Bible Study

[blobru]

Bible course(s) should be compulsory once in:
elementary school;
high school;
college;
english lit major.

Bible course(s) should be optional once in:
elementary school;
high school;
college;
english lit major.

Teaching the Bible in public schools at any level should be forbidden.

The Bible should be forbidden.

On Planet X, there is no Bible (God blogs).

[Katana]

Was this supposed to be a poll?

[blobru]

Was this supposed to be a poll?


Bugger. I just tried to post it and it said "must be within 15 minutes...", so please delete thread :mad: thanks :)

[balrog666]

Bible course(s) should be compulsory once in:
elementary school;
high school;
college;
english lit major.

Bible course(s) should be optional once in:
elementary school;
high school;
college;
english lit major.

Teaching the Bible in public schools at any level should be forbidden.

The Bible should be forbidden.

On Planet X, there is no Bible (God blogs).

Which Bibble? There is more than one, don't you know.

Why not the Koran or the Upanishads?

[Andronicus]

In an English speaking country, the Bible (preferably the KJV/Authorized Version or the Revised Standard Version which is close) needs to be taught at least once in high school and to English Lit majors in college. You need it both as literature (most read book in English) and because any intelligent conversation will eventually refer to it. Imagine reading James Joyce, Henry James, or William Shakespeare without the Bible; much of the meaning of their works would be lost. Even Dawkins mentioned in The God Delusion that the Bible was necessary reading. (Sorry, I loaned my copy out, so no page reference.)

[six7s]

any intelligent conversation will eventually refer to it.

Although this is perhaps just a slight exaggeration, it overlooks the possibility that significantly more stupid conversations will immediately start with it

Imagine reading James Joyce, Henry James, or William Shakespeare without the Bible; much of the meaning of their works would be lost.

A valid, albeit utopian, point

Sadly, all too many teachers have difficulty getting kids to read anything substantial at all... The sheer size of Ulysses makes reading the phone book look interesting

Even Dawkins mentioned in The God Delusion that the Bible was necessary reading. (Sorry, I loaned my copy out, so no page reference.)



Everyone should read the Bible, says atheist Dawkins (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article1769416.ece)
Times Online
From The Times May 10, 2007

In an interview with Times2, Professor Dawkins, a Darwinian biologist, said: "You’d be rightly written off as uncultivated if you knew nothing of the Bible. You need the Bible to understand literary allusions."



Collateral Damage: Part 2
by Richard Dawkins (http://richarddawkins.net/article,180,Collateral-Damage-Part-2,Richard-Dawkins)
Religious apologists will try to persuade you that, without scriptural texts, we'd have no moral compass, no guidelines for what is right and what is wrong. Anybody who advocates basing our morals on the Bible has not read the Bible with sufficient attention.



YouTube Video: Richard Dawkins reading extracts of the God Delusion at the Free Library of Philadelphia
703ZJSzyyOA"
Transcript Source (http://antitheism.wordpress.com/2006/12/13/richard-dawkins-on-background-briefing-audio/)
The ethnic cleansing begun in the time of Moses, is brought to bloody fruition in the Book of Joshua, a text remarkable for the bloodthirsty massacres it records, and the xenophobic relish with which it does so.

<snip/>

Yet again, theologians will protest it didn’t happen. Well no, the story has it that the walls came tumbling down at the mere sound of men shouting and blowing horns, so indeed it didn’t happen. But that is not the point. The point is that whether true or not, the Bible is held up to us as the source of our morality. And the Bible story of Joshua’s destruction of Jericho, and the invasion of the lebensraum of the Promised Land in general is morally indistinguishable from Hitler’s invasion of Poland or Saddam Hussein’s massacres of the Kurds and the Marsh Arabs. The Bible may be an arresting and poetic work of fiction but it is not the sort of book you should give your children to form their morals.

As it happens, the story of Joshua in Jericho is the subject of an interesting experiment in child morality, by the Israeli psychologist, George Tamarin.

<snip/>

[Andronicus]

Although this is perhaps just a slight exaggeration, it overlooks the possibility that significantly more stupid conversations will immediately start with it.

:D :D

[Ben Tilly]

While I agree about the importance of reading the Bible, I don't want it read as part of the school system. There is just too much potential for abuse when an atheistic child gets taught the Bible by a religious teacher.

Cheers,
Ben

[JetLeg]

I think all here would agree that giving lessons in religious history, and perhaps small pieces of the conclusions of higher criticism would be important.

