"Christians" Attacking Christians

[Dmckay]

Watchdog Group Attacks School Bible Study
August 01, 2005 5:48 PM EDT
AUSTIN, Texas - A religious watchdog group complained Monday that a Bible study course taught in hundreds of public schools in Texas and across the country promotes a fundamentalist Christian view and violates religious freedom.

The Texas Freedom Network, which includes clergy of several faiths, also said the course offered by the Greensboro, N.C.-based National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools is full of errors and dubious research.

The producers of the Bible class dismissed the Texas Freedom Network as a "far left" organization trying to suppress study of a historical text.

The National Council on Bible Curriculum Web site says its elective course is offered in high schools and junior highs by more than 300 school districts in 37 states.

Texas Freedom Network President Kathy Miller said her group looked at the course after the Odessa school board voted in April to offer the class. It asked Southern Methodist University biblical scholar Mark A. Chancey to review the curriculum.

Chancey's review found that the course characterizes the Bible as inspired by God, that discussions of science are based on the biblical account of creation, that Jesus is referred to as fulfilling Old Testament prophecy, and that archaeological findings are erroneously used to support claims of the Bible's historical accuracy.

He said the course also suggests the Bible, instead of the Constitution, be considered the nation's founding document.

"No public school student should have to have a particular religious belief forced upon them," the Rev. Ragan Courtney, pastor of The Sanctuary, a Baptist congregation in Austin, said at a news conference held by Texas Freedom Network.

Elizabeth Ridenour, president of the Bible class group, accused the Texas Freedom Network of censorship.

"They are actually quite fearful of academic freedom, and of local schools deciding for themselves what elective courses to offer their citizens," she said in a statement.

According to the Texas Freedom Network, 52 Texas school districts offer the class. In Odessa, more than 6,000 people signed a petition in support before it was approved in April.

Although representatives of the Bible council have attended school board meetings in Odessa, superintendent Wendell Sollis said course materials have not yet been selected.

Miller said the Texas Freedom Network supports study of the Bible as a significant historical text, but not in a way that amounts to religious indoctrination.

 

[Scostar]

Perhaps, being from the other side of the world, I don't understand the significance of this article, but shouldn't the heading be...

Christians "Attacking" Christians

Surely we are not above criticism?
And isn't the publicity generated by the Texas Freedom Network's comments exactly the sort of opportunity that Christians should relish, as it gives us an invitation to engage in these issues in a public forum. Unless of course we have something to hide...

In good faith,
james

 

[night2day]

They must have forgtten what the term elective as in elective course truly means. Last I remember they were cources that weren't required and the student could chose if they so wanted.

=====
Elective \E*lect"ive\, a. [Cf. F. ['e]lectif.]
1. Exerting the power of choice; selecting; as, an elective
act.
2. Pertaining to, or consisting in, choice, or right of
choosing; electoral.
3 Dependent on choice; that can be refused.
=====

As the article quotes from one individual: "No public school student should have to have a particular religious belief forced upon them," the Rev. Ragan Courtney, pastor of The Sanctuary, a Baptist congregation in Austin, said at a news conference held by Texas Freedom Network.

Question: If a student chooses to take a course that is an elective...how is it considered "being forced upon"?

 

[Dmckay]

Perhaps, being from the other side of the world, I don't understand the significance of this article, but shouldn't the heading be...

Christians "Attacking" Christians

Surely we are not above criticism?
And isn't the publicity generated by the Texas Freedom Network's comments exactly the sort of opportunity that Christians should relish, as it gives us an invitation to engage in these issues in a public forum. Unless of course we have something to hide...

In good faith,
james

I put the first Christians in quotes because groups like the Texas Freedom Network while consisting, as the article said, "includes clergy of several faiths" their purpose for existing is to keep other Christians from being too Christian.

Believer were called "Christians" first at Antioch of Syria as a term of derision because these believer's live so emulated the Life of Christ. Christians meant "little Christs" as in they were just like a bunch of little Jesus' running around.

What are the "crimes" of which the National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public School are accused: "(the) course characterizes the Bible as inspired by God, that discussions of science are based on the biblical account of creation, that Jesus is referred to as fulfilling Old Testament prophecy, and that archaeological findings are erroneously used to support claims of the Bible's historical accuracy.

