Pharyngula

First Bible Land USA, now this. I gotta get packing and get the hell out of this state.

Posted by: Stan | May 19, 2008 9:19 PM

A literature course that begins with the premise that Shakespeare is the greatest English-language writer is not unbiased, either. Yet there they are.

Posted by: Grumpy | May 19, 2008 9:29 PM

Summer classes start for me this week. One of the classes I'm teaching is about narrative, and one of the assignments--to illustrate the relationship between narrative structure and meaning--is to take the Abraham and Isaac sacrifice story and reorganize the units and discuss how this change in the structure changes the meaning of the story. Pretty basic.

I could also, working in narrative, see taking a look at Kazantzakis's "Last Temptation," Lloyd Weber's "Superstar," and the film "Jesus of Montreal" to discuss different issues of characterization and stuff.

The stories are deeply embedded. The ways those narratives are embedded, used, and transformed are interesting topics for study. But, doing so treats these stories as social phenomena and not as reflections of absolute truth, and that's simply not what analysis is supposed to be...I guess.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | May 19, 2008 9:30 PM

I'll grant that a lot of art and literature cannot really be understood without understanding the biblical references, but "greatest book in history?"

Hell, The Da Vinci Code was more coherent.

Posted by: MIkeG | May 19, 2008 9:32 PM

"Our government school teachers cannot constitutionally preach the Bible, but they can teach the Bible," Herron said."

Only when taught in conjuction with other religious texts in a comparative religion course. Otherwise, it violates the Establishment clause by having government schools teach the text of a single religion within the walls of the classroom. In the sense that these religiots mean it, this will be pure, bible-only teaching, and I'd love to see where the "educational" standards will fall on this class and its contents. Why is it that freedom of religion and the Establishment clause are seemingly beyind these people's comprehension?

I just hope that during the first of these so-called classes, some free-thinking kid will get up and walk out. Maybe that'll send it right back to the state Supreme Court, where we have judges to consider and hopefully counter the stupid things our legislators push down our throats.

Posted by: brokenSoldier | May 19, 2008 9:37 PM

If they teach what is actually in the bible, instead of the crap they think is in there, we will be well on our way to a completely secular nation in a generation or two. I am all for it. Unless, of course, you think teachers might find some way to sneak in their own sectarian intrepretations.

Posted by: Tex | May 19, 2008 9:40 PM

While I agree that the subjects in the Bible have been strongly referenced throughout Western culture, the "highest and best values" part is sort of a giveaway to the lack of objectivity this course seems to be promoting.

Then again, anyone actually trying to teach the Bible objectively as a work of literature that has influenced people for better or for worse would probably be fired for heresy.

Posted by: Patches | May 19, 2008 9:42 PM

I'm all for it provided they teach the Principia Discordia and Book of the Subgenius alongside.

The Bible has better monsters anyway.

Posted by: Mike | May 19, 2008 9:45 PM

If it's not illegal to teach a bible studies class in high school, why are we passing a law about it?

If things aren't broken, why are these politicians so intent as hell on fixing them?

Posted by: Reginald | May 19, 2008 9:51 PM

Believe me, I'm a lake shore liberal from Chicago but I find this teaching of the bible an interesting premise. Actually the bible is some pretty good literature. Perhaps if people looked at it from that perspective they'd be more inclined to give up the ridiculous, uninfallible word of god crap and think about it differently. I know, it's naive of me to think this would actually happen, but you never know...

I just realized the word "uninfallible" may be a double negative. Is the word "infallible"?

Posted by: Deborah | May 19, 2008 9:52 PM

MikeG (#7):

I'll grant that a lot of art and literature cannot really be understood without understanding the biblical references, but "greatest book in history?"

A stupefyingly large amount of art and literature can't be understood without Greco-Roman mythology, either. Just look at the biggest Dead White Male of 'em all: For his voyages into "serious literature", did Shakespeare turn to Biblical themes? No, he penned poems called The Rape of Lucrece (Roman legend) and Venus and Adonis (Greek myth, filtered through Roman authors). Dante, too, filled his Comedy with classical references, starting with his guide being fricking Virgil. And when they did take material from Christianity, it didn't all come from the Bible (inasmuch as the definite article can even be applied to a mishmash of texts which have been shuffled, copied, reshuffled and badly translated by generations of ideologically driven, self-appointed elites).

