Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
The state of Idaho has put the kibosh on a charter school that wanted to use the Bible as a textbook in their school.
The Idaho Public Charter School Commission told the Nampa Classical Academy today it can't use the Bible as a instructional text.The commission released a memo stating that the Idaho Constitution "expressly" limits use of religious texts. Officials with the new Nampa charter school had planned to use the Bible and other religious texts as a primary source for instruction but not to teach religion.
This school is clearly trying to get around almost every restriction on teaching religion in schools. The same school also plans to teach creationism:
"Our approach is to explore truth and we look at different theories," Nampa Classical Academy headmaster Val Bush said. "We will teach some of the theories that have been advanced by different perspectives. We will not be exclusive on that."...Bush stopped short of saying creationism would be a specific part of the school's curriculum. The new charter school opens Sept. 8.
"There are several versions of creationism," Bush said. "We're going to explore different theories of it."
Nampa Classical Academy teachers would be guarded if they answered students' questions regarding the teachers' thoughts on the origin of life, Bush said.
"There are theories and nothing's really proven so we'll go through the theories," Bush said.
Typical creationist nonsense. Creationism is not a theory in any scientific sense. Theories have to actually explain the data, not merely attempt to explain it away.
Politics
Comments
Val Bush, no doubt related to that other towering fundie intellect, George. I'm surprised Idaho had the balls to prohibit this blatantly unconstitutional crap.
There is a small upside: the fools educated in this school and others like it will be unable to compete in any way for meaningful science jobs giving kids with a real education an advantage. Future (not too distant future) truism: Secular = smart, fundie = stupid. I admit it is a long view but with fundies fouling everything, you need to take a long view.
Posted by: MikeMa | August 22, 2009 9:33 AM
Posted by: Spidergrackle | August 22, 2009 9:40 AM
What, can't use the bible as a teaching tool??!!
How else will children learn that bats are birds, insects have four legs, the earth is a flat rectangle and other vital truths??
Posted by: Rob Jase | August 22, 2009 9:45 AM
Yeah, that always works out so well. The student who taped his teacher pushing his religion in answer to students questions in New Jersey a few years back comes to mind.
Posted by: silverspoon | August 22, 2009 9:48 AM
I was checking up on Operation Rescue's website earlier, and a paragraph I read there seems to apply to this.
"It is because abortionists have an arrogant sense that any law regulating or restricting the sacrosanct act of abortion is just an anti-abortion plot against them, therefore they are under no obligation to obey. They truly think and act as if they are above the law."
I think what we see here is the conservative education equivilent of that claim - the management of that school, I would guess, believes that any laws which prevent them teaching fundamentalist christianity are part of an anti-christian conspiricy perhaps inspired by Satan himself. As such not only may the law be ignored, but the management sees it as their duty to somehow defy the law - be it by legal trickery or open defiance. With the preference being for legal trickery, because most fundamentalist Christians approve of martyrs imprisoned for their faith in a general sense but wouldn't want to become one personally.
Posted by: Suricou Raven | August 22, 2009 9:54 AM
Spidergrackle "Oh, how wonderfully Fair and Balanced™ of them."
Yes, they'll teach the whole panoply of Creationism; from six-day all the way to the Omphalos hypothesis. With an education like that, the world is one's oyster!
Posted by: Modusoperandi | August 22, 2009 11:11 AM
Another frustrating display of ignorance and laziness by a reporter (in the second link). The reporter misused the term 'theory', failed to accurately describe Creationism, and failed to note Creationism is unconstitutional and why it is unconstitutional.
Posted by: Michael Heath | August 22, 2009 11:24 AM
Maybe they were gonna use the Bible to teach Math. Because everyone knows Pi is actually 3. The Bible says so. http://www.abarim-publications.com/Bible_Commentary/Pi_In_The_Bible.html
Posted by: MathGrad | August 22, 2009 12:17 PM
I'm gonna have to cut some slack on the reporter Michael Heath points to in his comment; Having a name like that has to be a mitigating factor in everything in the guy's life.
Posted by: tom rogers | August 22, 2009 12:44 PM
Wow, I'm amazed that the Commission stopped them. I'm so tired of seeing religious stuff in parks and court rooms here, I would have just figured that using the Bible to teach history would be par for the course in Idaho.
