…and this is a 
Lying for Texas and Jesus
Category: Politics • Religion
Posted on: September 3, 2008 2:10 PM, by PZ Myers
Texas now has a law that requires all public schools to offer an elective course in the Christian bible, thanks to a bill authored by Warren Chisum, who will for all eternity be remembered as the "Bible-thumping dwarf from Pampa," a phrase by Molly Ivins. This is a tricky one; I'm not opposed to teaching the bible as an example of literature, since it is, and is a rather widely used source in addition, but there's more here than a Texas hick acquiring a sudden and previously unexhibited appreciation for literature. He may have to be remembered for something else — a palpable knack for dimwitted irony.
You see, it has to be the Christian bible, not one of them upstarts like the Bhagavad Gita or the Torah or the Quran or the Book of Mormon, 'cause none of those have historical or literary value. Really. He said that.
And Chisum said the legislature specifically addressed the Bible, not the Quran or any other religious writing, because "the Bible as a text ... has historical and literary value."
"It can't go off into other religious philosophies because then it would be teaching religion, when the course is meant to teach literature," he said.
I am amused. So you must teach the bible because it's literary, but if you teach any of those other books, why, you're just trying to sneak religion into the classroom.
Politics
Comments
Posted by: Jared | September 3, 2008 2:27 PM
The Quran and Torah have more literary value than any translation of the Christian texts. Either teach them all as part of comparative religion or teach none of them...
Such irony...
Kind of like not having gas for a generator because the gas stations have no power to pump fuel; or like lines for fuel at a fuel station were blocking the road, so they closed down the fuel station.
Posted by: Ranson | September 3, 2008 2:27 PM
*headdesk*
*headdesk*
*headdesk*
*headdesk*
At least that idiotic statement about the value of the text opens the law up to legal challenges to either strike it or make it inclusive.
Posted by: Maynard | September 3, 2008 2:29 PM
Come to Austin. It really isn't as bad here as the rest of the state (except when the legislature is in session). It's like a liberal oasis surrounded by conservative desolation.
Posted by: Alex | September 3, 2008 2:30 PM
OMFNEG
My brain just fell out.
Posted by: Miles | September 3, 2008 2:31 PM
Actually years ago I read the Torah and first books of the OT (KJV) side by side out of curiosity. Now that was educational. Probably the most interesting semantic I recall now was the use of the word servant (KJV) instead of slave (Torah).
Posted by: Bigg | September 3, 2008 2:32 PM
Just for fun, I would like to see how this guy would do on a bible quiz. I'm willing to bet he hasn't even read the thing all the way through.
Posted by: Noadi | September 3, 2008 2:32 PM
What really pisses me off is that they've said that all schools must offer the course whether they want to or not. I'm sure they also expect these same schools to foot their own legal bills as well.
Posted by: Steve_C | September 3, 2008 2:35 PM
HA. I would send my kid to that class for no other reason to drive the teacher nutso. Keep em honest. But to waste a whole semester in it, when he could be taking art or english lit or biology? nevermind.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | September 3, 2008 2:35 PM
Dude's got a beam in his eye.
Posted by: Inoculated Mind | September 3, 2008 2:36 PM
God bless the blatant stupidity of your followers...
This looks like a fairly easy establishment clause violation. I bet the ACLU is already sharpening its pencils.
Posted by: Darth Wader | September 3, 2008 2:36 PM
Austin does rock. I used to live there but I'm stuck in Temple for the time being.
In Bell county you can't throw a rock without breaking a stained glass window.
Posted by: ThePetey | September 3, 2008 2:38 PM
@Maynard, #3
Houston isn't so bad either, the religious whack-jobs tend to keep to themselves, mostly. Except for a co-worker who tried to convince me that there is science proof the moon is only 5,000 years old (something about dust) after he saw a book on buddhism on my desk. I was very close to lodging a complaint - but he shut up in time.
though - I do admit Austin is WAY cooler than Houston.
Posted by: Tom | September 3, 2008 2:38 PM
Preaching to the choir here, I reckon, but the Bhagavad Gita not only has literary and historical merit in its own right, but was also an influence on Emerson, Thoreau, T.S. Eliot, and Martin Luther King Jr, and was famously on the mind of Robert Oppenheimer on the occasion of the first successful nuclear explosion ("I am become death, the destroyer of worlds"). So you could argue it has a legitimate connection even to Western literature and history.
