LA Times column: Why the Bible Belongs in America's Public Schools

[brooklynite]

Teaching the Bible in public school raises ticklish problems. Because our public schools must not be used for preaching religion, they must teach the Bible purely as literature. And they must teach it tactfully, in light of the radically different viewpoints of various religious (and irreligious) communities in the United States.

But without knowing the Bible, you can't begin to understand English literature or American history. And a recently published survey finds that American teenagers don't know the Bible well enough. (The study was commissioned by a group called the Bible Literacy Project, conducted by Gallup and funded by the John Templeton Foundation.)

...snip...

Let's be clear: If the Bible is taught strictly as literature, it's sheer nonsense to claim that it is disallowed in public school. Where on Earth could people have got hold of that idea? (Hmmm.) According to Michael Johnson, attorney with the Alliance Defense Fund (which promotes Bible-as-literature courses, among other things), the ACLU routinely tries to discourage school districts from adopting such courses, by implying that they are unconstitutional — even when the curriculum has been painstakingly tweaked to be lawsuit-proof.

...snip...
Americans should demand that their children be taught what their cultural heritage (their literature, their history) is all about.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-gelernter27may27,0,6696657,print.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions
- - -
Golly, I completed AP English, and got Bachelors and Masters Degrees without ever making it all the way through Genesis.

Now, if schools want to implement this proposal, its seems appropriate that: 1) the Biblical literature be defined as mythology (wonder how many RW'er would support that?) and 2) be taught in conjunction with other creation myths (Greek / Roman / Norse) for proper understanding.

[Parche]

1. bible

How is American History tied to the bible, the bible is just
a fantasy book that most religious people misuse

[Journeyman]

13. Until the Bible was set in type and printed for mass distribution. . .

people were at the mercy of the priests for their understanding of the book and, by extension, their personal relationship with God. The printing press -- invented just half a century before the Reformation -- helped free men's minds by making information and intellectual discourse more readily available. The conjunction of these two inventions -- the printing press and the Reformation -- established two radical and revolutionary ideas in the history of human thought: that man could have a personal relationship with God, unrestrained by the ulterior motives of a priesthood; and building on that idea, that if men could determine their own relationship with God, they could govern themselves.

This is of course a simplistic take on a complicated interplay of history and the development of human thought. Hopefully, you'll begin to see part of that interplay and detect how it influenced the development of the American experiment.

[Norquist Nemesis]

2. Gerlenter apparently wrote and opinion piece to get rid of

public schools a while back, too. (googled his name) Looks like more propaganda for the "conservative movement" to me.

[One_Life_To_Give]

3. Not just the creation myths

What we call "Western" society. Our history, literature, culture etc. Are derived for all of these and we should concider the added influence of Celtic, Islam, Buddhism, Shintu (sp)etc.

[SteppingRazor]

4. I actually like Brooklynite's idea

I'd have no problem with a literature class discussing the creation myth in general and comparing the similarities between judeo-christian, norse, greco-roman, native american, etc., etc. creation myths. That actually sounds pretty interesting.

But don't try to just stick Genesis in the classroom saying it's literature. That's the same thing as trying to give a fetus legal rights. It's just the first step in the game.

[The Witch]

5. I agree w/this approach

Not that it's necessary for life but that it enriches your understanding of so much. To understand loads of things in the world you have to have some knowledge of biblical stories.

To understand the concept of monotheism.
To get it when someone is called Methusaleth, a Samson, a Jezebel, to understand why Plath's poem is Lady Lazarus.
To compare various flood stories and create theories of what may have happened for real.
To understand why blue laws used to be in effect.
To understand the motivations behind the Dark Ages, the Restoration.
To see how translation changes material and how time can do the same.
To understand references to any number of Biblical characters in many, many other works.
To appreciate art and understand what artist #1 meant when he portrayed Jesus in 1 way vs. another artist in another way.

You have to (meaning "it's a good idea to," not "you must") study the Bible just as you have to read Hamlet so you're familiar with shakespearean references. It gives you a deeper understanding of other cultural works.

Done ranting.

[noiretextatique]

9. i have no problem with studying the bible as literature

i agree with you. it helps to have some understanding of a book that continues to have such significance in this world. i always thought it would be a great idea to teach kids about all the major religions, and to teach them to think critically about all of them. we need more critical thinking and less indoctrination.

[CrispyQ]

6. Huh? If only I could understand what he's saying!

These people should worry less about teaching the Bible as literature & focus on critical thinking!

Your points are right on, brooklynite! Offer Bible Lit under the mythology section & see what the zealots take on that is!

[NAO]

7. Children MUST be warned by Bible stories - danger of mocking preachers

The Bible needs to be in public schools if for no other reason than to warn children about the vindictive, cruel, murderous nature of the God of the Bible, and what could happen to them if they make fun of one of God's preachers.

Let this Bible Story serve as a warning to children who would make fun of TV preachers:

Kings 2:23-24 (King James Version)

And he (Elijah) went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head.

And he (Elijah) turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them (the little children) in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them.

So kids, be warned. God is the same yesterday, today, and forever. He will not hesitate to call forth wild animals to rip you up and tear you into little pieces. I did NOT make this up. It is in the Bible, which as we all know is the ABSOLUTELY INFALLIBLE Word of God.