[Wildy]

To be honest if you have a Bible studies/religious studies thing in a school then you would have to ensure that there is an opt-out option. I went to a religious school and had to sit through some of the most boring studies of the Bible. The only positive about it is that I managed to find all of the bits in the Bible that have all the blood and gore and stuff like that.

As well as that, which has already been pointed out, you would have to teach stuff about other religions as well and in these turbulent times you would have to ensure that the student would have to go to all of the classes if they choose to study religion. I would make the assumption that in the US you would have parents that would want their kids to learn about the Bible, but not the Koran.

I have found that incorporating world religions into a religious class, I have learned far more about religions then I would have had I not been forced to sit through them. I found the sections on world religions to be the more interesting parts.

So to make my point clear, I think that instead of bible studies classes there should be classes taught about world religions. I am sure that even in the US, if taught correctly, would not be a violation of whatever section of the US constitution that covers the separation of church and state.

ETA: I forgot to mention that it would also help to foster understanding in students about other people's religions and beliefs, but only if it is taught correctly.

[Andronicus]

You can be educated, intelligent, and well-adjusted without knowing anything about the Bhagavad Gita. You may be intelligent and well-adjusted, but can't be well-educated without having some basic familiarity with the Bible.

[quixotecoyote]

You can be educated, intelligent, and well-adjusted without knowing anything about the Bhagavad Gita. You may be intelligent and well-adjusted, but can't be well-educated without having some basic familiarity with the Bible.

By the standards of your culture of course.

[Andronicus]

By the standards of your culture of course.

Which goes without saying. If we were on a skeptical forum in India I'd reverse the two religious works and still believe the same point.

Also, let me state I don't have anything against comparative religion, but it is an "elective". If someone claimed they didn't have any idea who Krishna was, I wouldn't automatically think they were an idiot. Any American who doesn't know who Jesus is (in at least very general terms) is someone who I would put in the same catagory as person who didn't know the Earth was round and orbits the sun.

[Paulhoff]

When I was in school, the teacher would read something out of the bible at the beginning of the school day, somewhere around the fifth grade that stop, and I was so happy.

Paul

:) :) :)

Of course some parents said that is when the children started to act badly, it of course had nothing to do with the parent's lack of discipline on their children.

[Andronicus]

When were you in 5th grade, 1963?

Abington Township School District vs. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963) was the Supreme Court decision which outlawed daily school enforced Bible reading.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abington_School_District_v._Schempp

[Paulhoff]

All I know is that they stopped reading the bible in the morning. They may of stopped before 1963 in my school.

Paul

:) :) :)

I was glad too.

[quixotecoyote]

Which goes without saying.

Not anymore it doesn't. :D



Then again, if it were up to me, no one would be forcibly educated about Jesus, Krishna, Moses, Mohammad, or any other mythological figure, including by parents when they are too young to have their filters up.

[drkitten]

Then again, if it were up to me, no one would be forcibly educated about Jesus, Krishna, Moses, Mohammad, or any other mythological figure, including by parents when they are too young to have their filters up.

That's asinine. Do you include "Raggedy Andy," "Brer Rabbit," and "Dora the Explorer" in that list of mytholgical figures, too?

Kiddy lit includes fiction. Fiction is, by definition, about made-up characters.

And education about a subject does not mean that one need be indocrinated into believing in its factual accuracy. I can tell you quite a bit about Moby Dick, but I don't believe in Captain Ahab.

[drkitten]

To be honest if you have a Bible studies/religious studies thing in a school then you would have to ensure that there is an opt-out option.

I disagree. I couldn't opt out of studying The Scarlet Letter no matter how much I loathed it. Why is the Bible the single work of fiction to which students are allowed to opt out?

[Tokenconservative]

To be honest if you have a Bible studies/religious studies thing in a school then you would have to ensure that there is an opt-out option. I went to a religious school and had to sit through some of the most boring studies of the Bible. The only positive about it is that I managed to find all of the bits in the Bible that have all the blood and gore and stuff like that.



My kids went to a Christian school and learned during Bible how to pass notes, talke without being heard by the teacher, text and use their cellphones without getting caught, eat and drink (mohitos, I believe, were prefered) without getting caught, etc.

So it has some value.

Tokie

[six7s]

...education about a subject does not mean that one need be indocrinated into believing in its factual accuracy

I agree

However...
Why is the Bible the single work of fiction to which students are allowed to opt out?

