Subscribe via RSS Feed

It’s not like he’s announced his intentions in public, repeatedly

[ 250 ] April 16, 2014 |

An Oklahoma school district just approved a four-year elective called the “Museum of the Bible Curriculum.” It was created by the noted educational theorist — Hobby Lobby President Steve Green — who hopes that learning about the Bible in an “objective” fashion in a “secular program of education” will be mandatory in Oklahoma sometime in the very near future.

“I told you that if I couldn’t bring it in the front door, I was going to sneak it through the back,” Green might as well have said.

Comments (250)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Derelict says:

    As long as Oklahoma is also willing to teach the sacred texts of every other religion–which I’m they’ll be more than happy to do, right? Right?

    Hello? Hello?!?

  2. joe from Lowell says:

    The study of the Bible as literature and as a foundational text in western society is a legitimate field of academic work.

    That’s not what’s going on here, though, is it?

    • Anderson says:

      Pretty confident there will be a dearth of non-fundamentalist approaches. This should go down shortly after the curriculum becomes public knowledge.

      What I really like is the assumption that Oklahomans are godless heathens who would never teach their children the Bible outside of school.

    • Pat says:

      We need to push that any Bible literalist worth anything believes in geocentralism. If they can’t force their minds to accept that the sun revolves around the earth, and that heaven is just up a few thousand feet above in the sky, then they have no faith!

    • Josh G. says:

      Actually teaching the Bible in an “objective” fashion in a “secular program of education” would mean extensively discussing how, when, and where it was created. It would mean teaching that the Torah wasn’t written by Moses but by multiple anonymous authors, and discussing the Documentary Hypothesis and other serious academic theories about how it came about. It would mean pointing out that Isaiah is the work of at least two different authors (perhaps three), writing centuries apart. It would mean discussing how the synoptic Gospels interrelate, how Matthew and Luke borrowed from Mark (and that none of these are probably the authors’ real identities), and discussing why these Gospels differ where they do – what theological point the authors were trying to make. It means explaining that the Gospel of John tells us little about the historical Jesus, but instead reflects the theology of an early Christian community in the late 1st or early 2nd century. It means discussing which letters from “Paul” really weren’t written by Paul (Hebrews, 1 and 2 Timothy, and Titus at least, possibly others). It means discussing how Revelation fits in with the apocalyptic literature of the age and how many churches rejected it until centuries later while accepting various other works such as the Shepherd of Hermas.

      In other words, an actual, objective Bible study course is the last thing that the fundamentalists could possibly want. What they’re really hoping, of course, is that the teachers will leave behind their objectivity and instead recite half-memorized lessons from Sunday School.

      • Autonomous Coward says:

        With this lot I’d settle for them teaching that Jesus didn’t dictate the KJV and that the Beatitudes do not include the phrase “I got mine so fuck you”.

        • Anderson says:

          Yes, that would be good.

        • Brownian says:

          “And Jesus gave them some coins and said, ‘Go now, to China, that thou mayest buy trinkets for much less than those made in America, and thou mayest greatly improve thy bottom line.’”

          That’s enough for today, class. For tomorrow I want you to read the story of the Chik-fil-A® Breakfast Menu, and consider how Jesus miraculously multiplied Chik-fil-A® Chik-n-Minis@trade; rather than full sized Chik-fil-A® Chicken Biscuits. What does that say about Jesus’ attitude towards the poor, lazy moochers? Why did He choose not to provide any sides? And what did He mean when He told the multitude that until they took personal responsibility for the tailspin of culture in the inner cities, they had no right to complain about the Romans’ policy of ‘Stop and Frisk’ towards Jews?

        • herr doktor bimler says:

          the Beatitudes do not include the phrase “I got mine so fuck you”.
          Ha! I know that’s the central precept of Buddhism.

      • Karen says:

        1. My sons and I were memorizing the Beatitudes. I mispronounced “peacemakers” as “cheese makers,” and now that’s the only way any one us can say it.

