Does the ACLU agree with religious groups on teaching the Bible in Schools?

[MineralMan]

Last edited Thu Jun 13, 2019, 10:51 AM - Edit history (1)

Recently, a thread in this group quoted an author's article on the religionnews.com website. That quote said:

In its Joint Statement on Current Law and Religion in the Public Schools, the organization {ACLU} declared, “It is both permissible and desirable to teach objectively about the role of religion in the history of the United States and other countries.”

As another poster pointed out, that joint statement was made by a committee made up of representatives of the following organizations:

American Jewish Congress, Chair
American Civil Liberties Union
American Jewish Committee
American Muslim Council
Anti-Defamation League
Baptist Joint Committee
Christian Legal Society
General Conference of Seventh day Adventists
National Association of Evangelicals
National Council of Churches People for the American Way
Union of American Hebrew Congregations

So, it's sort of partly true, but note the word "objectively" in that statement.

But, here's the kicker: That limited joint statement was issued 24 years ago, in 1995.

The date was not mentioned in the original article, leading readers to think that that statement was a recent one. It was not.

Why did I start a new thread about this? Because it is an example of how bias in publications often makes what one reads on biased websites deceptive. Unless the article was carefully fact-checked, it would be easy to believe that the ACLU recently agreed with some unnamed religious groups about teaching the Bible in public schools. That the date of that joint statement was not included in the article at religionnews.com was not just an oversight. It was a deliberate omission, made to add weight to something that happened almost a quarter-century ago. My new thread was created to bring attention to that fact.

Both I and another DUer, AtheistCrusader, searched for that statement and found the information that it was 24 years old. We both posted that in existing threads here, just to make sure that people had the whole story - not just the slanted story from religionnews.com. Just because something is written on the Internet does not mean that the writing is not heavily biased and deliberately deceptive. All too often, articles posted on sites like religionnews.com do not tell the whole story. They tell just what is useful for that site to put forward.

The ACLU, indeed, believes that teaching about the Bible's impact on history and its part in our literary history is OK. That, however, is not the goal of the religious right, which seeks to, and is succeeding in, getting the bible taught in schools as a means of evangelizing students. The ACLU is unalterably opposed to that, and files several lawsuits each year to stop such illegal government promotion of religious beliefs. It is not working with religious organizations to promote religion in public schools, and never will.

[trotsky]

1. Well WHATABOUT that, huh? n/t

[Major Nikon]

2. I suspect the one who repeatedly connects timeliness with relevance might want to know this

Oh wait, that assumes they are consistent with what they expect of others and what they expect from themselves. Nevermind. What was I thinking?

Looks like someone is trying very hard to find some sort of "counterpoint" for priests raping children. Probably best they stick to shitposting the group with whutabout China threads.

It's also true that 24 years ago, you didn't have as many alt-right Christians subverting our system of education.

[MineralMan]

3. Oh, the Christian Right was trying to get the Bible taught in schools

24 years ago, too. But, they did not have an idiotic President, right-wing Congress and ultra-conservative SCOTUS to help them out back then. Today, they get support for their plans from the highest levels of government.

[Major Nikon]

4. Trying badly

After creationism was shot down by the courts, they just edited out the word 'Jesus' and called it "Intelligent Design", which was also rejected by the courts. The ACLU didn't have to work so hard back then.

At least this time they are smart enough to call their parables about talking donkeys and 900 yr old people "religious history".

[Cartoonist]

5. The role of religion in history

I want this taught in school. Everyone should be taught about the genocide of the Americas that was driven by Christianity. It should be taught to every child how the Bible was used to justify slavery. The Church's history of sexual predation deserves study, I'm just not sure at what age to introduce it in the classroom.

I'm willing to bet that not a single organization on that list would approve of that curriculum. They don't want "objectively". They want indoctrination.

[MineralMan]

6. Exactly. The Religious want to teach religion.

Not objective facts. They want converts, not thinkers. The ACLU is fine with teaching the impact of religion on history and the arts. They're not fine with proselytizing, which is what the religionists want.

