Why do US schools not allow the Bible to be taught ?

[Maria Billingsley]

Um...

Jesus Christ was born into a Jewish family and kept the Jewish law. He informed his listeners what he didn't come to abolish the Jewish law. The first Christians were Jews who continued to observe the law, and there was the question of whether salvation was open only to Jews, meaning that gentiles would have to become Jews, or to both Jews and gentiles. Even some of the Jewish commentaries mention Jesus of Nazareth.

The difference is that many Jews never accepted Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah, just as many gentiles today do not. It's my understanding that at least Orthodox Jews do not consider a Jew who accepts Christ as still being a Jew, though I could be wrong. A quick check shows that reading the New Testament isn't forbidden even to Orthodox Jews, and some rabbis acknowledged reading non-Jewish religious texts, so that is not an offense against Judaism.

All this being the case, then how is teaching about Jesus of Nazareth anti-Semitic?

Having first hand knowledge of how Jewish families treat, even their own, if one departs and marries a Christian, imagine a Jewish child in a Christian infused secular school.
Teaching a Jewish child about their Messiah is a wonderful thing but Judaism does not allow it and completely incompatible.
Folding Christianity into secular schools with Jewish children present could indeed lead to antisemitic tropes among students. Some historical Christian teachings about Jews and the crucifixion of Jesus have been used to fuel hatred, and without a careful, interfaith approach, such lessons could be misunderstood by children, leading to harmful stereotypes.
Many organizations are fighting against this. Here is one for your review.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/meet-the-jewish-woman-leading-the-fight-against-american-christian-nationalism/

Thanks for sharing.

 

[Tuur]

Having first hand knowledge of how Jewish families treat, even their own, if one departs and marries a Christian, imagine a Jewish child in a Christian infused secular school.
Teaching a Jewish child about their Messiah is a wonderful thing but Judaism does not allow it and completely incompatible.
Folding Christianity into secular schools with Jewish children present could indeed lead to antisemitic tropes among students. Some historical Christian teachings about Jews and the crucifixion of Jesus have been used to fuel hatred, and without a careful, interfaith approach, such lessons could be misunderstood by children, leading to harmful stereotypes.
Many organizations are fighting against this. Here is one for your review.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/meet-the-jewish-woman-leading-the-fight-against-american-christian-nationalism/

Thanks for sharing.

By that reasoning, sharing the gospel promotes anti-Semitism. And yet the current wave of anti-Semitism we're witnessing comes at the hands of the second or third generation raised with a secular education, from people who have equal contempt for Christians and Jews.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

By that reasoning, sharing the gospel promotes anti-Semitism. And yet the current wave of anti-Semitism we're witnessing comes at the hands of the second or third generation raised with a secular education, from people who have equal contempt for Christians and Jews.

There are plenty of ways and opportunities to preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ of Nazareth. Christian Nationalism indoctrination is just not one of them.
Thanks for sharing.

 

[essentialsaltes]

And yet the current wave of anti-Semitism we're witnessing comes at the hands of the second or third generation raised with a secular education, from people who have equal contempt for Christians and Jews.

I don't think that's what's behind the "Jews will not replace us" crowd.

 

[BCP1928]

By that reasoning, sharing the gospel promotes anti-Semitism. And yet the current wave of anti-Semitism we're witnessing comes at the hands of the second or third generation raised with a secular education, from people who have equal contempt for Christians and Jews.

Not so fast, Tuur. The current wave of antisemitism comes from redefining antisemitism to be any criticism of the Netanyahu regime and brands many Christians and Jews as anti-semites.

 

[Tuur]

Not so fast, Tuur. The current wave of antisemitism comes from redefining antisemitism to be any criticism of the Netanyahu regime and brands many Christians and Jews as anti-semites.

Does that include chants of "From the river to the sea?"

 

[Tuur]

I don't think that's what's behind the "Jews will not replace us" crowd.

In my limited experience, if one person intends to hate another because of race, they will look for any excuse to justify their hatred. If one doesn't work, they'll easily shift to another.

 

[Tuur]

There are plenty of ways and opportunities to preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ of Nazareth. Christian Nationalism indoctrination is just not one of them.
Thanks for sharing.

Bible stories in school = Christian National indoctrination?

Odd. The very last one I heard in school concerned King Belshazzar, Daniel, and the writing on the wall. The book of Daniel is from the Ketuvim of the Tanakh.

 

[BCP1928]

Bible stories in school = Christian National indoctrination?

Odd. The very last one I heard in school concerned King Belshazzar, Daniel, and the writing on the wall. The book of Daniel is from the Ketuvim of the Tanakh.

Yes. The stated purpose of the legislation mandating the introduction of the Ten Commandments and the Bible in public schools is to use them in teaching that the United States was founded on the Protestant Christian faith.

 

[BCP1928]

Does that include chants of "From the river to the sea?"

Why not? The Palestinians are the indigenous people of the region. They want it back. They would want it back regardless of the religion of the Europeans who moved in and took over.