        2. Last night we read the bit about chasing the money changers from the Temple, which got the boys to respond “Thou shalt fight the power, man!”

      • Crunchy Frog says:

        Bingo.

        Absolutely discuss the authorship of the bible with the known history of the time. That the town of Nazareth probably did not exist until decades after Jesus supposedly lived there.

        Mention the theory of the “Q” document, from which the authors of the gospel borrowed heavily (and that this was a common practice for scribes at that time – borrowing verses from other works in weaving their own stories). Note that there are two completely different types of quotes attributed to Jesus – the beatitude types and the war-like types – and that these two types are consistent with two different sources and that we can deduce the location of those sources.

        Given sufficient study any student who can think will have to conclude that in the period 70-200 AD it was common practice for scribes to write a lot of fiction that borrowed from each other, and generally meant as fables (term “parable” means a story that is not true but illustrates a point, kind of like Aesop’s fables) to support a political point of view. And that this is the environment the new testament was created in. And once they conclude that another conclusion, probably deeply frightening to most people in Oklahoma, is inevitable.

        • Anderson says:

          And once they conclude that another conclusion, probably deeply frightening to most people in Oklahoma, is inevitable.

          … You mean, that the evident 100% veracity of the Gospels is even more miraculous than previously thought?

          You can lead a horticulture, but you can’t make her think. Same with these jokers.

          • Crunchy Frog says:

            I started that paragraph with “student who can think”. I suppose, reflecting on my own small town upbringing in the rural west, that maybe 10% of the high school students would actually qualify.

        • Lee Rudolph says:

          The whole attitude towards “talking” was (maybe) different thenabouts. Somewhat later, when Vulgar Latin was turning into early Romance languages, fabulare (whence “fable”) gave rise to the ancestor of Modern Spanish
          hablar, while up the road a bit parabolare (next-of-kin to “parable”) started turning into Modern French parler.

        • ThrottleJockey says:

          I don’t really see how ‘Q’ is inconsistent with a literalist interpretation of the Bible. If you’re assuming that the Gospels were written by 4 primary authors, and then reduce that to 2 primary authors, you’ve restricted the ‘degrees of freedom’ not increased it.

          In terms of Nazareth, settlements could have preceded cities in the same way that counties feature unincorporated areas today. Saying Jesus of Nazareth in 80AD might have been like saying “District of Columbia” in 177–referring to an area, not a city.

          I don’t really see how a scholarly, objective discussion of the Bible precludes literalism.

          • ThrottleJockey says:

            Saying Jesus of Nazareth in 80AD might have been like saying “District of Columbia” in 177–referring to an area, not a city.

            Sorry, should be: Saying Jesus of Nazareth in 80AD might have been like saying “District of Columbia” in 1776–referring to an area, not a city.

          • NonyNony says:

            I don’t really see how ‘Q’ is inconsistent with a literalist interpretation of the Bible. If you’re assuming that the Gospels were written by 4 primary authors, and then reduce that to 2 primary authors, you’ve restricted the ‘degrees of freedom’ not increased it.

            Not really, since the unstated bit of the ‘Q’ hypothesis that gets glossed over is that both Matthew and Luke make up/chronicle additional material that isn’t in either Mark or Q. You’ve actually added a fifth author (the author/compiler of ‘Q’) to the hypothesis rather than reducing the number of authors at all.

            (For example – the bits about the census in Luke supposedly aren’t in Q. And the bits about Herod killing all of the babies in Judea and the Holy Family fleeing to Egypt from Matthew supposedly isn’t in Q either. That’s the standard explanation for why Luke and Matthew give conflicting versions – because Luke had one tradition and Matthew had another and neither Mark nor Q said anything about it. There are other examples scattered throughout the texts that are unique to Matthew or unique to Luke as well – so you’ve got more authors in the mix when you include Q, not fewer.)

