OK, my source was a little old, Bill Bennett, 1994 Index of Leading Cultural
Indicators, reprinted in Wall Street Journal article here:
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/usadecline.html
I think his typographical error (560%) was actually 460% rise in violent crime,
according to the tabular charts he provides at the bottom.
Thank God after Bennett exposed this problem, America woke up, and voted for
the 1994 Republican revolution in Congress, which reversed the aggressive
liberal assault on morality, (unless you believe Bill Clinton led that revival
of morality), and reduced national crime steadily (back to nearly 1974 levels)
until losing power in 2006 (when, ironically, the Democrats took over and crime
started to rise again).
Post hoc: Children stop living according to Biblical values.
Ergo propter hoc: We teach children to stop living according to Biblical
values.
(But there's no connection here.....really.....)
In Jesus,
Chaplain K.
"Saperstein, David (RAC)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: v\:*
{behavior:url(#default#VML);} o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} w\:*
{behavior:url(#default#VML);} .shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
st1\:*{behavior:url(#default#ieooui) } One could argue that
this is a classic example of the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, if of
course, one were inclined to make such arguments.
---------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Volokh, Eugene
Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 5:09 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: A plea for keeping things precise (and providing citations whenever
possible)
Folks: Just a quick plug from the list custodian for maximum accuracy.
If you want to cite a statistic, please check it and cite the source (plus see
whether the big picture is more complex than you describe). For instance, a
quick visit to the Bureau of Justice Statistics site
(http://bjsdata.ojp.usdoj.gov/dataonline/Search/Crime/State/StatebyState.cfm)
reveals that the crime rate as reported to the police rose from 160.9/100,000
in 1960 to 473.5/100,000 in 2006, a 200% increase (or a tripling) -- bad
enough, but not 560%. (I realize that not all crimes are reported to the
police, and the reporting rate changes over time, but I don't think the NCVS
data goes back to the 1960; if you have better statistics, please let me know.)
What's more, the current violent crime rate is pretty much at the 1974
level, and there was in fact a sharp decline from 1992 to 2003 -- not, I take
it, because the nation or the educational system has somehow gotten less
"atheistic." Now I'm perfectly happy to acknowledge that various forms of
social pathology have increased since 1960 (while some have declined); and it's
possible, though in my view unproven, that this has something to do with the
decline of religion in public education.
But I'd like to keep discussions on the list as accurate as possible, and
a 560% increase is not the same as a 200% increase or even a 300% level; and a
1960-now comparison doesn't make such sense if the current numbers are at the
1974 level. So please let's check any statistics we mention, and provide
citations when possible. Many thanks,
Eugene Volokh
---------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ed Darrell
Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 1:52 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Bible class rules set for Texas schools - Faith- msnbc.com
Yet leading cultural indicators show that since 1960 in America, violent
crime has increased by 560 percent, illegitimate birth rates have increased
more than 400 percent, teen suicide is up over 200 percent, the divorce rate
has more than doubled, and the percentage of families headed by a single parent
has more than tripled.
It seems to me, thanks to courts and judges that enforce state atheism and
Ed's social experiment upon our families and children, by taking Bibles and
prayer OUT of public schools, that...
And that's with increased Bible instruction that violates the law. Ed Brayton
is right to worry -- looks like more of the same, maybe at an increased rate.
Why not study what it really says, study the real literature components (as
with every AP English course), the real effects on history (as with every AP
U.S. History and AP World History course)? Tougher academics can help --
Sunday school in the public schools is, by Chaplian Klingenschmitt's tally, a
grotesque failure, doing the opposite of what it is intended.
More seriously, pay very careful attention to Mark Chancey's comments. He's a
very distinguished, and faithful, Bible scholar. What the Texas State School
Board is working to implement is contrary to most Christian faiths, let alone
the Constitution. Incompetence, weak academics, bad religion -- it's a bad
brew. When the state board ignores the state's leading Bible scholars, the
state's teachers and teacher organizations, and even the sponsor of the Bill,
there's evil afoot.
And when we try to increase the AP offerings, which feature increased study of
both Christianity and the Bible, these same people complain.
Something's rotten in Texas. There's prayer in the schools, but sadly, that's
all the students have. No wonder crime, illicit sex are up, and academic
achievement is down. The kids are following the State School Board's examples,
ignoring all authority, making their own, unanchored moral decisions, ignoring
the best information, etc.
By the way, I don't think the divorce rate has doubled. I think it's
dropping, in fact. Anybody got a current statistic?
Ed Darrell
Working in Dallas to get the curriculum planned out for 2008-2009, no thanks
to the State School Board
Gordon James Klingenschmitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ed writes about teaching about the Bible (as an optional elective) in public
schools, "the result is going to be very ugly and very expensive."