For that matter, both these heavyweights drew upon patriotic versions of their homelands' histories: Dante consigned so many politicians into his Inferno that it has been called a "Florentine gazette", and as for Shakespeare, almost all of his historical plays rest on retellings of English history distorted by Tudor prejudices and the vagaries of transmission. What's more, these aren't even time periods which your average American history class covers. I know that my own schoolbooks left the British Isles behind for most of that epoch, focusing on Henry the Navigator while ignoring the Henry of Agincourt. (The Wars of what Roses?)

Try to understand any "great art" with just the lessons from Bible study and you will be, as scholars like to say, royally fucked.

Lessons which will not be in the Tennessee Bible curriculum:

1. The absence of historical evidence for Abraham, Isaac or any of the other patriarchs.

2. The absence of historical evidence for the Exodus.

3. The absence of historical evidence for Joshua's conquest of Canaan.

4. The extreme vagueness of any evidence invoked to support the power of the Davidic dynasty and the breadth of Solomon's empire.

5. The laughable unreliability of documentary "evidence" — Josephus, Tacitus, etc. — for Jesus.

6. The existence of apocryphal gospels.

7. Contradictions in the gospel accounts.

8. Blatant instances of textual corruption.

9. The fact that the gospels were written decades after the events they purport to describe, with the only surviving manuscript copies dating from decades after that.

10. The use of the Bible to justify slavery.

We could go on.

Posted by: Blake Stacey | May 19, 2008 9:58 PM

"Our government school teachers cannot constitutionally preach the Bible, but they can teach the Bible," Herron said.

Not preach? O rly?

"I want students to study the greatest and most popular book in history. I want young people to understand how the Bible has enormously impacted literature, art, music, culture, history and politics. A Bible course will help students understand our culture and our highest and best values."

(Emphases mine.)

Posted by: Etha Williams | May 19, 2008 10:00 PM

I say let em teach the bible, but with these conditions:

1) The class must not be mandatory.

2) No fundamentalist bullshit. Students must be taught to interpret the book from a more professional, objective point of view.

3) The less glamorous parts of the Bible are not to be shied away from. By this I mean all of the misogynistic, violent, nasty verses, chapters, and books.

Posted by: Ryan | May 19, 2008 10:04 PM

@ #19 Debrah
It's infallible and fallible. I actually didn't even noticed until you mentioned it.:P

I think the Bible makes for a bad starting place in terms of Western literature. Not because it wasn't influential, but because it's very complex and difficult reading. I wouldn't recommend teaching Pynchon in public schools either.

Posted by: Jams | May 19, 2008 10:08 PM

I can easily imagine teaching the Bible as one religious text among many, in a comparative religion class. That would pass constitutional muster. But teaching the Bible alone? I can't see it.

I'll certainly be curious to find out who they choose to teach it, and how they choose to teach it.

If it's all glowing "Oh, the Bible, the Holy, Holy Bible!" that'll be clear Christian proselytizing, even if it is an elective course.

But then if it's NOT taught like that, if the teacher is a history teacher, for instance, and refuses to teach it as stealth preaching, and instead deliberately takes an objective and sometimes critical look at it, the legislators might find they've created an atheist factory. Parents will shriek.

In the same way the ID movement showed its clear Christian roots in the statements of its supporters, the words of this delightful bonehead, Sen. Roy Herron, seem to be laying grounds for a lawsuit showing that Christian proselytizing was the intent all along.

And by the way, WTF? Bible courses can be taught in churches, which have zero constitutional problems and ARE MORE NUMEROUS THAN SCHOOLS.

I predict the usual expensive lawsuits for the school districts who get stuck in the middle of this nitwittery.

...

Deborah #19: Actually the bible is some pretty good literature.

Um ... what? Seriously?

Posted by: Hank Fox | May 19, 2008 10:10 PM

Are they going to include the apocryphal books, like the four Maccabees? Bel and the Dragon? or the gospel of Thomas, or the gospel of Mary?
Dear Ghu, if you're going to have a bible class, include the whole thing, not just the parts that got approved five hundred years ago.
And make sure it's a good translation, too, not one of those evangelical lite versions. (I favor RSV.)

