A bible in every Texas classroom [Archive]

ReligionStudent

15th April 2007, 06:50 PM

The head of the appropriations committee in the Texas House has proposed HB-1287, which would require all 1,700 Texas high schools to offer two elective classes on the Bible as literature--with the sole textbook being the Holy Bible.

You can hear a representative of the Texas Freedom Network interviewed about this program on this week's Dogma Free America (http://dogmafreeamerica.com/index.php?post_id=203086).

You can see the TFN press release here (http://www.tfn.org/pressroom/display.php?item_id=5351).

TFN also has a fascinating report (http://www.tfn.org/religiousfreedom/biblecurriculum/) on the problems with the elective Bible classes that are currently tought in Texas.

That's just horendous. Now I am not oppose per se to teaching bible as lit etc. ( I think it would be hard to find someone qualified to teach it secularly who would want to). but there are so many good books out there that should be used in addition to the bible. You really cannot just jump in with the bible like that. At the very least if you are going to look at the Bible as lit, you need some contextualizing books.

I can tell you that people who take this class will probably be at a less advantageous position than others if they actually choose to go onto study religion as lit/history/anthropologically. Because they will have this one image of the bible and be without the more accepted works of scholars.

fuelair

15th April 2007, 07:37 PM

ReligionStudent

15th April 2007, 07:39 PM

:D :rolleyes: :rolleyes: I'm fine with it as long as it is truly elective and the person with the best grade each quarter is crucified for the sins of the rest!

Does that mean they all get A's???

DOC

15th April 2007, 07:56 PM

ReligionStudent

15th April 2007, 08:09 PM

The Bible is the best selling book of all time -- it only makes sense to study it -- as literature, as philosophy, as history, or simply because it is the best selling book of all time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_books

Yes, but people who really study Shakespeare don't just sit and read his works, they read commentaries and such.

To read the bible, but ignore say Pelican or Mendenhall or any other is an issue.

Also the more I think about it, didn't the suppreme court state that having the representative images or such of somthing of one religion in a school was an issue because it implicitly supported the religion in a way? (been a while since I studied it so I can no longer site the case.)

Katana

15th April 2007, 08:12 PM

Tumblehome

15th April 2007, 08:38 PM

They couldn't force it into science classes so now they want to sneak it into Lit. What's next, Phys Ed? When will it end?

The Bible is the best selling book of all time -- it only makes sense to study it -- as literature, as philosophy, as history, or simply because it is the best selling book of all time.

The bible is not a best seller on its literary merits, unless rambling, disjointed and contradictory are what we look for in a good read. Jacqueline Suzanne novels make more sense (I'm assuming) and were best sellers, but you wouldn't expect them to be studied in high school.

TsarBomba

15th April 2007, 09:09 PM

I agree that educated people should have a general idea of what is contained in the Bible, but there are very serious problems with these classes. As the Texas Freedom Network report shows, the so-called non-religious bible-as-literature classes that are currently taught in over 20 Texas high schools have been caught teaching zingers such as:

--humans and dinosaurs walked the Earth together (sound familiar?)

--the story of Adam and Even in genesis shows that women are relegated to an inferior status in society.

--Christianity "completes" or "supplements" Judaism.

Also, many of the existing classes are taught by pastors from local churches! No joke! Pastors from local churches teaching high school bible-as-literature classes!

In addition, this bill mandates that every single high school in Texas offer these "elective" bible classes, but provides no funding (i.e. it is an unfunded mandate) and provides no standards for how the classes are taught (other than the Bible is to be the primary text used) and no standards regarding teacher qualifications.

Lastly, I respectfully disagree with those who posted replies stating that there is no problem with these classes as long as they are voluntary. The American public education system is rightly criticized for failing to educate kids in math, science, history, English, and geography. Now this idiot in Texas (who has A LOT OF POWER in the legislature) wants to waste school time and resources teaching a mythological view of the world for two whole semesters.

One last aside. The idiot who is proposing this bill earlier this year sent a letter to each and every other member of the Texas legislature saying that the theory of evolution was a Jewish plot (http://blogs.chron.com/bluebayou/2007/02/warren_chisum_evolution_is_jew.html). I am not kidding.

ChristineR

15th April 2007, 09:46 PM

I'd have no objection to a secular scholarly Bible class being taught, but I sort of doubt that that's what these guys have in mind. For example, you could tell the kids that the messianic prophecies in Isaiah were not originally messianic, that the young mother was not a virgin until Greek mysticism influenced Judaism, and that the Jesus birth story was fabricated to fit the supposed prophecy.

Ladewig

15th April 2007, 10:34 PM

The Bible is the best selling book of all time -- it only makes sense to study it -- as literature, as philosophy, as history, or simply because it is the best selling book of all time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_books

It makes sense to study it as history? A book that describes a world-wide flood is not an accurate history book. A book with talking animals is not a good history book.

As for being the best selling book of all time, I'd like to point out:
1) popularity ≠ accuracy.
2) in addition to being the best-selling book, it might also be the least-read book of all time. I will never ceased to be amazed by the number of Christians who have no idea what is in that book.

ReligionStudent

15th April 2007, 10:39 PM

It makes sense to study it as history? A book that describes a world-wide flood is not an accurate history book. A book with talking animals is not a good history book.

As for being the best selling book of all time, I'd like to point out:
1) popularity ≠ accuracy.
2) in addition to being the best-selling book, it might also be the least-read book of all time. I will never ceased to be amazed by the number of Christians who have no idea what is in that book.

Additionally, there might be some skewing going on. Most families could reasonably have more than one copy of the bible, but who needs more than one watership down. Also I don't think hotels often keep Harry Potter books in their dressers (would be much cooler than the bible though).

Also, I have 1 copy of probably 70 percent of the books on their. Off the top of my head I count more than 10 bibles in my possesion.

Katana

15th April 2007, 10:40 PM

So are they holding elective classes on the Quran and the Torah, too?

:)

TsarBomba

15th April 2007, 10:43 PM

I'd have no objection to a secular scholarly Bible class being taught, but I sort of doubt that that's what these guys have in mind.

Actually Ryan Valentine from the Texas Freedom Network makes a good point in his interview on the Dogma Free America podcast. He thinks that the proponents of this bill really don't care whether it passes or not--i.e. that it is in reality not about having these bible classes at all, but is a wedge issue for the 2008 elections. No one is going to want to vote against this thing, for fear of a mailer in every voter's mailbox with a picture of the Bible with the word "banned" stamped across it in big red letters.

ReligionStudent

15th April 2007, 10:43 PM

No its Texas they don't have those yet.

Sceptic Realist

15th April 2007, 10:43 PM

Nice to see attention is paid to what is REALLY important in an education in Texas. Forget Art, Music, culture; all they need is a poorly - written collection of plagurized fairytales as a giudeline for their future generation.

I weep for humanity.

TsarBomba

15th April 2007, 10:48 PM

So are they holding elective classes on the Quran and the Torah, too?

Actually, to be fair, it would include the Torah, which is the first five books of the "Old Testament" (or as Jews would call it, "The Bible"). The first class would be "The Old Testament as Literature." This would be a semester-long class. The second class would be . . . you guessed it . . . "The New Testament as Literature."

My guess is that the "Old Testament" class would concentrate on Genesis (part of the Torah) , Exodus (part of the Torah), Psalms, Chronicles, Job, and the like.

skeptifem

15th April 2007, 10:50 PM

The Bible is the best selling book of all time -- it only makes sense to study it -- as literature, as philosophy, as history, or simply because it is the best selling book of all time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_books

no, it doesnt make any sense to study it because its popular. that makes no sense at all. You are appealing to popularity, and its a logical fallacy. Popular hardly means correct, or even valuable. thats like saying the back street boys sold a lot of albums so music classes should study them.

ReligionStudent

15th April 2007, 10:53 PM

Actually, to be fair, it would include the Torah, which is the first five books of the "Old Testament" (or as Jews would call it, "The Bible"). The first class would be "The Old Testament as Literature." This would be a semester-long class. The second class would be . . . you guessed it . . . "The New Testament as Literature."

My guess is that the "Old Testament" class would concentrate on Genesis (part of the Torah) , Exodus (part of the Torah), Psalms, Chronicles, Job, and the like.

Don't forget Isaiah. Christians love Isaiah for some reason.

(I understand why, its just so anachronistic that it bothers me a lot)

ReligionStudent

15th April 2007, 11:01 PM

Man I just went back to the wiki list of books to search for somthing else, and then I noticed the date on the bible.

WTHeck? There is no way 3000 BCE is in any way an accurate date.
That is really one of the most egregious errors I have yet seen on Wiki.
That's talking about a period where Egypt just barely had any writing.

skeptifem

15th April 2007, 11:09 PM

oh yeah, and i was going to point out that gideon bibles probably have a lot to do with the best selling thing. it might as well be a pamphlet instead of a book as far as how often its handed out for free vs how often its actually read.

Achán hiNidráne

15th April 2007, 11:12 PM

...it only makes sense to study it -- as literature...

I could agree with this, but...

...as philosophy...

Yeah, absolutism, bigotry, irrationality, and "faith" are concepts we should be passing down to our kids.

...as history....

