This has turned into a wall of quotes, sorry about that.

Okla. School District Approves Hobby Lobby President's Bible Course
An Oklahoma school district has approved a Bible course created by Hobby Lobby President Steve Green.

Mustang Public Schools approved the Bible course Monday, which would be a class focused on teaching the history, meaning and influence of the Old and New Testaments.

When asked by CP about constitutional concerns, McDaniel responded that the Bible course will be nonsectarian given the process it went through to be finalized.

"The professors with the Green Scholars Initiative who put together the curriculum come from different personal faith backgrounds, not just Christianity," said McDaniel. "The curriculum has been through a rigorous review to check for bias and ensure the content is neutral."



Hobby Lobby President Proposes Public School Bible Course
In a blog entry, Sarah Jones of Americans United wrote that while an elective, nonsectarian Bible class was constitutional he [sic] doubted that such standards were met with Green's curriculum.

"Green has dedicated much of his personal fortune to the promotion of Bible education. And it's evident that he prefers a sectarian approach to the subject," wrote Jones.

"Objective courses about the Bible are permissible in public schools, but Sunday School lessons are a different matter entirely. Green's past statements and Religious Right connections indicate that he's actually trying to promote a specific perspective on the Bible: his own."



The Good Book Taught Badly?: Okla. School District Approves Hobby Lobby Owner’s Bible Course
Little is known publicly about the details of the curriculum. However, in a 2013 speech he delivered to the National Bible Association, Green explained that it’s divided into three sections: the history of the Bible, the story of the Bible, and the impact of the Bible.

Classes about the Bible don’t necessarily violate the separation of church and state. It all depends on what is taught and how it’s taught. Green’s speech indicates that he may have ulterior motives.

It appears that Green doesn’t intend to simply teach students history.

“The history is to show the reliability of this book,” he told his audience, and added, “When you present the evidence, the evidence is overwhelming.”

And it seems it’s no coincidence that the curriculum is intended for high school students. Green stated that he had originally considered a college-level course but decided on a high school elective instead, “because we wanted to reach as many as possible.”

“That’s our goal, so that we can reintroduce this book to this nation. This nation is in danger because of its ignorance of what God has taught,” Green stated.

No wonder he hopes to place the class in thousands of public high schools.

In the same speech, Green does state the curriculum will be taught in a non-sectarian manner. But in the same breath, he added that this is because he believes the evidence stands for itself. The goal – to prove the Bible correct – remains unchanged.



Hobby Lobby’s Steve Green launches a new project: a public school Bible curriculum
Asked to describe a typical chapter, Pattengale (who also serves on the Religion News Service managing board) outlined a “narrative” segment on creation that includes a summary of the Bible account; a section on how subsequent scientific discoveries relate to what the Bible says; and a consideration of key reasons it was written. A sidebar called “Are People Created Equal?” explores the Book of Genesis’ influence on that idea through history, including the famous phrase from the Declaration of Independence.

In an award acceptance speech last April before the National Bible Association, Green explained that his goals for a high school curriculum were to show that the Bible “is true,” that it’s “good” and that its impact, “whether (upon) our government, education, science, art, literature, family … when we apply it to our lives in all aspects of our life, that it has been good.”



The course syllabus is proving difficult to locate online, I found some references to the contents in this article:

Oklahoma High School's Bible Curriculum: Sinners Must 'Suffer'
Among the topics covered by the curriculum are the role of religion in early America, discussing the New World as a haven for those seeking to escape religious persecution. It also talks about the role of religion in art, citing the role of patrons such as the Catholic church and wealthy families during the Renaissance.

The book also uses popular culture, mentioning songs written by U2 that it says are based in the Psalms, to illustrate the Bible's modern relevance. It does not name specific compositions.

From the outset, the book describes God as eternal, "faithful and good," ''full of love" and "an ever-present help in times of trouble."
"The first pages of the Bible spotlight God's desire for justice and a just world," the second chapter says, but adds, "When humanity ignores or disobeys his rules, it has to suffer the consequences."

