If the faith based religion of evolution can be taught despite the blatant disregard of separation of Church and State then why not the Bible

I took a course called the Bible as Literature in college. It explored the scriptures from a non-faith-based objective perspective. One of my favorite courses. Pretty interesting stuff.

I thought they did teach the Bible in public schools, it's called fictional literature.

I don't want my tax money going towards brainwashing kids into our state government's favored religion.

On the other hand, if the idea of religion in society was explored, it would depend on the curriculum. The kids could theoretically make the connection between each religion ripping off other religions' characters and events, plot devices, and theology.

I doubt that the bill has this intention, however. Learning about religion can only weaken it, so I doubt our demagogues in the Statehouse would go for that.

@David, real science supports scripture? Really? Please elaborate.

This poll is very telling about the failure of church pulpits. If the church pulpits were actually teaching the Bible in an exegetical verse by verse manner the average church goer would be much more Bible literate and comfortable with this poll. Only 9% of Evangelicals and only 2% of mainstream Protestant church goers understand key Christian doctrines so how do we expect them to understand how to approach our public schools so that everyone can benefit? Even secular experts argue that our kids need some amount of basic Bible literacy or they cannot understand the US Constitution and basic Civic matters. The Bible could be used wisely in our public schools in a general manner but with so much low information in the church the culture is robbed of this treasure. We don't need to proselytize our schools just because we teach general Bible information.

No, the Bible is the greatest literary collection of all history and should be taught in real schools by teachers who have read it.

Will the science of evolution be taught in churches?

What a strange bunch of people we have in Concord now - bills being presented that are against the Constitution, yet the crafters will tell you they do this to protect the Constitution...

Churches are open in this country, there must be hundreds of them in our city alone - yet these men feel a school can take their place? Do they really want one religion to be chosen to do this? Wouldn't this be making a state religion? Isn't this against the 1st Amendment?

If this bill passes, it just may send me over the edge.

@ Don Duston - your skeptical presumption that there is no God and therefore He did not reveal Himself to mankind by written revelation is false. All ancient religions have been exposed long ago but it is common for modern skeptics to attack Christianity because it is alive and well. Myths never claim to have eyewitnesses but Christianity does. The life of Jesus Christ is one of historical fact, Christianity has a unique historical basis and a unique account of origins. The Old Testament: no other ancient writings have been so accurately handed down with such an abundance of textual evidence. The New Testament: All history, every bit that we now know of, came from the written records. The effect we see today and throughout 2000 years of history tells us that around 30 AD there was a powerful cause that began this powerful effect. No other document from antiquity even begins to approach the number of available manuscripts for the NT. For example:
Homer's "IIIiad" - there are 643 remaining manuscripts of Homer's IIIiad which gives it a number two ranking. In comparison, there are a total of 48,600 manuscripts of the New Testament making it number one in the world. Are you sure that you want to go down this rabbit trail of skepticism or should we just call it good?

A young woman acquaintance of mine is required, as part of her history degree, to take a course in Islam. Not "comparative religion," but the study of the faith of Mohammed. This is at UNH, supported by taxpayer money. Where is your constitutional argument on that? There isn't one, because the course is taught as history and social science, not as an indoctrination into a particular faith. (We hope). The problem I have with it is that there is not a simliar course (that I am aware of) in Christianity that is a degree REQUIREMENT. It's indoctrination of another kind.

The teaching of tenets of religion are for the church and the family. IMHO, this is a subject best left the way it is.

One's religion depends upon where he was born and how intense the brain-washing is applied. It's child abuse.

A course in comparative religion at the college level makes sense, but not in a high school where young minds are too pliable. So, NO. This bill is wrong and should not be passed.

No. This should not be allowed in public school.

I vote for Trace Frahm for putting out the most reasoned arguments here. Thank you, I have enjoyed this thread. I would, however, argue that the presence of "eyewitnesses" does not prove the truth of a thing. In the 17th century, for example, witnesses saw witches doing all sorts of amazing things that modern society now believes is nonsense. Yet belief in witchcraft persists.

I do wonder, though, about the power of the Jesus story. SOMETHING awfully important happened back then, there is no denying that.