You mean the "history" that universe was created in six, 24-hour, days and that humanity was created with mud and divine breath and lived in a garden with a talking snake? The "history" that says that there was a world wide flood and only one family and a few samples of every species of animal life on earth survived on a single boat? The "history" that the Egyptians had Hebrew slaves who were freed by a guy named "Moses" who led them on a 40 year long hike in the desert? How about the "history" about a guy who runs claiming to be the "son of god" healing the sick, bringing dead people back to life, then being executed and coming back to life himself only to be bodily taken into the sky?

Of course, none of this "history" has any shred of evidence of outside of the Bible to support it.

...or simply because it is the best selling book of all time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_books

Yes... and to quote Penn Jillette on the very topic: "Of course, all time bestseller number two is 'Quotations From Chairmen Mao Zedong'...so you can decide how much stock you want to put in bestsellers."

He also said in that very episode of BS, "Popular sure doesn't equal right."

DOC

15th April 2007, 11:26 PM

:)

Well the Torah is part of the Bible and the Koran, has almost nothing to do with American history, although that is changing as of late. Also they say Muslims marvel at the poetry and the language use in the Koran but it loses a lot in it translation and is very difficult reading.

ReligionStudent

15th April 2007, 11:34 PM

Well the Torah is part of the Bible and the Koran, has almost nothing to do with American history, although that is changing as of late. Also they say Muslims marvel at the poetry and the language use in the Koran but it loses a lot in it translation and is very difficult reading.

Well if we are going to get rid of things that lose a lot in translation good bye old testament.

DOC

16th April 2007, 12:17 AM

Well if we are going to get rid of things that lose a lot in translation good bye old testament.

You ought to get a modern day translation like "The Living Bible" or the "Good News Bible" or a website like "The Blue letter Bible".

But remember the Christian Church did not come out of the New Testament, The New Testament came out of the Christian Church. Not a single sentence of the New Testament was written until about 30 years after the Church was formed.

UnrepentantSinner

16th April 2007, 01:36 AM

One last aside. The idiot who is proposing this bill earlier this year sent a letter to each and every other member of the Texas legislature saying that the theory of evolution was a Jewish plot (http://blogs.chron.com/bluebayou/2007/02/warren_chisum_evolution_is_jew.html). I am not kidding.

I agree that a Bible through History and Lit class should be availible as an elective. That's not what Chisum wants (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=74891), he wants basically a Sunday School class and from richorman link and the links on the thread I'm linking to, an end run around the Biology classroom so Creationism can be advocated.

This bill should not pass. And suggest taking richorman's TFN links in the OP to see exactly why it shouldn't.

Meadmaker

16th April 2007, 05:26 AM

:D :rolleyes: :rolleyes: I'm fine with it as long as it is truly elective and the person with the best grade each quarter is crucified for the sins of the rest!:)

Meadmaker

16th April 2007, 05:35 AM

So are they holding elective classes on the Quran and the Torah, too?

One assumes not, but that is, in my humble opinion, the right way to fight this bill. If it passes, immediately find some way to attempt to introduce "The Koran as Literature" or "Scripture of many traditions as literature" into the school. When refused, go to court. Be careful of what you wish for, fundies, because you may receive it.

P.S. over in another thread in the politics section, there was a discussion of clubs centered on homosexual rights. The court ruling that declared that there was a right for such clubs to meet, against school admistration attempts to suppress them, was based on a 1984 law passed with the aim of ensuring that religious clubs had a right to meet. Free speech works, if allowed to do so.

Ossai

16th April 2007, 06:20 AM

DOC
But remember the Christian Church did not come out of the New Testament, The New Testament came out of the Christian Church. Not a single sentence of the New Testament was written until about 30 years after the Church was formed. We all realize you are a liar. There really is no need to keep proving it. Reference the Thomas Jefferson's admiration and financial support of Christianity (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=74960) thread for proof.

ReligionStudent

16th April 2007, 06:29 AM

You ought to get a modern day translation like "The Living Bible" or the "Good News Bible" or a website like "The Blue letter Bible".

But remember the Christian Church did not come out of the New Testament, The New Testament came out of the Christian Church. Not a single sentence of the New Testament was written until about 30 years after the Church was formed.

Those are not very good translations, and Im sorry but any translation from the origional language leaves a ton to be desired. Its impossible not to, I include those I do myself. Though ones such as the Living Bible and the Good News Bible really go ahead and beat the translation into unrecognizable forms.

And yes the NT was not written right along with Jesus, but certainly before the church formed. Remember the holy spirit was not articulated as a doctrine until the time of Basil of Caesarea

Lisa Simpson

16th April 2007, 06:54 AM

So are they holding elective classes on the Quran and the Torah, too?

That's exactly the question I asked when I found out that a group from a Presbyterian church is trying to get a Bible as literature elective class taught in the high school district Whyatica attends.

http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/homepage/abox/article_1648523.php

The Bible is perhaps the most important piece of literature in Western culture, said Benjamin J. Hubbard, professor emeritus of comparative religion at Cal State Fullerton.

"We're in a society where people don't really know about other religions or even their own," Hubbard said. "We form opinions on religions, like Islam, based on very sketchy information."

Teaching a class solely on the Bible as literature can be dangerous, he added.

"I'm concerned someone with an agenda would use the courses to proselytize," Hubbard said.

I wonder if these people would allow an atheist to teach the class?

ReligionStudent

16th April 2007, 07:05 AM

That's exactly the question I asked when I found out that a group from a Presbyterian church is trying to get a Bible as literature elective class taught in the high school district Whyatica attends.

http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/homepage/abox/article_1648523.php

I wonder if these people would allow an atheist to teach the class?

I would hope that they would. There are a growing number of atheists/agnositics in religious studies right now. In fact, a long time scholar who is very respected recently was quoted as being agnostic. He said somthing to the effect of religious belief being an impedament for studying ancient Israel.

BTW who is Whyatica? cuz if that is a name its pretty cool (though I would love to know what it means)

Lisa Simpson

16th April 2007, 07:11 AM

BTW who is Whyatica? cuz if that is a name its pretty cool (though I would love to know what it means)

Whyatica is my son, a member of this forum (http://forums.randi.org/member.php?u=2542) and the chatroom uber-god (http://www.skepticsrock.com/chatnow). His username comes from one of those robot fighting shows. One of the robots was named Whyatica.

ReligionStudent

16th April 2007, 07:15 AM

Whyatica is my son, a member of this forum (http://forums.randi.org/member.php?u=2542) and the chatroom uber-god (http://www.skepticsrock.com/chatnow). His username comes from one of those robot fighting shows. One of the robots was named Whyatica.

Oh i thought it was someones real name. I am too new here to know everyone's name on the forumn.

skeptifem

16th April 2007, 07:22 AM

brodski

16th April 2007, 07:25 AM

I would hope that they would. There are a growing number of atheists/agnositics in religious studies right now. yes, they’re called the Church of England.

(I know, it’s an old joke, and not at all accurate, but hey it’s my church by law, so I’m allowed to mock. ;) )

fuelair

16th April 2007, 09:15 AM

The Bible is the best selling book of all time -- it only makes sense to study it -- as literature, as philosophy, as history, or simply because it is the best selling book of all time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_books

Rrrrrriiiigggghhhhhhtttttt!!!:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :jaw-dropp

Mediocre literature, mediocre philosophy, pathetic history and that best selling thing only comes up because of tight church control over what books were printed - and how many and church purchases (as well as gideons, etc) who purchase billions to give out as propaganda,

brodski

16th April 2007, 10:07 AM

Rrrrrriiiigggghhhhhhtttttt!!!:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :jaw-dropp

Mediocre literature, mediocre philosophy, pathetic history and that best selling thing only comes up because of tight church control over what books were printed - and how many and church purchases (as well as gideons, etc) who purchase billions to give out as propaganda,

Some of the literature in the Bible is fantastic, and the publication of the Authorised Version (“King James version”) was instrumental in the process of turning English into a fully fledged langue, rather than just a loose collection of related dialects. The problem is in teaching it as fact- whether implicitly or explicitly-, rather than critiquing it as you would with any other piece of literature.
The comparison to Shakespeare made earlier in eth thread is very apt. Except that Shakespeare was much more consistently well written that the Bible, and nobody tires to teach Macbeth as historical fact (even though some of the characters where historical figures).

ChristineR

16th April 2007, 10:08 AM

Those are not very good translations, and Im sorry but any translation from the origional language leaves a ton to be desired. Its impossible not to, I include those I do myself. Though ones such as the Living Bible and the Good News Bible really go ahead and beat the translation into unrecognizable forms.

And yes the NT was not written right along with Jesus, but certainly before the church formed. Remember the holy spirit was not articulated as a doctrine until the time of Basil of Caesarea

That's an oversimplification. Numerous sects had texts and doctrines and they interacted and altered each other's texts and doctrines. Eventually one sect one out and they destroyed as many of the non-conforming texts as possible and bound the conforming texts into the New Testament. You can't separate the forming of the church from the forming of the texts.

I agree with you 100% about modern translations. The slangy stuff doesn't bother me nearly as much as the deliberate mistranslation of doctrines they don't like and the picking and choosing from the Septuagint, the Dead Sea Scrolls, ancient translations into Coptic, and qere and ketiv.

darnell11

16th April 2007, 01:18 PM

I think they should study Gilgamesh along with the bible.

darnell11

16th April 2007, 01:23 PM

Two interesting myths.

ponderingturtle

16th April 2007, 01:47 PM

That's just horendous. Now I am not oppose per se to teaching bible as lit etc. ( I think it would be hard to find someone qualified to teach it secularly who would want to). but there are so many good books out there that should be used in addition to the bible. You really cannot just jump in with the bible like that. At the very least if you are going to look at the Bible as lit, you need some contextualizing books.