            • ThrottleJockey says:

              Since Q is a theory of a text, not a tangible text, we can at best infer what is or isn’t in it, no? And that inference wouldn’t wholly preclude the possibility that Q includes both those bits, right?

              More fundamentally once you have faith that the scriptures are the wholly (and holy) inspired words of God, you must necessarily have faith that those who transcribed it also were inspired. Fundamentalists know about the Council of Trent and the Nicene Creed for instance, and that doesn’t sway their faith that the Canon represents exclusively inspired texts.

              • NonyNony says:

                It doesn’t sway the fundamentalist movement, but it has in the past destroyed the faith of quite a few individual fundamentalists.

                Some people are naturally incurious and no amount of anything is going to sway their opinions. Other people find out that their fundamentalist religion is built on a house of sand and they spend years trying to shore it up and eventually give up and move to a sturdier faith that doesn’t involve the contortions it takes to be a fundamentalist (or, in the more extreme cases, deconvert to atheism). It happens all the time.

                It won’t stop the willfully ignorant, and there will always be plenty of those in the world.

                • ThrottleJockey says:

                  That’s fair enough, Nony. I personally think a faith unchallenged is a faith still immature.

                  Reading my first non-Biblical diluvian story actually had a much greater impact on my faith than either Q or this notion of multiple authors/scribes.

              • NonyNony says:

                (And I’m actually more convinced by Mark Goodacre’s argument that Matthew knew about Mark and Luke knew about Matthew and Mark and that ‘Q’ is a far more complex explanation for what happened with the text than is actually warranted by the evidence at hand. But that’s really neither here nor there…)

                • Lee Rudolph says:

                  I know what you did last, Sumer!

                • sibusisodan says:

                  There was an argument I saw sketched out a few years ago – by Richard Bauckham, if memory serves – which postulated that texts spread much more quickly and widely in first century AD than we generally reckon – frillions of copyists sending Paul’s latest onto furthest Cyrene, and so on.

            • rea says:

              the bits about the census in Luke supposedly aren’t in Q

              And the bits about the census in Luke are facially preposterous. What–everyone go back to where their ancestors lived 700 years ago for the census?

              • Hogan says:

                You mean I don’t have to go to Ireland every ten years? Well that’s a load off.

                • DrDick says:

                  In my case, I would have to multiply divide to Ireland, England, Germany, France, Switzerland, and Dawg knows where else.

              • Lurking Canadian says:

                To me, the bullshit about the census is among the best pieces of evidence that the gospels are about an actual person.

                If you’re writing about a guy who everybody knows came from Nazareth, but you need to show he’s the fulfillment of a prophecy about a guy from Bethlehem, OK, then you make up some bullshit explanation for why his Nazarene father had to put his pregnant, Nazarene mother on a donkey and trek to Bethlehem to get him born in the right place.

                If you’re making the guy up from whole cloth, you say he came from Bethlehem and have done.

                • Steve LaBonne says:

                  He’s a perfectly plausible figure in the context of that time and place- there were plenty of wandering apocalyptic preachers.(AKA madmen, for you C.S. Lewis fans.) So I’ve never seen any reason to believe the the Gospel character was invented out of whole cloth.

                • ajay says:

                  If you’re writing about a guy who everybody knows came from Nazareth, but you need to show he’s the fulfillment of a prophecy about a guy from Bethlehem, OK, then you make up some bullshit explanation for why his Nazarene father had to put his pregnant, Nazarene mother on a donkey and trek to Bethlehem to get him born in the right place.

                  But doesn’t everyone then say “What are you talking about? You don’t have to go back to your ancestral town to be taxed, everyone knows that. Don’t talk rubbish, man.”

                • Anonymous says:

                  Except that if anyone invented Jesus from whole cloth, it was Mark, and he didn’t care about Jesus’ birthplace, geneology etc. He makes zero mention of Bethlehem.

