Without question this steps over the thin line that is separation of church and state. Only the short sighted would think otherwise, you must look where this could end up long term. As many have posted, this is a public school building that receives money from local, state and federal taxes and from the first day of this class offering if the school fails to offer lessons/teachings from other religious text than they have clearly violated that thin line.

From what Christian slant will they teach? The strict interpretation of the Southern Baptist or the looser, parable interpretation of the Catholics?

If you want your child to learn more about the Bible, than get their bums out of bed early Sunday morning and put them in Sunday school. It has no place in the public schools. I say this not as a non-believer, but as some one who seldom misses mass. For religion to take hold of the soul you must find it, not it finding you.

I can see a course in world Religion, but not one based solely on the Bible. That just smacks of having a state sponsored religion stuff down your gullet. Even though this apparently will be an elective course, there could be peer pressure to attend in an obviously conservative town.

Without question there are many lessons to be learned from the Bible. But a vast majority apply only to the believers.

There are far too many other classes that should occupy a students time. We’re on the verge of this country loosing one of our core competencies: Information Technology. Over the last five years there has been more than a 50% drop in freshman declaring IT as a major. Let’s focus our efforts in public schools where we all benefit.

Okay, I am really confused here. Is this a legal debate, or a constitutional debate? If it's legal, then that's one thing. But talking about "separation of church and state" as if that is even part of the constitution has me wondering where I am. "Precedent"? Is there anything in the constitution that mentions the word "precedent"? "Legal decisions"? Are those part of the constitution?

Are you people debating the constitution, or court rulings?

You can't debate the Constitution without debating "court rulings". That is just the way our system is set up. We have taken it to the extreme though, in the sense that the court rulings mean more than the text of the Constitution itself which is a huge problem. Europeans that come to study law here are shocked at how removed our constitutional "law" is from the actual text of the Constitution. It is a real problem. But it is one that we cannot change, at least retrospectively. We must adhere to the precedent. However, we can go forward with a greater respect for the originalist method in any future interpretations of the Constitution.

I like this solution. It's simple, it's as fair as any decision based on numbers of people can be, and it is the only way a nationwide adoption of classes that teach from any religious text will pass muster in public schools, in my opinion. Because in cities with large Muslim, Hindu, Jewish, and etc. populations, this class will be challenged. Students and parents will demand a class that teaches from their religious text. And the only way to keep this from being a violation of the 1st Amendment at that point is to give them what they want, within reason. And amount of interest as the deciding factor does seem reasonable.

1. No.

2. n/a

3. Yes. That is the only setting that the bible should be taught in. If the study is not "educational" but instead involves religious education, per say, then it would violate the church-state separation in my view.

What system is set up this way? The rules of debate, or how Americans choose to decide what the constitution means?




As I wrote earlier, since the constitution does not mention "precedent", then precedents are not relevant to constitutional debate. You either debate what is written in the constitution, or you can debate something other than the constitution. There is no third alternative.

The problem is that it is pointless to debate the wording of the Constitution only because none of these issues are resolved by the wording alone. Unless I misunderstood you and you are saying that we should look more closely at the actual language to see if the current "rulings" are supported in the language. In which case, I agree and think that might be interesting.

If you haven't figured it out yet, I am a strict constitutionalist. The wording is all that is important. Take that away, and you take the constitution away from the American people and give it into the hands of the Supreme Court.

Americans have a constitution that we can read and make judgements about by ourselves without the help of a Supreme Court.

Now you say that "none of these issues are resolved by the wording alone". The wording alone only restricts Congress. That's fairly easy to understand if you read the constitution. Since the congress hasn't passed any laws regarding the establishment of a religion, then this isn't a constitutional problem.

Any further debate about what the constitution says about organized religions must take into account the text that we can read. Take the text away, and you have robbed the American people of their constitution. Precedents are not allowed, nor court decisions, nor anything that isn't contained within the text. What we can do in a constitutional debate is debate the wording of the constitution, rather than the intent of the authors.