Posted by: P J Evans | May 19, 2008 10:20 PM

It's the same wedge strategy that the ID people are using. Insert the narrow edge of inoffensive sounding material in the curriculum and "tap it in" a little further as we get used to it. Next comes the Bible as the ultimate source of morality and the inspiration of the Founding Fathers, then the Bible as history and the word of God. They won't stop until the schools are an extension of the church.

Posted by: charley | May 19, 2008 10:23 PM

Bill:
"This bill authorizes the state board of education to approve a curriculum for an elective state-funded course of a nonsectarian, nonreligious academic study of the Bible. Any LEA that elects to offer the Bible course and utilize an approved textbook would be required to do so in a manner that is consistent with the state and federal constitutions. This bill prohibits the use of any religious test or association when assigning teachers for Bible courses pursuant to this bill."

They should have approved the nonsectarian, nonreligious study of religions. If they are going to teach the Bible, they should teach all the other idiotic "holy" books people can't stop obsessing over. The Bible should not be accorded special status in a pluralistic society.

There's a popular textbook (already approved in Alabama): The Bible and Its Influence

Some people don't like it:

"The Bible and Its Influence" is nothing more than a Trojan horse--a gift to placate those who insist on having a biblical worldview taught, but one that will steadily erode any vestige of confidence in the Bible within the next generation. It is no wonder that groups such as People for the American Way and the American Civil Liberties Union applaud this new textbook--it may well accomplish what they have been trying to do all along.

Posted by: CalGeorge | May 19, 2008 10:27 PM

Don't we have Literature classes in HS anymore to teach, well, Literature? Of course that course should cover some biblical literature (I prefer Job and the Song of Solomon myself), throw in some Homer, some Virgil, I guess we can't get in the Satyricon but we should get in the Golden Ass, then onto Roland, Grendel, Arthur and other medieval monsters, finally getting towards a touch of Shakespeare and the birth of the (real) English language.

That should fill up four years of Literature, with each subsection getting a week or two (once you fill in my innumerable ellipses).

Then how about a second course that teaches writing and modern literature? Another four years there. Proper perspective is everything.

That fills in half the day - with the rest being science and math. We could require a comprehensive history exam at the end --- all studying done on your own, pass/fail.

I'm all for it -- some old-school, hard-ass liberal arts education for the masses! Everyone ready for a Ivy league education (ye old-fashioned kind)!

Posted by: frog | May 19, 2008 10:33 PM

Grumpy said:

A literature course that begins with the premise that Shakespeare is the greatest English-language writer is not unbiased, either. Yet there they are.

Posted by: H.H. | May 19, 2008 10:47 PM

Herron's words reek of the Christianization of public education. Preach/teach - in his view, there's no difference, which means his drawing a meaningful distinction between the two for the purpose of promoting this bill is nothing short of a lie.

Posted by: Kseniya | May 19, 2008 10:53 PM

Obviously this won't actually happen, it's too damaging to their cause, but an elective course on Biblical Scholarship, or the Historical case for the Old Testament would be great.

Introduce students to the Documentary Hypotheses, both the Willhousen and Friedman models, compare the stories of Noah to Gilgamesh, and Daniels interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar's to that of Hesiod's Works and Days - it would be quite an illuminating course, discussing how ancient philosophy incorporated itself in to a small nomadic religion and grew tremendously to effect so much of our western culture.

Like I said though, it'll never happen. To accept the JEPD analysis is to weaken the faith of the 'True' believers.

Posted by: Tucker | May 19, 2008 10:54 PM

People in these parts are apparently Protestant atheists since they mostly believe in the notion that the Bible can be made sense of by itself, scriptura sola. The Bible that informs much of Western literature is not a bunch of assorted texts teased out of the traditional Bible by the higher criticism but the integral Bible interpreted by Christian tradition--or traditions. By the same token, the Bible of the Jews is likewise more than a bunch of letters--one reads "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" in the text but that isn't Jewish law as defined by the Talmud.

My two cents: the trouble with teaching the Bible in high school is that the only Bible that is intelligible is somebody's Bible. At the college level, you might be able to explain that reading a book is more complicated than you think--though that fact escapes most of the contributers to these threads--but there isn't much chance of that when you're talking to 16-year olds. And, of course, the promoters of Bible education in the Tennessee just want to evangelize the kids and have no interest in the fine points of hermeneutics.