[Cartoonist]

11. I've got to admit, it's a funny picture

Metaphor Man, trying to put priestly robes on the ACLU.

[Major Nikon]

9. They especially want it in schools

Organized religion relies heavily on recruitment of the most vulnerable.

[Voltaire2]

7. The poster in question moved on to

promoting the Southern Baptist Convention as a paradigm of Christian tolerance.

[MineralMan]

8. Yes. That trick won't work, either.

[Major Nikon]

10. Wonder how long that will last?

Given the previous shitposting trends from that one, I’m thinking a few months.

It’s as if one train wreck just isn’t enough so he has to pile on several more just to prove the first really wasn’t a biblical scale fuckup. I guess the fan club wants what it wants.

[guillaumeb]

16. How clever of you.

Sorry that I have ruined DU for you also.

Amazing how often you feel the need to attack theists.

[guillaumeb]

15. False.

But you are entitled to frame and promote your narrative.

[Voltaire2]

17. The poster did not start an op about how

the SBC was getting all nice about race?

The poster most certainly did and the poster knows that. Or the poster perhaps lost track of all the horseshit from rns the poster sprays into this forum? I guess that is possible.

[Major Nikon]

18. When all else fails there's always gaslighting

With a bit of pretending to be a victim thrown in for good measure.

[guillaumeb]

24. Pure projection.

Well done.

[AtheistCrusader]

12. For me the bigger issue was the lies that were cloaked AROUND that bit about the ACLU,

claiming, for instance, that kids don't get exposure to religious history in state K-12 schools, when that is easily shown to be utterly false.

Because the kinds of people who write those lies are also the kind of people who flip their cookies when said religious history classes touch on topics like Islam.

Basically they just want to indoctrinate kids in Christianity. That's the bottom line. They want unfettered access to your kid's heads, under the guise of state education. Because it's ok to lie when you're lying for Jesus.

At the end of the day, if it's sourced to 'religionnews.com', you can assume deception.

[MineralMan]

13. Yes. The problem is the source of such stories.

That's what I'm aiming at. We see excerpts from religionnews.com frequently in this DU group. Typically, they're just a paragraph or two long, and ignore the rest of the article to make some minor point.

Unlike a lot of DUers, I frequently click through to read the entire article. Sometimes, the article directly contradicts what was excerpted for presentation here. It's frustrating. Like some others, I point out those discrepancies whenever I can.

Religionnews.com is an advocacy website, and an apologetics-based one, at that. It's articles are mainly opinion pieces pretending to be news stories. The deceptive nature of that site is pretty obvious, but is somewhat concealed to satisfy the audience for their articles.

Religionnews.com is all about promoting religion, not news. It's slanted so far that everything runs off it and down the drain.

[SomewhereInTheMiddle]

19. Proportional Coverage

It would be interesting if religious history or studies curricula in public schools were required to devote time to different religions proportional to their representation in the world population.

For instance according to Wikipedia the top five world religions (in terms of followers) are
• Christianity (2.4B),
• Islam (1.8B),
• Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheist (1.2B)
• Hinduism (1.15B)
• Buddhism (.5B)

If they limited the curriculum to those five, out of 100 hours of instruction Christianity would only get about 30 hours of coverage.

I do not think this is an unreasonable way to divide a curriculum.

[AtheistCrusader]

23. That would make sense, and to a degree that is what I have observed.

It isn't enforced, but it's a byproduct of historical impact.

[guillaumeb]

14. So, in essence, the article was correct.

Good to know that for all of the verbal outrage, you admit that what was written was correct.

As to the "slanted story", your own post here refutes your claim.

And that is why it is necessary to read the entire article.

[trotsky]

20. No, you were completely wrong.

Another trainwreck for you.

[guillaumeb]

25. Laughable.

But consistent.

[trotsky]

34. Yes, your threads are laughably consistent.

I just don't understand how someone like you who claims to embrace the message of Jesus can be so mean, spiteful, and hateful.