Alas, it's not

ETA: The children of powerful parents have been allowed to opt out of all too many books

The Online Books Page: BANNED BOOKS ONLINE (http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/banned-books.html)

The Savannah Morning News reported in November 1999 that a teacher at the Windsor Forest High School required seniors to obtain permission slips before they could read Hamlet, Macbeth, or King Lear. The teacher's school board had pulled the books from class reading lists, citing "adult language" and references to sex and violence.

<snip/>

An illustrated edition of "Little Red Riding Hood" was banned in two California school districts in 1989 ...The school districts cited concerns about the use of alcohol in the story.

<snip/>
However, in 1978 the Anaheim (California) Union High School District woke up to the danger of George Eliot's Silas Marner and banned it.
...
Also banned there, ... as reported in Dawn Soya's Banned Books: Literature Suppressed on Social Grounds, was Margaret Mitchell's Gone With the Wind, for its depiction of the behavior of Scarlett O'Hara and the freed slaves in the novel

<snip/>

Shakespeare's The Merchant of Venice was banned from classrooms in Midland, Michigan in 1980, due to its portrayal of the Jewish character Shylock

Wikipedia: List of banned books (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_banned_books)

Various scriptures have been banned (and sometimes burned) at several points in history. The Bible, the Qur'an, and other religious scriptures have all been subjected to censorship and have been banned in various cities and countries. In Medieval Europe, the Roman Catholic Church created a program that lasted until 1966 to deal with dissenting printed opinion; it was called the Index Librorum Prohibitorum (index of prohibited books).

<snip/>

Books deemed critical of the state or its interests are another common target for banning.

:(

Transcript of Richard Dawkins reading The God Delusion (http://antitheism.wordpress.com/2006/12/13/richard-dawkins-on-background-briefing-audio/)

I’m now going to skip to an extract from Chapter 2: The God Hypothesis.

The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction.

Jealous, and proud of it
A petty, unjust, unforgiving control freak
A vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser
A misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, philicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sado-masochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.

Those of us schooled from infancy in his ways, can become desensitised to their horror.

A naïf, blessed with the perspective of innocence, has a clearer perception.

Winston Churchill’s son, Randolph, somehow contrived to remain ignorant of Scripture until Evelyn Waugh and a brother officer, in a vain attempt to keep Churchill quiet when they were posted together during the war, bet him he couldn’t read the entire Bible in a fortnight. Unhappily, it has not had the result we hoped. He has never read any of it before, and is hideously excited, keeps reading quotations aloud, ‘I say, I bet you didn’t know this came in the Bible!’ or merely slapping his side and chortling, ‘God, isn’t God a sh*t?’

Thomas Jefferson, better read, was of a similar opinion. ‘The Christian God is a being of terrific character; cruel, vindictive, capricious and unjust.’

<snip/>

Are we not educating to double standards?

[Tokenconservative]

I disagree. I couldn't opt out of studying The Scarlet Letter no matter how much I loathed it. Why is the Bible the single work of fiction to which students are allowed to opt out?

Well, primarily because some parents are so brittle about it. The atheist parents are much afeered that their chiluns will become snake handlers or start rolling around speaking in tongues during the next Solstice Selebration, while Evangelicals are worried that a heathen teacher will not teach it "correctly," and of course Muslims and Hindus are just afraid of anything else that isn't part of their faith.

Tokie

[PAC]

The bible should be open for study in schools but not compulsory. A study of it is important because of the impact it has on our world. Literature, policits, history, etc. have been shaped by this text. I tried to read the entire text once but couldn't force myself through it. The best result of this study might come from experiencing so many of the issues that I, and many others, find to be so insane about this book. In general, the bible itself is the best argument against the "teachings" of the bible.

[Paulhoff]

"Speaking in tongues", if is so funny that most people don't really know what that means.

Paul

:) :) :)

[Mashuna]

And education about a subject does not mean that one need be indocrinated into believing in its factual accuracy. I can tell you quite a bit about Moby Dick, but I don't believe in Captain Ahab.

Ok, but can I still call you Ishmael?

[Tokenconservative]

"Speaking in tongues", if is so funny that most people don't really know what that means.

Paul

:) :) :)

Sorry, I forget that this is an internation forum.

Most Americans over the age of say, 10 or 12 know what it means.

