EPTBible Required Curriculum - Page 17
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Megalisk
United States6095 Posts
| ||
|
TheFoReveRwaR
United States10657 Posts
| ||
|
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
On August 18 2009 06:24 CharlieMurphy wrote: I'm sure the students and teachers who don't care for it have the option to ignore it. Just like not everyone has to cross their heart and do the flag salute every morning. apparently you don't know what required curriculum means | ||
|
EchOne
United States2906 Posts
| ||
|
NExUS1g
United States254 Posts
On August 18 2009 06:30 travis wrote: apparently you don't know what required curriculum means If you read the law, you'll find it is not a required course, nor is it required that schools offer it. It is an elective course that schools may choose to implement if they would like. This has already been discussed. Please read the prior posts. There's even a link to the law. | ||
|
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
On August 18 2009 07:32 NExUS1g wrote: If you read the law, you'll find it is not a required course, nor is it required that schools offer it. It is an elective course that schools may choose to implement if they would like. This has already been discussed. Please read the prior posts. There's even a link to the law. I read the original post, which stated Cliffnotes: Texas is requiring all public schools to incorporate the bible into their curriculum. so... was the original poster wrong? If so, that isn't really my fault. | ||
|
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
On August 18 2009 07:32 NExUS1g wrote: If you read the law, you'll find it is not a required course, nor is it required that schools offer it. It is an elective course that schools may choose to implement if they would like. This has already been discussed. Please read the prior posts. There's even a link to the law. ok, i went through the pages until i found the link to the law, just to read it. it says (a) Each school district that offers kindergarten through grade 12 shall offer, as a required curriculum: (1) a foundation curriculum that includes: (A) English language arts; (B) mathematics; (C) science; and (D) social studies, consisting of Texas, United States, and world history, government, and geography; and (2) an enrichment curriculum that includes: (A) to the extent possible, languages other than English; (B) health, with emphasis on the importance of proper nutrition and exercise; (C) physical education; (D) fine arts; (E) economics, with emphasis on the free enterprise system and its benefits; (F) career and technology education; [and] (G) technology applications; and (H) religious literature, including the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) and New Testament, and its impact on history and literature. so in what way can schools "choose to ignore it", if it's required curriculum? Or is the law saying that schools can require it if they wish to? In which case, that's even worse! | ||
|
SanguineToss
Canada815 Posts
| ||
|
NExUS1g
United States254 Posts
On August 18 2009 09:03 travis wrote: ok, i went through the pages until i found the link to the law, just to read it. it says so in what way can schools "choose to ignore it", if it's required curriculum? Or is the law saying that schools can require it if they wish to? In which case, that's even worse! I think I'm mistaken in that a school has the option to not participate. (a) A school district may offer to students in grade nine or above: (1) an elective course on the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) and its impact and an elective course on the New Testament and its impact; or (2) an elective course that combines the courses described by Subdivision (1). When I read, "A school district may offer..." I thought of a choice to offer or not, instead of a choice to offer one or the other. | ||
|
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
On August 18 2009 08:56 travis wrote: I read the original post, which stated so... was the original poster wrong? If so, that isn't really my fault. On August 18 2009 06:36 EchOne wrote: A curriculum most commonly refers to the set of courses offered by an institution. Most institutions do not demand that students take all the classes offered (the entire curriculum) in order to graduate. A mandate that a course be within a curriculum is not a mandate that students of the institution take that course. ok. that makes sense. but it certainly does not mean that teachers can "choose to ignore it". if it's required, then someone has to teach it. Also... the law really doesn't make it sound like that. "schools shall offer as required curriculum" doesn't sound the same as "schools are required to offer as curriculum". At least to me. Not to say I am not interpreting it wrong. | ||
|
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
On August 18 2009 09:15 NExUS1g wrote: I think I'm mistaken in that a school has the option to not participate. (a) A school district may offer to students in grade nine or above: (1) an elective course on the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) and its impact and an elective course on the New Testament and its impact; or (2) an elective course that combines the courses described by Subdivision (1). When I read, "A school district may offer..." I thought of a choice to offer or not, instead of a choice to offer one or the other. Fair enough... I am really not sure what the law is saying either. It's so fucking stupid that they can't just word it in a way that is straightforward. But that's probably intentional. | ||
|
XoXiDe
United States620 Posts
On August 18 2009 06:26 Megalisk wrote: This makes us Texans look dumber than people already believe us to be. I hope they don't teach any of that shit at my school, I'd just bring out the science books and rape their crude logic. this also on top of recently when they changed something about "strengths and weaknesses" in the science classroom in regards to evolution, also i think they wanted to add more about christianity or religion in the history classroom, i get more worried for my niece and nephew, doesn't help having creationist on the board of education. glad i graduated a long time ago. | ||
|
29 fps
United States5724 Posts
On August 18 2009 06:30 travis wrote: apparently you don't know what required curriculum means i think he means "ignore" as in you sit in class and just don't listen to what the teacher says. | ||