Posted by: thepetey | September 3, 2008 2:40 PM
here's a question...
if god is so great and powerful and perfect
why does he have completely CRAPTACULAR PR representation????
Posted by: Malaclypse | September 3, 2008 2:41 PM
For what it is worth, Mark Twain agreed with him on the literary value of the Book of Mormon: http://www.truthandgrace.com/twainbom.htm
Posted by: Sarcastro | September 3, 2008 2:41 PM
There are 1,300 references to the Bible in the works of Shakespeare alone.
So are the kids are going to study Tyndale's Bible, the Geneva Bible or the Bishop's Bible? Because the KJV wasn't published until after Shakespeare had retired.
Posted by: Eric | September 3, 2008 2:43 PM
Well at least they're finally admitting that the Bible is fiction.
Posted by: Timothy Wood | September 3, 2008 2:43 PM
It could be a good things. I say let 'em teach it. If retards actually READ THE THING they might realize how crappy a book it is.
Posted by: skyotter | September 3, 2008 2:44 PM
it would be nice to use Biblical allusions like "on the road to Damascus" without getting blank looks*, but somehow i doubt that's the actual intent here
literature is open to contextual, historical, authorial, and editorial criticism. again, somehow i doubt they meant to bring Higher Criticism into the classroom
Posted by: Qwerty | September 3, 2008 2:45 PM
Which Bible? There are variations of the Bible due to different translations or different interpretations. The King James Bible is the one most used by Protestant religions. (It was authorized by James I of England who was notorious for his homosexuality.) The Douay Bible was the first English translation of the Bible acceptable to Cathlolics. Just Google "Bible versions" and you'll see that there is a great variety of the Bible and its translations.
One wonders which version they'll use in this class.
Posted by: Prof MTH | September 3, 2008 2:46 PM
This could backfire in our favor. After all, the Bible is to be used to teach LITERATURE. So, it can be used to teach such concepts as plot, character motivation, character development, etc. So we can examine Yhwh as a character in the OT who is vindictive, petty, etc. Compare that with Jesus as the earthly embodiment of Yhwh in the NT who (at times) teaches love, compassion, and forgiveness.
Once we get to Revelation According to John when can look back to Genesis and ask, "Did Yhwh set this whole torment thing up from the start?" Is that more like the OT Yhwh or the NT Yhwh/Jesus?
Of course before we even get started we must ask what kind of literary approach is appropriate? We don't use the same standards for fiction as we do nonfiction. Do we start with a literalistic assumption (of course the "Bible-thumping dwarf from Pampa" will assent) or do we use a methodology appropriate for myths? Do we treat it like the Enuma Elis or Epic of Gilgamesh (from which the Bible heavily "borrows") or treat it like Hugh Hefner's memoirs (especially in Song of Solomon)?
Posted by: skyotter | September 3, 2008 2:46 PM
* yes, i've had self-proclaimed Bible believers be utterly clueless about the phrase, either its origin or its meaning
Posted by: Ericb | September 3, 2008 2:46 PM
They should make teaching the Documentary Hypothesis a required part of the course.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_hypothesis
Posted by: Crazyharp81602 | September 3, 2008 2:48 PM
With him around, freedom of religion goes out the door. Religious freedom for only Christians, no religious freedom for others. What kind of America is this when one gets rights while the others gets none? What he propose isn't right at all.
Posted by: Anon | September 3, 2008 2:49 PM
Can we use the LOLCat bible?
Posted by: bartkid | September 3, 2008 2:50 PM
>upstarts like the Bhagavad Gita or the Torah
Uh, these two predate the Bible.
And, y'know, the Torah is the source for the first five or so books of the Old Testament.
Personally, I'd like to see one of the kids in any of these classes fight to have Michael Moorcock's Behold the Man taught as part of the class. Sure, it's upstarty, but it's also literary.
Posted by: Rob J | September 3, 2008 2:51 PM
In my own experience i've noticed a trend, a significantly higher number of atheists have read the bible than christians.