And if intent is considered relevant, does anybody think that the intent of the founding fathers was to remove the actual text of the constitution from what the constitution is supposed to mean?

We used to have a written constitution, but it has apparantly been replaced by "precedent".

1) On face, does this class violate the establishment clause concerning separation of church and state?

The point has been amply made that it all depends on how the course is presented by the instructor. If it is not editorialized in the context of any Christian or Jewish sect, and if it is not held like Sunday School or a worship service where students are expected to declare their beliefs in response, I do not see it as promoting a religion.

(Besides, the good citizens of Texas need to be reminded that "Thou shalt not kill" or "Thou shalt not murder" is one of the original Ten Commandments--perhaps it would help them re-examine state-sponsored killing of convicts. )


2) If you answered yes, to #1, would it be possible to design the curriculum so that it would pass muster and avoid such establishment issues?

N/A

3) Do you think there would be value in children having a chance to study the bible in an academic setting? Why or why not?

What value is there in reading Carl Sandberg's poetry, or Robert Frost's? School systems determine what is to be taught all the time. Some authors and poets are habitually chosen above others, but it is the school board and, hopefully, the parents of the children in the school system who determine the content, especially when it is outside the core curricula of "readin', writin', and 'rithmetic."

Whether a student takes the Bible as holy writ or only as old literature, s/he can benefit from knowing the stories and the principles contained therein. (As far as the apochryphal books, there should be extra credit assignments made available to those who would show an interest, I think).

Plus, those Christians who do not attend church on Sunday because they are too tired or they just aren't willing to get their lazy butts out of bed might find this a salve to their consciences--at least the kid(s) can read the Bible in an elective course!

We should be more afraid of the precedent this will set if it’s allowed. Making the Bible mandatory study won’t happen overnight, it will start innocently and inconspicuously in a manner similar to this proposition, as an elective. This is just the toe in the door of an 8000 pound gorilla.

And I agree with BOF, I can see law suits flying all over the place wasting the resources of local schools districts who have none to spare.


Huge difference, no where in the constitution is there a ‘separation of picture and state’, students of all religious backgrounds could feel comfortable participating in a photography class. Students outside of Judeo based beliefs may be barred from taking this class by their parents. But you bring up a good point, this is a secondary area that we need to focus curriculum: the arts. Art and music classes are dropping at an alarming rate.


While I agree wholeheartedly, I have a hard time believing that the Bible can be used in an “educational” context without the lessons becoming a religious sermon (especially considering the volunteer instructors are from the local church). It’s like me saying we’re going to use an algebra book to learn the relationship between numbers but we’re not going to learn algebra.

You want to learn ancient middles eastern history or ancient middle eastern geography? There’s plenty of text from which to choose. You want to learn about compassion, understanding, forgiveness and faith? If the parents fail to pass on these lessons there’s always the church.

I’ve read statements to the affect of “well, it helps put certain works of art into perspective”. Speaking from personal experience I spent two years in architecture school and a good portion of that time was spent studying the great works of art. I don’t feel I was cheated out of the ‘meaning’ of the Last Supper because it wasn’t taught by a member of the clergy.

I agree that we should be afraid IF the Bible were made mandatory study in public schools. The point here is that the proposal is to make the Bible an elective. Therefore, it is not going to be mandatory. If those sneaky, dirty Christians try to make it mandatory, I'll be right there with you fighting it. For now it's not though, and as for the 8000 pound gorilla- stop being so paranoid. This type of irrational oppression is what makes the fundamentalist's behave the way they do. If Iraq showed us anything, it is that it is not exactly fair to blow up something b/c it may become dangerous in the future if certain things happen.