For those under that age and non-Americans (including Canadians and others who take great umbrage at being called "non-American" because, after all, they live in America too!) among fundamentalist Christians, especially Southern Baptists and Seventh Day Adventists, there is a thing called "speaking in tongues" in which the spirit of the Lord enters you and you begin babbling in what some will tell you is a "forgotten language" from the time before the Tower of Babel, or in some Godly language never known to man.

It's fun to watch. And if add rolling to it, you really should bring some popcorn. Maybe a soda.

Tokie

[Tokenconservative]

The bible should be open for study in schools but not compulsory. A study of it is important because of the impact it has on our world. Literature, policits, history, etc. have been shaped by this text. I tried to read the entire text once but couldn't force myself through it. The best result of this study might come from experiencing so many of the issues that I, and many others, find to be so insane about this book. In general, the bible itself is the best argument against the "teachings" of the bible.


It's probably best to read it in pieces, and to have either some works handy to help you understand the language and the intent (of course, that can get bogged down in lots of politics and religion and stuff) or to take a class that will, hopefully, help you understand it.

It is archaic, after all...and you really can't even read The Scarlet Letter with any hope of truly understanding it ere you have at least a basic understanding of the NT at any rate.

Tokie

[Paulhoff]

Sorry, I forget that this is an internation forum.

Most Americans over the age of say, 10 or 12 know what it means.

For those under that age and non-Americans (including Canadians and others who take great umbrage at being called "non-American" because, after all, they live in America too!) among fundamentalist Christians, especially Southern Baptists and Seventh Day Adventists, there is a thing called "speaking in tongues" in which the spirit of the Lord enters you and you begin babbling in what some will tell you is a "forgotten language" from the time before the Tower of Babel, or in some Godly language never known to man.

It's fun to watch. And if add rolling to it, you really should bring some popcorn. Maybe a soda.

Tokie
No, true speaking in tongues meant at when a person spoke in Tongues, all people in a crowd would understand that person no matter what language they spoke, now it means BS.

Paul

:) :) :)

[Andronicus]

"When spoken by schizophrenics, glossalia is recognized as gibberish." ROBERT TODD CARROLL, THE SKEPTIC'S DICTIONARY 155 (2003).

A even better line is on Carroll's updated article:
"There is nothing in Joel, however, that prophesied that, when the last days didn't come as predicted, plan B would be to wait 1900 years and have a revival and claim that when you speak gibberish it is a sign that God loves you." (online source: http://skepdic.com/glossol.html )

[Paulhoff]

claim that when you speak gibberish it is a sign that God loves you.
It must love the hell out of Bush.

Paul

:) :) :)

[Prospero]

As much as I resented having to go to Sunday School while growing up, it's provided me a lifetime of ammo against Christians that have no idea what their holy book says. I'll teach my kids about the bible and read them some of the myths presented in it. There are far too many allusions made to the text not to give something of an education on it.

[Mercer]

I think that more time needs to be spent on the Bible than other religions in Western/Christian countries. As has been said before, it's central to cultural reference etc. On the other hand, I think comparative religion is massively important for tolerance and understanding, and that the children who would be barred from it by their parents would be the ones who needed it most.

[Wildy]

I disagree. I couldn't opt out of studying The Scarlet Letter no matter how much I loathed it. Why is the Bible the single work of fiction to which students are allowed to opt out?

I probably should have thought my statement through before I wrote it down.

Thinking about what I was going on about when I said it, in the US do they have 'electives'? Or subjects that the children get to choose? That would probably be a better idea and most likely what I was thinking of at the time.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

So to make my point clear, I think that instead of bible studies classes there should be classes taught about world religions. I am sure that even in the US, if taught correctly, would not be a violation of whatever section of the US constitution that covers the separation of church and state.

As long as you make sure you cover ALL the religions, including the beliefs of and differences between the various sects of each. And give equal time to each strand of non-religion in order that you are not seen to be promoting belief over non-belief.

Now providing we agree to ditch education in all other subjects and extend the school day to 14 hours, I reckon we should have the kids finished with that class in their early 40's.

[drkitten]

As long as you make sure you cover ALL the religions, including the beliefs of and differences between the various sects of each. And give equal time to each strand of non-religion in order that you are not seen to be promoting belief over non-belief.

That's almost a straw man. That's certainly not the standard to which other disciplines are held. In a course on "European history," for example, teachers are free to select only the most important and influential events and countries to study in detail. Any serious discussion of 19th century European history would have to deal with Napoleanic France, but I'm afraid that Luxembourg has always been something of a historical footnote. If you're going to discuss Germanic states, Prussia is quite important, but we can probably ignore Schwarzburg-Sondershausen.