He said the course also suggests the Bible, instead of the Constitution, be considered the nation's founding document." They also accuse that "the course. . . is full of errors and dubious research." Basically the accusation is that this Bible Study is too Christian. How dare they actually teach a Christian point of view in a Christian "Elective" Bible study.

The only claim that might possible hold water is that of the Bible and not the Constitution be considered the US's founding document. This has long been a point of contention between Christian's and non-christians in the United States. While I have not personally studied the material used in this Bible Study, I am pretty sure that I know what the point the study was trying to make. Many of the first settlers in this country came here for the expressed purpose of finding and establishing "Religious Freedom" having endured persecution for practicing their faith in Europe under the State affiliated churches like Catholicism, Anglican, and Lutheran. That is not to say that all immigrants were Christians, but many, if not most were.

When local governments were sent up many of them required that those who ran for office had to be members in good standing in their local church, and have the support of their pastors. While many of the Founding Fathers were Christians many also were not, or at best were Deist, i.e. Jefferson, but that did not stop them from realizing that establishing a legal system and a supporting government structure meant that there had to be a moral basis for their decisions and laws. Many different sources were considered and even incorporated into their thinking when composing the Constitution. Beside the Bible, they also considered the code of Hammarabbi, the Magna Carta, the Mayflower Compact, even some of the legal codes adopted by some of the American Indians. But by far, the Bible was a main source.

The point of the argument, and the article, is that this group, the Texas Freedom Network, while professing Christianity, uses that profession to attack the very truths that make a person a "Christian" as far as Scripture is concerned. But then, they don't appear to believe that Scripture is to be believed anyway.

 

[Scostar]

The point of the argument, and the article, is that this group, the Texas Freedom Network, while professing Christianity, uses that profession to attack the very truths that make a person a "Christian" as far as Scripture is concerned. But then, they don't appear to believe that Scripture is to be believed anyway.

Fair enough. There is a wide misunderstanding that Christianity is about morals and values, rather than being about people being transformed into the likeness of Christ.

My point was that when we face criticism for believing what we do, is this in fact persecution and attack, or is it the natural result when any two parties have a disagreement about an issue.

In other words, if they had put you in jail or burnt down your house, or framed you for crimes you never commited, because of your beliefs, that would be persecution. But if they issue a press release saying that your teaching material is full of errors and you have an agenda that they think is ridiculous, that is not persecution. That is a free society using its freedom. And it invites you to respond with dignity, intelligence, and force.

By the way, it is a good point of yours that if the course is elective then nothing is being forced upon anyone.

This may just be Australian ignorance here, and this is not really the right forum for this debate, but how could you use the Bible for constitution? First, the Bible itself talks about how the law is powerless to save us. It is ineffective. And surely this law is what people mean when they say they want the Bible as the constitution. The Ten Commandments.
And second, how would you legalise it? Could you take someone to court for coveting something of yours, or for labouring on the sabbath or for not loving God with all their heart? Does this not simply make us all criminals. Would not society end up like first century Israel with the Pharisees? It is exactly the reason that Jesus came - to release us from bondage to the law. Surely to make the law the framework for a constitution would be an extremely unchristian thing to do?

But as I said, I am unversed in the ways of Americans, except what we get here of some fairly godless television that you export (and we import!).

In good faith,

james

 

[etcministries]

ETC Ministries has been under attack by two malcontents in Colchester CT. They claim that the leader and founder of ETC Ministries is operating as a "cult."

There is nothing "cultish" about ETC Ministries or the leader/founder Ken Parks.

www dot etcministries dot altervista dot org

 

[belladonic-haze]

You mean that people never learn and always find a reason to attack each other....

 

[Dmckay]

Fair enough. There is a wide misunderstanding that Christianity is about morals and values, rather than being about people being transformed into the likeness of Christ.

My point was that when we face criticism for believing what we do, is this in fact persecution and attack, or is it the natural result when any two parties have a disagreement about an issue.

In other words, if they had put you in jail or burnt down your house, or framed you for crimes you never commited, because of your beliefs, that would be persecution. But if they issue a press release saying that your teaching material is full of errors and you have an agenda that they think is ridiculous, that is not persecution. That is a free society using its freedom. And it invites you to respond with dignity, intelligence, and force.

By the way, it is a good point of yours that if the course is elective then nothing is being forced upon anyone.

