Should Sacred Studies be part of a general public school curricula

In Odessa, Texas, there is a proposal for some sort of elective Bible studies class being injected into the public school. I previously saw a better article on it, but can't right now find it.We could only hope that the counter-proposal to such, and/or to efforts to inject ID or such, would be that of a broad based "Sacred Studies" class.Moose

I've just read through the first 90 messages of this topic and I see no examples of what could and could not be taught.I would like to focus on Christianity, for that is the main area of contention. I am not saying the other religions should be excluded.So, the Bible. What specific content can and should be pulled out of the Bible and taught?Moose

I presume that the conflicts between some of the Biblical beliefs and the worldly facts and history would be topics of discussion.Would the teacher be free to say "Biblical indications of an approximately 6000 year old Earth are in conflict with the scientific consensus that the Earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old"?MooseAdded by edit, in response to your added by edit:Your school was free of constitutional considerations. What parts of their material would be out of bounds for a public school?Edited by Minnemooseus, : See above.

I am not trying to exclude other religions - I just wanted a specific example from some religion, and I chose that one to be Christianity.Now, you have indicated that the phrase "Biblical indications of an approximately 6000 year old Earth are in conflict with the scientific consensus that the Earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old" is good and proper material for the class.I presume the phrase "Biblical indications of an approximately 6000 year old Earth are wrong" would cross the line into unconstitutionality.I also presume that "Biblical indications of an approximately 6000 year old Earth are in conflict with the scientific consensus that the Earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old. The Biblical story of the Earth's age is wrong" would also be unconstitutional.It would be fine to imply that certain Biblical beliefs are wrong, but the teacher could not explicitly say such. So, what if a student asks the teacher "Does the scientific consensus say the Bible is wrong"?Moose

I think I agree with you on this. The problem I see is that the teacher can find himself/herself really treading a line between constitutional and unconstitutional. One could say essentially the same thing two different ways, with the two ways being on opposite sides of the line.And what if a student comment crosses over into unconstitutional territory?I like your ideal of "sacred studies", although (credit to another member) perhaps the "comparative religion studies" would be a better title and core theme. But I don't see any way it could be kept constitutional.Moose

You know, it would be nice if you would flesh out your response more, without me having to prompt you every inch of the way. And when it happens in the context of a class discussion, the teacher needs to respond to it. Is the teacher to say "That comment would be unconstitutional if I was the one to say it, and feel that I shouldn't comment in return".For someone proposing that "Study of Religion" be brought into the public schools, it sure is hard to get any details out of you on how it is to be executed. You say it can be done constitutionally, but I see much potential for unconstitutional glitches. All it takes is one of those glitches, you got a lawsuit from either the pro or anti-religion side, and the whole thing comes crashing down.Moose

I think it will be very difficult for a teacher, regardless of his/her best "keep it constitutional" intents, to not somewhere along the line say he/she agrees or disagrees with some religious position. Somewhere along the line, and I don't think it will be a long line, one of the challenges will succeed.Richard Dawkins, as I understand it, is in favor of education about religion. He believes students should be given the honest factual information from which they can develop their positions. Of course, Dawkins is one who believes such a information presentation will have much of religion coming off looking bad. For that reason, many of the religion promoters would be against it.We need a couple of trial versions - One up here in Minnesota and one down in Texas. Then we see what happens.Moose

That would be the diplomatic way to say it, for the teacher not to take sides.Now say we are in a science class, one covering geology, and the teacher has just taught that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. A student replies "But the Bible says that the Earth is about 5000 years old".The teacher could make the same diplomatic response, "All the evidence shows that the Bible is factually wrong." Or he could say "the Bible is wrong". Or he could say "that book is wrong".As I see it, saying "the Bible is wrong" in the religion class would be taking a religious position and would be unconstitutional, but the exact same statement in a science class would be fine and constitutional. In the science class, why should the Bible get special deference relative to some other non-religion connected book? Wrong is wrong.Moose

---

Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment.

​

"Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." - Bruce Graham

​

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." - John Kenneth Galbraith

​

"Yesterday on Fox News, commentator Glenn Beck said that he believes President Obama is a racist. To be fair, every time you watch Glenn Beck, it does get a little easier to hate white people." - Conan O'Brien

​

"I know a little about a lot of things, and a lot about a few things, but I'm highly ignorant about everything." - Moose