But the bible is the dirrect word of god and so it contexualizes itself. You don't need to worry about bad translations or historic context and all that BS. At least is you pick the right version of the bible.

I prefer the adulters bible myself.

ponderingturtle

16th April 2007, 01:48 PM

So are they holding elective classes on the Quran and the Torah, too?

what about dianetics?

ReligionStudent

16th April 2007, 03:01 PM

That's an oversimplification. Numerous sects had texts and doctrines and they interacted and altered each other's texts and doctrines. Eventually one sect one out and they destroyed as many of the non-conforming texts as possible and bound the conforming texts into the New Testament. You can't separate the forming of the church from the forming of the texts.

I agree with you 100% about modern translations. The slangy stuff doesn't bother me nearly as much as the deliberate mistranslation of doctrines they don't like and the picking and choosing from the Septuagint, the Dead Sea Scrolls, ancient translations into Coptic, and qere and ketiv.

I am not sure what you mean it is an oversimplification. The formation of the NT certainly is tied to the formation of the church. But that process went on long after the origional texts were written. Origen was not until the third century CE, Nicea was fourth century CE, and De Spiritu Sancto was not till mid fourth century CE. The texts were certainly complete by a time were the church was still forming. There are many other texts that come from these periods that are not in the NT.

I was not talking about canonification of the texts, but of the texts' writing.
My concern was with the statment that the NT came out of the church, which Doc had made. He seems to defend a position that the church was in place before the creation of the NT.

And as for translation, I may be an atheist, but it is 100 time as beutiful in the origional language, even just the sound. No modern translation of a psalm does it justice.

lightcreatedlife@hom

16th April 2007, 03:04 PM

The Bible is the best selling book of all time -- it only makes sense to study it -- as literature, as philosophy, as history, or simply because it is the best selling book of all time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_books
Opposition to studying any "important" book, (be that importance real or imagined) gives it a force it shouldn't have. Not only should be studied as literature, philosophy and history, it should be studied about its role in shaping those things. That is, at the proper time, in the proper place, in the right context.

DOC

16th April 2007, 04:58 PM

DOC
We all realize you are a liar. There really is no need to keep proving it. Reference the Thomas Jefferson's admiration and financial support of Christianity (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=74960) thread for proof.

Thanks for the plug. I hope they do read the above forum, but I really don't start posting a lot of messages in that forum until around post 61.

DOC

16th April 2007, 05:11 PM

you pretty much completely ignored me. It seems that 'thriller' by micheal jackson is the best selling album of all time. Does that mean music students should be forced to study it?

No, but it could be an elective course, like study of the Bible could be.

Cleon

16th April 2007, 05:56 PM

No, but it could be an elective course, like study of the Bible could be.

Or, study of the bible could stay where it belongs, in churches.

DOC

16th April 2007, 06:23 PM

Or, study of the bible could stay where it belongs, in churches.

So you don't want students to have the freedom to study the world's best selling book if they wish to take the elective course.

skeptifem

16th April 2007, 06:26 PM

So you don't want students to have the freedom to study the world's best selling book if they wish to take the elective course.

I dont know how 'in every classroom'=elective. please explain.

UnrepentantSinner

16th April 2007, 06:28 PM

Thanks for the plug. I hope they do read the above forum, but I really don't start posting a lot of messages in that forum until around post 61.

Slight tangent, but this really bugs the crap out of me. Will you take 10 minutes and learn how to link to messages on the forum unstead of just giving the number. It's really astoundingly easy if you just take a few minutes to get the gist and do a practice post or two.

Cleon

16th April 2007, 06:35 PM

So you don't want students to have the freedom to study the world's best selling book if they wish to take the elective course.

Not at all. They should absolutely have that freedom. That's what churches are there for.

DOC

16th April 2007, 06:47 PM

Originally Posted by DOC
So you don't want students to have the freedom to study the world's best selling book if they wish to take the elective course.

I dont know how 'in every classroom'=elective. please explain.

If you look at the first post in this forum, it talks of "elective courses". I assume the words "A Bible in every classroom" are the words of the forum creator"

NobbyNobbs

16th April 2007, 06:48 PM

So you don't want students to have the freedom to study the world's best selling book if they wish to take the elective course.

So, according to your logic, there should also be a course concentrating on the study of this (http://www.4to40.com/recordbook/index.asp?id=2396&category=human)?

Maybe there should be a course "On the Appropriateness of the Bible in Public Schools".

DOC

16th April 2007, 06:53 PM

Not at all. They should absolutely have that freedom. That's what churches are there for.

A book is a book. The most popular book of all time should be studied so students can maybe understand why it is the most popular book of all time. That's what education is all about.

Sceptic Realist

16th April 2007, 07:08 PM

A book is a book. The most popular book of all time should be studied so students can maybe understand why it is the most popular book of all time. That's what education is all about.

But why have an entire class devoted to one book? Seems to me you should incorporate other bestsellers in order to constitute a more balanced class. Also, by doing this, the class would have to study it as fiction or literature, not history - otherwise, he's totally right: no place for it in a classroom.

CapelDodger

16th April 2007, 07:10 PM

Or, study of the bible could stay where it belongs, in churches.
And Forensic Psychology classes. Bible study has its place in academia, but not as a primary source.

fuelair

16th April 2007, 07:10 PM

Thanks for the plug. I hope they do read the above forum, but I really don't start posting a lot of messages in that forum until around post 61.

All of which are thoroughly and fatally debunked - but feel free to check it out- multiple times - DOC just keeps coming back with the same disproved stuff like any other CTer.

CapelDodger

16th April 2007, 07:52 PM

A book is a book. The most popular book of all time should be studied so students can maybe understand why it is the most popular book of all time. That's what education is all about.

"Best-seller" is not the same as "popular". Harry Potter is popular - it makes good reading. How many people book into a hotel so they can catch up on the next few chapters of that gripping Gideon bible? Not many, IMO. A free bible for home consumption is not hard to find. A free Koran is as easily obtained, and free Baghavitas have to be actively rejected in my experience.

I own two Bibles myself, one an early 19thCE family bible in two massive volumes that I picked up for a song out in the sticks for its display properties as much as anything else, the other for quick reference and it cost me a dollar at a charity shop. In neither case did I rush home in my eagerness to read them.

grayman

16th April 2007, 08:03 PM

Since this is Texas, perhaps he meant this Bible (http://www.amazon.com/Deer-Hunters-Bible-George-Laycock/dp/0385199856).

DOC

16th April 2007, 08:34 PM

All of which are thoroughly and fatally debunked - but feel free to check it out- multiple times - DOC just keeps coming back with the same disproved stuff like any other CTer.

Yes, I agree with you, the "Jefferson's Admiration" forum in the religion section should be checked out. And if they do check it out your "thoroughly and fatally debunked" comment will say a lot about your credibility. Once again I really don't post much in that forum until post 61 and after.

The only reason I'm talking about the Jefferson forum in here is that other people in here are bringing it up. But I'm glad they are doing it and I hope the forum creator in this forum will allow them to continue to bring it up. You can't beat the free advertising.

Beleth

16th April 2007, 09:05 PM

I think that it's good that the Bible be studied as literature the same way Shakespeare or Yeats is studied as literature.

However, this is happening in Texas. Call me prejudiced but I sense a slight deception as to why it's being studied.

slingblade

17th April 2007, 12:48 AM

It makes sense to study it as history? A book that describes a world-wide flood is not an accurate history book. A book with talking animals is not a good history book.

No. But it is an extremely significant part of the history of the western world. In fact, one would be hard pressed to comprehend much of history without understanding the role of the bible and the church in it.

It doesn't have to be a history book to have a place in it.

That's not a defense, just a differing slant on your observation. :cool:

brodski

17th April 2007, 03:11 AM

No. But it is an extremely significant part of the history of the western world. In fact, one would be hard pressed to comprehend much of history without understanding the role of the bible and the church in it.

It doesn't have to be a history book to have a place in it.

That's not a defense, just a differing slant on your observation. :cool:

There is a significant difference between studying the history of the Bible, and it’s influence on history, as opposed to studying the Bible as history.

Cleon

17th April 2007, 05:40 AM

A book is a book.

Oh, please. Do you really see no difference between the Christian bible and Quotations from Chairman Mao?

The most popular book of all time should be studied so students can maybe understand why it is the most popular book of all time. That's what education is all about.

If they want to study the Bible, that's what churches are there for. If students want to study Quotations From Chairman Mao, that's what the Revolutionary Communist Party is there for.

NobbyNobbs

17th April 2007, 06:10 AM

A book is a book. The most popular book of all time should be studied so students can maybe understand why it is the most popular book of all time. That's what education is all about.

Then why is the Bible the only best-seller to be taught in church? Why don't they cover Harry Potter, or the latest romance novel? Since the churches obviously are there to teach about best-sellers, it seems they aren't keeping up.

Answer that, and I can tell you why the Bible isn't taught in schools.

Cleon

17th April 2007, 06:50 AM

Then why is the Bible the only best-seller to be taught in church? Why don't they cover Harry Potter, or the latest romance novel? Since the churches obviously are there to teach about best-sellers, it seems they aren't keeping up.