Posted by: Laurie Brown | August 22, 2009 1:35 PM
Whereas I also see this ignorance and laziness as extremely frustrating, I'm certainly not surprised. It's depressing how frequently I run into high school science teachers who misunderstand how the term theory is actually used in a scientific sense.
Posted by: Josh | August 22, 2009 3:56 PM
There is a small upside: the fools educated in this school and others like it will be unable to compete in any way for meaningful science jobs giving kids with a real education an advantage. Future (not too distant future) truism: Secular = smart, fundie = stupid. I admit it is a long view but with fundies fouling everything, you need to take a long view.
Yeah, it's not like they'll be voting or anything ... oh, crap.
Posted by: dogmeatIB | August 22, 2009 4:09 PM
Creationists may be useless for real science, but that doesn't mean no science jobs. Someone has to keep all thoose test-tubes clean.
Posted by: Suricou Raven | August 22, 2009 5:07 PM
http://trollcats.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/evolution_is_just_a_theory_trollcat.jpg
Posted by: Roman | August 22, 2009 5:17 PM
From the second article Ed linked:
The spokesperson for the education department of an entire state doesn't know that creationism has been illegal to teach in US public schools for decades? Great Darwin's beard.
The blatherings about creationism from the charter school official raise my suspicions sky-high, but do we have any other corroboration of the idea that they were going to push Biblical religion in classes, rather than simply using the Bible as just a piece of literature in a neutral fashion?
Posted by: MPW | August 22, 2009 6:37 PM
Don't evolutionists believe that single celled organisms evolved into multicellular organisms without any scientific proof? Honestly, I don't really see the difference. /nottrollingseriously =0)
Posted by: Matt | August 22, 2009 10:55 PM
I completely agree creationism has no place in a science class, as science requires evidence. But, there is no reason that the Bible can't be used as a textbook.
I think if it was used in the class were it belongs- social studies -it would maybe begin to be viewed in a similar manner to that of Greek mythology (which they also teach in that class). Teach religion as an interesting story that people used to believe, some (alright... many) still do, and kids will more likely have a fair knowledge of the subject without having to consider it as science (aka truth).
Posted by: Jordan G | August 23, 2009 12:40 AM
I was checking up on Operation Rescue's website earlier, and a paragraph I read there seems to apply to this.
"It is because abortionists have an arrogant sense that any law regulating or restricting the sacrosanct act of abortion is just an anti-abortion plot against them, therefore they are under no obligation to obey. They truly think and act as if they are above the law."
I think what we see here is the conservative education equivilent of that claim - the management of that school, I would guess, believes that any laws which prevent them teaching fundamentalist christianity are part of an anti-christian conspiricy perhaps inspired by Satan himself. As such not only may the law be ignored, but the management sees it as their duty to somehow defy the law - be it by legal trickery or open defiance. With the preference being for legal trickery, because most fundamentalist Christians approve of martyrs imprisoned for their faith in a general sense but wouldn't want to become one personally.
-------------
Why does it always seem to be that way? It doesn't make sense for them to project as much as they do, but it always seems to be the case.
It's almost as if so many of the are "Liars for Jesus" because they WISH that we were as dishonest as they are.
Posted by: doctorgoo | August 23, 2009 9:22 AM
@17:
I see what you're saying, Jordan. But can you imagine how apeshit parents would be if you (correctly) called Christianity a religious mythology on par with Greek and Roman mythology??
Posted by: doctorgoo | August 23, 2009 9:26 AM
@19
Very true doctorgoo, but if they take the approach that colleges take, and simply say "this is what Christianity is and this is the history of Christianity" without giving it credence, I actually think both sides would be happy.
Why do I think that? Because I took a class on the New Testament at U of M. Of the 200+ students in the lecture, maybe 10 were Jewish, and another 2 or 3 were non-religious like me. Almost everyone there (the professor included) were strong Christians. But what the class taught could much easier be used against the religion rather than for it, because it approached the New Testament from a historical point of view.
Basically, the class taught this timeline: Jesus lived and spread his message; he died, and his followers were split on who to teach the philosophy to; Paul came along and decided to teach non-Jews, focusing on what Jesus represented rather than what Jesus taught; Jesus's disciples didn't like that, but couldn't stop him; 30 years after Jesus died, the first Gospel was written (Mark); the next two Gospels (Matt & Luke) use Mark to write theirs; 80 years after Jesus's death, the Gospel of John is written which tells a completely different story compared to the other three.
