That's a interesting view of it. And it's not one I'd be willing to argue against on first thought. Well done.

As I said and as a citizen of this nation, fully invested with all the rights and privileges instilled by the Constitution and specifically the Bill of Rights, I do have a tight to exercise my Religion as I see fit and to worship as I desire. You likewise may or may not avail yourself of that right, it's your choice.

You do not have the privilege to discriminate against me for my exercise of this right and just as it's very poor form to verbally (or via written word) to engage in discrimination on the basis of race, sex, color it's also discrimination to accuse one of engaging in "mystical primitivism from thousands of years ago" in the exercise of that religion, just as any would consider it great discrimination (and very poor taste) to accuse a Native American of being racially lacking in intellectual acuity.

There are certain protected classes recognized by law and those who choose to engage in religion ARE one such class.

In the common parlance of today, "Get over it".

The 1st Amendment guarantees freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. It does not endorse a particular religion, or deny any particular religion.
The intentional misuse of the so called "Exclusion Clause" makes me apoplectic,
principally because those people who are using it to deny the existence of God, prevent those of us who do, from worshiping or observing as we might chose to do.
It is the Tyranny of the Minority! Imposing their will on others.
And in so far as the Un-Constitutional U.S. Department of Education goes, we need to sue them, along with all the other progressive alpha-numeric farm in Washington, out of existence in the Courts.

There is a proper place for teaching Christianity, even if I don’t agree with any faith, but schools are not the place. The separation of Church and State is sacrosanct and not to be violated. That said I have always looked at Bible Schools as brainwashing schools, and mainly aimed at the young and impressionable children.

I'm the one who presented a source of facts, not the opposite

I think it is exactly the opposite.

I knew you were from the first message you sent, but I had to draw it out to prove it to everyone else that you weren't interested in *finding* the truth, but rather just stating your opinion.

The Founder's purpose was to make sure there was no state religion. Teaching religion, atheism, objectivism or whatever should not be paid for by the citizenry. That doesn't mean it is banned, or should never be mentioned or never touched upon in the classroom. Religion, taught as part of a philosophy course, for example is perfectly legitimate. Religion taught as proselytizing is an entirely different matter. Because religion is based on faith instead of reason, a discussion on when it is proper to teach religion and for what purpose always becomes contentious. People who wish to teach anything that expresses a particular point of view, should do so on private property, privately funded, or on public property, still privately funded.

No thanks, I'm done.

You're right. McDowell believed the answer before consturcting the hypothesis or argument. He believed the Bible was wrong. His studies proved otherwise, and even though he had his presuppostiions, he ended up concluding otherwise.

Read the book if you're going to complain to me about dates. Freaking act like a century-old archaeologist doesn't have a clue what he's talking about when he unearths clear evidence that proves exactly what Luke said. "old" doesn't mean "stupid".

1915, really? We knew nothing of archeology, or real ancient civilization then.
Blaiklock was a literature professor, not an historian, and perhaps had a strong opinion on the subject being a christian apologetic.
You must forgive my cynicism at McDowell's effort in trying to disprove the bible.
These are people who believed the answer before constructing the hypothesis or argument.
Thank god for the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment!

It would be a lot simpler if government was not in the education business. Then we wouldn't have these issues. If you are that jazzed about Government paying for primary education, [I guess because you assume the parents wouldn't always pony up and we would have a nation of nitwits....oh we do...from the public schools no less] You could have a voucher system and the only government involvement would be in testing the students to make sure they can actually read and write. If a particular private school was turning out more than the usual amount of nitwits, they wouldn't be able to get vouchers.

I happen to feel exactly the same way the Greens do, except about the works of Ayn Rand. I'd be totally happy if, say, the Fountainhead were taught in all high schools, but not merely as a fine book, adventurous and filled with interesting ideas, but as the harbinger of important truths which all of us need to reflect upon regularly. And, hmm, I recently wrote a revision of Shakespeare's "Juliet Caesar" to add clarity and logic while maintaining poetic flow. I think Shakespeare's psychological observations are worthy of serious study as well. I wonder if folks here might come up with other books that "should" be studied in high school (and earlier) (and later). I wonder if the folks who choose the curricula ever get into fist fights about it!

Yeah, but, that's ok because it removes their responsibility to a Holy and Just God... You know, that's the point.

Go read Josh McDowell's "Evidence that Demands a Verdict" if you really want the details (I suppose you don't, but, I'll summarize). He sought out to disprove the Bible based on inaccuracies, etc. He ended up realizing during his study that the Bible is beyond accurate, and wrote the book (actually 2 of them) that I referenced above.

To specifically answer your question (which is covered by Josh McDowell in much better detail), here's a few summary quotes:

Sir William Ramsay wrote that "Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy... [he] should be placed along with the very greatest of historians."[Ramsay, The Bearing Of Recent Discovery On The Trustworthiness Of The New Testament, 222, 1915]

Professor of classics at Auckland University, E.M. Blaiklock, wrote: "For accuracy of detail, and for evocation of atmosphere, Luke stands, in fact, with Thucydides. The Acts of the Apostles is not shoddy product of pious imagining, but a trustworthy record... it was the spadework of archaeology which first revealed the truth."[Blaiklock, The Archaeology of the New Testament, page 96, Zondervan Publishing Houst, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1970]

There's numerous others.

Religion in public schools seems to stir up deep personal feelings whic h often lead to anger
and self-righteousness. For that reason, until kids are of college maturity and thus able (at least from a physical standpoint) to study a religious tract intellectually, I feel that the Bible should be banned from public schools. Parochial schools are fine:) As others have pointed out here, if there were no publicly funded schools in the first place, this controversy would not exist.

Think this is clearly false. Reference please?

Interesting that the college-level bible academic views the course of study as biased. That is quite telling.
I have no issue teaching the bible as a great book, along with the qur'an and others, as long as it is not taught as fact. However, a whole class dedicated to just the bible (which one by the way?) does not belong in public secondary education. Perhaps in college.
This is just another example of a grab for power and influence by a zealot.

It's not a matter of a "right" to whatever you want to believe. This is a discussion forum for like-minded fans of Atlas Shrugged, whose philosophy is the opposite of mystical primitivism from thousands of years ago.