                  Matthew adds a (very typical) heroic savior birth myth up front that ties Jesus to prophecies about Bethlehem. He also has Jesus’ family move to Nazareth later on to fullfil some other prophecies (Matthew 2:23). It’s not clear what those prophecies are, I don’t know, but I suspect it was just to remain consistent with Mark.

                  Luke threw out Matthew’s birth story and came up with his own to give Jesus connections to both Bethlehem and Nazareth both.

            • herr doktor bimler says:

              reduce that to 2 primary authors
              One of whom was translating from the original Klingon.

          • CJColucci says:

            I’m sure you don’t.

        • L2P says:

          And once they conclude that another conclusion, probably deeply frightening to most people in Oklahoma, is inevitable.

          Sadly, not frightening to bible truthers. This is roughly what they will say:

          1. Yes, that’s the messy story of how the bible was written.

          2. Despite all this, the KJV (it’s almost ALWAYS the KJV) was the inspired word of god.

          3. God made sure that the people drafting the KJV only wrote the literal, actual truth, thus correcting any inaccuracies or problems in the bible.

          4. All the contradictions that remain can be reconciled if you read the bible right; also, if the KJV contradicts reality in some way, reality is wrong. Most likely Satan was involved in trying to corrupt us.

          There is no way to convince someone who believes that the bible errs. It’s a tautology; if it’s in the bible, it’s true. That’s the whole point of inerrancy.

          • ThrottleJockey says:

            It’s a tautology; if it’s in the bible, it’s true. That’s the whole point of inerrancy.

            You can actually both be a literalist and believe in evolution…but, yeah, most/many literalists don’t.

            • Aimai says:

              What’s the point of an ideology of biblical inerrancy if you are going to stray from the path laid out for you by your real leadership? Biblical inerrancy is a modern day fiction, a theory, and an ideology. Its not a real thing. Even so called “biblical literalists” pick and choose how they will “literally” understand the many parables, stories,and images in their version of the bible. Just take the “biblically literalist”

              interpretations of Gluttony?

              Or Look at Fred Clark’s incredible body of work impeaching the literal reading (indeed, the very understanding of what is literal and what is figurative or prophetic) in the Left Behind series?

              • Aimai says:

                Sorry, I lost the link to the Rachel Held piece on how “everyone is a biblical literalist until they get to gluttony.”

              • Shakezula says:

                Aaargh! How can you provide a borked link with such a juicy tease?

              • sibusisodan says:

                Fred Clark’s labour of love (?!) over Left Behind really is wondrous. Mainly because he so pointedly and correctly skewers how emaciated and etiolated the Left Behind worldview is: their fiction is terrible because their theology is bunk: it leads them to not care about people, at all.

              • ThrottleJockey says:

                Biblical inerrancy is a modern day fiction, a theory, and an ideology.

                Well the last 2 of these is correct. Its “newish” roots are of no import. Two thousand years ago Christianity was “newish”. Its a faith, not a fashion.

                Even so called “biblical literalists” pick and choose how they will “literally” understand the many parables, stories,and images in their version of the bible.

                I like Rachel. She’s a product of the SBC, though, and their fidelity to literalism is limited to that which supports their conservative political philosophy. Ask a SBC preacher where in the Bible it says, “Life begins at conception” and they’ll do a lot of hemming & hawing before they start resorting to extra-Biblical texts and even–gasp!–science to justify that particular belief. In other words they’re transparent hypocrites.

                After many long years of consideration I honestly believe that the best way to avoid letting your biases seep into your Biblical interpretation is to adopt a fairly 100% literalist interpretation. That is something that the SBC doesn’t do. They’re around 80%.

                Frankly, I’m distrustful of any religion that closely mirrors my own political or personal philosophy. That seems rather too convenient. How is it that my political philosophy lines up perfectly with the Creator’s? Am I that good? That smart? That perfectly in tune with Creation?