@FaithInNumbers: It's always our hope that the comment threads add as much to the conversation and sense of community here as the original story/poll/video we post. Thanks for participating, everyone.

Here's the takeaway.

This is:
not a question of "Is there a god?"
not a question of "Is religion good or evil?"
This is not about religion...

This is a question of Constitutionality.

Having an elective class in HS on comparative religions or historical studies of them is one thing - but to teach one religion only - as a study of its texts - would violate the 1st Amendment. Period.

The Legislators that put this forward should be required to pay back the state of NH for the cost we have incurred for this clearly unconstitutional bill.

The idea that God revealed Himself in written revelation the result of which is the Bible is historically innacurate, particularly when applied to the Old Testament. The fact is that there were arguements in the early Christian church about the validity of various scriptures that raged on, many of which were decided by a series of ecumenical councils starting in 325 A. D..In these councils, MEN decided which scriptures were true and they eliminated chapters that they thought were heretical or conflicted with accepted doctrine in order to build a common set of scriptures across the "Holy Roman Empire".

Religion is only as evil as its followers implement. Unfortunately, a lot of crazy right wing nuts take it so far that there ends up being everything from war, genocide, to everyday oppression, which is what our current crazy conservatives are up to. The idea is to reprogram our youth to be good little sheeple and obey, which will make future elections easier. It's a lot better for them than dealing with freethinking people.

Whether or not there is a god, consider that every god that is written about lives within the time period and constraints of the location/time in history it was recorded in. You won't find a desert god in the snowy north. There'll be no mention of dinosaurs in a novel where archaeology has not progressed yet. Beyond that, if there is a god, the burden of proof is placed on those who assert its presence. Otherwise, I could just make up any god that I want to, claim it as fact, and legislate over everyone else.

I don't want to live beneath the imagination of some fantasy prone personalities. If there are thousands of gods in the world, and everyone claims their own personal holy book/faith to the exclusion of all others, doesn't that give everyone a giant hint that since everyone can't be right, a whole hell of a lot of people are wrong and oppressing others?

It's clear that Jesus was an historical figure. At minimum, you can also say, whether you believe he was the Messiah or not, that he was one of the greatest humans of recorded history. His example of compassion and equality in dealing with other humans was totally opposed to the culture of his time and has lived on for 2 millenia.

Unfortunately, many people who call themselves Christians in the US have abandoned his New Covenant that jettisoned the "eye for an eye" mentality of the Old Testament. In the double-think and double-speak of modern America, I find it extremely saddening that a vast number of evangelical "Christions" are also proponents of the mean-spirited ramblings of the rabid atheist, Ayn Rand, and the hateful speach of right wing talk show hosts.

Thoughout the world today Christian believers are imprisoned and many die for their faith. These events have continued from the time of Jesus. Their faith has sustained and validated their beliefs. The Christian church is called the Body of Christ. It is the only body that should teach and equip its followers. Jesus name continues to be lifted up by the saints who live and die with that Name above all Names on their lips. We are a blessed people in America. This is the faith that our forefathers sacrificed life and personal wealth to protect.

With the less than stellar scores public schools are achieving on standardized tests, why don't we just work to improve the teaching of the basics (ie: math, reading. writing) before we even consider tossing in religion.

How about a world religions class covering ALL religions and their historical backgrounds, prophets, major tenets etc.

A whole course? How long does it take to teach someone that Xtianity is the belief that some cosmic Jewish zombie can make you live forever if you literally eat his flesh and drink his blood and telepathically communicate to him that you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat fruit from a magical tree? Who wouldn't believe that?

For me, the key word here is elective. If it's not required yet available, I think that good.

http://lifescienceprize.org/

http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/arguments.shtml

It would help if the religious educated themselves, so they can come out of the darkness they are in and turn from the foolish fables of preachers in scientific masks unto the living God

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/bibletru.html

CAUTION

these links require you to think rationally, put aside your hatred of Christ and admit you may have been brain washed by the Public Education system.. which given the severe lack of quality and integrity of said institution, should not be too hard for you grasp

I like the part where you ignore everything else and pick up on that..typical

I agree with those who have said it is appropriate to teach the Bible in public school in the context of a comparative religion course or a world literature course, but not as indoctrination of faith. But a second issue is that it would probably be unwise to embark on a new curriculum that is likely to be controversial at best and quite possibly dangerously divisive, when we are still far from achieving perfection in our teaching of the subjects already in the curriculum. Would it be in addition to, or replacement of, existing classes? I would rather see us perfect the necessary than embark on a quest for the questionable.

