Texas Public School Students Will Be Required to Read the Bible

Texas Public School Students Will Be Required to Read the Bible​

Texas passed what may be the first state-mandated book list for public school students. It focuses on classic literature and includes Bible excerpts.

For example, 10th graders would read “The Tragedy of Julius Caesar” by William Shakespeare, and “The Inferno” by Dante Alighieri. Among other texts, they would also read the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I’ve Been to the Mountain Top” speech; Edgar Allan Poe’s famous poem “The Raven”; Margaret Thatcher’s eulogy for Mr. Reagan; and an excerpt from the Book of Job.

Students would be required to read a Bible excerpt at most grade levels, starting in elementary school.

Excerpts included “The Necessity of Humility” by the Gospel of Luke and “To Everything There is a Season” from the Book of Ecclesiastes. In middle and high school, Bible selections were included in thematic units along with a book. For example, the “Definition of Love,” from First Corinthians, would be taught alongside “Pride and Prejudice” by Jane Austen in 12th grade.


When do they start reading from the Holy Quran?
 
That's a straight up lie.
Agreed. All MAGAts are liars, traitors and haters. The sooner they die off, the happier their families will become.

““And of His signs is that He created for you from yourselves mates that you may find tranquility in them; and He placed between you affection and mercy. Indeed in that are signs for a people who give thought.” ” (Surah Ar-Rum, 30:21)
 
No more violent than the Old Testament.

iu


​
I'm gonna have to ask you to prove that assertion.

Hop to it!
 
I'm withholding judgement pending more information, but in principle if they are just reading the excerpts of the wisdom books and parables I'm not going to flip out about it. Those are just universal moral lessons. The King James Bible was exceedingly important to the evolution of English literature, and I don't have a problem with moral instruction, as long as the literary excerpts don't tread into the parts of the Bible that deal with Christian practice and doctrine.

My concern is that Bible thumpers tend to get a toe in the door and then try to cross red lines, instead of just bumping up against them.
^My opinion exactly. It's the thin end of the wedge.
 
Not in the way the Quran is. The Old Testament is mostly a recounting of wars and such whereas the Quran is more about 'Kill the unbelievers' sort of thing.

Ai Q: reply to the comment made by a forum poster quoted (above).

AI Response:

To evaluate this claim objectively, scholars of religious studies, history, and linguistics look directly at the text and context of both scriptures. [1]
The claim that "The Old Testament is mostly a recounting of wars... whereas the Quran is more about 'Kill the unbelievers'" is inaccurate. Both texts contain passages of severe violence, but they function differently in terms of literary genre, historical context, and theological scope. [1, 2, 3, 4]



1. The Hebrew Bible (Old Testament)
While the poster correctly notes that the Old Testament contains historical narratives of war, it also contains explicit divine commands for total annihilation (herem) that have no equivalent in the Quran. [1]
  • Commands for Genocide: In Deuteronomy 20:16-17, God commands the Israelites regarding the cities of the Canaanites: "you shall save alive nothing that breathes, but you shall utterly destroy them." [1, 2, 3, 4]
  • Targeting Women and Children: In 1 Samuel 15:3, the command against the Amalekites is explicit: "Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey." [1, 2, 3, 4]
  • Theological Nature: These are not just historical recounts; they are absolute, unconditional divine mandates for total eradication based on religious and ethnic identity. [1]

2. The Quran
The Quran does contain verses commanding warfare against non-Muslims, but textual and historical analysis shows these commands are contextually restricted, rather than an open-ended mandate to kill all unbelievers. [1, 2, 3]
  • The "Sword Verses": Verses like Surah 9:5 ("kill the polytheists wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them...") are often cited to support the poster's claim. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
  • The Context of War: Quranic scholars point out these verses were revealed during a specific 7th-century war between the early Muslim community and the pagan Quraysh tribe of Mecca, who had violated a peace treaty (the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah).
  • Conditional Peace: The very next verse (Surah 9:6) states: "And if any one of the polytheists seeks your protection, then grant him protection so that he may hear the words of Allah. Then deliver him to his place of safety." This contradicts the idea of an absolute command to kill all unbelievers. [1, 2]
  • Defensive Restrictions: General warfare in the Quran is explicitly limited to self-defense. Surah 2:190 states: "Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress limits. Truly, Allah loves not the transgressors." [1, 2, 3]

3. Quantitative and Academic Comparisons
Computer scientists and theologians have used text-mining and linguistic analysis to compare the intensity of violence in both texts.
  • Frequency of Violence: Investigative analyses (such as those conducting sentiment analysis on religious texts) have found that expressions of destruction, killing, and anger occur at a higher percentage per word count in the Old Testament than in the Quran. [1, 2]
  • The "Total War" Contrast: Religious scholar Philip Jenkins notes that the laws of warfare in the Old Testament demand "total war" (the complete extermination of the enemy), whereas Quranic warfare laws introduced limitations, explicitly forbidding the killing of non-combatants, women, children, and monks, and banning the destruction of property. [1, 2, 3]

Conclusion
The poster's claim relies on a double standard of interpretation: it grants a historical, contextual pass to the violence in the Bible while stripping the violence in the Quran of its specific historical context. Both books contain deeply violent passages, but the biblical commands often mandate total extermination, while the Quranic commands are legally bounded by conditions of warfare and defense. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]


 
What's the point of quoting the Quran if it doesn't offer good moral or philosophical 'advice?' That's how it changes what you stated.
I don't know if you read it but it does that. Especially regarding the treatment of women.

"The Quran presents women with profound dignity, spiritual equality, and divine honor—addressing them as partners in faith, purpose, and moral strength. It restores women’s rights in creation, inheritance, and autonomy, while highlighting noble examples like Maryam, Asiya, and the Queen of Sheba as timeless models of faith, courage, and wisdom.

The topic of women in the Quran is not something to be debated in angry forums or angry videos. It is a discussion that must be held with ‘ilm (knowledge) and adab (good manners). What you will find, when we clear away the fog, is that the Quranic address to women is profound, respectful, and foundational.

Let us look together, not at what people say the Quran says, but at the words of Allah Himself."

Continued
 
In Summary @T. A. Gardner, once again is absolutely full of shit and offers his view as if informed when the exact opposite is true.
Wrong. I speculated on what I thought might be the case in NY state. Seems they use "non-partisan" elections for school boards as do many other states. I would assume, based on that that this perv got elected because of a case of say, three people running for three school board positions and you could vote for up to three persons.

Down ballot like that, many people just mark the appropriate number of persons because they know shit about who's running for those offices.
 
Back
Top