                If you’re actually literalist then you accept the bad with the good. Like the fact that Paul couldn’t care less about slavery, or women. And the fact that Jesus was more interested in spiritual salvation than in the tyranny of the Roman Empire.

                • ajay says:

                  If you’re actually literalist then you accept the bad with the good. Like the fact that Paul couldn’t care less about slavery, or women.

                  It is, or anyway should be, very shocking indeed to modern Christians that there is no outright Biblical condemnation of three of the most serious crimes that we think it’s possible for someone to commit: slavery, torture and rape.

                  Slavery was bad when Pharaoh did it because he was doing it to the Chosen People. Death by crucifixion was bad when it happened to the Son of God. But as long as you pick the right sort of victim, carry on.

      • the Torah wasn’t written by Moses

        Except for the part describing his death and burial.

      • Orpho says:

        Add in some discussions of the history of the canonization of the text for good measure, too, and include snippets from the non-canonical texts like the Gospel of Thomas.

      • southend says:

        Don’t remember who said it, but something along the lines of, “The surest way to become an atheist is to actually read the Old Testament”

      • Aimai says:

        You lost Oklahoma at “actually teaching.”

      • Alex says:

        Interestingly, this is exactly what my freshman year religion class was like at a Jesuit high school in California. So, you know, there is some hope out there…

  3. Barry Freed says:

    Oklahoma is suffering from a bad case of Florida envy if the last few days posts are any indication.

  4. Joshua says:

    That’s just what high school students need, four years of reading about the Bible. Does Oklahoma want any of its citizens to be working in any well-paying, competitive industries in the future?

  5. joe from Lowell says:

    Here in Lowell, the schools focus on writing and math skills.

    But what do we know?

  6. acallidryas says:

    This sounds awfully familiar, but why? …. Oh, yeah, from the objective, academic Bible study classes required by my county’s school board about 15 years ago: https://www.aclu.org/religion-belief/florida-citizens-challenge-unconstitutional-bible-history-classes

    It took a few years, but after a few bad court rulings, the resignation of our school attorney and a superintendent, many millions of dollars and the entire school board being voted out, the plan was finally cancelled.

    And after that, we all learned our lesson and the county never had problems with the Christian right ever again.

  7. rea says:

    An actual objective, secular course on the Bible would have the fundies storming the shccols with torches and pitchforks.

    • togolosh says:

      Came here to say this. Let’s talk about how some of the letters attributed to Paul are forgeries. Or about how none of the gospel writers was a first hand witness. Teach about the mess of mashed together texts that constitute Genesis. And to really confound things teach the Old Testament with reference to archeological evidence of things like consumption of pork by early Jews and the lack of any evidence for a captivity and exodus from Egypt.

      • Anderson says:

        Yeah, I think some readings from Bart Ehrman would be a great fit for this class.

      • rea says:

        They could take a look as soem of the noncanonical gospels, too:

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Jesus%27_wife

      • Davis X. Machina says:

        Came here to say this. Let’s talk about how some of the letters attributed to Paul are forgeries.

        “Forgeries” is a bit aggressive. More like ‘written when there were fluid notions of authorship, and none of ownership…”

        The Hippocratic Corpus is maybe 85%, 90% not by anyone who could have been the Hippocrates — some of its contents were written by adherents of different, and conflicting, theories of medicine.

        • NonyNony says:

          Bart Ehrman makes a solid case in his book “Forged!” that this is a load of crap and that forgers wrote with the intent to deceive and lend false weight to their opinions by piggy-backing onto the good name of a respected authority figure. And that even at the time the practice was decried even by their contemporaries as contemptible.

          His arguments are pretty compelling in that book, though I’d be willing to believe he overstates the case (since I’m not an expert and I’ve found in a few of his other books he has a tendency to be more sure of his conclusions than the evidence he presents really seems to warrant).

          • Davis X. Machina says:

            I’ve read all of Ehrman’s stuff. He’s over-egged the pudding a bit.