|
Louder
United States2276 Posts
It's amazing how bigoted people here are, and it's not limited to race and sex. You can be the wrong KIND of Christian and be ostracized in school. There is a family a few doors down from me that quite seriously will not let their children play with mine because we don't go to church (they don't even know that we're ATHEISTS, but if they did I'm sure we'd be driven out of town by an angry mob). I live in a city of 13,500 people and it has 27 churches in an area of 9.2 square miles. Last year, I had to make a complaint to the superintendent of the school district because my daughter (2nd grade) had a teacher who forced her class to say a blessing before leaving the class room for lunch. She was openly rude to students who didn't participate. This wasn't just reported by my daughter, a parent working at the school as part of PTA witnessed it. So in response to people commenting about context: let me assure you, they will say it's historical, but it will largely not be. Most of these kids are indoctrinated just like their parents with religion, and belief is a source of pride. Why select the bible specifically for historical influence? The Bible is a document of unverifiable origin and known to be full of unverifiable information - much of which isn't even fit for modern tabloids (burning bush that talks? talking snake?). This is purely done for religious purposes - there's no justifiable reason to study just the Bible and it's "impact" on history and literature and exclude thousands of other works of philosophy, literature and history - or even to simply give it preference. And we can all agree, I'm sure, that the historical analysis will not include a balanced look at 20 centuries worth of atrocities, genocide, and prejudice derived from that wretched book. Keep your religion out of my schools, I'll keep functioning brain cells out of your churches -_- | ||
|
NExUS1g
United States254 Posts
But kidding aside, you have a poor opinion and lack of open-mindedness and tolerance toward religion. And I've lived lots of places including backwoods Texas and there are idiots everywhere, it's not just limited to Texas. | ||
|
Louder
United States2276 Posts
On August 18 2009 10:51 NExUS1g wrote: You think that a burning bush that talks isn't fit for the tabloids? I think lighting G.W. on fire would make front page. But kidding aside, you have a poor opinion and lack of open-mindedness and tolerance toward religion. And I've lived lots of places including backwoods Texas and there are idiots everywhere, it's not just limited to Texas. There are certainly idiots everywhere, but they're especially numerous here  I don't know why I'm even bothering to respond to your assessment of my perspective, but you're making several assumptions. I've said nothing to indicate a lack of open mindedness or tolerance, beyond that I have zero tolerance or open-mindedness for religious education in public schools. I'm not sure you know what open mindedness actually is. I do have a poor opinion of religion. I don't feel articulating the reasons behind my opinion is worth the time, as I (and any other non-religious person who has tried) know from experience that debating religion with a religious person is a lost cause - religion requires a complete and utter lack of open mindedness as the cost of entry - you have to abandon free thought at the door and believe without question the doctrine of the religion. But I've said too much already, as I don't really want to go into it with you  I'll leave it at this: teaching the Bible in any context in public school is unacceptable. Period. | ||
|
SChasu
United States1505 Posts
Texas is still bamf though. | ||
|
Jayme
United States5866 Posts
Oh we do... yea it pretty much sucks here. Most of the "younger" generation IE 19-23~ aren't so bad but the general populace above this age are huge sources of headaches. Exceptions to every rule and all that... apparently my Parents and Louder are in that little thing. I also laugh every time someone thinks that Texas could succeed and be stable. | ||
|
0neder
United States3733 Posts
Also, if you knew anything about the context of Jefferson's "wall of separation" letter, you would understand that his views towards the issue were a lot more liberal than those of religion-phobes today. Negative experiences with religion and silly behavior from religious people should not be extrapolated to judge everyones' diverse religious experiences. I respect the opinions and choices of atheists and religious people alike. That doesn't mean I accuse people I don't agree with of lacking intelligence. | ||
|
blomsterjohn
Norway463 Posts
"You know, they're telling us which cars to buy and which light bulbs to use now. But they ought not be telling us whether we can go to Baptist, Methodist, whichever one... But it is quite different and, I would say, extreme, to say that our laws should not be inspired and informed by the views of the faithful. Freedom of religion is not to be confused with freedom from religion. and continuing : "Under Rick Perry's rule, Texas educators have become virtually indistinguishable from Sunday School teachers. In pursuing his goal to keep students ignorant of earth sciences and vital health issues (like AIDS prevention), Perry just tapped another of his Creationist/Diversity Denier cronies to head the Texas Board of Education. Rackjite dissects the governor's latest appointment, a fundie automaton named Gail Lowe: She rejects the science of Global Warming and Climate Change, she will not tolerate gay friendly books in public school libraries and of course she not only believes that the Earth is 6000 years old and men live in gigantic fishes at the bottom of the sea, but wants to teach that to children in Texas Public Schools... This (appointment) keeps the board unchanged with 7 to 9 of the 15 votes being evangelical fundamentalist Creationists deciding what Texas children read and learn. (At this very moment our Texas teachers are being trained by "religious scholars" on how to best implement a state law signed by Perry that mandates the study of Scripture in high school classroms.) http://www.progressivepuppy.com/the_progressive_puppy/2009/08/texas-governor-now-promotes-theocracy.html This was only dug up trought most recent sites and i woulndt be sure how reliable it is but i guess it casts some light on whos running this, it doesn't really seem very "secular" to me | ||
| ||