Andrew Seidel, a lawyer with the Freedom From Religion Foundation, wrote to the Mustang district this week complaining that "negative aspects" of God, such as jealousy or punishing children for the actions of their parents, are not mentioned in the course.
The book phrases contradictory questions and answers — such as references to the Israelites being slaves — in ways designed to favor Christianity, Seidel said. He said it also poses Christian thought as rhetorical questions, such as asking, "How do we know that the Bible's historical narratives are reliable?" rather than, "Is the Bible historically accurate?"
"They assume the answer in the question and stifle all scholarly discussion," Seidel said.

Dr. Mark Chancey, a professor of religious studies at Southern Methodist University who reviewed the curriculum at the AP's request, said it lacked scholarly insight.
"It's more of a very basic background book," he said, adding that he found the curriculum "full of land mines" and used scripture from only one tradition, evangelical Protestantism.

The superintendent of Mustang schools, Sean McDaniel, said if the board believed the curriculum crossed a line it wouldn't have approved the course.
"We're not asking kids to believe the stories," McDaniel said. "This is a purely academic endeavor. If it turns into something beyond that, either we will correct it or we will get rid of it."

Brady Henderson, the legal director of the ACLU of Oklahoma and a Sunday school teacher, said the Green family's goal is transparent and inappropriate.
"They've been outspoken on this and one of their concerns with modern American life is that many biblical teachings aren't taught enough," Henderson said. "The deeper we get into it, the more red flags we see."



Not only is this a concern because of the subject matter, or more specifically a seemingly blatant back door attempt to circumvent the 'wall of separation', disguised as literary and historical teachings (quite acceptable, alone), but I also find it disconcerting that any subject matter can find its way into the public education system because an individual with enough money and influence (i.e. money) desires it.

This needs to be monitored carefully. Who disagrees?

What I find interesting is that if Thomas Jefferson was alive today and serving, he would most likely be widely despised and regularly held up as an "anti-wall-of-separation religious nut" by the same secular crowd who has today misapropriated him and his terminology.

It's troubling for sure, but as a former teacher, I can let you know that what gets taught in public schools, which textbooks are used, and what goes in those textbooks is highly polliticized and motivated almost purely by profit, not any desire for actual integrity of information.

It's one of the most persistent issues for teachers in the classroom and not one that's going away. Textbooks in the USA are a 14 billion dollar industry, and the content of those textbooks is determined almost exclusively by the desires of states that spend the most on textbooks (like Texas).

There are always educators and politicians doing their best to fight for academic integrity in schools, but they're in the extreme minority and fighting a massive uphill battle against lobbyists and politicians that represent people with millions or even of billions of dollars on the line.

I remember reading a study some time ago (I wish I could find it now) that took a bunch of religious people, and asked a series of questions on social issues, from gay marriage, to smoking, and everything inbetween. They found that what the person said they personally believed, and what they believed "God thought" on those issues were nearly identical. Then they waited a year and gave the survey again, discovering that when people's views changed on certain issues, their view of what "God thought" on those issues changed as well.

I bring this up because conservatives seem to do this with the founding fathers as well. There's this huge scramble in conservative America to rewrite history wherever necessary to make the founding fathers look as much like modern republicans as possible.

It always amazes me that it's extremely difficult for conservatives to admit the founding fathers thought differently than they do, except occasionally on really blatant issues like slavery.

Really, you have said nothing at all.

If you wish to counter it with anything substantive, except for the usual liberal fluff above, by all means, go for it.

My statement stands. Jefferson would be torn down by the libs.

CONSERVATIVE, n.
A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from the Liberal, who wishes to replace them with others.

Ambrose Bierce/The Devil's Dictionary

No. He wouldn't. Why exactly do you think this? Jefferson was despised in his OWN day for being too irreligious. He only learned to pipe down about it in public after he saw how Thomas Paine was skewered in the press, but this didn't stop him from issuing his own copy of the moral teachings of the New Testament devoid of any supernatural influence late in his life. Can you imagine what the religious Right would say today if an ex-President, say Bill Clinton, edited all of Jesus' miracles out of the Bible?

There's nothing to counter, as you've given no evidence or rationale for your (essentially off topic) position.

If you prefer, I'll counter using the same amount of evidence and rationale as your first post.

Here we go.

No, he wouldn't. Not that it matters even a little bit in regards to the OP.

I really feel it is a mistake to equate conservatives and republicans and christians.

I despise republicans, for the most part. Especially if they are of the secular variety.

I am conservative so much as I love freedom, and wish for more freedoms. I don't believe you can simply legislate deep societal and human problems away.