Harry Potter? That doesn't even appear on the list (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_books) until #9. I think to really give people a well-rounded education, churches should be teaching the second and third-best selling books of all time in addition to the Bible. This would be to show people what having an all-time best-seller is really all about.

Ladewig

17th April 2007, 07:12 AM

No. But it is an extremely significant part of the history of the western world. In fact, one would be hard pressed to comprehend much of history without understanding the role of the bible and the church in it.

It doesn't have to be a history book to have a place in it.

That's not a defense, just a differing slant on your observation. :cool:

I agree with the idea that students will have a better understanding of history, culture, and high art if they have an understanding of the Bible, but as brodski pointed out, there is a difference between studying the effects of the Bible and using the Bible as a source document.

Lisa Simpson

17th April 2007, 07:17 AM

However, this is happening in Texas. Call me prejudiced but I sense a slight deception as to why it's being studied.

And Huntington Beach, California. Yes, I know that Orange County is the westernmost notch of the Bible-belt, but I am still a bit surprised to see it being put forward here.

ReligionStudent

17th April 2007, 07:26 AM

So you don't want students to have the freedom to study the world's best selling book if they wish to take the elective course.

I think such freedom would be a good thing, but I don't think the school would be able to do it in a secular manner. I think that this well end up wasting quite a bit of time and money, especially when it eventually ends up in front of the court system.

SEE Cole v. Oroville or FFRF v. Rhea County Board of Edudcation for presedence.

Additionally, why does it take an entire class. Watership Down is a sreshman book, which students spend maybe two weeks on, and that is on the list? The argument that this should also require teaching of other books as well seems quite valid, as their history and literature is important as well. I think if there is a call for the bible their should also be a call for the Quaran, Talmud, Gita, Tao, Dianetics, and a list of many others, shouldn't students have the freedom to take these as elective courses. And what about something like Tolstoy's The Kingdom of God is Within You. This is a Christian book which inspired Ghandi and King, but at the same time is very subversive to the chuch and teaches non-violence beyond that of American Christian Churches. Certainly this was an influential book... King and Chandi?

brodski

17th April 2007, 07:32 AM

I agree with the idea that students will have a better understanding of history, culture, and high art if they have an understanding of the Bible, but as brodski pointed out, there is a difference between studying the effects of the Bible and using the Bible as a source document.

I would go further to say that in understanding history it is less important to understand what is actually in the bible, than it is to understand what various people at various points in time claimed was the meaning of what is in the bible.

Ladewig

17th April 2007, 07:35 AM

So you don't want students to have the freedom to study the world's best selling book if they wish to take the elective course.

I believe it is negligence of the highest order for an adult other than a parent to expose children as young as 14 to a book that contains incest, murder, genocide, rape, infantcide, torture, and adultery.

As for depriving these students of "their freedom," why can't they study the book at home or study the book in a public library or study the book during their free periods or study the book in their own freaking church? Why must they be able to earn class credits while studying this book?

pgwenthold

17th April 2007, 07:51 AM

A book is a book. The most popular book of all time should be studied so students can maybe understand why it is the most popular book of all time. That's what education is all about.

If you want to study why it is the most popular book of all time, you need to look WAY beyond the book itself, and need to study the political history of the Middle East and Roman Empire in the times when it was written.

Oddly enough, a lot of history classes already teach this information.

Which is true: people become christians because they read the bible? Or people read the bible because they are christians?

There are probably 100 christians who own a bible but have never read it for every one who became a christian after reading. That doesn't count the number of christians who were already christian before reading the bible.

Ossai

17th April 2007, 08:01 AM

What about christians that read the bible, then became agnostic/atheists?

Lisa Simpson

17th April 2007, 08:07 AM

Beleth

17th April 2007, 08:18 AM

Answer that, and I can tell you why the Bible isn't taught in schools.
If we're going to teach based on number of books sold, I suggest we jump straight to Benjamin Spock's The Common Sense Book of Baby and Child Care.

pgwenthold

17th April 2007, 08:49 AM

The bible is part of the curriculum (studying ancient cultures) for 6th grade students in the district my kids attend. When my niece was in 6th grade, her teacher taught the bible as if it were historical fact. My youngest son, now in the sixth grade, told me his teacher taught the bible more as 'fable'.

This is what concerns me regarding this HS elective class. A teacher who uses the class to proselytize.

Unfortunately, experience has shown us all too often that this ends up happening.

No one is fooled by this. We all recognize that the reason this bill is offered has nothing to do with teaching the bible secularly as an elective class. If there were any hope at all that it would mainly end up that way, I'd be fine with it. But it won't. It will still be taught by ministers using it as a Sunday School class.

ReligionStudent

17th April 2007, 11:40 AM

The bible is part of the curriculum (studying ancient cultures) for 6th grade students in the district my kids attend. When my niece was in 6th grade, her teacher taught the bible as if it were historical fact. My youngest son, now in the sixth grade, told me his teacher taught the bible more as 'fable'.

This is what concerns me regarding this HS elective class. A teacher who uses the class to proselytize.

They did not have this when I was in HS, the closest we came was Milton. But now that I tutor for Princeton Review I go from school district to school district and have noticed it in a bunch of classrooms. I know at least some times it is taught as lit. But sometimes there are some rather questionable books on the bible as history in the rooms, which makes me doubt that abilities of the teacher to convey it in a proper manner.

Cactus Wren

17th April 2007, 01:38 PM

You might want to compare this to similar classes in Florida a few years ago, as described in PFAW's report, The Good Book Taught Wrong: Bible History Classes in Florida Public Schools (http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/dfiles/file_41.pdf). (That link is to the PDF version -- non-PDF files are available here (http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=1345).)

A few pertinent quotes:Despite the Supreme Court's admonition that the Bible must be taught about "objectively," it appears that most, if not all, of the Florida school districts teaching the "Bible History" courses are doing so not objectively, but from a Christian perspective. This perspective extends beyond the titles to the course content, which typically presents the Bible according to particular Christian (usually Protestant) interpretations.

For example, it is common in the instructional materials to find the story of Adam and Eve referred to as "the Fall of Man," and the serpent in that story referred to as "Satan" - Christian interpretations of Genesis 3 that are not shared by other faiths. The Bible classes at issue in the Herdahl case also described Genesis 3 as "the Fall of Man." As Professor Lewis testified in that case, "That phrase, however, does not appear anywhere in the Bible; it is a purely theological, Christian interpretation of the story - further evidence of the religious nature of the instruction. Moreover, Jews, who also regard the Book of Genesis as religious scripture, do not interpret the story of Adam and Eve in the same way." And, as Professor Lewis testified in Lee County, "the Serpent" of Genesis 3 is "interpreted in Christian faith, but not Jewish faith, as Satan."

Likewise, a number of the Florida school districts present the "Old" Testament as predictive of, or in light of, the "New" Testament. For example, an exam used in the Indian River County school district asks, "Where is a prophecy in the Old [T]estament about the birth of Jesus?" This is a purely Christian reading of the Bible, since Judaism does not recognize a "New" Testament, nor interpret the Hebrew Scriptures as predictive of it.

A number of school districts appear to assume that only Christian students would take the "Bible History" courses. A review of the instructional materials suggests an assumption by these school districts that the teachers and students are of the same (Christian) faith, with the Bible approached accordingly, rather than in an objective and secular manner.

One of the most striking examples is from the Columbia County school district, where students at Columbia High School are asked the following exam question:

"If you had a Jewish friend who wanted to know if Jesus might be the expectant [sic] Messiah, which book [of the Gospels] would you give him?"

At Madison County High School, the "New Testament" final exam asks students to write an essay, "[u]sing Scripture reference to support [their] thoughts," about each of the following topics: "God's Plan For The Family; Living A Victorious Life In The World Which Is So Dark; and God's Directions For Righteous Living." And course materials used in the Levy County school district state in the "study guide" for Joshua: "God is not content with our doing what is right some of the time. He wants us to do what is right all the time. We are under his orders to eliminate any thoughts, practices, or possessions that hinder our devotion to him."

wolfgirl

17th April 2007, 03:33 PM

The most popular book of all time should be studied so students can maybe understand why it is the most popular book of all time.Why it's the most popular book of all time? Maybe because they stick one in every hotel room in the world, to start with. Hospitals, too, in many places. (My mother, after her stroke, was terrified to find a bible in her hospital night stand, thinking she caught in a cult or something.) Just because there are a gazillion of those books out there, doesn't imply that anybody actually bought them to read or that anybody who has one (I was given one as a child by an aunt) actually wants to read it. I hardly think it's the most popular because it's a great read!

skeptifem

17th April 2007, 04:55 PM

Originally Posted by DOC

If you look at the first post in this forum, it talks of "elective courses". I assume the words "A Bible in every classroom" are the words of the forum creator"

ok fair enough, but plenty of kids get forced into electives because all the other ones are full. I know ive been there before, so someone would still end up getting forced into reading the bible in a school, and that should never, ever happen.

Meadmaker

17th April 2007, 05:36 PM

study guide" for Joshua....We are under his orders to eliminate any thoughts, practices, or possessions that hinder our devotion to him."

I;ve read the book of Joshua. The study guide leaves out that we are also apparently under order to eliminate any people that might do the same.

I'm generally much, much, more supportive of religion than your average JREFer, but those quotes from Cactus Wren do make my skin crawl just a bit. Yeck.