Back when I was forcibly christian, I didn't read any more of it than I had to in sunday school, it took becoming (or realizing i was) an atheist to finally read the bible. I don't really know why I suddenly had an urge to read it, maybe to affirm my doubts or just to learn (i've also read most of the Koran).
I've met many atheists who also have read the bible cover to cover, many more atheists than christians. It's amazing when bible thumpers attempt to debate religion, and it's quite apparent they don't even know a little bit about the bible, only rhetoric.
Posted by: skinman | September 3, 2008 2:52 PM
In high school (some twenty-odd years ago) I took a bible as literature course. It only focused on the old testament and the great thing was that we all had to do a presentation of some sort. Mine was about the connection between the bible and UFOs. How a piller of cloud during the day and a piller of fire at night could be a reference to a spaceship. That the advanced ages of OT characters proved that they were the spawn of ETs and humans. That was actually a pretty fun class. I'm guessing my presentation wouldn't fly in a Texas classroom.
Posted by: alex | September 3, 2008 2:52 PM
my own experience of these holy books is that i finished the koran in its entirety. the bible i gave up on partway through genesis (i tried very hard, but was totally uninterested in all the tedious and irrelevant "begats"). of course i'd like to finish the bible one day, but i'll have to be in a really good mood to do it.
Posted by: Sili | September 3, 2008 2:53 PM
Re Road to Damascus: I guess they haven't read the reviews for En attendant Godot.
My late mother was fond of the phrase "like Moses at the Red Sea".
Posted by: Glen Davidson | September 3, 2008 2:53 PM
We should be wary of quotes taken out of context. I'm not saying that the quote suggesting that "the Bible" as historical and literary value, while other religious texts do not, was taken out of context. It's just that I don't know, and I recognize that it isn't just creationists that take words out of context.
Had he been pointing out the "the Bible" (Xian version) has especial historical and literary value for our culture, for instance, he'd be right.
But anyway, it's absurd to single out "the Bible" even for that reason, since education is hardly about merely teaching "our culture." Sacred Hindu texts might be great eye openers for people who know too little about anything outside of Abrahamic religion and the cultures associated with, and partly formed by, those religions.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: Darth Wader | September 3, 2008 2:54 PM
My kid is still years away from high school, and I doubt that they will still be able to have the class then, but I think at least there should be some sort of permission slip I could refuse to sign.
Posted by: Milo Johnson | September 3, 2008 2:58 PM
Amused, disgusted - tomato, tomahto...
Posted by: Nentuaby | September 3, 2008 3:02 PM
Miles:
It sounds to me like you're making the error of comparing disparate translations there, and attributing it to the text. If there was a KJV of the Torah it would doubtless contain the word servant; an Old Testamant by the makers of your unspecified translation of the Torah would doubtlessly say slave.
You have to remember that the KJV bible is quite old. It contains a great deal of 1604 England in it.
Posted by: Maynard | September 3, 2008 3:05 PM
Austin does rock but it still has its own overbearing religious reminders on almost every corner. I think with any large (is Austin really "large")city you should be able to find some bastion of rationalism nearby.
#11 Darth: I made it to Temple from Austin in about an hour last weekend, so hang in there, you're not that far. Plus I noticed that you now have a BJ's brew pub. I have to say that their beer is pretty good for a chain restaurant.
#12 Petey: Where do I go for good beer in Houston? (Local brew pubs?)
This elective class has all the makings of "Underwater Basket Weaving." It's a blow-off course, an easy A. Who fails "Bible?" Other than those who believe it's real I mean. The first "F" will bring the first lawsuit of religious bias.
Posted by: mark cettie | September 3, 2008 3:06 PM
Living in Amarillo (the 'mit' in the 'Gott mit uns' bible belt buckle) and only sixty miles from Pampa's Warren Chisum, I wondered when this became law, why the ACLU hasn't filed suit. Admittedly, a suit shouldn't and wouldn't win based against the historical or literary importance of the bible, but the COURSE approved for inclusion is clearly
exclusive of most peer reviewed non-sectarian biblical scholars acknowledgment of the most basic and important historic and literary facts, such as: gross redactionism in the old and new testament; political uses of the biblical passages in world history - the Inquisition, or American history - the justification for slavery, the KKK, abortion policy, etc.; the relegation of women to second class status; on and on and on. All of which, are accepted scholarship directly pertaining and basic to the purported principles and goals of the course being taught.