Does anyone really believe that God would call forth wild beasts to tear up children for playing and making fun of an old guy? If they are going to maintain that the Bible is the Inspired Word of God, they MUST believe this. If they are willing to admit that there are some mistakes, distortions or untrue things in the Bible, I'd be glad to point out hundreds of others.

[Dora]

8. Only at college level

I would have signed up in a minute if a Bible as Lit course had been offered when I was doing my undergraduate, but no such luck.

As it was, my course on Milton filled in some gaps.

I say this because my parents never took me to church, never baptized or christened me, never sent me to bible school, etc.

The irony is that my husband was raised Catholic, was confirmed, yada yada... and he says that I know more about the bible than he does. All he learned was "thou shalt not question."

Keep the bible out of K-12. Always and without exception.

[brooklynite]

11. I had a mandatory theology class in my private HS

1/3 comparative religion (again, largely mythology stories); 1/3 Christianity (an absolutely incomprehensible seminar on, apparently, how to deal with the Protestant God, and 1/3 discuss in which we were apparently talk out loud about what religion meant to us. A waste of 2-3 perfectly good hours a week I could have spent in the Library.

I was also required (as a boarding student) to go to a chapel program 4 nights a week. As I recall, I was one of only two kids who sat non-responsibly through the entire program each night.

[The Icon Painter]

14. Wow!

Do you have any idea how lucky you were? You were permitted to grown up free of the guilt and confusion organized religion fosters on the young and simple. I envy you with all my heart.

[On the Road]

10. The Bible Can be Taught Without Regard to Its Accuracy

It's done in colleges all the time. Even seminaries do this (in fact, many teach extreme skepticism of the Bible's historical accuracy). Whether in practice individual schools will select teachers who will be neutral is another matter.

I think it's too bad students today learn almost nothing about the Bible. It's difficult to understand Western history, culture, or literature without an appreciation or understanding of the Bible. I am an atheist ex-Christian, but I would love for my daughter to take a high school course in the Bible.

[tjwash]

12. I'm all for teaching the bible in public schools.

Add it in to the curriculum, with the following classes requiring a passing grade of at least a "C" before they are admitted to the class to study it:

(1) Christian History. Start with the dark ages, then go to the crusades, and round it out with the Salem Mass. and the Spanish inquisition.

(2) Social / Theocratic studies. What Northern Ireland is all about, as well as the Middle East theocracies. Then have a round table on what being a non-Christian in Nazi Germany was like.

(3) Contemporary history / 20th and 21st century Christian leaders. Philosophies of such noted dignitaries such as Jerry Falwell, Oral Roberts, Jim and Tammy Baker, Pat Robertson, and Jimmy Swaggert. Round out the class by teaching the philosophies of David Koresh and Randy Weaver.

[Igel]

16. That's not "bible", that's the faults with Christianity at various

points of its development. It would be saying you're covering the Qur'an as literature by pointing out the abuses of shari'a over the ages, and genital mutilation of women in Somalia.

They're entirely different things.

[cap]

15. bad idea in the public schools

a fundamentalist teacher will use it as an excuse to preach. Not objective.

[MichiganVote]

17. Bible in public schools=one more way people will complain

about schools, how its taught, by whom, at what time and on and on and on. No. No. No.No bible teaching in the schools.

[Technowitch]

18. I have to ask the snarky question: Which version?

There are so many to choose from:

New International
New American Standard
Original King James
New King James
Revised Standard
New Revised Standard
The Living Bible
New Century
The Interlinear Bible
Young's Literal Translation
(the list goes on and on)

Or how about the original Greek?

Just sayin'.

[Journeyman]

19. Why, the "one true" Bible, of course . . .

I'm sure it will be easy to get everyone to agree on it.

[Igel]

20. My Dostoevsky prof was quite correct that unless you knew

the NT forwards and backwards, and what Orthodox Christianity routinely taught about it c. 1850, reading Dostoevsky was either a waste of time or an opportunity for a self-aggrandizing flight of fancy. Knowing Catholic beliefs or evangelical Christian beliefs wouldn't work. But it was necessary to know the NT text itself, because often a character can utter a single word that one of dear Fedya's readers would have caught as an obvious allusion, and which Fedya would have known would be understood as such. For that, the NT and Orthodoxy can be respectfully taught as something that people believed, with all due cultural sensitivity, and without preaching.

The Bible, or, more accurately, the text itself and what it was understood to mean, is less important for a fair amount of 19th century English literature than it is for Russian lit, but the allusions are still there, in spades. It's rather less important for 19th century French literature.

I've known people that sharply disagreed with the idea of teaching Greco-Roman mythology in public schools and colleges. Or, if it was taught, that no attempt be made to understand what people actually understood the tales to mean, and explicitly have it condemned as wrong. They confused saying what a text is understood to say with preaching it to be true. These people were foolish and bigoted.

Fortunately, they didn't get their way. It's possible to learn and understand the Greco-Roman beliefs as such, without studying !Kung or Quechua mythology, two things that may merit attention in their own right (but that's a different discussion); and it's important to know what the myths said, and were interpreted to mean, in the 18th century, if we wanted to understand much Classical literature. Nobody converted to the cult of Zeus, nor took up augury. Nor were the teachers condescending and insulting to the traditions.

[MasonJar]

21. Actually in most senior English literature books there is a one or

two page discussion of the Bible as literature because of King James version being the language of Shakespeare. This is not in any way a religious instruction. I know because I teach seniors English.