ReligionStudent

17th April 2007, 06:04 PM

I;ve read the book of Joshua. The study guide leaves out that we are also apparently under order to eliminate any people that might do the same.

I'm generally much, much, more supportive of religion than your average JREFer, but those quotes from Cactus Wren do make my skin crawl just a bit. Yeck.

I know what you mean. Historical inaccuracy in religion bothers me (ie Isaiah is a prophesy of Christ), but that is just professional. Those quotes go well beyond that though, they are often just offensive, and if someone is going to learn them (I would really rather they didn't learn some of those things), it should be at church, not in a public educational facility.

Ladewig

17th April 2007, 06:53 PM

Cleon

17th April 2007, 07:20 PM

We could really get away from school prayer if Christians would just read the Bible.

Personally, I always thought the most eloquent call for the separation of church and state was "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, and unto God that which is God's."

ChristineR

17th April 2007, 07:26 PM

Personally, I always thought the most eloquent call for the separation of church and state was "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, and unto God that which is God's."

Jesus probably wasn't being sincere here. The questioner was trying to trick him into saying something openly anti-Roman, which would be grounds for arrest. The Jews of course wanted to arrest him because he was a religious fanatic, but the Romans didn't care about that. Literally the quote reads "pay your taxes" but it can also be read as "Give Caesar his just desserts" or "You don't have to obey an unjust government."

His followers in the audience probably saw through it, but there was nothing actionable.

grayman

17th April 2007, 07:49 PM

From SAB: Romans 13:7 Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.

I like this quote actually and use it as a sig on another forum.

Cactus Wren

17th April 2007, 08:48 PM

I'm generally much, much, more supportive of religion than your average JREFer, but those quotes from Cactus Wren do make my skin crawl just a bit. Yeck.

I know what you mean. Historical inaccuracy in religion bothers me (ie Isaiah is a prophesy of Christ), but that is just professional. Those quotes go well beyond that though, they are often just offensive, and if someone is going to learn them (I would really rather they didn't learn some of those things), it should be at church, not in a public educational facility.

There's much more: the PDF version of the document includes a county-by-county analysis of what's taught in these "history" classes. Some examples:

In one school in Clay County:For example, one "true or false" question given to students is: "The first three commandments deal with our relationship with God." The teacher here is assuming that "we" have a relationship with God, bringing a religious perspective to the course, and also putting a student who does not believe in God in a very difficult position in terms of answering this question as "true" or "false."

At another school in the same county:The Christian perspective of the course (and assumption of religiosity on the part of the students) is underscored by such exam questions as "Five great sermons of Our Lord are recorded in (a) Matthew (b) Mark (c)Luke (d) John." (Emphasis added.)... One of the apparent assignments is entitled "Time Line Project: New Testament. The students are asked to "[p]repare an illustrated time line of events mentioned in the New Testament of referred to by prophecy. Some events are important to the Jewish people. If you think I have omitted an important event please feel free to add it to your time line." (Emphasis added." The teacher then lists 18 events, including "Birth of Christ"; "Crucifixion"; "John Writes Revelation"; "Discover of the AIDS virus"; "Desert Storm"; and "Assassination of Yitzhak Rabin."
[ ... ]
Similarly, questions are posed to the students that depend for their answers on the students' own religious beliefs. For example, students are asked to "Imagine that God appears on earth and says: 'Hear this! I am going to make sin impossible.' In writing, explain your reaction: -- Would this be a good thing? -- How might God do it?" Likewise, in a lesson entitled "History of Miracles", it appears the students are shown a Time-Life video, "Miracles of Faith." The end of the written instructional materials state: "Now that you have seen this compelling evidence.... decide for yourself. WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT MIRACLES? Do you believe they happened or not. On a separate sheet of paper explain how you feel about miracles." (Ellipsis and emphasis in original.)

In a school in Santa Rosa County:The biblical text is presented not just from a religious perspective, but from the sectarian perspective of Christianity: "In his original state, man was innocent and perfect. Through the temptation of the serpent (Satan), sin entered the heart of man. Physical and spiritual death followed as the penalty for disobedience. The promise of redemption closely follows the fall.... The key word of the book is election. God personally chooses individuals with whom he will work out his redemptive plan for the fallen race." (Emphasis in original.) Interestingly, however, the curriculum claims that this is a summary of "Facts from Genesis 1-11 As Believed by the Hebrew People," even though this is a Christian and not a Jewish interpretation.

One school in Hillsborough County uses for its "history" class materials published by "Gospel Light Publications":These same materials also interpret Hebrew Scripture in light of the "New Testament" and as predictive of the coming of Jesus, which is a purely Christian interpretation of the Bible. For example, referring to Numbers, which is a book not only of the "Old Testament" but also of the Hebrew Bible, the materials state: "Numbers and the Coming of the Saviour: The bronze serpent (Numbers 21:1-9) gives us a picture of Jesus. The serpent high on the pole before the people makes us think of how Jesus on the cross was made to bear our sins. Those who believed God's promise to heal them looked at the bronze serpent and were saved. Those who believe in God and the sending of His only Son to die on the cross will be saved." (Emphasis added.)

In Indian River County:The course materials devote a great deal of attention to the study of religious and life lessons to be drawn from the Bible. For example, under the topic of "Parables" is the lesson: "Does Jesus still call his disciples today? How does he teach them? There will be challenging group and individual work [i]to figure out what the parables are telling us today." (Emphasis added.) Another lesson calls for students to "devise an instrument to judge the amount of love they have."...

[O]ne exam contains these questions: "In North America, the largest religious group is the _____. The second largest group in North America is the Non-Christians. (I answered this one for you)."

Students in Levy County were presented with a New Testament lesson on John 8, which says: "Who, according to Jesus, is the father of the Jews? The devil." And the teacher asks the following in connection with 1 Corinthians, Chapter 2: "Why is it hard for a non-Christian to understand thing about God?"Why yes, I am just a little cautious about the idea of teaching "the Bible as history" in public schools.

Meadmaker

17th April 2007, 09:15 PM

[O]ne exam contains these questions: "In North America, the largest religious group is the _____. The second largest group in North America is the Non-Christians. (I answered this one for you)."

So, my father died about a year ago, and a Deacon of the Catholic Church came to the house. Mom's Catholic. Dad was - noncommittal. The Masonic ritual they did for him was extremely appropriate for him and his beliefs.

Since he wasn't Catholic, he didn't get a priest, just a deacon. So, the deacon was there asking us about what service to do, and what readings we might like. I almost volunteered that maybe I should take the Old Testament reading. Then, he asked if we (the kids) were Catholic. Suddenly, an uncomfortable silence descended on the room as we fidgeted. The deacon said, "That's ok. We say that the largest religious group in America is the Catholics, and the second largest is the Fallen Away Catholics."

Like many JREFers, I joined what the deacon called the second largest religious group in America after reading the Bible, but on my own, where I didn't have anyone filling in the answers for me.

ReligionStudent

18th April 2007, 06:07 AM

There's much more: the PDF version of the document includes a county-by-county analysis of what's taught in these "history" classes. Some examples:

In one school in Clay County:

At another school in the same county:

In a school in Santa Rosa County:

One school in Hillsborough County uses for its "history" class materials published by "Gospel Light Publications":

In Indian River County:

Students in Levy County were presented with Why yes, I am just a little cautious about the idea of teaching "the Bible as history" in public schools.

I have been a supporter of teaching religion as history etc in secular ways in public schools. While unscientific, this look at quotes has completely frightened me away from it, unless it were actually done by scholars I was familiar with. Apparently most people who have been teaching it so far no nothing about seperation of church and state and even less about religion.

pgwenthold

18th April 2007, 07:56 AM

I have been a supporter of teaching religion as history etc in secular ways in public schools. While unscientific, this look at quotes has completely frightened me away from it, unless it were actually done by scholars I was familiar with. Apparently most people who have been teaching it so far no nothing about separation of church and state and even less about religion.

I see it as something a little different.

I think that the people teaching these classes are so ingrained in their religion that they don't understand how to separate their religion from what they are teaching. They think they are doing it "objectively" but it is only objective from a Christian perspective.

IOW, their interpretation of the bible comes completely from the perspective of their religious beliefs. It's not that they don't know about the separation of church and state, it is that they don't even realize that their own christian biases.

Cleon

18th April 2007, 08:35 AM

In my opinion, the whole debate about whether it's possible to teach the Bible as literature objectively misses the boat, for one very simple reason:

As literature, the Bible has had very little impact in the United States.

The Bible has had a lot of impact in the sense that religion, particularly Christianity, has had a significant impact on the United States. Its import lies in the religious beliefs around it, not in the book as a work of literature. So what has had influence in American history is not the book itself, but the various interpretations of the book.

I would argue that the most influential religious trends in the United States have been:

1. Anglicanism - due to the origin of the United States as colonies of Anglican Great Britain
2. Deism - this was the religious philosophy of many of the founders, and Deist concepts are littered through many of their political writings as well as documents like the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.
3. Roman Catholicism - Catholics settled/conquered/occupied much of the American continent, and the Church remains one of the largest, most influential organizations in the nation.
4. Fundamentalist Protestantism - From the Puritans to Ralph Reed, I hardly need to explain. ;)
5. African-American Protestantism - Although there is some religious overlapping with #4, African-American Protestantism has played a much different role historically and culturally. Much of the Civil Rights movement was/is driven by this religious movement, while other fundamentalist protestants (such as the Southern Baptist Convention) played a much different role.
6. Mormons. You can hardly talk about "how the West was won" without talking about the Mormon settlement of Utah, not to mention the history of that state.