No wait, I understand perfectly.

[guillaumeb]

37. You are persistent in misframing those who you see as the enemy.

Including many here.

As to your last claim, we shall let others be the judges.

[trotsky]

40. You value religious privilege over secular equality.

In that regard, you ARE my enemy. And fuck yes, let everyone here judge.

[Major Nikon]

27. In a very long line of trainwrecks

The takeaway here is the reaction. The first step is denial of the facts presented, then there's gaslighting, and finally the claim those who present clear facts to counter pure nonsense are somehow engaging in an attack against "theists".

I suppose all of this would be odd enough, but then you have the motivation is a play to an imaginary audience.

[trotsky]

35. Yep, that's the pattern.

You'd think he would grow tired of being exposed and laughed at over and over and over, but clearly he does not.

[MineralMan]

21. Yes, I suggest you read my entire post.

I read the entire article from your thread.

[AtheistCrusader]

22. Before, I concluded only the article you cited was full of lies.

My assessment has expanded.

[guillaumeb]

26. I cannot tell you how much your assessment means to me. eom

[MineralMan]

30. Been reading "How to Win Friends and Influence People," have you?

Old Dale Carnegie was the first best-selling "self-help" guru. Pretty much all of the books that came later were just someone repeating what he said.

Trouble is: most people don't bother to actually read the book and follow the advice. Or so I've observed.

[guillaumeb]

33. Are you speaking from experience? eom

[AtheistCrusader]

31. It's ok. I could tell when you failed to respond to any of the points in my original post highlighti

ng how utterly dishonest the 'Religion News' OpEd piece was.

[Thomas Hurt]

28. The proselytization wolf dressed up in sheep's clothing objective history...lol

The evangelicals will on occasion proselytize minor children without the permission of their parents.

But if you can indoctrinate them in schools, so much easier.

[MineralMan]

29. Every chance they get.

Whenever I see a push to "teach the Bible as literature" in public schools, I know there's an evangelical Christian pushing for it. That should be everyone's first clue that there are ulterior motives behind it and that they will be preaching Jesus on the students.

It never fails. We must keep an eye on such things, and speak up when it happens, and it will always happen.

[AtheistCrusader]

32. They literally sue when other religions are given class time in said history and social studies

curriculum.

'by their fruits you shall know them' or something like that.

[Major Nikon]

36. Or they have their own children do it for them

Organized religion is big business and they are always looking for new sheeps to shear. So there’s either a profit motive or some weak minded person being manipulated by those with a profit motive. The fact they go after children without the consent of the parents just goes to show the level of shit stains they are.

[guillaumeb]

38. What my post said:

Intriguingly, much of this crisis may be rooted in a myth. School districts and state boards of education fear recriminations if they deal with matters of faith in the classroom. Yet even the American Civil Liberties Union — dreaded in many American school districts for its lawsuits against religion in public education — urges objective teaching of the world’s religions. In its Joint Statement on Current Law and Religion in the Public Schools, the organization declared, “It is both permissible and desirable to teach objectively about the role of religion in the history of the United States and other countries.”

What the ACLU says:

While it is permissible for public schools to teach about religion, it is not permissible to promote particular religious beliefs. Although public schools should not be leading children in prayers or religious ceremonies, they should also be respectful of the religious beliefs of students. Second, public schools should protect children from being coerced by others to accept religious (or anti-religious!) beliefs. Public schools should seek to create an environment conducive to learning by all students and not act as vehicles proselytizing for religious or anti-religious beliefs.

https://www.aclu.org/other/aclu-and-freedom-religion-and-belief

Given this agreement, I still fail to see the relevance or necessity of your post.

[MineralMan]

39. Must my posts be "necessary?"

I think not. In reality, none of the posts in the Religion Group are necessary. All are voluntary expressions by the members. Also, it is never necessary for anyone to read them, nor to reply to them. All are voluntary actions.