Essentially, what I am saying, is that it seems easy to beat Chisum at his own game. If he wants to teach a basic course on the historic and literary significance of the Xian bible, I absolutely applaud that. Let those of us who 'believe' in the academic process make sure that the course that is taught conforms to those goals and principles.
I can't think of a better way to teach critical thinking to those people raised in a doctrinal, dogmatic and unacademic acceptance of religious 'authorities' parsing of what is, indisputeably, the most influential text of Western Civilization.
Posted by: Snitzels | September 3, 2008 3:06 PM
This could be a good thing indeed. I didn't stop believing in that crap until I started really studying it critically. Then the really hard-to-answer questions came out and the book basically proved itself wrong. So let them teach it, though I agree they should just call it a religion class and toss in the rest of the world's texts.
Posted by: True Bob | September 3, 2008 3:07 PM
Alex @ 29
I've read KJV and the standard catlick bible (New American?), and the Koran. But if you want a difficult read, go for the book of
moronmormon. It's frickin impenetrable.Posted by: Jaketoadie | September 3, 2008 3:09 PM
For this kind of thing it should be treated just as LDS seminary is here in Utah. The class is held in a different building off campus from the school, usually across the street or something, and the class is not counted as any kind of credit towards graduation, not even elective.
Posted by: Kryth | September 3, 2008 3:10 PM
What an asshat.
Posted by: Patricia | September 3, 2008 3:11 PM
I volunteer to teach the Texas kiddies bible class. I further promise to make my class heavy on hell fire, blasphemy, sexual perversion and genocide. Torches, rope and pitchforks required. Can I get an amen!
Posted by: Holbach | September 3, 2008 3:11 PM
I'm willing to bet that our Patricia can outquote and mortify Chisum with that biblical crap. Nothing like quoting your enemy with his own petard.
But the bible as literature? In the same vein as the those abominable supermarket tabloids, trashy novels, and all others relegated to the not-worth reading? My views on the bible are well known, and of it considered as literature, I'll spare you my own personal opinion in literature meant only to be sarcastic.
Posted by: SteveM | September 3, 2008 3:11 PM
Uh, "sarcasm", look it up, learn to recognize it.
Posted by: Jams | September 3, 2008 3:13 PM
The Christian bible has had a greater impact on English language literature than any other religious text. One would be hard pressed to argue otherwise.
Still, it's not like other religious texts have had NO impact, and certainly, there's no reason why they can't be treated as literature just as much as Christian texts can be.
But these points are purely academic. A mandatory bible class has little to nothing to do with literature, and everything to do with cultural control. One is hard pressed to argue otherwise.
Posted by: Nebularry | September 3, 2008 3:13 PM
WHAT! NO BOOK OF MORMON?!?! There ought to be a class entitled "How Not to Write Fiction" with the BoM as a course requirement. Malaclypse, #15 above, is right on target.
Posted by: dNorrisM | September 3, 2008 3:18 PM
Some odd choices for subjects (my emboldening, of course)
Among the subjects that must now be taught in Texas are English, math, science, social students, health, physical education, fine arts, economics, technology and "religious literature, including the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) and New Testament."
Posted by: Tim H | September 3, 2008 3:19 PM
If the schools can pick whatever version of the bible they want, I'd vote for the Skeptic's Annotated Bible. The online version also has links to the Block Bible, which uses Legos to illustrate scenes from the bible. The part about Lot's daughters will make you wet your pants.
Posted by: Tony Sidaway | September 3, 2008 3:19 PM
That seems wide open to an establishment clause legal challenge, if somebody in Texas wants to take a punt at it.
Posted by: Matt Heath | September 3, 2008 3:20 PM
#23: Teach the controversy!!
Posted by: woody, tokin librul | September 3, 2008 3:21 PM
So you could argue it has a legitimate connection even to Western literature and history.
you could, but they'd hate you for it in Texas, and probably try to get you fired...and probably succeed
Posted by: JStein | September 3, 2008 3:24 PM
Honestly, the Koran and Bhagavad Gita are written way better than the Christian Bible. Frankly, it's not a very good book.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | September 3, 2008 3:27 PM
I'm not sure the WingNutDaily's description of the situation is entirely accurate.