Similarly, in philosophy class, Plato and Aristotle tend to get more press than Geulincx or even Bosanquet.

I have no problem suggesting that Christianity is deserving of more classroom time than John Frum-ism.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

That's almost a straw man. That's certainly not the standard to which other disciplines are held. In a course on "European history," for example, teachers are free to select only the most important and influential events and countries to study in detail. Any serious discussion of 19th century European history would have to deal with Napoleanic France, but I'm afraid that Luxembourg has always been something of a historical footnote. If you're going to discuss Germanic states, Prussia is quite important, but we can probably ignore Schwarzburg-Sondershausen.

Similarly, in philosophy class, Plato and Aristotle tend to get more press than Geulincx or even Bosanquet.

I have no problem suggesting that Christianity is deserving of more classroom time than John Frum-ism.

But there is nothing in the Constitution about not promoting one European nation over another.

Can you explain why a government funded school granting more time to Christianity than John Frum-ism should not be seen as a value judgement indicating that one is more "correct" than the other? I am pretty sure that the lawyers for those beliefs NOT granted equal time can find reasons why it should be seen as endorsement of those granted more time.

[drkitten]

But there is nothing in the Constitution about not promoting one European nation over another.

Education isn't promotion.


Can you explain why a government funded school granting more time to Christianity than John Frum-ism should not be seen as a value judgement indicating that one is more "correct" than the other?

By that line of reasoning, if I created a course entitled "Why Christianity is Wrong," I am indicating that is is "more correct" than any other. Classroom time is not an indicator of correctness.

I am pretty sure that the lawyers for those beliefs NOT granted equal time can find reasons why it should be seen as endorsement of those granted more time.

Well, lawyers can find reasons for everything, but the courts are under no obligation to respect the reasons (or to respect the lawyers, for that matter). Is there a legitimate secular purpose to spending more time on Christianity than on John Frum-ism? Of course there is; Christianity is demonstrably a more important influence on both world and national culture; a simple study of Biblical quotes in the Congressional Record vs. Frumist ones will show this. Precisely because classroom time is limited, something must (for equally secular reasons) be cut -- and the stuff to cut is the stuff that isn't important. The courts actually show schools and other professional groups a lot of deference in how they structure their own profession....

There might be arguments that something was cut unjustly; for example, if the treatment of Christianity excluded Catholicism, that's hard to justify in secular terms. It's not clear whether Taoism should make the cut; it's got a lot of believers, but not much global influence, and one could make a case either way. But the simple idea that education about something is promotion of it has actually been made in front of the courts and specifically rejected.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Education isn't promotion.

There might be arguments that something was cut unjustly; for example, if the treatment of Christianity excluded Catholicism, that's hard to justify in secular terms.

Why?

You just told me that education isn't promotion. So what is the problem?

[Note that the original comment was intended to be fairly lighthearted, but I can see problems in practice when schoolboards are deciding which religions are important enough to include. Both of omission - as some boards conclude that only Christianity is really important - and of inclusion - as some boards load the curriculum with a superficial overview of loads of different beliefs in a limited timeframe.]

[drkitten]

Why?

You just told me that education isn't promotion. So what is the problem?

The problem is that there doesn't appear to be a legitimate secular reason for excluding Catholicism. The general rule is that you can teach anything you like as long as you have a convincing secular motive for what you're teaching.



[Note that the original comment was intended to be fairly lighthearted, but I can see problems in practice when schoolboards are deciding which religions are important enough to include. Both of omission - as some boards conclude that only Christianity is really important - and of inclusion - as some boards load the curriculum with a superficial overview of loads of different beliefs in a limited timeframe.]

And, indeed, both of those are potential problems. But they're only potential problems.

If you read the text of the various SCOTUS decisions, there's a fairly common theme running through them -- the Justices practically beg for schools to teach about religion and make it very clear that education about religion is constitutionally permissible. A course focused entirely about Protestant Christianity would almost certainly be constitutionally permissible as long as it stayed away from proseltyzing.

But that's a big "as long as," and you know that the School Board would almost certainly have to demonstrate that they were, in fact, staying away from proseletyzing in court, when the inevitable challenge came. And they would have to defend -- on strictly secular and educational grounds -- their decision to focus that sharply.