Now, I'm sure you could quibble with my choices, or make additions/subtractions. That's not the point. My point is that while each of these six movements has had a major impact on the United States historically, culturally, and politically, each one has a radically different interpretation of the Bible and its teachings. The Mormons even came up with an addendum. :D

So to really teach about the Bible in American society, the Bible itself is almost useless; knowing who begat who and what God gave to Moses on Mt Sinai (Jews and Christians would have a different answer anyway) contributes nothing to knowing about the role of the book in US history.

So to properly teach the subject, it wouldn't be a course on the "Bible" so much as "Religion in the Shaping of the United States." You would have to go beyond the text of the book itself, teaching about the religious aspects of the Spanish conquest, the theological motivations behind the Mormons' settlement of Utah, why there was widespread bias against Catholics, and so forth.

Or, to put it in terms DOC can understand*, to truly understand why the Bible is the "all-time best seller" (i.e., to understand why the Bible is important), you have to study the movements motivated by the Bible and what they saw in it that motivated them.

Studying the text of the Bible, without studying the many different interpretations of said text, is nothing more than a Bible study course--and belongs in church.

* Yes, I realize that was hopelessly optimistic.

drkitten

18th April 2007, 09:38 AM

In my opinion, the whole debate about whether it's possible to teach the Bible as literature objectively misses the boat, for one very simple reason:

As literature, the Bible has had very little impact in the United States.

Um,.... I disagree. Perhaps I need a jaw-dropping icon there or something.

The Bible has had a lot of impact in the sense that religion, particularly Christianity, has had a significant impact on the United States. Its import lies in the religious beliefs around it, not in the book as a work of literature.

You are drawing a distinction without a difference.

So to really teach about the Bible in American society, the Bible itself is almost useless; knowing who begat who and what God gave to Moses on Mt Sinai (Jews and Christians would have a different answer anyway) contributes nothing to knowing about the role of the book in US history.

You're correct that the list of the begats, specifically, have had relatively little impact on US history or culture.

On the other hand, as a purely literary source, the Bible is either the single most influential work, or the second most influential work, depending on how you consider "The Complete Works of William Shakespeare."

No other book has contributed more often-cited quotations.

No other book has contributed more metaphors and conversational narratives.

No other book has contributed more iconic characters.

Similarly, no other book singlehandely defines a subdialect (Jacobean English).

Yes, of course, the reason for this is because lots of religious nutcases grew up in homes where the KJV was the only book, and the only stories that got told were "stories from the Bible." But the sheer number of volumes that you see, even today, with titles like "Biblical Stories for Children" tells of the importance of the Bible as a source of narrative.

Which, unfortunately, brings us back to the literary importance of the Bible.

So to properly teach the subject, it wouldn't be a course o[QUOn the "Bible" so much as "Religion in the Shaping of the United States." You would have to go beyond the text of the book itself, teaching about the religious aspects of the Spanish conquest, the theological motivations behind the Mormons' settlement of Utah, why there was widespread bias against Catholics, and so forth.

That would also be a valid class. But it's a different class than "the Bible as literature." You can teach about how religion influenced history all you like. But the literature class needs to cover things like exactly what a "good Samaritan" is, or the significance of "mitochondrial Eve."

Studying the text of the Bible, without studying the many different interpretations of said text, is nothing more than a Bible study course--and belongs in church.

Yes, and no. Certainly, studying the text of the Bible is BIble study. Similarly, studying the text of the Illiad is studying the Illiad, and studying the text of Tom Sawyer is studying Tom Sawyer. But that doesn't mean that any of those need to be done from a framework that assumes the truth or divine inspiration of the text under study. I can study Tom Sawyer, and even learn something about the history of 1850s America, without believing that Tom himself ever existed. And there's something that transcends the 1850s in Tom's episode of the fence painting, a reason why people keep reading that episode in literature class, despite the fact that the episode never happened. But that episode, like the Prodigal Son or the Good Samaritan, have become almost hard-wired into US culture, and to understand the culture, you need to understand those episodes.

Teaching what the phrase "Good Samaritan" (as in "Good Samaritan law") means is ordinary secular eductaion, the same as teaching what "Romeo and Juliet" means. There shouldn't be any problem with that in public schools.

Teaching that the Good Samaritan really existed -- or that the person who told the parable of the Good Samaritan really existed -- but that Romeo and Juliet didn't -- at that point, that's where we leave the schoolroom and go to the church.

ETA: Perhaps I should express myself a bit more fully. I have actually seen "The Bible as Literature" taught, from an even-handed secular perspective, and successfully. I've even seen it done at officially church-related institutions. My main concern -- I suspect most others on this thread share this -- is that I do not trust the State of Texas to respect the division I laid down above. In fact, I feel confident that it is the sponsor's implicit intention not to respect this division, and that he's using the phrase "literature" as a lying fig-leaf to cover his true intentions. But the fact that we suspect the sponsor of lying should not be an excuse for us to misrepresent the truth as well.....

Cleon

18th April 2007, 10:14 AM

You are drawing a distinction without a difference.

No, not at all. There is a very significant difference between the Bible as a work of literature and the Bible as inspiration for a religious movement, just as there is a very significant difference between Tolkien's Lord of the Rings trilogy as a body of literature and, say, the people who play Dungeons & Dragons.

On the other hand, as a purely literary source, the Bible is either the single most influential work, or the second most influential work, depending on how you consider "The Complete Works of William Shakespeare."

No other book has contributed more often-cited quotations.

No other book has contributed more metaphors and conversational narratives.

No other book has contributed more iconic characters.

Fair points; however, I would question how much of the above applies when you put it in a purely secular context. For example, you say "no other book has contributed more often-cited quotations." Well, perhaps, but when you take religious discussion out of it, I wonder how often it's actually cited.

Yes, of course, the reason for this is because lots of religious nutcases grew up in homes where the KJV was the only book, and the only stories that got told were "stories from the Bible." But the sheer number of volumes that you see, even today, with titles like "Biblical Stories for Children" tells of the importance of the Bible as a source of narrative.

Which, unfortunately, brings us back to the literary importance of the Bible.

Actually, I see it as just the opposite. The "Biblical Stories for Children"-type books are intended to teach children Christianity (almost always, a Biblical literalist interpretation of Christianity). You don't see a lot of non-religious or non-Christian families buying these books for their literary aspect. IMO, it brings us back to Christianity as a movement, rather than the Bible as a book.

For example, knowing that "turn the other cheek" comes from the Bible is all well and good, but clearly there are various interpretations of that. George W. Bush doesn't seem to believe in "turning the other cheek."

Perhaps it is a chicken/egg scenario.

ReligionStudent

18th April 2007, 10:29 AM

NobbyNobbs

18th April 2007, 10:31 AM

I see it as something a little different.

I think that the people teaching these classes are so ingrained in their religion that they don't understand how to separate their religion from what they are teaching. They think they are doing it "objectively" but it is only objective from a Christian perspective.

IOW, their interpretation of the bible comes completely from the perspective of their religious beliefs. It's not that they don't know about the separation of church and state, it is that they don't even realize that their own christian biases.

I've seen a prime example of this when my friend invited me to an "inter-faith" service. It certainly was...it was seemingly completely unbiased with regard to Catholicism, Protestantism, Baptism, etc.....but there was still a lot of "Jesus" in it. I'm Jewish, and "interfaith" to me apparently means something different than to a Christian.

ReligionStudent

18th April 2007, 10:36 AM

No, not at all. There is a very significant difference between the Bible as a work of literature and the Bible as inspiration for a religious movement, just as there is a very significant difference between Tolkien's Lord of the Rings trilogy as a body of literature and, say, the people who play Dungeons & Dragons.

Fair points; however, I would question how much of the above applies when you put it in a purely secular context. For example, you say "no other book has contributed more often-cited quotations." Well, perhaps, but when you take religious discussion out of it, I wonder how often it's actually cited.

Actually, I see it as just the opposite. The "Biblical Stories for Children"-type books are intended to teach children Christianity (almost always, a Biblical literalist interpretation of Christianity). You don't see a lot of non-religious or non-Christian families buying these books for their literary aspect. IMO, it brings us back to Christianity as a movement, rather than the Bible as a book.

For example, knowing that "turn the other cheek" comes from the Bible is all well and good, but clearly there are various interpretations of that. George W. Bush doesn't seem to believe in "turning the other cheek."

Perhaps it is a chicken/egg scenario.

I think the bible is an important literary source, look at Pardise Lost, Portrate of an Artist as Young Man, heck even fantasy books like the Dragonlance series by Weis and Hickman are heavily influenced by the bible. This is only books too, their are countless books and TV shows where the bible would be an important literary background.

Additionally, I do agree that those children's books are all about brainwashing.

pgwenthold

18th April 2007, 10:57 AM

I've seen a prime example of this when my friend invited me to an "inter-faith" service. It certainly was...it was seemingly completely unbiased with regard to Catholicism, Protestantism, Baptism, etc.....but there was still a lot of "Jesus" in it. I'm Jewish, and "interfaith" to me apparently means something different than to a Christian.

"We got both kinds of music, Country and Western."