And it taught other important things like: NO ONE thought that Jesus was God while Jesus was alive. They thought he was the Messiah, but at that time, that simply referred to an angel.
Occasionally, someone in the class would object to what the professor said, since it didn't line up with their beliefs, but the objections were handled well. And I would say on the whole, the Christians were glad to take the class, and somehow it reaffirmed their faith. But to non-believers like me, it was also one of my favorite classes, as it reaffirmed my non-faith.
Posted by: Jordan G | August 23, 2009 10:04 AM
Thanks for the feedback, folks. I hope I'm not as lazy and ignorant as you suggest. But, hey, nobody's perfect. And I'm surely not the best reporter who ever banged out a story on deadline.
Mr. Bush has since said the school will not teach creationism. He told me my story was misleading, but he didn't say any of the quotations I attributed to him were inaccurate.
As for my name, I'm 55 years old and it really doesn't bother me anymore. As my sister says about the family name's upside, "It's easy to say, easy to spell and easy to remember."
Cheers
Posted by: Mike Butts | August 23, 2009 10:32 AM
Jordon G - if you really study the histiography of Jesus time which I did for about 20 years but gave it up several years back, one would learn the following:
1) There is no empirical evidence or even the type of evidence historians use that would elicit strong confidence Jesus even existed.
2) There are strong deconstruction arguments that can deconstruct Jesus down to him never existing (Robert M. Price).
3) There are strong construction arguments that 'he' was always a spiritual Christ, which was an originally created persona that never lived on earth but was constructed by Paul, with some additional edits made after Paul's time to reconcile Paul's Christ to the Gospel of Mark. Surprisingly few edits and inserts of Paul's writings are required to distinguish this spiritual-only Christ from Mark's Jesus. This spiritual Christ was supposedly killed and was resurrected, but not on earth.
4) And of course arguments that Jesus was human teacher of that time as you learned at U.M. In some cases scholars will strip Jesus down to the Q1, the first layer of Quelle (German for source). These are his most intelligent and provocative sayings found in the gospels of IIRC, Matthew and Luke. I don't have access to that book right now, but will add a few examples later today.
I can't imagine parents accepting such arguments into Junior's head. College kids are much more open to having their faith challenged if they're attending a secular university. I'd argue many / most(?) college students welcome it. I know I did.
I too wish we taught Christianity in the schools, along with comparative religion, where I'd like to see creation myths taught. I'm especially frustrated we strip out much of the religious influences that drove and still drives history. But I can't imagine such intellectual honesty being taught in America when so many parents want their faith defended far more than they want their children educated.
Posted by: Michael Heath | August 23, 2009 10:38 AM
Michael - I am aware that there are many historians who question Jesus's existence, but I'm more than willing to concede that one to the Christians. If you think about it, during his life, the historical Jesus wasn't one of much power. He traveled extensively, but he still was just an everyday person. And it is basically impossible for historians to prove the existence of any given everyday person. Just imagine the miniscule % of people that could be proven to have existed, and almost all of those were in a position of power.
Is it proven that Jesus existed? No. But this is one exception to the rule that things need to be proven. It's fine to acknowledge that insufficient proof exists, but to say that he didn't exists is assuming that we would know if he had. And I think that if he had existed, we would have the same amount of evidence as we do right now, which is minimal.
Posted by: Jordan G | August 23, 2009 10:52 AM
Jordan G:
"Is it proven that Jesus existed? No. But this is one exception to the rule that things need to be proven."
For you to believe, no problemo. For me to believe or for anyone who does believe to have any right to require that of anyone else? EPIC fail.
If at college age, a young-home schooled individual found themselves in a discussion with one of their secular classmates and, having exhausted his store of woomagic b.s., was told by the non-believer:
"Well, you can believe that nonsense or you can dance, drink, get stoned, gamble, swear, fuck AND sleep in on Sunday morning without worrying about any divine retritbution."
...well, I think there might be a few more atheists on the planet.
Posted by: democommie | August 23, 2009 1:30 PM
I agree with what you're saying democommie, but my point is that arguing whether or not Jesus lived at all is a distraction from the real discussion - was Jesus God? (and we're on the same side in that debate)
To try and usurp victory in the real debate by stating that Jesus never existed is not necessary. It is a statement that is as weak as the statement that he did exist. And in the real debate, our side is has MUCH stronger points. So why distract from a strong opinion by moving to a weak one?