This, for example, is how the arguments played out in Dover. The plaintiffs alleged that the school board was religiously motivated and had no justificable secular grounds for their decision. The school board claimed that they had valid secular grounds for wanting to teach ID as an alternative to evolutionary theory -- but failed miserably to support their claim. If you wanted to teach a course on world religions that excluded Catholicism, I'm not sure what possible secular motives you could have -- and I would have not problem finding someone to testify about the religious basis of anti-Catholicism.

[Tanstaafl]

Can you explain why a government funded school granting more time to Christianity than John Frum-ism should not be seen as a value judgement indicating that one is more "correct" than the other? I am pretty sure that the lawyers for those beliefs NOT granted equal time can find reasons why it should be seen as endorsement of those granted more time.


I think the message is that, for those in the U.S. at least, Christianity and the bible are more relevant, not more correct.

[TX50]

As long as you make sure you cover ALL the religions, including the beliefs of and differences between the various sects of each. And give equal time to each strand of non-religion in order that you are not seen to be promoting belief over non-belief.




Which is exactly how RE (Religious Education aka "Rest Easy" :) ) was
taught in my high school in Scotland in the late 1970s. The "Holy bible" was
included only as just another set of mythologies (along with the Q'uran, Hindu
scriptures, Taoist writings and such like). Religion per se really is a
fascinating subject.

ETA Well, it's "broadly" how it was taught. We acknowledged the existence
of different sects and examined the most important, but didn't go into forensic
detail on them all. No real point in that.

[drkitten]

Which is exactly how RE (Religious Education aka "Rest Easy" :) ) was taught in my high school in Scotland in the late 1970s.

Not quite, since you're not still in that class. JB's point was that you couldn't cover all religions in the world. I suspect that your class covered the "major" world religions, but left out a number of the minor ones (did you cover Rastafarianism? Voudou? John Frum-ism? Sikhism? Shinto? Raelianism? Scientology? Bah'ai?)

[Oroborus]

Aw I'd have been sad if they didnt teach norse or greek mythology in school. I always got a kick out of the stories. Teaching and attempting to convert are two differnt things lol.

[Andronicus]

I think the message is that, for those in the U.S. at least, Christianity and the bible are more relevant, not more correct.

Well put, and succinctly.

[jaywhat]

In the UK, the list of subjects taught in school includes Religious Education (RE) which used to be Religous Instruction (RI). RI is simply indoctinating the pupils in one religiion and is wrong - in my opinion.
It should be left to the religious organisations to do that, not the education system. On the other hand, RE should be a broad education in all faiths and life stances, including Humanism.
As a humanist, I am involved in the organisation that sets the RE syllabus in my area and hope to keep my eye on the fact that we who are of no faith are fully included. All life stances should be explained to tomorrow's thinking adults, who will eventually choose how they want to live their lives - not necessarily following their parents or their dominant 'culture'.

[jazzmojo]

Aw I'd have been sad if they didnt teach norse or greek mythology in school. I always got a kick out of the stories. Teaching and attempting to convert are two differnt things lol.
I agree completely. It would be tragic if all tracings of the supernatural were cleansed from the curriculum. I think "American Gods" should be required reading in High Schools. Love that book.

Every Ending Is A New Beginning.Your Lucky Number Is None.Your Lucky Colour Is Dead.Motto:Like Father, Like Son.

I am probably one of the very, very few who loved American Gods before I had even heard of The Sandman. Honest. Of course, I've now read Sandman three times. I am late, but I close quickly....I am the Deion Sanders of literary appreciation....

[six7s]

Are we not educating to double standards?

<anecdote>
Since posting that, I have been talking to a neighbours 11-year old son who has attended a local catholic school since the age of 5

Despite being a bright and eager student with 90mins of religious studies per week, a quick quiz (at home) revealed that of perhaps 20 'famous literary figures' from the OT, he only recognised the names of Adam & Eve, Samson & Delilah and Moses...

Sorta blew the 'literary value' argument to bits
</anecdote>

[Nogbad]

Certainly if one is studying European or American history the Bible is a useful tool as it was an integral part of peoples lives. A working understanding of its contents and popular interpretation of the period covered is essential.

[Soapy Sam]

Closest I came to RE in the 1960s was one English teacher who read "Pilgrim's Progress" to the class in the 15 minute registration period at the start of the day. I quite enjoyed it.
The notio of teaching the basics of all major religions seems valid enough, especially if there is an attempt to root them in biology / psychology, but I see no need to go into depth on this. Better if RE is included in a course on rational thinking.