Actually, this reminds me that there was an episode of The West Wing that dealt with this. When Mrs. Landingham was killed in a car accident, they were to have a "non-denominational" service. Afterward, Jed (Martin Sheen) noted that it wasn't non-denominational, because they said "The Lord's Prayer," which is purely a christian concept (it led to a flashback when he was in boarding school where the same thing happened, and he got into a discussion about it with a younger (and hot) Mrs. Landingham).

PrincessIneffabelle

18th April 2007, 11:05 AM

I think the bible is an important literary source, look at Pardise Lost, Portrate of an Artist as Young Man, heck even fantasy books like the Dragonlance series by Weis and Hickman are heavily influenced by the bible.

Really? I never got any particular religious vibe from the Dragonlance books. Tolkienesque perhaps, but not biblical. At least, not to me. Then again, I'm not in the habit of looking for biblical influences, either. Maybe a re-read is in order.

ReligionStudent

18th April 2007, 11:51 AM

Really? I never got any particular religious vibe from the Dragonlance books. Tolkienesque perhaps, but not biblical. At least, not to me. Then again, I'm not in the habit of looking for biblical influences, either. Maybe a re-read is in order.

If you read annotated chronicles Tracy Hickman states that a lot of the things have to do with both the bible and his mormon background. The silver disks of Mishacle are the Golden tablet etc.

ponderingturtle

18th April 2007, 02:00 PM

You are drawing a distinction without a difference.

Well to start with one is a book and the other is a group of people who sometimes claim to be dirrected by that book. Usualy this dirrection is cherry picking sections to advance their agenda.

This seems to be a significant difference.

ETA: Perhaps I should express myself a bit more fully. I have actually seen "The Bible as Literature" taught, from an even-handed secular perspective, and successfully. I've even seen it done at officially church-related institutions. My main concern -- I suspect most others on this thread share this -- is that I do not trust the State of Texas to respect the division I laid down above. In fact, I feel confident that it is the sponsor's implicit intention not to respect this division, and that he's using the phrase "literature" as a lying fig-leaf to cover his true intentions. But the fact that we suspect the sponsor of lying should not be an excuse for us to misrepresent the truth as well.....

Did they limit themselves to just the bible as the only source?

drkitten

18th April 2007, 02:07 PM

Well to start with one is a book and the other is a group of people who sometimes claim to be dirrected by that book. Usualy this dirrection is cherry picking sections to advance their agenda.

This seems to be a significant difference.

Er, no. Every teacher cherry-picks sections from the books under study in order to advance their agenda. Life is too short to read all of Moby Dick in detail, and there's only so much I need to know about the process of rendering sperm whales into lamp oil. Not many people studying the Illiad pay that much attention to the catalog of ships.

It's a poor instructor who can't select appropriate and illustrative highlights from the work of literature for directed discussion and assignments.

The difference is that you object to one agenda, but not the other.

Did they limit themselves to just the bible as the only source?

No, although they certainly could have if they had chosen. It's an odd pedagogical technique, and not one I would personally recommend, but it's not unreasonable.

ReligionStudent

18th April 2007, 02:15 PM

Er, no. Every teacher cherry-picks sections from the books under study in order to advance their agenda. Life is too short to read all of Moby Dick in detail, and there's only so much I need to know about the process of rendering sperm whales into lamp oil. Not many people studying the Illiad pay that much attention to the catalog of ships.

It's a poor instructor who can't select appropriate and illustrative highlights from the work of literature for directed discussion and assignments.

The difference is that you object to one agenda, but not the other.

No, although they certainly could have if they had chosen. It's an odd pedagogical technique, and not one I would personally recommend, but it's not unreasonable.

Man I remember AP English in high school, we spent the entire first day on the first paragraph of Grapes of Wraith, That was normal, not cherry picking.

But on a more serious note. Cherry picking of the bible on what to teach can go two ways.

The good way, focusing on parts of specific historical or literary importance.

The bad way, picking the pieces that support/focus on the theology of the instructor. Unfortunatly I imagine there will be way too much time spent on Isaiah because of this second method.

drkitten

18th April 2007, 02:27 PM

But on a more serious note. Cherry picking of the bible on what to teach can go two ways.

The good way, focusing on parts of specific historical or literary importance.

The bad way, picking the pieces that support/focus on the theology of the instructor. Unfortunatly I imagine there will be way too much time spent on Isaiah because of this second method.

Yes, exactly. I suspect that I could teach a full-semester secular class on the literary impact of the Gospel of Matthew alone, and between several rounds of "spot the Christ allegory" and "spot the different types and elements of the Christ figure" (Is Dirty Harry a Christ figure? What the hell happened to "love thine enemies"?) and "what has this parable turned into in the modern world" (Oh, that's why my insurance company is called "Good Samaritan") I'd have a full schedule. And no one would have realistic grounds for complaints.

Job is another good one. And Genesis -- oh, we can do creation myths and questions of reification for months.

Frankly, from a literary point of view, there's almost nothing in Isaiah. I't's not even good prophesy. Of course, from a theological point of view, it's critical.

And that's the difference. The material per se is not objectionable, but it's all in what (and how) you choose to treat.

ReligionStudent

18th April 2007, 05:31 PM

Yes, exactly. I suspect that I could teach a full-semester secular class on the literary impact of the Gospel of Matthew alone, and between several rounds of "spot the Christ allegory" and "spot the different types and elements of the Christ figure" (Is Dirty Harry a Christ figure? What the hell happened to "love thine enemies"?) and "what has this parable turned into in the modern world" (Oh, that's why my insurance company is called "Good Samaritan") I'd have a full schedule. And no one would have realistic grounds for complaints.

Job is another good one. And Genesis -- oh, we can do creation myths and questions of reification for months.

Frankly, from a literary point of view, there's almost nothing in Isaiah. I't's not even good prophesy. Of course, from a theological point of view, it's critical.

And that's the difference. The material per se is not objectionable, but it's all in what (and how) you choose to treat.

Nothing in Isaiah, except that its three authors spread over the most important part of Israelite/Jewish formation. And his prophesy is right on, he picks the messiah, its just that it happens to by Cyrus he's talking about.

Meadmaker

18th April 2007, 10:59 PM

I'm Jewish, and "interfaith" to me apparently means something different than to a Christian.

I was discussing whether or not to send my son to a Jewish school with the admissions director. She was somewhat hesitant, because she knew I wasn't "really" Jewish. Somewhere in the course of the conversation, I made a comment something like, "Well, I wouldn't send my kid to a Jewish school if a diverse environment was what I was looking for." She replied (I kid you not), "You would be surprised. Our student body is very diverse. We have Reform, Conservative, and Orthodox families here."

I guess it just depends on your perspective.

bignickel

18th April 2007, 11:07 PM

I would posit that any class teaching the Bible as literature would HAVE to discuss each section of the Bible and WHERE it that myth originated... outside Judaism/Christianity. ie the Flood coming from multiple traditions, sacrifices, multiple gods along side Yahweh.

Any class that didn't try to show HOW the book was put together from outside myths and stories would betray itself as a class for the purpose of proselytization, and should immediately be shut down on that discovery. Thus, all teachers of this class in TX should get a guide listing that must discuss which traditions and stories were worked into the Bible from the outside. Of course, the creation of such a guide would immediately lead to a huge fight between the pro and con forces on this issue (and immediately tip the hands of the pro forces in terms of their agendas).

(I could have spend a bit more on writing this, but I spent 8 minutes (!) on finding the correct spelling of 'Proselytization', and this spell checker still says it's incorrect)

drkitten

19th April 2007, 08:00 AM

I would posit that any class teaching the Bible as literature would HAVE to discuss each section of the Bible and WHERE it that myth originated... outside Judaism/Christianity.

Um, no. That's certainly a way of teaching a literature class, but it's far from mandatory.

Again, think of a traditional lit-class. How many high school students get told that the story of Hamlet probably originated in a tenth-century Icelandic saga by a bard named Snaebjörn, or that The Murder of Gonzago, the play-within-a-play, is actually a genuine play, from 15th century Italy? Some, definitely -- but not all of them.

Did you know that Two Gentlemen of Verona is taken from the Decameron?

Does it count as proselytization if I teach Hamlet without mentioning Snaebjörn?

drkitten

19th April 2007, 08:02 AM

Nothing in Isaiah, except that its three authors spread over the most important part of Israelite/Jewish formation.

... and what part of that is literature?

What parts of The Three Musketeers are the most historically accurate? Are those parts the reason that the book keeps getting made into a film?

ReligionStudent

19th April 2007, 08:13 AM

Um, no. That's certainly a way of teaching a literature class, but it's far from mandatory.

Again, think of a traditional lit-class. How many high school students get told that the story of Hamlet probably originated in a tenth-century Icelandic saga by a bard named Snaebjörn, or that The Murder of Gonzago, the play-within-a-play, is actually a genuine play, from 15th century Italy? Some, definitely -- but not all of them.

Did you know that Two Gentlemen of Verona is taken from the Decameron?

Does it count as proselytization if I teach Hamlet without mentioning Snaebjörn?

While I would like to see the bible taught in a historic context, I realize this is just because I study the bible in a historic context. I think that it can be taught as literature without doing so and without proselytizing. However, I still think that presenting it in other ways is more likely to allow for proselytization and such will be the outcome.