Posted by: Jordan G | August 23, 2009 1:46 PM
I see what you're saying, Jordan. But can you imagine how apeshit parents would be if you (correctly) called Christianity a religious mythology on par with Greek and Roman mythology??
Sorry Doc', I have to object to this strongly. Comparing Christian mythology to Greek and Roman mythology is completely inappropriate. Greek mythology, unlikely Christian mythology, is well written.
Posted by: dogmeatIB | August 23, 2009 1:47 PM
Jordan G.:
In my experience, agreeing with a KKKristian on the smallest item of his fantasy opens the floodgates. I'd rather tell them they're fucking lunatics and have them walk off muttering about how they'd kick my ass if it weren't for their KKKristianity (and cowardice).
Posted by: democommie | August 23, 2009 3:13 PM
JUST AS THE FUCKING GURU MAGGOTS WERE STRICKEN WITH A POTATO BLIGHT FOR REJECTING THE BIBLE AND FOR CLINGING TO POPERY, FENIANISM, DESPOTISM, FIANNA FAIL, ALCOHOLISM, SUPERSTITION, THE AOH, BIGOTRY, IDOLATRY, THE WOLFE TONES, IGNORANCE, GURU MAGGOTS, PATTERNS, KNEE-CAPPING, CELTIC F.C. SUPPORTERS, GLUE-SNIFFING, ENYA (NEW AGE), INCEST, THE INQUISITIONS, BUCKFAST, JESUITS, DOMESTIC ABUSE, EXTREME UNCTION, TERRORISM, "HOLY" WELLS, THE GAA AND THE MASS, IDAHO IS NOW TEMPTING THE SAME FATE!!!!!
Posted by: AMERICAPHILE MINISTRIES | August 23, 2009 3:49 PM
I HEART you Americaphile Ministries.
Posted by: doctorgoo | August 23, 2009 3:51 PM
AMERICAPHILE MINISTRIES, #28:
I call Poe.
Posted by: Chiroptera | August 23, 2009 3:56 PM
HOLY CRAP !!!!!
CHECK OUT HIS WEBSITE:
http://americaphile.blogspot.com/
(somebody needs to buy Ralph a keyboard that doesn't have a stuck CAPS LOCK key)
Posted by: doctorgoo | August 23, 2009 3:56 PM
Actually, I kind of like his idea of combining the phrases KNEE-CAPPING and ENYA. lol
But for his website, I'm not too sure it's a Poe or not? I haven't found any dead giveaways yet.
I think this boy is sincere.
Posted by: doctorgoo | August 23, 2009 4:01 PM
doctorgoo, #31: HOLY CRAP !!!!!
That was exactly my words when I saw that website. What an interesting coincidence.
Posted by: Chiroptera | August 23, 2009 4:02 PM
Yeah, this "Americaphile" guy is completely out of it. The "PIAPS" stuff alone proves it, independent of the capslock.
Posted by: Raging Bee | August 23, 2009 4:02 PM
I think that the Bible is underestimated as a source of knowledge. It teaches us many things on how to run a society, raise a family, or cure sickness. Jesus was curing leprosy, and your science cannot.
I live in the UK, the NHS is killing babies to convert them into food for Muslim immigrants and Polish gastarbeiters. Did you read what happened to "Baby P"?
Posted by: sl0w_bear | August 23, 2009 4:27 PM
Science cannot cure leprosy?
http://diseases.emedtv.com/leprosy/cures-for-leprosy.html
I hadn't heard about "Baby P". It's a sad story:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8152417.stm
...but you say this Peter is now soylent green? lol... what up dude?? Got proof? I can't even find a single conspiracy website with this claim... this must be a Sl0w_Bear original.
With the risk of entering the abyss of the Spam Filter due to a third link, here's sl0w_bear on the divine power of kings... lol:
http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2007/03/harper_v_poway_gets_stranger_1.php?utm_source=mostactive&utm_medium=link#comment-363563
Posted by: doctorgoo | August 23, 2009 5:01 PM
Yeah, sure thing, sl0w_bear, the bad guys are eating babies, just like they do in every insane conspiracy story since the Crusades. Go back to your cave and fuck yourself.
Posted by: Raging Bee | August 23, 2009 5:13 PM
Open your eyes and see the truth!
This is what this "democracy" is about. If Britain had a real king... as in the old days... he would cleanse the land of foreigners and bring back moral principles. Do you know how many British teenagers had abortion? This is another consequence of socialist medicine! Tell it to faux-libertarians like Ed Brayton!