Posted by: Steve_C | September 3, 2008 3:29 PM
So does the first class start with... "So what were the tribes thinking when the made up the stories of the bible? What was their inspiration? What were they trying to accomplish?"
Posted by: Michael | September 3, 2008 3:30 PM
You can teach the Bible in public schools in Texas, but a Creationist college can't grant degrees in Texas. One of the more stranger things I have ever seen. I had to do a double take on this post...
There are two many different viewpoints about the Bible which will cause problems with presenting the correct viewpoint. I can understand why to a certain degree. When I went to public schools, many from the religious schools who transferred to my school were 2 years ahead in English, as well as other studies. Still, I don't believe teaching the Bible in government schools is right. It should be left up to the private schools.
Posted by: Brownian, OM | September 3, 2008 3:36 PM
Don't be silly. To most if not all Christians, the only correct viewpoint of the Bible is the one each of them currently holds.
~30,000 sects of Christianity, and not one of them is wrong except the other 29,999. It's a Festivus miracle!
Posted by: Reed A. Cartwright | September 3, 2008 3:37 PM
Well, we read parts of the Bhagavad Gita when I studied Sanskrit.
Posted by: Eric | September 3, 2008 3:37 PM
Its just so typically provincial. Life imitates Art.
Quote from the news Article:
Quote from the Blues Brothers:
Posted by: dave | September 3, 2008 3:38 PM
Will they teach all the contradictions, absurdities, cruelties, inaccuracies, and dirty bits? Actually, I wouldn't mind taking a course like that.
Posted by: Mrs Tilton | September 3, 2008 3:42 PM
bartkid @26,
And, y'know, the Torah is the source for the first five or so books of the Old Testament
The Torah isn't merely the source, it is the first five books of what Christians call the OT and Jews refer to as TaNaKh (an acronym, in Hebrew, for "Torah, Prophets, Writings"). The Hebrew bible is essentially the same as the Christian OT (protestant version; the catholics have added a few extra books that neither Jews nor protestants accept), though the order of the individual books is different.
Posted by: Raynfala | September 3, 2008 3:43 PM
Good, I hope they analyze the snot out of the story of Abraham and Isaac.
Every year I attend the High Holiday services, every year I hear the horror story of the (near) sacrifice, and every year it is sermonized or discussed. And in all that time, I've yet to hear anybody arrive at a satisfactory explanation for the whole mess; at worst, it's a mentally abusive relationship between Abraham and God -- at best, it's a high-stakes game of Chicken.
Posted by: Matt Heath | September 3, 2008 3:44 PM
How about. "What are John's motives for showing Thomas in this way?".That's a nice little bit of early internecine bullshitting
Posted by: Patricia | September 3, 2008 3:47 PM
My class will include some 'hands on' work, ass riding, and field trips. Starting off in Africa, then Egypt... Rome, Spain, Salem, Jerusalem. Oh boy will we learn the bible!
For our christmas play we'll crucify ol' Big Bad Bill.
I'm still working on the list of guest speakers... ;)
Posted by: Steve | September 3, 2008 3:52 PM
Actually, I would have to give limited support to this guy's point.
If the class is about ENGLISH literature then only the Bible( King James) is relevant. You don't have to know Quran/Gita to understand most English-language allusions.
If you were studying Arabic/Sanskrit it would be a totally different case.
Posted by: watercat | September 3, 2008 3:55 PM
Who teaches these courses? Don't teachers have to have, like, qualifications or something? Go to teacher college?
Posted by: dubiquiabs | September 3, 2008 3:56 PM
Study of the xtian bible as literature may have unintended consequences. In this context it becomes easier for teachers and students to ask about the original texts and their fate; about the copies and the reliability of those very early 'copy machines'. How about the scribes, their training and motivations? And the re-formulations, re-packagings and translations of manuscripts?
What will studying the bible as literature do to reading the bible as divine revelation, when students are free to discuss, eg that there are "more differences among our manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament"?