As a side note, when I did take a class called Literary Approaches to Sacred Texts, it was taught with at least some note to origional context and varried traditions.

bignickel

19th April 2007, 09:03 AM

Um, no. That's certainly a way of teaching a literature class, but it's far from mandatory.
It is if it's the Bible, and we suspect that theists are trying to do an end-run around the Constitution. Because otherwise, without indicating where the myths are coming from, the default classroom discussion will be: they didn't come from anywhere outside the Bible, because there won't be any discussion outside the Bible. Leaving students with the idea that only the Bible had stories of Floods, etc.

Once you force this particular course to include commentary on where the myths come from, you will see the true colors of the people pushing for this to be included in the public schools.

DOC

24th April 2007, 01:25 AM

Oh, please. Do you really see no difference between the Christian bible and Quotations from Chairman Mao?

One has sold around 7 billion and has mostly the teachings of the historical person, Jesus Christ. One has sold about 1 billion and has the teachings of the historical person, Chairman Moa.

If they want to study the Bible, that's what churches are there for. If students want to study Quotations From Chairman Mao, that's what the Revolutionary Communist Party is there for.

Actually many Church services are not about individuals studying the Bible, especially the largest Christian denomination, the Catholics, which is mostly about liturgy and worship.

And what about the atheists and agnostics who don't want to go to a church. Why shouldn't they be given the freedom of studying the world's all time best selling book in an elective course. That's educational censorship and prejudice against certain teachings.

slingblade

24th April 2007, 02:05 AM

That's educational censorship and prejudice against certain teachings.

Yes. We call it "discretion," generally. There are certain teachings, to use your far-too-loose term, that I simply would not teach in a public high school setting. Or anywhere, for that matter. Such as an elective course on the Kama Sutra. :jaw-dropp

Not addressing the topic specifically, Doc, but just in general, make sure something you're griping about is actually a problem and not also a safeguard.

If I let one holy book in, it allows me to let them all in. We'll be starting Qur'an studies next month.

DOC

24th April 2007, 02:58 AM

If I let one holy book in, it allows me to let them all in. We'll be starting Qur'an studies next month.

See you added the word "holy". Your being prejudice against the book by calling it names. A book is a book. And there is absolutely no reason why the best selling book of all time should not be studied for educational purposes. Some might bring up the non-constitutional invented legal term "Separation of Church and State". Well, the Bible is not a Church, its a best selling book. It should be studied by all truly educated people.

Your comment about having to let all the books in is not true. The educational school board can decide that question just like they decide which of the hundreds of languages should be studied.

slingblade

24th April 2007, 04:44 AM

See you added the word "holy". Your being prejudice against the book by calling it names.

I am using the proper appellation for that sort of text. You see, one of many things teachers both teach and are taught is context. To remove the bible from its context and present it as a generic representation of "any old book" is intellectually dishonest in the extreme.

A book is a book. And there is absolutely no reason why the best selling book of all time should not be studied for educational purposes.

You are blatantly using a fallacy here to support your argument. I reject your premise outright, therefore. How many copies a book has sold is NEVER used as a reason to include it in the curriculum. It simply never, ever comes up, because it is meaningless as an educational standard.

I suggest you do as much work with educational standards as I have had to do, and educate yourself on just how a school/class curriculum is created. You do not appear to know, and the knowledge appears crucial to your argument.

No one can stop you continuing to use this fallacy, but you need to know it carries no weight, whatsoever. Not just here, either. Ask any educator you care to ask how often they consider a book's place on the best-seller list when making choices.

Some might bring up the non-constitutional invented legal term "Separation of Church and State". Well, the Bible is not a Church, its a best selling book. It should be studied by all truly educated people.

Take that fallacy to Politics. I've no patience to instruct you in the gross error of those statements.

Your comment about having to let all the books in is not true.

Your comment that I made such a comment is not true. Permit me:

If I let one holy book in, it allows me to let them all in.

There is a great difference between "have to" and "allowed to." I will, therefore, graciously allow you to figure out just how much more threatening to your beliefs is what I did say, than what you tried to fabricate me saying.

The educational school board can decide that question just like they decide which of the hundreds of languages should be studied.

Again, had you the personal experience in this matter, as I have, you would know that school boards are neither autonomous, nor powers entirely unto themselves.

It may surprise you to know that I support, and have always supported, Bible as Literature classes, provided they are not used as vehicles for espousal or expression of the religious beliefs of those in authority. The Bible, after all, plays a major role in Western Civilization. Understanding that role is necessary to understand the context and subtext of much great literature.

And don't make the mistake of thinking I've never read it. Cover to cover. Over THIRTY TIMES.

Cleon

24th April 2007, 05:40 AM

And what about the atheists and agnostics who don't want to go to a church.

I'm sure the teeming millions of atheists and agnostics who don't want to go to church but still want to study the bible will find a way to do so. :rolleyes:

School is for education.
Bible is for church.

It's really very simple.

Meadmaker

24th April 2007, 05:44 AM

And there is absolutely no reason why the best selling book of all time should not be studied for educational purposes.

I don't think anyone here would object to studying the Bible for educational purposes. We simply doubt that that is the purpose for which the legislators are actually encouraging study of the Bible.

ReligionStudent

24th April 2007, 05:48 AM

One has sold around 7 billion and has mostly the teachings of the historical person, Jesus Christ. One has sold about 1 billion and has the teachings of the historical person, Chairman Moa.

Actually many Church services are not about individuals studying the Bible, especially the largest Christian denomination, the Catholics, which is mostly about liturgy and worship.

And what about the atheists and agnostics who don't want to go to a church. Why shouldn't they be given the freedom of studying the world's all time best selling book in an elective course. That's educational censorship and prejudice against certain teachings.

I would just like to point out that for someone all about biblical education, you seem woefully unknowlegable about it. Well over have of the Bible (in page count our number of books) is the OT, which has absolutelly nothing to do with Jesus.

Additionally, yes it does include some likely historical figures, but it is not all history. For instance, Dan. 2-4 deals with a real Babylonian ruler, but is completely fictional in this. Additionally, any rational and non-religious presentation of the bible would have to look to much of the gospels as similar historical fiction. There was no walking on water or resurection in any provable historical analysis of the text.

If you are stating that it should be read for its effect on American history, Catholics are not a very cogent examples, as they are no the largest group of American Christians.

And everyone, weather they go to church or not, has the freedom to study the bible (at least in America), and just because the state does not offer a veniew (which it does through state universities anyway), does not mean this freedom is somehow taken away. There are countless books on it that anyone could read, including the bible itself. If someone really wants to study the bible and does not go to church, they can even get a free one (while I don't like most of the translations that are distributed for free, this does not negate their presance). Most of the books at Borders or Barnes and Noble are crap, but there are still some good ones there, such as Elaine Pagels's works, and this seems to be more than will be included in the proposed classes in Texis.

Ladewig

24th April 2007, 07:35 AM

And what about the atheists and agnostics who don't want to go to a church. Why shouldn't they be given the freedom of studying the world's all time best selling book in an elective course.

No. They can use the Bibles in (1) the school library and in (2) the public library and (3) online to study this book. Why do you believe that they should have the option of receiving course credit for studying this book? If I said, "Seinfeld is the most popular television show in the history of the world, therefore students should be given the freedom to study it in an elective course" then you would see how inapproriate your argument is. Wouldn't you?

That's educational censorship and prejudice against certain teachings.

I believe it is negligence of the highest order for an adult other than a parent to expose children as young as 14 to a book that contains incest, murder, genocide, rape, infantcide, torture, and adultery. Why do you think that type of thing is acceptable?

ponderingturtle

24th April 2007, 07:38 AM

... and what part of that is literature?

What parts of The Three Musketeers are the most historically accurate? Are those parts the reason that the book keeps getting made into a film?

Faulty comparison. There is no large movent vested in proveing that the Three Musketeers is a dirrect historical telling.

So the need for context varies.

clerihew80

26th April 2007, 06:46 PM

I believe it is negligence of the highest order for an adult other than a parent to expose children as young as 14 to a book that contains incest, murder, genocide, rape, infantcide, torture, and adultery. Why do you think that type of thing is acceptable?
If we exclude books that contain these things then almost all of Shakespeare is out! Our kids of 14 and under will be boring little sissies. (And 14 is a little old to just begin to be exposed to murder, rape, genocide, etc. Don't these kids watch the nightly news?)

aries

28th April 2007, 11:50 AM

Yes, exactly. I suspect that I could teach a full-semester secular class on the literary impact of the Gospel of Matthew alone, and between several rounds of "spot the Christ allegory" and "spot the different types and elements of the Christ figure" (Is Dirty Harry a Christ figure? What the hell happened to "love thine enemies"?) and "what has this parable turned into in the modern world" (Oh, that's why my insurance company is called "Good Samaritan") I'd have a full schedule. And no one would have realistic grounds for complaints.

Job is another good one. And Genesis -- oh, we can do creation myths and questions of reification for months.

Frankly, from a literary point of view, there's almost nothing in Isaiah. I't's not even good prophesy. Of course, from a theological point of view, it's critical.

And that's the difference. The material per se is not objectionable, but it's all in what (and how) you choose to treat.

Actually, there's just been a release of a Danish book that sees Dirty Harry as a sort of Christ figure. It then goes on to relate a lot of the Christian symbolisms to other works, movies, tv-series, art, books and the like.
I would provide a link, but the text will probably be in Danish, but if you
really want, I'll try digging it up for you ;)