Bible class rules set for Texas schools - Faith- msnbc.com

Wed Jul 23 14:33:44 PDT 2008

This whole discussion has reminded me of Richard Posner's review -- a classic, in my opinion -- of Gertrude Himmelfarb's book One Nation, Two Cultures.  You can find the whole review at this link: http://www.nytimes.com/books/99/12/19/reviews/991219.19posnert.html?_r=1&oref=slogin.  It can also be found in modified form in his Public Intellectuals book.  But I can't resist quoting at length:

* * * * *

We live, [Himmelfarb] thinks, in a period of moral decay, but there is growing resistance to the cultural revolution -- resistance manifested in increased religiosity and in the recent improvement in social indicators like the number of abortions, births out of wedlock and crimes.

Most of ''One Nation, Two Cultures'' is devoted to describing our current fallen moral state and contrasting it with our former Edenic state, and Himmelfarb, drawing on her experience as a historian, enriches her narrative with pungent quotations from the 18th century to the present. The book is moderate in tone, buttressed by statistics and a good read.

But it is not convincing. Its major shortcoming is its uncritical conflation of social phenomena that have different causes, are differently amenable to correction and differ in gravity; they are thrown together, and the resulting stew is labeled a morally sick society. . . . .  

Next are those pathologies that are the inevitable byproducts of modernity; and here we must, I think, take the bad (as social conservatives conceive it to be) with the good. The advent of safe and effective contraception and of household labor-saving devices, advances in reproductive technology, the reduction in infant mortality to near zero and the transformation of the economy into a service economy in which little work requires masculine strength -- the interplay of these developments was bound to free (or, if you prefer, eject) women from their traditional role, and by doing so bring about a profound change in sexual behavior and family structure. Unless we want to go the way of Iran, we shall not be able to return to the era of premarital chastity, low divorce, stay-at-home moms, pornography-free media and the closeting of homosexuals and adulterers. . . . . 

She reads the signs of moral decay in ''the degradation of popular culture,'' as evidenced by ''vulgarity on TV,'' by ''confessional memoirs'' and by those television talk shows in which the ''participants proudly flaunt the most sordid details of their lives.'' But these are matters of taste, rather than ''diseases, moral and cultural.'' Popular culture has always offended the fastidious. That of the 1950's was not as raunchy as today's, but today's popular culture does not ridicule obese people, ethnic minorities, stammerers and effeminate men, as the popular culture of the 1950's did, so it may be doubted whether there has actually been a net decline in the moral tone of popular culture.

The final ingredient in Himmelfarb's stew is the lunatic postmodernist left, represented here by a play in which Jesus Christ is a homosexual and has sexual relations with the apostles and by ''whiteness studies (which celebrate 'white trash' and expose the inherent racism in being white).'' That a tiny fringe group of bohemians, as they used to be called, poses a threat to the nation's value structure is preposterous. Actually, a paranoid might argue that the cultural left is subsidized by Opus Dei in order to galvanize the religious right.

The stew is garnished with what have become the cliches of cultural pessimism, like hand wringing over ''the loss of respect for authorities and institutions.'' Himmelfarb does not ask whether the authorities and institutions in question (they are not specified) deserve respect. She wants a deferential society, in which the common people are cosseted by religious, moral and customary norms, but she does not consider whether such a society could rise to the challenges of modernity. . . . . 

With anecdotes and statistics drawn from each of the domains that I have described, a superficial impression can easily be created of a nation on its moral uppers. But it would be more accurate to speak not of a cultural revolution but of a transformation in morals and manners resulting from diverse material factors that include changes in the nature of work, growing prosperity, advances in reproductive technology, increasing ethnic diversity and a communications revolution that has created a far better-informed population. The largest moral change that these developments have brought about is increased tolerance for people different from the norm, whether in race, religion, sex, sexual orientation or even physical and mental health (no more ''moron'' jokes). This will strike most people, including, I assume, Himmelfarb, as moral progress. . . . . 
From: jlsatty at wwisp.com
To: chaplaingate at yahoo.com; religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu
Subject: RE: Bible class rules set for Texas schools - Faith- msnbc.com
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 15:07:21 -0500

I guess parents and churches are either
not doing their jobs or are just not enough

Perhaps we should removal all children
from their homes (since they are obviously not getting the moral training they
need) and lock them in schools that have bible classes.  Surely that will stem
the tide.

Joel L. Sogol

Attorney at Law

811 21st Ave.

Tuscaloosa, ALabama  35401

ph (205) 345-0966

fx (205) 345-0971

email:  jlsatty at wwisp.com

Ben Franklin observed that truth wins a
fair fight - which is why we have evidence rules in U.S. courts.

From:
religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu [mailto:religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Gordon James Klingenschmitt

Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2008
2:12 PM

To: 'Law
 & Religion issues for Law Academics'

Subject: RE: Bible class rules set
for Texas
schools - Faith- msnbc.com

1) Brayton seems to be confusing "myth" with
"statistical correlated fact," that when we stopped teaching Biblical
morality, children stopped behaving according to Biblical morality.  Nobody
here disputes violent crime, divorce, teen pregnancy, teen suicide, and
single-parenthood have increased since 1960.  If nobody here cares (as Ed
supposes) about the social consequences of radical interpretations, we truly
have become a cold, calloused, nation of selfish lawyers indeed.

2) Brayton's view that Bibles should be banned from schools remains on the
"atheist fringe" of constitutional legal scholars, including the U.S.
Supreme Court has held that public schools may teach students about the Bible
as long as such teaching is “presented objectively as part of a secular
program of education.”  (6School District of Abington Twp v.
Schempp, 374 U.S.
203, 225 (1963). See Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39, 42 (1980) (per curiam)).