I have to disagree. There is not a big difference. My parents may have barred me from taking photography because they thought it better that I learn typing. I still technically had the option to take it, just like the non-Judeo has to take this class. This is where the interest factor comes in. As long as the class fills up, is supported by a number of parents, and it remains an optional class for everyone to take or not take- there is nothing wrong with it.

PS - I sympathize with you on the arts, but that is for another topic at another time.

This is a rather strange view of Constitutional law and debate. Look at almost any opinion and the judge writing it will cite precedent cases to support his or her views. Dissenters will do the same thing citing different precedent cases.

You should also note that textbooks used in college and graduate school Constitutional law courses are mainly studies in case law. The book I used in the 60s at University of North Texas was entitled Constitutional Law: Cases and Other Problems by Paul Freund, Arthur Sutherland, Mark Howe and Ernest Brown. I would suggest that newer texts with newer cases, are, for the most part, case books. I don’t see this approach changing.

Should the Odessa Bible course reach the federal courts (or state courts for that matter) lawyers and judges will be citing precedents to bolster their case. You can bet judges on both sides will be trotting out precedent cases like Engle vs. Vitale, Murray vs. Schempp and others. The arguments will be why previous cases either apply or don't apply.

I'll admit that it might sound strange to those who think the actual text of the constitution isn't important.

I'm still waiting to hear an argument as to why the text of the constitution shouldn't be considered relevant to constitutional debates.

I'm wondering if there is any reason for law students to even read the Constitution these days. The hoi polloi might like to think that what the constitution says has something to do with constitutional law, but maybe we're wrong, and the text is no longer relevant. However, I am still optimistic.

Personally, I think you guys should go to another forum to debate. This is a constitutional debate forum. If you want to debate case law, then please ask the moderators to open up a new forum so you can do so.

It depends. There is a nice fine line between church and state, but just because it can be taught does not mean it is being endorsed. Taxpayers are giving money to the government to fund our schools, it is the right of the district to determine how they will spend money that really the government only channels.

Also there is only one instance I can formulate that this would violate the clause: every student at the school would have to be subject to a church service or mass. In my district we have a voluntary elective system, in that students may decide what they are interested in and pursue it as an option. I'd like to turn it around and say that not allowing a Bible study elective is impeding on the guarantee that I have life, liberty and the right to pursue happiness. If I want to sign up for this elective is that not my liberty in action? Am I not pursuing happiness?

Back to an earlier point: A school can teach a religion without endorsing it: Religious Studies in my district reads from several holy books, examines the roles of people in their world, etc. But does it endorse a religion? No. Teaching the Bible would not be an outward expression of the school's Christendom, it would be a choice that children can take to advance their knowledge in a topic they may want to understand more.

I do not think anyone has brought up Evolution in this topic. Evolution may as well be considered to be God of science, it goes against some people's religious beliefs and they are still forced to learn it under the name of "science". Isn't it the right of people to choose what they want to believe? So because we allow something that interferes with my child's religious convictions aren't they being robbed of their choice to choose?

Children are given the chance to learn the Bible of their own volition... it is not forced on them after being repackaged and rewritten into some science book. So if a religion is not specifically endorsed, if my child is given the choice of selecting this elective, and there is an element my child does not agree with there is no violation of the separation of church and state.

I doubt there are many, if any, who do not think the text of The Constitution of the United States, hereafter referred to as the document, is important.

No, we do not need another forum. The document and case law are, to use a cliché, joined at the hip. In fact, stare decisis applied through case law has been part of the American system for more than 200 years.

Definition of Stare Decisis from The New Oxford American Dictionary, 2005.



Oh, but to counter your baseless and hollow assertions, I’ve digressed from the topic. So, let me bring things back into focus with an example of how things work—work in reality, that is--from the question at hand.

1) On face, does this class violate the establishment clause concerning separation of church and state?

Amendment I to the document says:

“Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion…”

Amendment XIV applied the bill or rights to state governments through the process of incorporation. “…No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States…”

Odessa Texas public schools are prepared to offer a course in Bible. When and if this reaches the courts, lawyers and judges on both sides will scramble for precedents to bolster their arguments.

