Bible Distribution in Public Elementary School

I personally would prefer there be no religious teaching or material distribution in schools , no matter the religion. The job and responsibility to teach about religion and whatever faith you have should come from the family, not school.

 

I think that a scholarly approach to learning about religions is appropriate for school. When it comes to proselytizing or evangelizing, I agree that a public school is not the appropriate place for that.

 

Oh yes, I fully agree. An informational class about different World Religions can be very beneficial, if it can be done in such a way that it is not promoting one over the other, but an overview of beliefs.

What I mean by no religious teaching is not teaching a child how to practice their religion (i.e a Christian student shouldn't attend classes on how to properly evangelize, study their Bible or how to pray and likewise a Muslim student shouldn't attend a class where they are taught how to do xyz.) The only exception would be if the classes were separated and optional and taught by an outside person. Maybe a pastor could get permission to come teach a Bible study class and a Muslim leader could get permission to come teach a Quaran' study class, etc.

 

Oh please tell me what the true religion is so I can teach it.

 

Southern Belle from the Bible Belt. Together forever? Only time will tell.

 

I watched the Gideons for years pass out the little new testaments at our school. My neighbor was on of those guys. Kids like to get those little green books. Then they were gone. In the trash on the benches where ever the left them. It was usually when they were leaving for the day. We have a bible club after school in the lunchroom. Kids go for snacks. The older woman that has led it for dozens of years is a sweet heart. I taught her daughter and grandson. I never really thought of this as illegal or bad. God or Allah or Budha or Rasta in the schools may be better than all the guns and weapons.............

 

I personally would love for a faith leader to come and speak on their religion--not in conversation sort of way, but, you know, the culture and history and what not.

 

What? Unless it is true? Who is the arbiter of that? There are many paths to God and judgment is not ours.

 

The bible club is legal, provided the school allows similar clubs (a Koran club, for example, or a GSA).

 

I can’t help but think of the the handmaids tale when I see/hear the word Gideons.

 

This reminds me that when I was in college, we used to grab the little bibles from the Gideons to use in our Koine Greek classes. They were pretty accurate in translation, more so than many other versions, so they helped us check our work before class. My professor recommended using them for that. They were a handy tool!

 

Ever read oneof those resolutions?

https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/2007/12/4/senate-section/article/s14736-1?q={"search"%3A%5B"Bible"%5D%7D&r=1

 

I'm not really interested in SCOTUS. It's a politically motivated and elected group of people who vote one way or the other based upon their ideology, and it usually has nothing to do with what the constitution says.

I'm sure lawyers would find it interesting due to stare decisis, but that's not something that I find particularly compelling.

 

Am I now being asked what truth is?

This has been the domain of philosophers for a long time, and I'm pretty sure you know the Socratic answer to your question.

As I wrote, it's something of a dilemma for me since I really can't say one way or another what is true, but I do try and stick with the basic fundamental of consistency. Whether a particular religion agrees with that or not is of little import.

Anyway, I'm finished with this particular discussion. I found it interesting because if we refuse to define "religion", we are left with the question of what exactly should be introduced to students, and how we as teachers decide to answer that question.

Your question mirrors my own.

 

In scrolling through the discussions on my phone, I'm fearful that my finger might have bumped the report button. I wrote a note to a moderator concerning this possible error. Truth be told, I'm appreciative of everyone's honest opinions and insight in this and the many other discussions on this forum.

 

SCOTUS is not elected. Please refer to the US Constitution.

 

Yes, they are nominated by the President, then that nomination is voted upon by the senate, which can them confirm the nomination.

Not an election? Well... neither is the President, either, since he is confirmed by the electoral college which votes (still not an election in your eyes, I'm guessing) to see who will become the next President.

Is this distinction truly necessary? I don't think so.

 

He who practices Humpty Dumpty semantics is likely to end up with egg on his face.

 

I couldn't choose just one...