Posted by: Jim Harrison | May 19, 2008 10:59 PM

Shouldn't it be, oh, I don't know, maybe TEACHERS who decide what to teach in schools? And for the sake of continuity and cohesion, sometimes there are even groups of teachers who come up with statewide curricula to follow, and most all of the people involved are, you know, teachers. But I guess that's crazy talk.

Posted by: Carlie | May 19, 2008 11:04 PM

"I want students to study the greatest and most popular book in history."

Well, best selling or most read does not equal popular. Give the kids a choice between The Bible, any of the works by Shakespeare or Arthur C Clarke, or a Playboy magazine and see which one is popular ;)

As for "Greatest ... book"... I have read The Bible (not 100% by choice), and it is far from great. I mean:
* The plot is disjointed
* Some main characters are well developed whilst other major players are barely defined
* It retells the same events in differing (and often contradictory) ways
* It offers information and answers regarding various sciences without evidence (or as above retells such things in different and contradictory ways)
* It is too damned preachy

And worst of all:
* It is usually printed on a type of paper that makes it useless for wiping when you run out of toilet paper!

Back ontopic; as an Aussie all the religions had scripture classes at school. Each group went off to their little rooms where nuns, etc came and preached and taught us various things. As long as ALL religions are allowed equal time this is OK, but this would not be allowed under the US Constitution (as I understand it). So if it was a class with all involved, then any and all religions must be covered; including Christianity, Catholicism, Scientology, the FSM, and the Church of Jediism...

As for myself in scripture: I was usually kicked out within the first 10 minutes of class, and Mum ended up forcing the school to pull me out of the class after being slapped by the nun (well, slapped the second time).

As for what I slapped for: I dared to argue with the Nun about how lightning and thunder was formed. One side was arguing for ionization of the atmosphere, electric charge build-up and release and sonic booms from said release. The Nun was arguing that because it rained the sky was slippery the clouds slid around, thunder was them banging together and lightning was the spark produced when they hit (same as when two bit of metal or two rocks hit). It was about then I gave up on religion, mainly because I didn't like having them spread lies to the other kids.

Posted by: IAmMarauder | May 19, 2008 11:07 PM

Give the kids a choice between The Bible, any of the works by Shakespeare or Arthur C Clarke, or a Playboy magazine and see which one is popular

well, HALF the teenage kids, maybe.

Posted by: Ichthyic | May 19, 2008 11:13 PM

After all, several of them are convinced that Christians are a persecuted minority in the USA, which requires obliviousness on a wide array of other topics;

To believe that you have to be unable to read and count. Which for fundies isn't hard to imagine. 78% of the US population self identifies themselves as Xian. The rest are fragmented into other religions and none.

There isn't even a category in the polls for Pagans because there are so few left after 2,000 years of Xian persecution.

Posted by: raven | May 19, 2008 11:17 PM

When you think about it, for the people advocating this bill, it IS the greatest book they've ever read. It's the only book they've ever read.

Posted by: Dennis N | May 19, 2008 11:26 PM

I'm all for teaching the Bible in school. As long as it is "warts and all".

Posted by: Sleestak | May 19, 2008 11:46 PM

Their reactions will expose their true intentions, guaranteed

I don't disagree, Dennis but... THIS doesn't? :-D

A Bible course will help students understand our culture and our highest and best values."

Posted by: Kseniya | May 19, 2008 11:52 PM

I have to say I agree, but what it mostly says to me is, "I have bankrupt morals and honestly think these are our highest and best values". I can envision their rejection of teaching the Koran coming down on the side of "will of the people" or any number of arguments that can be directly turned back on the Bible. I think the latter would just be so fun.

Posted by: Dennis N | May 19, 2008 11:59 PM

Texas is already teaching the Bible in High School. Pilot Point, TX was the first to offer it. In Amarillo, the headlines on the front page a few days back was about a man who was going from county to county to have a monument with the ten commandments and comments about Christianity from famous historical people also on the monument so that the monument is a memorial. Dallam County, TX now has such a monument.

Sigh, New Mexico is so close yet so far away.