You simply cannot divorce the text of the document from more than 200 years of cases that have define it. That is how the case at hand will be decided. Not liking the process will not make it just go away.

I really don’t know how this will be decided if it reaches the U. Supreme Court. As the court is now constituted, I think it would be declared unconstitutional, if the court decided to issue a writ of certiorari and expound on the issue or overrule a lower court. It takes time, however, for cases to work their way through the courts. Should Bush get several appointments to the court, then all bets are off. I don’t know how a court reconstituted with Bush appointees would apply precedent.

Not merely important for that could mean historically, rather than relevant. But I'll assume that you believe "the document" is relevant. Let me copy the first amendment here so this "important" document can be perused at leisure.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Do you notice the part where it mentions who is being restricted from making any laws concerning the establishment of religion? Do you similarly notice that it singularly fails to mention any other legislative bodies? Shall I also post a copy of the tenth amendment?

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively,
or to the people."

Now since the constitution does not mention anything concerning the unconstitutionality of any legislative body other than congress, then the tenth amendment guarantees that the states do have the right to establish religion.

That's according to the text of this important document of ours. And unfortunately, I cannot find any mention of "stare decisis" in the constitution so I'm a little confused as to why you bothered mentioning it. After all, this is a constitutional debate forum. Here, we debate the constitution. If you want to debate something that is not in the constitution, then there are much more relevant forums you may wish to take your argument to.




This makes no sense. Perhaps if you were to paste the relevant article from "the document" that joins case law to the hip of "the document", then maybe I could understand what you are trying to say.

I apologize if I seem a little brusque, but I value our constitution. It is not merely "the document", and case law does not take precedence over the text of the constitution (please note the period at the end of that sentence). Now I am trying to debate the constitution with you using the actual text. If you wish to start throwing case law at me despite the very clear language of the constitution, then obviously our values differ too greatly for there to be anything other than an agreement to disagree.



Now this is the part that really infuriates me. Not because I disagree, but because I agree with you. From my perspective, a Supreme Court judge should have one of the easiest jobs in the world. Their task should be to define what the constitution says. It's a job that should take a matter of minutes to do, and then they can go back to their homes and enjoy a life of relative comfort after a lifetime of upholding the law in lower courts. It shouldn't be a difficult job that requires long hours well into the morning going over precedents, but a simple perusal of "the document" to ascertain whether the case in contention violates the Constitution. That's the job! It's not time to make work, or to muddy the waters. It is a simple task that should be the reward of people who understand that the law is not and should not be the result of 200 years of ambiguous or inconsistent court decisions. The law should be based on principles, and the principles that this country demands are found in the text of the constitution.

I just thought I would add a note that this debate is not theoretical at all. In my part of the United States -- aptly known as the Bible Belt -- teaching the Bible in public school goes on all the time. Here is the local organization that promotes this cause:

Bible in the Schools (Chattanooga)

In their own words, here is one of their motives:



I ask you -- doesn't this sound like religious instruction?

In the words of the President of this organization:



"Ministry" is not a religious-neutral word.

And this is not a small program in Hamiltion County:



Do we really need five Bible classes in public school? Can a class called "the Life of Jesus" really be religiously neutral?

To answer the questions directly:

1. Use of the Bible as a textbook is clearly a violation of the separation of church and state, in my eyes.

2. It would be possible to have a class in Comparative Religion which would include the Bible as a source of what Christians believe. In my mind, it seems to me that this use of the Bible in school, where it is compared with other religious texts, and with other religious beliefs that lack such texts (including atheism and agnosticism), would be the only way that violation of the separation of church and state could be avoided.

3. There is value in being familiar with the Bible as part of Western culture. Heck, even I, the most extreme advocate of total separation of church and state, and a person of no faith whatsoever, have read the entire KJV. I am not convinced that its value is so critical that we need to have special classes in the Bible in public school.