Posted by: sl0w_bear | August 23, 2009 5:30 PM
For more on sl0w_bear on his theories of the divinity of kings, see this thread here:
http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2007/03/harper_v_poway_gets_stranger_1.php?utm_source=mostactive&utm_medium=link#comment-363563
Oh... by the way, leprosy can be cured by modern medicine for more than 60 years now.
Posted by: doctorgoo | August 23, 2009 5:38 PM
Wow. Is sl0w bear a monarchist poe, or just an idiot?
Posted by: Ramel | August 23, 2009 6:57 PM
doctorgoo "Oh... by the way, leprosy can be cured by modern medicine for more than 60 years now."
Only because those so-called "doctors" are givin' them lepros injections of Jesus! That's right, drugs that work are just Bible-shreddin's!
Posted by: Modusoperandi | August 23, 2009 7:02 PM
A whole slew of poes.
Posted by: dogmeatib | August 23, 2009 8:23 PM
Poeslaw?
Posted by: Modusoperandi | August 23, 2009 8:26 PM
AM @24 - Not Poe. Pogue Mahone!
As for sl0w_fascist: Genuine weapons grade nutcase. Get it straight: Racism is the opposite of a moral principle. That's why religous bigots are racist.
Posted by: eddie | August 24, 2009 8:25 AM
You're so full of anger towards me, but I've noticed that nobody on Scienceblogs uttered a word of criticism towards Mr "I like waterboarding" Obama for his decision not to prosecute the people who broke the US and international law by torturing the suspects. Where is your moral indignation here? Heh?
If, as Barack Scalia says, the USA should move forward instead of looking at what you've done wrong in the past, then why not apply the same logic to the terrorists? Why prosecute them? If they promise not to blow up anybody again, they should be set free.
I am not a US citizen and I am afraid of being, under some slight pretext, kidnapped and sent to Guantanamo, where law does not apply.
"Yes we can" changed into "Yes we are above the law". And you trust this man to fix your health care?
Bwahahaha. You'll sooner see pigs fly than see this administration bring any real change to America. They're pals with Goldman Sachs already.
Posted by: sl0w_bear | August 24, 2009 5:23 PM
sl0w_bear
You have no clue as to what you are talking about. That is not anger that is fact.
And no I did not vote for President Obama but I did vote for a woman to be President and I never have and never will vote Republican.
Posted by: theroachman | August 24, 2009 5:28 PM
"You have no clue as to what you are talking about."
Don't I?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8219307.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8215722.stm
I am pretty sure that *nobody* will go to prison for this. Remember my words.
Posted by: sl0w_bear | August 24, 2009 5:43 PM
sl0w_bear:
Remember my words. Go fuck yourself.
Posted by: democommie | August 24, 2009 9:11 PM
Go fuck your mother.
Posted by: sl0w_bear | August 25, 2009 2:27 AM
No, you don't.
http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2009/05/obama_threatens_britain_over_t.php
http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2009/04/greenwald_on_democratic_duplic.php
Ed has been an outspoken critic of Obama's continuation of Bush-era policies. There's a search box on the left below Ed's bio. Try "Obama torture" and read a little before you make a bigger fool of yourself.
Posted by: DaveL | August 25, 2009 5:49 AM
The gist of the complaint is that the Commission is singling out religious books to ban--an outright act of discrimination against religion. In reality, it doesn't matter if the Commission is correct about the intent of the Idaho Constitution. Even if Idaho's constitution did intend to ban the use of such books, it would likely be a violation of the U.S. Constitution.
I'm an an attorney who speaks and writes on legal subjects, including Church-State relations and Pro-Life Issues. See my blog entry on this case at
http://tonykolenc.blogspot.com/.
Antony Barone Kolenc
Posted by: Antony Barone Kolenc | September 2, 2009 10:59 PM
Let's see, sl0w_bear (spelled with a zero to indicate both his IQ and his integrity) ran away and got replaced by an amateur lawyer spouting Christian Reich talking-points. That's an improvement, but not much.
No, Antony, schools not teaching about religion is not "discrimination against religion." This is nothing more than a transparent lie whose sole purpose is to force schools to teach the majority religion. (Would you be okay with schools using the Koran or "Drawing Down the Moon" as textbooks? Didn't think so.)
Posted by: Raging Bee | September 3, 2009 12:07 AM