echi wrote:To your first point, I don't find paranoia to be a reasonable objection.
Keep the snotty remarks to yourself, i referred specifically to a quote in the introductory post--it is more than obvious to any American citizen who is paying attention that there are significant number of people in this country who wish to promote christianity to a national moral imperative.
Quote:Your second I think is a valid concern. However, I could support such a course provided it include all historical evidence, all popular interpretations through history, a study of why certain scriptures were included while others were left out.
And there is nothing in that article which suggests that this is the intent, hence my objection.
Quote:The Bible has had a profound impact on our society. It seems reasonable enough to consider teaching it in school, where kids may actually get a chance to see it objectively. There is no chance of that happening in a church setting.
Your pollyanna view of what the intent of the course
ought to be bears no relationship to what it such courses have been known to have been in the days when bible study and prayer were common in schools, nor is any apparent description of an objectivity that could be expected from the proposal mentioned. You also continue to peddle the canard which has become so common in this thread that the bible has had such a profound impact. It is one of many texts which make up the western canon, and by no means the most important. Interpretations of scripture are heavily influenced by the Platonic and Aristotelean views of Saul of Tarsus, and there is good historical reason to suggest that Origen was heavily influenced by Greek philosophy in his heavy editing of the "gospels" which became the accepted new testament canon. Quite apart from that, before the widespread use of moveable type in European society, the text of the bible was unknown to the great majority of the population. It has only become the obsession of fanatics since the Protestant Reformation.