The problem is that would probably be the local school board which made a decision to offer the course(s) as electives, thus we are not talking about a religion being stuffed down the throats of unrepentant sinners.

That's what the first amendment protects us from. It doesn't keep religion out of the schools. It keeps the state out of people's religious beliefs. A fine line perhaps, but as we are talking about electives, the line is not invisible.


2. It would be possible to have a class in Comparative Religion which would include the Bible as a source of what Christians believe. In my mind, it seems to me that this use of the Bible in school, where it is compared with other religious texts, and with other religious beliefs that lack such texts (including atheism and agnosticism), would be the only way that violation of the separation of church and state could be avoided.

Why would a class on comparative religions be somehow different from simply dropping the comparisons and concentrating on Christianity? We're still talking religion either way. A bunch of religions is okay, but just one isn't because of a supposed separation of church and state?

You seem to have no problems with an integration of churches and state, but have one with church and state?


The problem is that these classes are being offered as electives. This means that the classes are not mandatory, thus not mandatory education.

If you've seen classes in the middle-east or Asia where students are forced to sit in front of the Quran and recite passages, then you'd know what the first amendment protects us from. It's not the ability to be educated in a particular religion, but the right to say 'thanks, but no thanks'.

If I was living in Chatanooga Tennesee, I'd have a much bigger problem with being required to foot the bill for the schools these classes are being taught in. If this "bible in the schools" program is being conducted in public schools, then I would not want them in the actual building that my tax dollars pay for. I can't choose not to pay for the upkeep of the schools, and that, to my mind, is a clear violation of the first amendment because the constitution requires that I pay property taxes, and those taxes are being used to fund religious instruction.

Qyaji you are contradicting yourself. On April 28 you said that the “establishment clause” does not apply because Amendment I is applicable only to Congress. Today you write that if you were living in Chattanooga, Tennessee the law would be “a clear violation of the first amendment.” Sorry, but you can’t have it both ways. Your statement today is much more accurate than the one three weeks ago. The rights granted by the Bill of Rights have, for the most part, been applied to the states through Amendment XIV. The process is called incorporation.



http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_bor.html

If you are trying to “win” a debate by disconnecting the dots, then you are doing a pretty good job—of disconnecting the dots, that is. In fact, your whole Constitutional approach reminds me of someone standing in front of a well, tossing in pennies and wishing things were different.

Do you understand the concept of two different circumstances? If so, then Great! As amazing as it may sound, I was arguing from a completely different perspective back in April. The post of mine that you are responding to involves an aspect of the situation in question that I wasn't commentining upon last month.

Everything isn't a similar example, and the one I was commenting on back in April is quite a bit different than the one you are referring to.

Oh. If the "establishment clause" is only applicable Congress--an eroneous conclusion given the 14th amendment--then how is it applicable in Chattanooga, Tennessee? As I pointed, your second statement is accurate The fisrt one, in April, april is not. The "establishment" clause is applicable anywhere it is being violated--national, state or local via Amendment XIV and case history. Here we go with that nasty old precedent thing again.

Which section of the fourteenth amendment are you talking about? Perhaps if you were to explain which section you are talking about, then we could continue. As it is, there are five sections in the fourteenth amendment, and all seem to have very little to do with whatever point you are trying to make concerning the establishment of religion.

In other words, try basing your argument on the text of the constitution, rather than basically saying "via amendment XIV", as this is less than adequate in terms of a debate.

e.g. I have the right to own your car as is found in the fourteenth amendment.

Very well, since this is a Bible thread, “ask and ye shall receive.” The portion is Amendment XIV, Section I



http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment14/

Applying portions of the Bill of Rights TO state government has been accomplished over time, by the process of incorporation. I’m fatigued arguing the same points over and over with you, so I’ll let an “expert” do it.