Posted by: mathemaniac | May 19, 2008 11:59 PM

Jeez, I don't remember where, but I read today someone's friend wants to go to an NFL game with a sign that just says "Ezekiel 23:20"

Posted by: Dennis N | May 20, 2008 12:04 AM

Very simple, one of two things will happen. Either they will run the class as captive audience prozelytization, in which case the ACLU will shut it down. Or they will teach it as an actual, historical, literary analysis class... in which case the fundagelicals will shut it down.

Posted by: Jared Lessl | May 20, 2008 12:06 AM

Actually the bible is some pretty good literature.

Go ahead and read the Old Testament (any translation). And then read The Iliad (any translation). Both of them are roughly the same age (written and compiled in the first millennium BC), both primarily recount Iron Age memories of Bronze Age wars. Both deal with the relationship between the human and the divine, between fate and free will. Both were foundational myths for national religions. They are very similar in those respects.

But which one is superior in terms of literature? Which has fully rounded characters? Which has a well-developed, extended plot? In terms of pure poetry, The Song of Solomon is pretty good, although uncharacteristic of the rest of the Bible. Compare it to the "The Shield of Haephestus" from the Iliad. Who wins?

People who claim the Bible is great literature are generally unfamiliar with just how great ancient literature can be. (And when you're through with Homer, dig into the playwrights -- The Oresteia trilogy is especially good.)

Another suggestion, again roughly contemporaneous with the Old Testament: Chuang-Tzu. It's very far from the nebulous vapidity of Tao te Ching or the dry authoritarianism of Confucius. The Chuang Tzu is probably the funniest religious text you'll ever read. Seriously. It opens with a joke.

Posted by: HP | May 20, 2008 12:44 AM

Any way the school board spins this it is bad for religion in general and the Xians specifically.

In the unlikely case that it is a taught as a strictly secular, non-religious, comparison of various religions from a sociological and historic perspective it won't be good for religion. The comparison implicitly posits, because there are true believers in each, that religions are, at some level, comparable and interchangeable. All have internally compelling stories and universal themes that hint at a perfectly workable secular value system and social contract.

If the school board or teacher attempt to only go into depth with their chosen religion and just go through the motions of evenhanded comparison it would be less good for us but don't lose faith. Anyone forced to actually study the Bible is bound to draw the conclusion that the Xian God is an angry, arbitrary, immature child prone to temper tantrums and lavish excess.

It also doesn't hurt that this conclusion is likely to be drawn while being forced to read the book. Few grade school students are inclined to actually like the book they are forced to read. Reading assignments have historically killed any latent love of literature in our youth.

There is also the latent desire of kids to tweak the nose of those in power. If the teacher is highly evangelical with their beliefs many of the kids will feel obliged to take the side of any other religion. A tweaking the teacher will be forced to endure if they don't want to get a nastygram from the local ACLU office.

Look for the Xian teachers to flock to the comparative religion classes the first term sure that they have a captive audience to impose their religion on. Look for the same teachers to decline teaching that class a few terms later after they have had to endure the pain of acting neutral in the face of a bunch of brats pulling their strings.

There is very little positive about this from a evangelical Xian perspective.

Posted by: Art | May 20, 2008 12:57 AM

Slaughter: GOD HATES FIGS. Phelps got it wrong.

Posted by: wrpd | May 20, 2008 1:05 AM

Just followed some of James' links.

So, Herron is a preacher?? Amazon says so - and describes his book as a "gentle yet powerful call for all Christians to be politically involved." Apparently, he's more liberal than most who introduce this stuff, but obviously (to me) this bill is about promoting Christianity, not "cultural literacy"...

Even if the curriculum is "non-sectarian," I wonder how long it will be before teachers start demanding academic freedom... to teach controversies...

Just another Trojan Horse, IMHO.

Posted by: Lynn | May 20, 2008 1:34 AM

Oh good grief. Being a state employee in TN, these people are responsible for my salary. Sigh.

Posted by: Theron | May 20, 2008 1:58 AM

Has anyone asked ...
Which VERSION of the "Bible"?
Does this include the Apocrypha or not?
Do the students get glossaries of mistranslations and discrepancies, etc.
Does the book of Moron Mormon count?
Und so weiter.

Posted by: G. Tingey | May 20, 2008 4:13 AM

I also want students to study the Bible, in depth, with comparisons to other ancient mythologies. The more people read the darn thing the fewer will believe it.

Posted by: Stephen Wells | May 20, 2008 5:15 AM