What’s the difference here between teaching the bible and teaching history? I recall getting through Hon and AP US History and Civics with and understanding of protestantism conflicts, Calvinism, and Deism. The law and mandate is bullshit, but what is the actual curriculum requirements. If you are teaching the historical content of the Bible that means you can also teach about atheists that took issue with it. Is there a lot of room for malicious compliance?
Malicious compliance is still compliance. If you concede this hill, the next one will be a requirement to teach the Bible as historical truth. And then it will be to prevent teaching actual science.
Well I think the Unions and government need to push back on this (the AG already is). I 100% believe that this should be reveresed. But reading the article it states that losing your teaching license is possible punishment. It’s really easy to be high and mighty when it’s not your livelihood and job on the line. If you need to wait it out while the courts settle it what do teachers need to do to protect their jobs, stay in compliance, and avoid retaliation until this gets settled? How many teachers already are in compliance just by teaching regular US history curriculum that says “yeah, protestants read the bible and disputes on interpretation of the bible with catholics is part of the history of America.” I think it’s important to note that the Gutenberg press published the first printed bible. With the increase of education and literacy lay people no longer had to get teachings directly from the literate Orthodoxy. This allowed to different interpretation and rise of different religions which led to conflict, etc…
Oh I completely agree with you, and I don’t begrudge anyone who’s willing to do what they have to do to keep their jobs. My point is just that fascists don’t play fair. They won’t put their hands on their hips and smirk disapprovingly at malicious compliance. They will keep stepping on your neck until you do exactly what they want without question. You know that when they say the Bible, they of course mean their interpretation of their version of a Bible of their choosing. They aren’t going to permit debate on the topic.
Cool. Sorry, I’m accustomed to being flamed on this thread for not being as liberal as the base here. Sorry if I came off super defensive. I can’t tell if the superintendent is just posturing or not. Without any curriculum definition, what does “teaching the bible” even mean. I agree his objective is probably hoping to teach christian fundametalism, but you can’t make that happen with some batshit memo by itself. I actually wish schools could teach religion in a balanced way. In a pluralistic multicultural society, it probably helps to have some background to understand basics of other religions.
No worries about coming off as defensive, I completely understand how you would read my comment as an attack. It wasn’t how I meant it, but I recognize that I was fired up about it.
The superintendent is absolutely posturing, and I don’t think he believes he will win in court. But I believe there is a chance he wins in court, especially given the number of activist conservative justices we have on the bench.
I don’t have any doubt about what he meant by “teaching the Bible,” and I am certain it had nothing to do with providing a rounded and thorough depiction of various religious and cultural practices of a pluralistic multicultural society. The guy is a christo-fascist and a bigot. He belongs in prison for trying to abuse his position in government to subjugate his constituents.
The existence of the Bible is historical fact and artifact. There is historical merit in studying the various religious beliefs of historical peoples that factored into their values and thinking. Protestantism is factually a thing. Different colonies and denominational belief is a thing and a topic in American history. What made Quakers Quakers and how did that impact the Pennsylvania.
There’s a difference between teaching the bible, teaching theology, and teaching histories of religion. There’s definitely questions of what we are teaching and what is appropriate in public primary and secondary schools and in what subject, but I don’t think there is anything in and of itself bad if the historical religious beliefs and impact on historical civic life are discussed.
What’s the difference here between teaching the bible and teaching history? I recall getting through Hon and AP US History and Civics with and understanding of protestantism conflicts, Calvinism, and Deism. The law and mandate is bullshit, but what is the actual curriculum requirements. If you are teaching the historical content of the Bible that means you can also teach about atheists that took issue with it. Is there a lot of room for malicious compliance?
Malicious compliance is still compliance. If you concede this hill, the next one will be a requirement to teach the Bible as historical truth. And then it will be to prevent teaching actual science.
Well I think the Unions and government need to push back on this (the AG already is). I 100% believe that this should be reveresed. But reading the article it states that losing your teaching license is possible punishment. It’s really easy to be high and mighty when it’s not your livelihood and job on the line. If you need to wait it out while the courts settle it what do teachers need to do to protect their jobs, stay in compliance, and avoid retaliation until this gets settled? How many teachers already are in compliance just by teaching regular US history curriculum that says “yeah, protestants read the bible and disputes on interpretation of the bible with catholics is part of the history of America.” I think it’s important to note that the Gutenberg press published the first printed bible. With the increase of education and literacy lay people no longer had to get teachings directly from the literate Orthodoxy. This allowed to different interpretation and rise of different religions which led to conflict, etc…
Oh I completely agree with you, and I don’t begrudge anyone who’s willing to do what they have to do to keep their jobs. My point is just that fascists don’t play fair. They won’t put their hands on their hips and smirk disapprovingly at malicious compliance. They will keep stepping on your neck until you do exactly what they want without question. You know that when they say the Bible, they of course mean their interpretation of their version of a Bible of their choosing. They aren’t going to permit debate on the topic.
Cool. Sorry, I’m accustomed to being flamed on this thread for not being as liberal as the base here. Sorry if I came off super defensive. I can’t tell if the superintendent is just posturing or not. Without any curriculum definition, what does “teaching the bible” even mean. I agree his objective is probably hoping to teach christian fundametalism, but you can’t make that happen with some batshit memo by itself. I actually wish schools could teach religion in a balanced way. In a pluralistic multicultural society, it probably helps to have some background to understand basics of other religions.
No worries about coming off as defensive, I completely understand how you would read my comment as an attack. It wasn’t how I meant it, but I recognize that I was fired up about it.
The superintendent is absolutely posturing, and I don’t think he believes he will win in court. But I believe there is a chance he wins in court, especially given the number of activist conservative justices we have on the bench.
I don’t have any doubt about what he meant by “teaching the Bible,” and I am certain it had nothing to do with providing a rounded and thorough depiction of various religious and cultural practices of a pluralistic multicultural society. The guy is a christo-fascist and a bigot. He belongs in prison for trying to abuse his position in government to subjugate his constituents.
History is based on historical facts and the Bible is not.
The existence of the Bible is historical fact and artifact. There is historical merit in studying the various religious beliefs of historical peoples that factored into their values and thinking. Protestantism is factually a thing. Different colonies and denominational belief is a thing and a topic in American history. What made Quakers Quakers and how did that impact the Pennsylvania.
There’s a difference between teaching the bible, teaching theology, and teaching histories of religion. There’s definitely questions of what we are teaching and what is appropriate in public primary and secondary schools and in what subject, but I don’t think there is anything in and of itself bad if the historical religious beliefs and impact on historical civic life are discussed.