(Quoting Bart Ehrman)
Posted by: Chad | September 3, 2008 3:56 PM
I have an uncle and a few cousins that live in Pampa, TX. It is the most horrific, desolate place on the face of the planet. It's not surprising that this fundie would live there since it so resembles Afghanistan. Make no mistake, there is no real desire for a "literature" class on the bible. They know that in practice at the local level, most of these classes will be taught by a Christian in the same manner that a Sunday School bible class would be taught. I would be shocked if at least several schools don't get served a semester or so in.
Posted by: OJ | September 3, 2008 3:59 PM
It's time to kick Texas out of the Union.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | September 3, 2008 4:04 PM
Sarcastro (#16):
Besides that, when somebody tries to justify Bible study by using the works of a man who wrote poetry to seduce other men. . . I have to smile.
Posted by: Qwerty | September 3, 2008 4:08 PM
If it's an elective, does the school get punished if no one takes the class? Will God smite the building? (I just wanted to use "smite" in a sentence.)
Posted by: Dave Wisker | September 3, 2008 4:08 PM
My high school Comparative Religion course was taught by an atheist. I wonder if any Pampans would mind if an atheist taught this course.
Posted by: Randy Stimpson aka Intelligent Designer | September 3, 2008 4:12 PM
I have to agree that it silly to require that all schools be required to offer an elective course on the Bible. However, I am not sure why anyone here would be upset about that. Most Christians haven't read the Bible and if they had they might have some doubts about how inspired it is. So it might work to your advantage.
Posted by: Jacques | September 3, 2008 4:12 PM
Of course PZ wants them to teach the Koran, he *never* criticizes islam, noooooooooooo. No one wants to offend Islam, noooooooo.
they're all lunatics (but their books have a lot of historical and literary merit). The Koran is, I understand, quite a beautiful poetic read in the original. In Hinglish it just sounds like any other crazy tract from the crazies.
Posted by: Eric | September 3, 2008 4:13 PM
This is just a layman's interpretation, but from the AG's statement:
Thus is is perfectly acceptable for a Texas school to fulfill the requirement by, for example, discussing biblical literary references in an English course. Say, a course on Shakespeare.
Just to beat this horse a little more, the AG's statement goes on to say:
The "15 student" thing mentioned in the news is a requirement for when currently authorized courses must be offered. It does not require the invention of any new courses. Thus, if you teach literary references in a Shakespeare class, you have to offer that Shakespeare class in any semester where 15 or more students want to take it. You don't have to create a new course just because 15 students want one.
AG's statement is at: http://www.oag.state.tx.us/opinions/opinions/50abbott/op/2008/htm/ga-0657.htm
Posted by: bigjohn756 | September 3, 2008 4:14 PM
I would love to come to Austin, but, sadly, I can't afford it. The cost of living is much lower here in East Texas; so, I stay here because I can live quite nicely on my pension. If I could get a 1250 square foot brick house in Austin for about $125,000 I'd really consider it.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | September 3, 2008 4:14 PM
The Texas Attorney General writes,
Also,
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip | September 3, 2008 4:17 PM
There are 1,300 references to the Bible in the works of Shakespeare alone.
Makes me wonder if any of the schools even have the kids reading Shakespeare. I never did in high school.
Posted by: JoJo | September 3, 2008 4:34 PM
Raynfala #60
It's because of bits like Abraham and Isaac that I realized the Torah/OT god has the maturity of a spoiled five year old. Omniscience, omnipotence, and various other omnis do not a stable deity make.
Posted by: qedpro | September 3, 2008 4:36 PM
which version of the bible you ask?
the only one that's valid. the one that god wrote personally in english for the white people..... because jesus was white.... and so is god.
Posted by: qedpro | September 3, 2008 4:39 PM
Makes me wonder if any of the schools even have the kids reading Shakespeare. I never did in high school.
My god man, what kind of a butt-fuck of a high school did you go to?
Posted by: rimpal | September 3, 2008 4:44 PM
I am a Hindu and I am glad that the Gita is not prescribed reading for anything at the grade/high school level. It is not possible to structure Hinduism using a Christian framework. So the Gita is not the Hindu counterpart of the Bible, Koran or Torah. The Gita whatever some may say is not a revealed text and there is already a plethora of fanciful "scholarly" interpretations of it (it is a response to Buddhism, it is the documentary basis of the caste system etc.) Schools don't have the expertise to teach such a complex text, and following how Hindus like me were brought up, where I got to learn something about it only when I was in my 20s, I don't want any child to have to study it. And the literary merit of the Gita can be appreciated only in Sanskrit and there isn't an English version I would recommend. That makes it an even less suitable candidate for schools.