3) This permissive view Supreme Court view is endorsed by both liberal and
conservative legal scholars, in Charles' excellent document "The Bible and
Public Schools: A First Amendment Guide"
(http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/about.aspx?id=6261) including:  

American Association of School Administrators

American Federation of Teachers

American Jewish Committee

American Jewish Congress

Anti-Defamation League

Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development

Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs

Christian Educators Association International

Christian Legal Society

Council on Islamic Education

National Association of Evangelicals

National Association of Secondary School Principals

National Council of Churches of Christ in the U.S.A.

National Council for the Social Studies

National Education Association

National School Boards Association

People for the American Way
Foundation

Union of American Hebrew Congregations

4)  When Brayton places himself far left of People for the American Way, you
can tell he's on the fringe, and I'm in the mainstream.  But at least he's
"highly educated," unlike the rest of these organizations, who seem
to agree with me.

In Jesus,

Chaplain K.,

Ed Brayton
<stcynic at gmail.com> wrote:

It seems to me, thanks to courts and judges that enforce state atheism and Ed's
social experiment upon our families and children, by taking Bibles and prayer
OUT of public schools, that...

"the result has already been very ugly and very expensive."  

In Jesus name,

Chaplain Gordon James Klingenschmitt

Charles Haynes
<CHaynes at freedomforum.org> wrote:

I agree that much more guidance is needed (along the lines suggested in
the consensus guidelines we issued in 2000 -- "The Bible and Public
Schools: A First Amendment Guide"
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/about.aspx?id=6261. What puzzles me,
however, is why the State Board fails to mention the requirements for training
as outlined in Section 21.549 of the Texas
"Bible Bill." Perhaps that is the next step... but there is no
mention of it in the the board's decision this week.

If the training requirements mandated by the bill are followed, then many of
the problems might be avoided... But with groups out there pushing
unconstitutional Bible materials (such as those at issue in the
recently-settled lawsuit in Odessa)
it will be difficult to monitor what is going on across the state. Charles
Haynes

21.459. BIBLE COURSE TRAINING. (a) The commissioner 

shall develop and make available training materials and other 

teacher training resources for a school district to use in 

assisting teachers of elective Bible courses in developing:

(1) expertise in the appropriate Bible course 

curriculum;

(2) understanding of applicable supreme court rulings 

and current constitutional law regarding how Bible courses are to 

be taught in public schools objectively as a part of a secular 

program of education;

(3) understanding of how to present the Bible in an 

objective, academic manner that neither promotes nor disparages 

religion, nor is taught from a particular sectarian point of view;

(4) proficiency in instructional approaches that 

present course material in a manner that respects all faiths and 

religious traditions, while favoring none; and

(5) expertise in how to avoid devotional content or 

proselytizing in the classroom.

(b) The commissioner shall develop materials and resources 

under this section in consultation with appropriate faculty members 

at institutions of higher education.

(c) The commissioner shall make the training materials and 

other teacher training resources required under Subsection (a) 

available to Bible course teachers through access to in-service 

training.

(d) The commissioner shall use funds appropriated for the 

purpose to administer this section.

Charles Haynes

The Freedom Forum First
 Amendment Center

555 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20001

202/292-6293 - office

703/683-1924 home office

________________________________

From: religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu on behalf of Ed Brayton

Sent: Tue 7/22/2008 1:56 AM

To: 'Law & Religion issues for Law Academics'

Subject: RE: Bible class rules set for Texas
schools - Faith- msnbc.com

Having seen some of the material already at use in many Bible courses in

Texas, I can
only say that the State board of education is being incredibly

irresponsible in not spelling out exactly what can and can't be taught in

such classes. Local school districts are inevitably going to teach this

course in constitutionally dubious ways without such guidance. Terri Leo

claims that providing such guidelines might lead to a lawsuit; not providing

them is going to lead to many such suits - and sooner rather than later.

They are doing the same thing the Louisiana
legislature is doing with the

recent "academic freedom" legislation, inviting local schools into a
"Dover

trap." The result is going to be very ugly and very expensive.

Ed Brayton

-----Original Message-----

From: religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu

[mailto:religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Gibbens, Daniel G.

Sent: Monday, July 21, 2008 5:20 PM

To: 'Law & Religion issues for Law Academics'

Subject: RE: Bible class rules set for Texas
schools - Faith- msnbc.com

Justice Brennan's well-known statement, concurring in Schempp, 374 US at

300: "teaching about the Bible" "in classes in literature or
history" is

permissible. As literature, surely teaching about the Bible is different

from other literature items, distinctively involving the necessity of

treating these issues:

The fact that some people believe it (or some of it) is "the word of
God" --

others believe that it is essential to understanding their religion --

others believe it is interesting literature but otherwise irrelevant -- and

thinking internationally, it is one several books presenting similar issues,

e.g., the Koran.

Arguably, if teachers are not so advised/trained, there are indeed critical

church-state issues.

Dan

Daniel G. Gibbens

Regents' Professor of Law Emeritus

University of Oklahoma

-----Original Message-----

From: religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu

[mailto:religionlaw-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Joel Sogol

Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2008 3:41 AM

To: Religionlaw

Subject: Bible class rules set for Texas
schools - Faith- msnbc.com

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25742567/

Joel Sogol

_______________________________________________

To post, send message to Religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu

To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see

http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as

private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are

posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or

wrongly) forward the messages to others.

_______________________________________________

To post, send message to Religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu

To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see

http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as

private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are

posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or

wrongly) forward the messages to others.

_______________________________________________

To post, send message to Religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu

To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the
messages to others.

_______________________________________________

To post, send message to Religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu

To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the
messages to others.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/religionlaw/attachments/20080723/fed14a9a/attachment.htm 