• Optional@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    4 months ago

    For a long period which roughly coincided with the founding of America, English-speaking people only learned to read using the Bible, and often that was the only book they ever used for anything so it became a sort of de facto dictionary and Guiness Book of World Records and all kinds of things that it was never meant to be, plus a lot of new things it was never meant to be, and of course the things it was always meant to be.

    Mandatory firearms training in school would be more Constitutional than teaching the Bible though. For a very important reason. Akin to a “prime directive” if you will. If you want kids to study it as an elective then fine, allow that, but forcing it on kids is wrong, wrong wrong.

    • TimLovesTech (AuDHD)(he/him)@badatbeing.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      4 months ago

      If you go back further though, translation of the text to a language the “people” could understand was illegal. Anyone caught with such texts was imprisoned or worse. Those in charge and using religion to control the masses (it’s true intention IMHO) didn’t want everyone to be able to read it, they wanted people depending on the “chosen” to teach and judge them (what today we may call a cult).

      • Optional@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        4 months ago

        True, but that was a fair bit before the founding of America. Although to your point I doubt they’ll be forced to teach that history. More likely they’ll be forbidden from teaching that history.

        • TimLovesTech (AuDHD)(he/him)@badatbeing.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          Right, only the modern interpretation of an original text that very few people in the world has even seen, let alone able to read. And then all the MANY offshoots of Christianity because each had something people didn’t like, a “leader” made a new “version” for them. Forced indoctrination like this is very similar to starting a cult, as almost all of those start with someone that needs to interpret the text or “God’s” word.

          I think it would be an interesting exercise for everyone pushing this to have to compare and contrast with say David Koresh, or Joseph Smith, and explain how their version of God’s word isn’t a cult.

    • evranch@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      4 months ago

      Forcing it as a belief system is definitely wrong, but we were forced to study plenty of literature when I was in school, much of it far less relevant. I don’t see the difference with the Bible, especially if presented as a historical document and prototypical collection of stories?

      I’m not religious and wasn’t raised in a religious family, but when I decided to pick up a Bible and read it as a teenager I couldn’t believe how much context it gave me on our culture and its origins.

      Having to read and study the whole thing would also help rein in overzealous religion IMO. The #1 reason I’ve heard from evangelicals who left their church was “I decided to read the Bible for myself”

      • Optional@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        Forcing it as a belief system is definitely wrong, . . . I don’t see the difference with the Bible . . .

        Make no mistake, that is absolutely the point of these - again, unconstitutional - laws. They’re hoping to parlay this illegitimate fascist court into making it constitutional while the iron is hot.

        . . . especially if presented as a historical document and prototypical collection of stories?

        It won’t be. They want this in elementary school. How much literature was in grades 1-3? Any inference that it will be treated as a “historical document” is an outright lie. (Edit: the article says teachers must teach it to “students in grades five through 12” but that’s different than Louisiana’s “10 commandments displayed in all classrooms” law. They all serve the same purpose: to promote “Christianity” in school.)

        I’m not religious and wasn’t raised in a religious family …

        Then believe me when I tell you this is what it is for. These legislators are not history buffs. They are evangelical ‘Christian’ nationalists.

        I couldn’t believe how much context it gave me on our culture and its origins.

        Having to read and study the whole thing would also help rein in overzealous religion IMO. The #1 reason I’ve heard from evangelicals who left their church was “I decided to read the Bible for myself”

        Good points and I’m all in favor of unintended positive outcomes. Bible scholarship is interesting as an elective and if that was offered at my school I might have considered it. But that’s not what we’re talking about here.

        We’re talking about criminal penalties for not promoting a specific religion. That’s the whole point of the law, and it is 100% wrong.

        • evranch@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          4 months ago

          Thanks for the American context as I’m a Canadian and our systems are different here. I didn’t realize the risks involved and the motivation behind it. I think this might be my least popular comment on Lemmy ever😅

          The USA as a battleground between religion and atheism changes the context as I would shrug most of this off here in Canada as harmless. Like the 10 commandments? Most of them are good advice, basically just “don’t be a piece of shit” and i wouldn’t have a problem teaching them to kids… Unless the goal is to teach them actively as the word of God and marginalize non-believers as sinful, in which case this is absolutely criminal. That is church, not school.

