every time someone calls and asks question about the class you are asked "Is your child in the class" WHY NOT TELL THE PUBLIC WHAT IS GOING ON IF IT IS INNOCENT?
Fact 6: The teacher is using books and materials from the NCBCPS that the TX School system is being sued on in violation of Church and State.
While I might agree it could be helpful to learn the bible why set it up for failure? Who and what is the motive behind this? When my children go to school in trailors because Dorchester Schools are under funded - why ask for a potential lawsuit over violating the first amendment which protects us to practice or not practice our religion.
While it is true that the 1st amendment does not contain the word "Separation of Church and State" it does say as follows: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Which if our schools were doing what it was supposed to - all of the people who commented here stating it was a good idea - would realize that your religion is in danger as well!
This is a really bad idea and all students and tax payers of Dorchester 2 should demand answers from their ELECTED school board and the administration. Thus far - they are not answering questions!

Posted by reasonwithme on September 11, 2007 at 10:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Irrational mythology is the last thing that needs to be taught in a state struggling with education scores. The class offers no criticism of the unsound "science" and "inspired" crimes against humanity found throughout the text of the bible. Also, no other mythologies are being "taught" as electives...no Islam, no Vedic stories, no Tao or Zen philosophies, no Greek Gods, nothing about Amen-Ra......very much biased to Christianity and very much unconstitutional.