            Appropriating an authorial identity to bolster controversial content from an otherwise non-authoritative source is what we’d call ‘forgery’, but I’m not sure there’s actually an ancient category that lines up accurately against the modern.

            The canonicity/authenticity distinction, for example, doesn’t hold today.

            • Aimai says:

              I get why you’d argue that, for example, about copied sacred scripture (as described in Ehrmann’s book Misquoting Jesus.) Definitely when it came to texts there was no modern notion of authority/ownership. Especially when it came to explications of sacred texts. But is it true that the ancients had no notion of forgery when it came to, say, a named or important piece of art? They had famous statue makers and painters and they, too, bought stuff that they believed to be “authentic” as to maker or to materials. You don’t think that the same scepticism that people brought to the value of real pearls over fake, or real gold over painted lead, they wouldn’t apply to real letters from Paul over fake ones? I’m curious. Its not my area of expertise at all and I haven’t read Ehrmann’s new book.

              btw I love the expression “overegged the pudding.” I can’t wait to use it.

          • Anderson says:

            You do find some folks early on dealing with the fact that different copies of a Pauline letter said different things – “Ambrosiaster” for instance, circa 400 – and that these differences were due to wishing to bolster the copyist’s theological opinions.

            The ancients weren’t any dumber than we are … less well-informed, sometimes.

    • DrDick says:

      Hell, just teaching the actual supposed teachings of Rabbi Yeshua would have them screaming about filthy communists.

  8. Cheap Wino says:

    Great! Now we can get the true story of Noah out to those kids who have been so let down by Hollywood.

  9. Shakezula says:

    I think I benefited no end from my Bible class. It is the most influential book in European civilization.

    It also left me with a knowledge of what is in the thing that is far more detailed than the jackasses who claim Jesus was some sort of kweer stomping capitalist.

    I was also at a strictly a-religious private school

    Assuming the curriculum survives a court challenge, I’m not sure a prolonged, detailed reading of the book will result in lots of good little Christians as defined by fuckheads like Green. Is there a money angle for him? Does he own a school book/Bible publishing company?

  10. monkeyfister says:

    For a group that doesn’t like it “shoved down our throats,” they sure do seem to really like the “back door.” Wellm, I do hope this course suffers due to lack of interest and enrollment.

  11. This will work exactly like its strongest backers hope. After all, look how nearly ubiquitous exposure to Shakespeare in high school lit classes means that the easiest way to make a fortune in the US is to start a Shakespeare festival. It’s like printing money.

    • Kurzleg says:

      Yes, but Shakespeare doesn’t have an ally like the Holy Spirit moving people’s hearts.

    • Karen says:

      A class that showed where Shakespeare quoted the Bible would be awesome, though.

      • Aimai says:

        That would be English class, wouldn’t it?

      • rea says:

        Some have suggested that Shakespeare, in retirement, helped out with the King James translation. One of those things that ought to be true, even though they probably aren’t.

        • rea says:

          The clue is supposedly in Psalm 46, 46 woprds from the beginning and end:

          God is our refuge and strength, a very present help in trouble.

          2 Therefore will not we fear, though the earth be removed, and though the mountains be carried into the midst of the sea;

          3 Though the waters thereof roar and be troubled, though the mountains shake with the swelling thereof. Selah.

          4 There is a river, the streams whereof shall make glad the city of God, the holy place of the tabernacles of the most High.

          5 God is in the midst of her; she shall not be moved: God shall help her, and that right early.

          6 The heathen raged, the kingdoms were moved: he uttered his voice, the earth melted.

          7 The Lord of hosts is with us; the God of Jacob is our refuge. Selah.

          8 Come, behold the works of the Lord, what desolations he hath made in the earth.

          9 He maketh wars to cease unto the end of the earth; he breaketh the bow, and cutteth the spear in sunder; he burneth the chariot in the fire.