Yet leading cultural indicators show that since 1960 in America, violent crime
has increased by 560 percent, illegitimate birth rates have increased more than
400 percent, teen suicide is up over 200 percent, the divorce rate has more
than doubled, and the percentage of families headed by a single parent has more
than tripled.
It seems to me, thanks to courts and judges that enforce state atheism and
Ed's social experiment upon our families and children, by taking Bibles and
prayer OUT of public schools, that...
"the result has already been very ugly and very expensive."
In Jesus name,
Chaplain Gordon James Klingenschmitt
Charles Haynes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I agree that much more guidance is needed (along the lines suggested in the
consensus guidelines we issued in 2000 -- "The Bible and Public Schools: A
First Amendment Guide" http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/about.aspx?id=6261.
What puzzles me, however, is why the State Board fails to mention the
requirements for training as outlined in Section 21.549 of the Texas "Bible
Bill." Perhaps that is the next step... but there is no mention of it in the
the board's decision this week.
If the training requirements mandated by the bill are followed, then many of
the problems might be avoided... But with groups out there pushing
unconstitutional Bible materials (such as those at issue in the
recently-settled lawsuit in Odessa) it will be difficult to monitor what is
going on across the state. Charles Haynes
21.459. BIBLE COURSE TRAINING. (a) The commissioner
shall develop and make available training materials and other
teacher training resources for a school district to use in
assisting teachers of elective Bible courses in developing:
(1) expertise in the appropriate Bible course
curriculum;
(2) understanding of applicable supreme court rulings
and current constitutional law regarding how Bible courses are to
be taught in public schools objectively as a part of a secular
program of education;
(3) understanding of how to present the Bible in an
objective, academic manner that neither promotes nor disparages
religion, nor is taught from a particular sectarian point of view;
(4) proficiency in instructional approaches that
present course material in a manner that respects all faiths and
religious traditions, while favoring none; and
(5) expertise in how to avoid devotional content or
proselytizing in the classroom.
(b) The commissioner shall develop materials and resources
under this section in consultation with appropriate faculty members
at institutions of higher education.
(c) The commissioner shall make the training materials and
other teacher training resources required under Subsection (a)
available to Bible course teachers through access to in-service
training.
(d) The commissioner shall use funds appropriated for the
purpose to administer this section.
Charles Haynes
The Freedom Forum First Amendment Center
555 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20001
202/292-6293 - office
703/683-1924 home office
________________________________
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Ed Brayton
Sent: Tue 7/22/2008 1:56 AM
To: 'Law & Religion issues for Law Academics'
Subject: RE: Bible class rules set for Texas schools - Faith- msnbc.com
Having seen some of the material already at use in many Bible courses in
Texas, I can only say that the State board of education is being incredibly
irresponsible in not spelling out exactly what can and can't be taught in
such classes. Local school districts are inevitably going to teach this
course in constitutionally dubious ways without such guidance. Terri Leo
claims that providing such guidelines might lead to a lawsuit; not providing
them is going to lead to many such suits - and sooner rather than later.
They are doing the same thing the Louisiana legislature is doing with the
recent "academic freedom" legislation, inviting local schools into a "Dover
trap." The result is going to be very ugly and very expensive.
Ed Brayton
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gibbens, Daniel G.
Sent: Monday, July 21, 2008 5:20 PM
To: 'Law & Religion issues for Law Academics'
Subject: RE: Bible class rules set for Texas schools - Faith- msnbc.com
Justice Brennan's well-known statement, concurring in Schempp, 374 US at
300: "teaching about the Bible" "in classes in literature or history" is
permissible. As literature, surely teaching about the Bible is different
from other literature items, distinctively involving the necessity of
treating these issues:
The fact that some people believe it (or some of it) is "the word of God" --
others believe that it is essential to understanding their religion --
others believe it is interesting literature but otherwise irrelevant -- and
thinking internationally, it is one several books presenting similar issues,
e.g., the Koran.
Arguably, if teachers are not so advised/trained, there are indeed critical
church-state issues.
Dan
Daniel G. Gibbens
Regents' Professor of Law Emeritus
University of Oklahoma
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Joel Sogol
Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2008 3:41 AM
To: Religionlaw
Subject: Bible class rules set for Texas schools - Faith- msnbc.com
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25742567/
Joel Sogol
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as
private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are
posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or
wrongly) forward the messages to others.
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as
private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are
posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or
wrongly) forward the messages to others.
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the
messages to others.
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the
messages to others.
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the
messages to others.
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the
messages to others.
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the
messages to others.