But as a christian, I would feel uncomfortable being in league with the rich, which republicans very much are.

And I did have the thought one day that both republican and democratic politicians are often rich, and why... it is easy to hate rich people, and this truism colors and motors our political discourse, in a way.

Well I'm just glad I didn't make any mention of the man, then. Actually it might make for an interesting topic if you want to start one: although he has referred to himself as a Christian, and the religious right want to claim all the founders as being Christians, curiously holding them in a rather blasphemous position of idolatry. But he would not remotely meet their definition of Christian.

Doggg, do you think a secular government is desirable or undesirable?

It is true that Jefferson may have seemed irreligious in his day. I assumed that. That is what makes my claim "interesting." Because we have come so far now, that even a man who was perceived as being irreligious back then would be scorned today by people like you.

Also, from what I understand, Jefferson's Bible was never issued to the general public. And it was composed very late in his life.

Yeah... I'm not sure how you got to the place in your head of "Conservatives love freedom" (and presumably, Liberals don't?) but that's not really the definition of conservatism.


I'd like to know how you plan to vote conservative without voting Republican. Like it or not, you're in bed with them.

Politicians are always rich because only the rich have the amount of power, wealth, and influence that it takes to get votes from millions of people. Don't count on that changing.

And your evidence is...? Jefferson personally authored the Virginia Bill on Religious Freedom guaranteeing separation of church and state and scorned and despised Federalists for discriminating against religious minorities through New England State churches. Jefferson went so far as to list this as one of his proudest accomplishments; for reference, he did not list his Presidency as one of his proudest accomplishments (fortunately--he was a terrible President). Jefferson is arguably the only non-Christian President the US has ever had. By what evidence do you think he'd be lumped in with religious fundamentalists and despised by advocates for secularism today?
And you suggest this means... what? He was senile?

Well it's a certain type of conservative to be sure, and you might see it happen from other political perspectives too, but claiming the founders as their own just honestly doesn't seem as common outside of conservatism. Fanatical positions ignore the reality that neither party bears much relation to its historical namesake, beyond the name. E.g. I've heard it a lot when the topic of slavery in the south comes up.

You clearly don't understand what prompted him to author the Virginia bill on religious freedom, or what it means.

Jefferson was a believer in states rights. As President, under federal authority, he would not proclaim a national day of fasting and prayer, for example. You find this highlighted in every internet-atheist site, including relevant quotations. But they always ignore the fact that he did indeed, as governor, get behind such proclamations, on a state level.

When he was questioned about why he would not do it on a federal level, he would argue that it was the jurisdiction of the state to decide these things, and the federal government was not going to promote one christian sect over another. No one christian sect was to take precedent over another in an establishment.

Also, I find it highly unlikely that someone who did not identify himself as a christian would spend his latter years hunched over a desk, assembling a gospel of the teachings of christ, intended to be distributed to Indians. Surely, he could have found better use of his time. (And he labored over two versions, nonetheless.)

Full Title: The Philosophy of Jesus of Nazareth, being Extracted from the Account of His Life and Doctrines Given by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John; Being an Abridgement of the New Testament for the Use of the Indians, Unembarrased [uncomplicated] with Matters of Fact or Faith beyond the Level of their Comprehensions.

Edit: But jefferson, like anybody, often contradicted himself as well. We do not often maintain the same beliefs throughout our lives, and writings from two different periods of our own lives may paint a contradictory picture.

But Jefferson is often misunderstood. When he planned out the college, he planned for a religious center right smack in the middle of the college where people were to pray and study, and were (Jefferson's words) "expected to attend." But he did not support a certain christian sect over another, so he would not appoint a head priest or acting master of divinity. He never, ever would have made president today, or have been supported by atheists considering his record as governor, including promoting days of official prayer and such.

What exactly do you think secularism actually means? Contrary to what you may think, neither I nor Jefferson nor most atheists have any interest in abolishing religion from the public square altogether. But we all share a belief that the government should not be in the business of promoting a particular religion. But hey, I'm just a history prof, and I clearly don't understand what prompted Jefferson to act, so please enlighten me with further vagaries.