          We have a more robust separation of church and state to the point where when I read “teaching the Bible in school” I hear “robustly secular, historical and cultural study” which as I stated I believe would be a valuable learning experience. In Quebec there are even rules that public servants can’t display any religious symbols at all, even as small as a cross on a bracelet. The leader of our Conservative party recently made a statement that both abortion and gay rights were “a closed issue” and he would not stand for any attacks on them.

          So personally my wife and I made the hard decision this year to send our daughter to a Catholic school next year due to the rapidly declining quality of public education. However the Catholic school district here is publicly funded and staffed, with strict regulations that any religious content is optional and that respect must be given equally to those who choose it or do not choose it.

          Many of her friends have already made the switch (regular school is quickly emptying out of smart kids and turning into a zoo as parents pull their kids) and stated this is exactly how it works, most of them being non-religious as well but impressed with the discipline and learning outcomes. My wife teaches college and said the difference is night and day with some kids even making it out of public highschool unable to read. Meanwhile my daughter’s new school has won awards for the achievements of its graduates and their placement in top schools and in industry.

          So you see I’m comfortable enough with our dedication to secularism here in Canada that I am willing to send my daughter to an actual Catholic school with no fear that she will be brainwashed… Obviously a bit of bible study doesn’t scare me but in the context of the USA culture war it’s clearly a much bigger deal.

          • Optional@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            4 months ago

            Oh! Oh, yes, it’s a whole thing here since the “Moral Majority” group in the 80’s that packaged well-meaning people into hateful ignorant political cheerleaders.

            And I appreciate your perspective because it highlights a different aspect of the right-wing agenda: part of their process is to build in a “reasonable interpretation” of laws that they actually have no interest in whatsoever.

            As an example, there was a big push in many states to enact “voter i.d.” laws. We used to just walk into the polling station, give our name and address, they’d look it up, put a checkmark next to it to show we’ve been counted, and we’d go vote.

            Well the right wing media in concert with the republiQans and propaganda mills, i mean, “think tanks” started complaining this was a system ripe for abuse. “SO MANY people just vote multiple times under different names!”

            That absolutely never happened in any even-close-to significant amount. Never. There were individual cases - we still see them once in awhile, and it’s always the republiQans doing it. Anyway, they kept this lie up for years.

            While that was going on, republiQan legislators, united by ALEC, passed laws saying everyone had to show a valid government ID to vote. I had several conversations with friends and family about these, and either due to parroting the fox news talking points or genuine well-meaning concern, they said, “but doesn’t it make sense to know someone is who they SAY they are, before they vote?” And it does. It does make sense.

            But that’s not why they did it. They did it because people without government ID are largely older minority voters, who mostly vote Democratic. This was just to prevent them from voting. They had all sorts of made up lies about “oh they can just go down to the DMV and get a free ID”, yeah if someone takes them and walks them through it and they brought the right paperwork, yeah. It was a big burden for a lot of people who just stopped voting (mission accomplished).

            Secondarily, anyone with outstanding parking tickets or who suspects there’s a warrant out for them (or is in general targeted by the cops, like black men) will see lots of ads and mailers before the election that when they show their ID to vote they’ll be arrested and taken away. They won’t, it’s just scare tactics but it works well and voting went down for a lot of Democratic-leaning voters.

            To this day they stand by the now long-discredited idea that people are using false identities to vote - trump even clings to this as one of his Big Lies of how he “mysteriously” didn’t get enough votes in 2020, still. It was always bullshit; it was always designed to keep Democrats from voting, and it worked.

            • ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              4 months ago

              lots of ads and mailers before the election that when they show their ID to vote they’ll be arrested and taken away

              I’ve seen a mailer providing false information that a certain very liberal group (out-of-state college students) wasn’t allowed to vote, but I’ve never seen something like this. Do you have a link to an example of it?

              • Optional@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                4 months ago

                This is an example regarding mail-in voting (for our Canadian friends, republiQans are very much trying to prevent this as well for the same reason)

                This is republiQans threatening other republicans to vote as they demand.

                This is the threat-to-arrest mailer wrt ACORN, which is a whole other rant, but particularly relevant.