 

[Tuur]

Why not? The Palestinians are the indigenous people of the region. They want it back. They would want it back regardless of the religion of the Europeans who moved in and took over.

And there it is.

 

[jamiec]

This is an exaggeration with a small grain of truth.

In the US, we have the very firm principle that we do not have an established religion. (First Amendment to our Constitution, and very important to us.) Since the public schools are operated by the government, if public school teachers teach Christianity in the sense that a church would teach it, or lead their students in Christian prayers or services, this would be considered an establishment of religion (since students can't easily opt out) and is forbidden. There have been court cases that addressed this question.

Religion and religious figures can be mentioned in classrooms as long as it's clear that no favoritism is being given to any religion. Also, religious student clubs can exist, as long as they're student-run and totally voluntary.

The proper corrective, if a teacher missteps, is going to be up to the local school administration. If I were a school administrator, I'd start with a conversation ("Mr. Smith, we're not allowed to do that; do this other thing instead"), instead of firing the teacher.

Why isn’t the introduction & use of the phrase “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional, then ? Not all US children are Christians, or even theists. ISTM that, if one is to have a Pledge at all, and one that is repeated at frequent intervals, at the very least the reference to a deity should be struck out, as a violation of the rights of atheists, agnostics, & non-Christians. Theism, and particular types of it, should enjoy no rights that are not equally available to those who do not profess it or any of them.

IMO the Pledge, if used at all, should be repeated very infrequently - perhaps at the beginning of each school year; but certainly not every day.

 

[bèlla]

I don’t think any group has a right to impose their religious beliefs on children in a public setting. If the facility is founded upon those principles and parents agree that’s fine. Christian desiring otherwise should enroll their children at schools that support their beliefs or homeschool them instead. If the reverse occurred with another religion they’d be the first to complain.

~bella

 

[PloverWing]

Why isn’t the introduction & use of the phrase “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional, then ?

Good question. In my judgment, you are correct -- it is inconsistent with the Constitution. There have been various court cases over the years, decided in various directions. I gather that lawmakers imagine that saying the Pledge will inspire patriotism in children, so use of the Pledge surged in times when the country felt threatened.

It's not just the phrase "under God" that's religiously problematic; there are some religious groups (including Jehovah's Witnesses, Mennonites, and, well, me) that don't like taking oaths that might bind them to engaging in violence on behalf of the government. I think the current legal standing is that states/schools are allowed to require the Pledge, but students are allowed to opt out.

My experience in practice of seeing the Pledge in my children's public school was this: The Pledge was played over the loudspeaker, to comply with the law, and students and teachers in the classroom milled about doing their start-of-the-day stuff while the Pledge was playing. That's probably a reasonable, practical compromise.

(If anyone is interested in the legal history, this article is pretty good: Pledge of Allegiance )

 

[essentialsaltes]

Why isn’t the introduction & use of the phrase “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional, then ?

The answer appears to be that is not unconstitutional, because it is not actually religious, but an empty ritual phrase indicative of ceremonial deism.

Ceremonial deism is a legal term used in the United States to designate governmental religious references and practices deemed to be mere cultural rituals and not inherently religious because of long customary usage. Proposed examples of ceremonial deisminclude the reference to God introduced into the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954, the phrase "In God We Trust" on U.S. currency, and the Ohio state motto, "With God, all things are possible".

The term was coined in 1962 by the then-dean of Yale Law School, Eugene Rostow, and has been used since 1984 by the Supreme Court of the United States to assess exemptions from the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

The specific case of 'under God' has not quite been decided by SCOTUS. When 'under God' reached SCOTUS, the main decision turned on the dad not having standing. O'Connor's concurrence suggested that ceremonial deism made the Pledge okay.

I believe that government can, in a discrete category of cases, acknowledge or refer to the divine without offending the Constitution. This category of "ceremonial deism" most clearly encompasses such things as the national motto ("In God We Trust"), religious references in traditional patriotic songs such as "The Star-Spangled Banner", and the words with which the Marshal of this Court opens each of its sessions ("God save the United States and this honorable Court"). These references are not minor trespasses upon the Establishment Clause to which I turn a blind eye. Instead, their history, character, and context prevent them from being constitutional violations at all.

I don't find this very convincing -- I think they are minor but actual trespasses on the Constitution that some would like to turn a blind eye to -- but I take comfort in the fact that the only reason it's constitutional is that it is a rote phrase that doesn't mean anything.

 

[MehGuy]

I heard somewhere that if teachers in the US even mention the name 'Jesus' to their pupils they are sacked from their jobs, how true is this ?

No.

American public schools are not allowed to endorse any specific religion but they can still talk about it, especially in courses like history. Really.. we would be cheating the students if we did not mention Christianity and it's huge influence in history. Of course other religions are brought up too, especially in world history courses.

There were some teachers though, who kind of pushed the limits. But nothing ever happened to them to my knowledge.