This may just be Australian ignorance here, and this is not really the right forum for this debate, but how could you use the Bible for constitution? First, the Bible itself talks about how the law is powerless to save us. It is ineffective. And surely this law is what people mean when they say they want the Bible as the constitution. The Ten Commandments.
And second, how would you legalise it? Could you take someone to court for coveting something of yours, or for labouring on the sabbath or for not loving God with all their heart? Does this not simply make us all criminals. Would not society end up like first century Israel with the Pharisees? It is exactly the reason that Jesus came - to release us from bondage to the law. Surely to make the law the framework for a constitution would be an extremely unchristian thing to do?

But as I said, I am unversed in the ways of Americans, except what we get here of some fairly godless television that you export (and we import!).

In good faith,

james

Most American Christians of my aquaintance don't watch the filth that comes out of Hollywood either on television or the theaters. Unfortunately there are plenty of others out there that are interested in polluting their minds with the garbage that passes for entertainment in the US today.

 

[Scostar]

Regardless of whether people watch them or not, the television and movies exported from the US form the basis on which many foreigners judge what America is like. I am fortunate enough to have spent a little time there. You have a wonderful country, and all the people I met were open, generous and warm.

But what most people see of the US (through the entertainment media) is a country obsessed with money, sex, violence and lack of morality in general.

It is a shame. But I suppose that is the way of the modern world.

James

 

[Dmckay]

Regardless of whether people watch them or not, the television and movies exported from the US form the basis on which many foreigners judge what America is like. I am fortunate enough to have spent a little time there. You have a wonderful country, and all the people I met were open, generous and warm.

But what most people see of the US (through the entertainment media) is a country obsessed with money, sex, violence and lack of morality in general.

It is a shame. But I suppose that is the way of the modern world.

James

That makes as little sense as judging Australians on the basis of it having started as a penal colony, Papua New Guinea citizens on the basis of their ancestors having been head hunters, or all Arabs on the basis of a bunch of murdering terrorists. Hollywood is but one sick city in a country of almost 300,000,000 people who have done a great deal of good for the world besides being a major source of food for the majority of the world.

 

[Scostar]

I agree that it makes little sense.

But the reality is that many people look at the world through the window of their television.

And I do believe that to some extent, the cultural produce of a country reflects the country itself.

Hollywood would not have much success unless there were huge amounts of people consuming its product. Maybe this product does not reflect America, but does it reflect what millions of Americans want to be?

By the way, I am not trying to be critical of the US or any other culture. All have their good and bad points. And your country seems to me to have more good than bad. But unfortunately the bad ones get more publicity.

James

 

[Dmckay]

I agree that it makes little sense.

But the reality is that many people look at the world through the window of their television.

And I do believe that to some extent, the cultural produce of a country reflects the country itself.

Hollywood would not have much success unless there were huge amounts of people consuming its product. Maybe this product does not reflect America, but does it reflect what millions of Americans want to be?

By the way, I am not trying to be critical of the US or any other culture. All have their good and bad points. And your country seems to me to have more good than bad. But unfortunately the bad ones get more publicity.

James

Are you aware that Hollywood is concerned that their revenue in the United States is markedly down over the last year? They are depending more and more on the EU to pick up the drop in revenue. They haven't quite gotten the message that only those programs and movies that are more family oriented and friendly are actually making money for them here. Finding Nemo, the Passion of the Christ, Toy Story, etc. True, they due have the big box office draws of the action movies like Revenge of the Sith, Stealth and Batman Begins and there are still the real garbage stinkers such as Deuce Bigalow: European Gigalo and Four Brothers, but they mainly appeal to the teenaged Drive-in crowd.

Granted, the US doesn't have the cultural historic record of most European countries, we haven't been around quite as long. However, I believe that Samuel Clemens, Hemingway, Lewis Wallace and H.G Wells stack up pretty high on the list of classical literature. Rogers & Hammerstein, Stephen Sondheim and John Williams to mention but a few American composers.

In the sciences, astronomy, aeronautics, agriculture, medicine, computers, communications there aren't many countries that aren't desparately trying to catch up. Many countries which, had it not been for the US, would currently be speaking German as their national language. And still, the whole country is so quickly and easily tarred by the brush Hollywood, merely because we sometimes go overboard protecting individuals rights to free speech, even though that right was originally intended to protect speech against the government.