Why does it have to be Texas? Always?
Posted by: bernard quatermass | September 3, 2008 4:52 PM
The only time I made anything like a close study of parts of the Bible was when I took Ancient Greek in college. Our second quarter was spent on the Third Epistle of John, and it was in that study that I learned that the fundamental theological import of a particular passage could be radically changed depending on how one translated a particular, very small, word.
But, uh, obviously, every single translator of the Bible has been equally inspired divinely, so, uh, no problem, right?
Posted by: IceFarmer | September 3, 2008 4:53 PM
Is anyone truly suprised? I'm not shocked in any sense of the word.
I think I have to go and find some sand to sink my head into in order to find some sanity.
On a side note, perhaps a course in religious literary reading may be enlightening and eye opening for many as long as it contained elements from all world religions. People may find some enlightenment that way and wake the F up.
That's one of the things I took away from several religious studies classes in University. I took them because I'd heard they were interesting electives from a good friend and it fit my schedule. I ended up taking quite a few of them. The cross section of all the different views ended up affirming my agnostic/atheist/humanist point of view. The only think I hated was listening to all the bible thumpers constantly badgering the profs with stupid questions and arguing with everything they didn't agree with. The positive thing for me was that they were in the vast minority. Most seemed to take some good away from the courses. The second year classes were mostly devoid of highly outspoken religious types. One of my muslim friends told me that they were told by family and clergy that they were not to take any religious study coursed specifically out of fear they would doubt their faith become agnostic.
Posted by: amphiox | September 3, 2008 4:55 PM
The problem with the bible as I see it is that it isn't a "book" but "books" with many authors. And these authors it seems didn't like each other enough to sit down and discuss things in committee, and the editor was incompetent. . . .
On the other hand, the more stories I keep hearing from atheists about how they started losing the faith of their indoctrination after really seriously reading their holy texts, the more I'm convinced that the more children are encouraged to read their bibles, the more atheists there will be.
Posted by: deang | September 3, 2008 4:56 PM
Warren Chisum of Pampa has a reputation here in Texas for being a right-wing extremist among right-wing extremists, notorious for his loud opposition to sex ed, homosexuality, and environmental legislation. Unfortunately, that makes him somewhat popular in his area of the state.
Posted by: bernard quatermass | September 3, 2008 4:58 PM
Make that the FIRST Epistle of John.
(Honk).
Posted by: Captain Mike | September 3, 2008 4:58 PM
There are high schools in English speaking parts of the world where Shakespear isn't taught? Really? Or did you just mean you didn't bother to read it? I don't blame you if that's the case. Plays aren't really meant for reading. That's why they're plays.
Posted by: IceFarmer | September 3, 2008 5:01 PM
@ Amphiox #83,
There were at least 5 editors of the bible that we know, at different points in history, all of which makes it all the more skewed.
I agree with you completely, the more that really read it, the more doubt there will be.
Posted by: Odin's Friend | September 3, 2008 5:05 PM
I am appalled that only the Christian Bible will be taught as "literature." What of the Poetic Edda? The tales of Odin, and Hunin and Mugin and Loki and the Twilight of the Gods are surely worthy of the respect of high school students, by Thor's hammer.
And if we can't have these then I agree we should go for Michael Moorcock at least.
Posted by: ام الهول | September 3, 2008 5:13 PM
#63, Steve, I don't think you can count the KJV translation of the bible as English literature since it's a translation from Greek.
Shakespeare, now, that counts.
Posted by: JJR | September 3, 2008 5:20 PM
What really irks me is the State Board of Education refusing to come up with any guidelines whatsoever for local districts to follow...which means even a school district seeking to do an evenhanded job could still screw up and run afoul of the Constitution...but more likely some coach, or a history teacher will end up preaching in a sectarian way, then someone's going to sue, and more taxpayer $$ is going to be blown on a court fight that could've been avoided if the SBOE had done it's frickin' job.
The most radical religion nuts have always resented/hated public schools/universal education and always will.