"Should Bible Classes be allowed in public schools?"

This was posted by the novelist Anne Rice on her Facebook Page asking for opinions. This below is my response (expanded, of course).

Ms. Rice I'm sorry, but there's a very great distance between what this Governor is advocating (proselytizing Bible 'studies') and what you're advocating (the history of and discerning what/where/how the 'Bible' has influenced 'Western civilization'). This State Official is advocating the opinions of the most radically Reich in her state to influence any and all students about Das Book (which is really all "The Bible" means since for centuries it was the ONLY Book that was allowed to be 'read' [mostly taught, since only the most powerful could even read]).

This would be simple indoctrination and not anything approaching 'study' at all. This is not Constitutionally valid and therefore should not even be considered and should be struck down with all speed (if possible) by the Supreme Court (not that that's going to happen).

From the article in question: Arizona Governor Jan Brewer has signed into law a bill that allows the establishing of elective classes that focus on the Bible and its influence on western civilization.
Read more at http://www.christianpost.com/news/ariz-governor-signs-bill-to-allow-bible-classes-in-public-schools-73485/#2Rmb6bAVQOzeFMpi.99

"A teacher who instructs a course offered under this section in its [blogger emphasis added] appropriate historical context and in good faith shall be immune from civil liability and disciplinary action," reads the bill.

Ah, and here's the rub. "...in good faith..." There are so many small points of darkness in this potential 'teaching' that boggle the imagination. In bringing in this seemingly benign 'educational opportunity' a gaping hole is being introduced into the Constitutional fabric of the nation. Born-agains are shouting about 'Christian pursecution' while striving to back-door their particular brand of 'Christianity' into the Law of the land.

Never mind that most of the students who would be subject to whatever material that such a 'course' might bring are already 'of The Faith.'  So why can't they receive such information from their Church? Because that is not the intent of this 'bill.'

The insidiousness of this 'bill' would be the means of opening similar 'legislation' in other states. It would be a seemingly innocuous teaching of 'history' to any and all who 'wished to partake.' For now. 

For those of  us whose ideas and beliefs are different from those of the Far Reich, now is the time to speak out against this 'legal means' of 'teaching about "The Bible." ' I am not opposed to the ideas of The Man who they (think they) believe in, but I do oppose any means of further indoctrination in a country that is increasingly non-Christian. Even for those of us who consider ourselves "Christian" (and I count myself [in a qualified way] among those believers), this seems like a non-issue. But I assure you, it isn't.

That Anniversary.

Ten years ago this Sunday, I was standing on a ladder with a bright blue almost unnatural sky behind me painting high up under eaves and listening to NPR when "reports [were] coming in of a possible small plane crashing into one of the World Trade Center Towers in New York. More details will be made once we have reporters on the scene." At that moment, I knew it was no "small plane" that had hit, and that that day was going to be one of the longest in my memory. I was also however, expecting that Martial Law would be imposed at any minute, when the news came that a "second plane" had struck the other Tower. 

Yes, we're coming up on that anniversary, eulogizing and fetishizing our very own post-modern Pearl Harbor: 9/11. 'A day that will live in..." No, that was that other attach on American Soil.

Let me once again remind you before I go on, I am in not in any way either diminishing or denying the horror of that day now almost ten years ago. Three thousand people lost their lives that day, and many more suffered on the ground from the consequences of the two Towers crumbling into dust, both on that day and in the days and months to come from the literal fallout of the destruction.

What I am also reminding you about are the questions involved which still unanswered to this day regarding the circumstance of what happened and who did it. And I already hear the angry lynch mobs at my door ready to make me one of the fallen, just because I don't agree with the Twin Fetishes of what are called "National Security,"  and "Homeland Security." I still believe that the Twin Towers and the devastation to them and New York City, were merely excuse and prelude for the Military-Industrial complex to generate more revenues and get the American People to give up what had heretofore had been precious Freedoms in the 'fight against'  "International Terrorism."

And while that day no visible form of Martial Law was imposed as I had expected it would, the prelude to the dissolution of our Protected Freedoms in the face and guise of  'protecting Our Nation,' still resounds like that of the previous "Shot Heard Round the World" of an earlier Age of Revolution, not dissolution. The very foundations of what Those who would say that they 'Believe In'  the freedoms inherent in our System of Law and Revolutionary Intent, are still, or have been participating in the taking apart/tearing down/dismantling, Declaration by Declaration and Constitutional Amendment by Amendment of that System; all in the face of denial and fear-mongering and for an arcane sense of "safety" that has never really appeared. 

Martial Law was not instituted that day or in the days following, but a far more insidious form of imposition of loss of freedom resulted in the Stalin-like fortification of Military Might in the form of first "The Patriot Act" and later the 'formation' of the equally infamous(and scabrous) "Tea Party." Quote/unquote Patriots will use the excuse of this anniversary to once again pump up the drumbeat of War in the form of  'tightening' our borders and cutting loose/jettisoning any impediments to their version of Making America Free and Safe. Martial Law might have been more easier to deal with in a way. At least that way the loss of freedoms and rights would have been obvious. Which is why that 'nuclear option' of Constitutional 'deregulation' occurred.

And also once again I urge you to watch the documentary entitled "9/11: Press for the Truth." <http://www.911pressfortruth.com/> which  has detailed timelines that contradict the4 "standard version" of what really happened that day, and has "humorous" clips of Bush, Cheney and Rice backtracking and getting caught in outright lies over the exact nature of what transpired. It also shows how the international police organization Cointelpro raided an Islamic Terrorist group in Manilla, Philippines in 1992, retrieving drawings then of plans of two planes going into large square buildings; evidence which was dismissed by the US Government.

Not to mention the FBI Agent who told her superiors that there were reports of individuals in Texas (I believe) learning how to take off and  fly planes but not how to land them, in 2000. These reports were also brushed aside.  And just for further information, in the day following the events of the morning of 9/11/01 when air traffic was suspended over the entire US, there was one plane that was allowed to fly out of the country: one carrying a family with the curious name of bin Laden.

As with the Kennedy and MLK assasinations, the true facts of these matters will probably never be revealed, with the 'Clear and Present Danger' to our Nation and our planet which those answers represent will go one shrouded in mystery.