If the bible is taught, I would hope they would give a lecture on the teachings of Col. Robert Ingersall as well. I would assume Paganism, Ancient mythology,Hedonism, Athiesim, Budism, Muslim and any other superstitions.

I voted 'yes' on this poll question, but the bill should fail. Choosing one religion to teach is wrong, but it's true that being ignorant of the world's religions will put one at a disadvantage. I don't see how a comparative religions class would be Unconstitutional, and one should be taught, right alongside Euripides, Shakespeare and Western Civ.

There is nothing wrong with having an elective on religions as long as it teaches about all religions fairly and equally, giving each religion, including the American minority religions such as Baha'i, Taoism, and Paganism a full and equal voice. Since this is very unlikely to happen, it should be not be passed as it would violate the separation of church and state.
There truly are plenty of churches, mosques, temples, and other places of worship in and around the Granite State to satisfy even the pickiest religious advocate. If parents feel that children should learn more about religion, they should go to a qualified minister or youth group for teachings in that religion, not open a door for something that could (and most likely would) become a haven for biased viewpoints and proselytization of one specific religion. Plenty of colleges offer courses in world religions and Bible studies. Let the students take classes when they are over 18 and are able to make a rational choice for themselves. Many students aren't ready to postulate the intricacies of religion until they reach their late teens/early twenties anyway, and those who are most often find the teachings through a trained religious elder. Keep church and state separate as Jefferson and the rest of the Founding Fathers intended.

Absolutely not, no, never, period. Bible teachings belong in church & in private schools. Why even both posting such an absurd poll question on a topic that, if implemented, would clearly be found unconstitutional? The New Hampshire Civil Liberties Union is quite in the right here, & Rep. Bergevin is very, very far off base. Our politicians have more pressing issues to work on.

Of course it crosses a line! It clearly crosses many lines: McCollum v. Board of Education (1948), Engel v Vitale (1962), Abbington School District v Schempp (1963), Epperson v Arkansas (1968), Lemon v Kurtzman (1971), Wallace v. Jaffree (1985), Edwards v Aquillard (1987), Lee v Weisman (1992). The Supreme Court is very, very clear about this. No matter how a state legislature or local school board tries to veil it in supposedly non-religious purposes, no matter whether it is mandatory or elective, bringing chapter-and-verse study of any religion into the schools is impermissible, period. This bill is a waste of time, and if it somehow managed to pass it would be a huge waste of the state's resources defending a case that will unquestionably be lost.

History of religions is permissible, and history of literature can certainly include religious texts along with other great works, and both types of courses can be illustrated with limited selections from various scriptures for comparative purposes, as long as both the course material and the teacher stay neutral about the "correctness" of the various religions. Some high school kids would certainly benefit from such courses,

Of course, there's always the question of who teaches the class. I wonder what Rep. Bergevin would think if a school district had a Mormon, Scientologist, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist or Atheist teacher for the class he is proposing? I'm sure every school system has a few.

Just wanted to interject something that the group may not be aware of. In NH, only a member of the General Court can introduce legislation. Many of my former colleagues as well as myself, felt a key part of our representative responsibility was to push forward bills that may be a single minority position but were important to a constituent and we gave it a pathway to be considered. Many of the bills that are ridiculed in the press have come up this way but it is not explained. These bills are often dispensed of quickly in Committee and appear on the consent agenda in the full House. Given the typically 1500 bills per session introduced v. the $84 (after taxes) that a Rep. makes in a year, the cost to the taxpayer can be measured in pennies. It's important that in an open State like NH, every citizen is due the respect that you would want for yourself. It is quite possible that Rep. Bergevin (don't know him) is not emotionally invested in the success of this bill. Just wanted to throw that out for the info of those who were not aware of the system.