          10 Be still, and know that I am God: I will be exalted among the heathen, I will be exalted in the earth.

          11 The Lord of hosts is with us; the God of Jacob is our refuge. Selah.

          • Just a Rube says:

            Sadly, it’s almost certainly a coincidence (one of those things that later generations, who really got into Bardolatry, invented). Contemporaries don’t mention him as participating, and he’s not the sort of person who would have likely been recruited.

            • Anderson says:

              Little Latin. Less Greek. No Hebrew.

              • rea says:

                Well, if I were organizing a Bible translation, I’d team up scholars with people who wrote good English . . .

                • It runs aground on the fact that the translators were trying to make it sound old-fashioned for their own time, building on the work of earlier translations into English. Also, according to the Wiki all the participants belonged to the C of E and only one translator wasn’t a member of the clergy, so it’s pretty clear that using Shakespeare would’ve never occurred to King James or anyone involved in the project.

                • Anderson says:

                  Yah, they cribbed Tyndale too heavily to be terribly interested in what Shakes woulda had to say.

                  Nor can I imagine anyone so uncouth as a playwright‘s being asked to participate in a holy project.

                  (Leaving aside the scholarly suspicion that Sh’re was Catholic ….)

            • njorl says:

              I would bet that it’s an homage.

        • Lurking Canadian says:

          Besides, if it were true, you’d have another group claiming it was actually the Earl of Oxford.

  12. Shakezula says:

    And there is the inescapable fact that the Bible is full of Jewish people.

  13. Gwen says:

    Any objective study of religion would greatly increase the population of atheists.

    • Brownian says:

      Which is why evangelicals do not want objective religious study.

      • Aimai says:

        Yes, this is quite a hot topic on various evangelical or ex-evangelical blogs–first: the fundy colleges are petrified that their students might learn critical thought and start to question what they learn and second, they are right. Ehrmann pretty much lost his blind faith when he began to read his sacred scriptures in the original languages.

    • Mike G says:

      When I was growing up in Queensland (the redneckiest part of Australia) we had an hour a week of religious education at my government school.
      The only RI that ever interested me was a minister who spoke about the history and culture of biblical times, and the doctrine of other religions like Hinduism, and skipped the preachiness. I found it really interesting, and refreshing that a man of the cloth could speak intelligently and without polemics. But it reinforced my budding agnosticism, which may not have been what he intended.

  14. wengler says:

    If this law extirpates the unofficial bible education I was given at my public middle school in Oklahoma and replaces it with something more than school prayer then perhaps it might be worth it.

    Just because you are a football coach doesn’t mean you can teach that the Holocaust was God’s payback for executing Jesus. Or make flashcards showing that Muslims are going to hell.

  15. Major Kong says:

    I’ve been to Oklahoma. There’s a church on every street corner.

    I doubt the kids are lacking in opportunities to study the Bible.

    • And, as my OK roommate in college said, there’s plenty of people there who go to church every time the door is unlocked.

      You even see in in the descendants of the diaspora from OK, AR, TX, who live here in Central Cali(fornia). 187 churches in a town of 55K people, according to the latest Census figures.

    • rea says:

      Well I never been to heaven
      But I been to Oklahoma
      Well they tell me I was born there
      But I really don’t remember
      In Oklahoma, not Arizona
      What does it matter

  16. NMissC says:

    I think the Hobby Lobby guy needs to make personally secured indemnity agreements for the schools part of this charitable package.

    I think the Pontotoc, Mississippi School District shelled out just under $300K to plaintiffs counsel for 1988 fees when their Bible studies classes were litigated before Judge Neil Biggers. They were assured by lawyers at the American Family Association that this would all work out for them; given they paid their own lawyer (plus something to the AFA), I’m confident that experiment in Establishment Clause litigation cost the district over $500K in late 1980s dollars.

  17. Matt says:

    “I told you that if I couldn’t bring it in the front door, I was going to sneak it through the back,”

    I believe the kids call that “saddlebacking”. ;)

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

  • Switch to our mobile site