Akhil Reed Amar wrote an extensive article for the Yale Law Review in April, 1992 entitled “The Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment.” In it he constructs a model based on three elements--1. Easy Incorporation, 2. Beyond Mechanical Incorporation and 3. The Hard Case for Incorporation--to explore the subject. The quote below is Amar’s conclusion, but I’ve included the link if you wish to read further. Enjoy!



http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Amar1.html



1) On face, does this class violate the establishment clause concerning separation of church and state?

With out reference to incorporation of the Bill of Rights by Amendment XIV and subsequent case law, Engle v. Vitale (1962), for example, one can really only give a “yes” or “no” answer (an up or down vote, if you will ) to Doc's first question. One cannot base an argument for debate exclusively on the text of the document—not when case law is such a historical part of the equation. Nor, is this how the Odessa Bible class case will be decided, should it reach the courts.



This example is so absurd that I don’t quite know how to respond to it.

Fair enough. The text of the fourteenth amendment, section one, reads as follows:

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

And just so there is no confusion, here is the statement of yours that you are attempting to defend. You appear to find something in the above section of the constitution that denies parties other than Congress the right to establish a religion.

"Oh. If the "establishment clause" is only applicable Congress--an eroneous conclusion given the 14th amendment--"

Mind filling us in as to how you came to the conclusion that section one of the fourteenth amendment denies the rights of states to establish religion? Nothing apparently written in there which could possibly have anything to do with denying states the right to establish a religion.

Usually when one makes an argument, one makes some sort of attempt at providing premises which necessitate, or at the very least, might have something to do with the argument in general. Since section one doesn't mention anything even remotely concerning the conclusion that your "argument" reaches, I have to assume you are confused as to which section of amendment 14, or even whether it indeed is amendment 14 which you were talking about earlier.



Yes, I'm sure you are "fatigued at attempting the same fallacious arguments time-after-time. Might I suggest a valid argument next time?

You see, we are arguing over whether starre decisis has any bearing on what is written in the constitution. Not whether somebody who you think is an expert agrees with you.

Shall I ask my uncle Joe to make a statement which backs my position up? I'll even concede that he is an expert in the field of constitutional law.

That was in the other thread, remember?

Oyaji did you even bother to read the article from the Yale Law Review I provided?

There's simply no point in repeating this. Trying to argue with you is like being in a washing machine--wash-spin-rinse-spin...next load. Further argument with you on this particular issue really isn’t a productive use of my time, or for that matter, your's.

You might check out this link:

Click Here for Admission

Of course I read the link you provided, as well as this one. The pointlessness you find in arguing with me is easily remedied by falling back on logic, rather than simply spouting further case law when the validity of case law is being questioned.

You do understand how that works, don't you? If I say that the validity of X is questionable, then X is no longer a valid form of argumentation until such time as it has been conceded. To continue barking "X" is merely an attempt at circular logic.

That is part of the beauty of my argument. I have questioned the very basis of starre decisis, thus all decisions by the judiciary regarding the constitution, or any attempts at enrolling me in law school in order to assist in my appreciation of the vagaries of that "discipline" are currently invalidated. You are left with only two tools with which to defend your proposition that starre decisis is a valid form of argumentation:

1. logic
2. the text of the constitution

Is it any wonder that you find arguing with me difficult? The tools you are accustomed to using no longer apply. You are left with logic as it applies to the constitution.

That is it! Any references to random judges who vainly attempt sophomoric revisionist interpretations of the constitution will have to wait until such time as you find someone who appreciates obfuscatory pedantry.

That ain't me.

As for this belonging in the other thread, the other thread was created because it was understood that the very fundamentals of starre decisis (a term thrown at me in this thread) were being questioned.

That's kinda why the other thread was started. Personally, I don't care which one we use because the same logic applies in both debates. Either you show some connection between starre decisis and the constitution, or you don't. The latter seems to be quite in vogue 'round these heah parts.