As most governors were expected to do. This proves absolutely nothing about Jefferson's personal beliefs, and ignores a good deal of his public and private positions on the role of religion in society. As previously mentioned, he publicly criticized the behavior of New England Congregationalist establishments toward minority sects. What exactly do you think the letter to the Danbury baptists was about?

FYP. Jefferson had no qualms about a unitarian, a Jew, a Muslim, or even an atheist from holding public office, making him considerably more ecumenical than many of his countrymen at the time, not to mention the modern world, where figures on the Religious Right frequently argue that the United States is a "Christian nation" in which non-Christians cannot really be true citizens or patriots.

Jefferson made no secret of his admiration for the ethics of Jesus of Nazareth. But there is no evidence that he believed there was anything supernatural about Jesus or that he believed in the Trinity, which are both essential qualities of Christians (or so most people would agree). Indeed, on the contrary, he was often publicly attacked when he criticized organized religion. During the election of 1800, he was routinely cast as a "fanatic in politics and an atheist in religion" by Federalists.

Meaning what, exactly? The record is quite clear. If Jefferson was a Christian, he was an extremely heterodox one, and went to great lengths to conceal his allegiance to Christianity as we understand it.

This is so hypocritical to hear from someone who constantly throws around the terms secular/liberal/atheist! I agree with the statement though.

I'd really like to hear you unpack this comment. For one thing, how large a group are they?! I'll also repeat my earlier question: Do you think a secular government is desirable or undesirable? Perhaps you have a different idea of what secular government means.

<redacted rant on "What's wrong with US politics....">

I think I remember you saying you voted for Obama the first time, did I remember correctly? If so, was it a vote for Obama, or more of a vote against McCain? It doesn't really matter, if you don't want to get into that, it just crossed my mind.

A secular government is desirable; a secular society is not (imo). There were many christian monuments, relics and cultural establishments in early American times that I think many of the founders would be horrified to find out today are being assaulted, targeted and dismantled by militant atheists and rabid secularists. America was not a melting pot then. I think I read that there were some 2500 Jews living in America at that time, for example. America was thoroughly christian through-and-through. If you want to understand the past, you cannot look at it through the lens of the present. But it really doesn't bother me that these groups can accomplish these objectives on legal technicalities, but rather I am troubled by the ungratefulness, and lack of historical appreciation that these actions represent.

Also, Christ had no interest in earthly government, but wanted us to always think of the heavenly kingdom. I did not even vote in the last election, which, I think, might be a first for me. But in the first one, I thought Obama came off as a really smart and intellectually capable guy, and I was impressed by his interviews and debates. Plus, he was black, and I thought it was time for a black president. Obama could have run against John the Baptist and I think I might have voted for him in that spot. Shame on me, though. He exposed himself for being a fake when he suddenly comes out for gay marriage, and weeks later is viciously belittling the moral character of others for opposing it!! He also had that rant that time against the bible with could have been lifted right off of infidels.org.

As for republicans, the guy I am talking about I have dealt with and met many times over the years: severely-obese upper-management types smoking cigars and wearing more gold jewelry than MR. T. These are often godless sonofab^&ches who have embezzled, rooked, sold out, paid off and mown over others their whole lives. I think Chris Christie in my home state is one of them, for sure.

Having said all of that, and knowing what I know now, if Obama ran against McCain tomorrow again, it is not impossible that I'd vote for him again. And I was basically forced to leave my job and find a new one because of Obamacare. McCain was just such a bad candidate, and would have been an awful president. Obama may be a bad president, but it could have been much, much worse.

grunching...

orgies I assume.

After a 3 month haitus, it's nice to see that a concise, well referenced OP can still derail by poast #2.

http://youtu.be/zrp-v2tHaDo

I found this favorited on my youtube account. One of the greatest speeches I've ever seen. Was hard not to vote for that guy.

Plus, I mean, the Boss supported him, too! ---> http://youtu.be/XfKF5i_h3eQ

Actually, the rewrite comes from both sides. I'd argue that the left is doing just as much rewriting of history (if not more) than the right, as far as the founding fathers go. The fact is, this country at it's inception had a very religious populace. It was against the law at one time to work for government in many states, and not sign a legal statement that affirmed you were a Christian. That is a fact.

Yup it is a fact that the US was bigoted even in its laws against non Christians.

There difference is that the religious right assigns a lot more value to being the same as the founding fathers. The left is more okay with being something different or new.