This should surprise no one who has been paying attention. My friends at the Texas Freedom Network are releasing a study today that shows that most of the elective Bible classes in Texas are not taught objectively as history or literature, but are primarily devotional in nature. The study, authored primarily by SMU Biblical studies professor Mark Chancey, looked at the curricula from 25 school districts that offered elective Bible courses and found only 3 of them presented the material in an objective manner. The rest were almost exclusively devotional and taught from a predominately Protestant perspective. You can read the full study here.
- Log in to post comments
My niece (and goddaughter, too) is a devout Roman Catholic who thoughtlessly forwarded to me a tawdry piece of "inspirational" e-mail. It was loaded with nonsense about atheism, prayer in school, and Dr. Spock. Whoever wrote the version my niece sent along was particularly upset that students "couldn't" have their Bibles in school (which is false, but a popular complaint among right-wing religionists). I pointed out to my niece that most school-based Bible classes were anything but neutral or non-sectarian. I asked her if she wanted her children to be taught in public school that the Bible has only 66 books because that's how many you find in the King James Version (or other Protestant editions). I'm not surprised that the SMU professor's study confirms the Protestant bias and the focus on proselytizing.
"This should surprise no one" - Amen brother! Of course what can be done about it is the larger question.
That the purveyors of such materials continue to lie about the objectivity of their courses should also surprise no one.
And they wonder why we won't take them at their word when it comes to the teaching of the "science" of ID.
It's not just a problem for Texas K-12 education:
I live in the Inland Empire (as in Riverside/San Bernardino counties) of Southern California and there is currently a lawsuit pending here concerning a Christian high school that wants the UC/CSU system to accept college prep Bible courses for credit. Why should the taxpayers of the state of California subsidize religious courses at state colleges and univiersities? We know darn well these courses aren't comparative religion courses!
Also, a local school district (Murrieta) is also weighing whether to allow a "Bible as Literature" course in high schools. This just goes to show that it's possible these are not as innocuous as they want us to believe.
There are two major curricula for teaching the Bible in public schools. The one critiqued by the Texas Freedom Network is that of the National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools (NCBCPS) curriculum, which has an evangelical Christian/religious right slant and teaches the Bible as fact (also see this legal critique). They've got advisory board members like D. James Kennedy, David Barton, and Chuck Norris. Their website claims their curriculum is in use in 365 school districts in 37 states.
The other is the Bible Literacy Project, which seems to have pretty reasonable materials for teaching the Bible as literature. It's in use in one school district in Alaska, one school district in Texas, and one other high school in Texas. It was only released in September 2005, however, so most schools that have inquired about it have not had an opportunity to put it into place yet. They've had inquiries from 800 high schools in all 50 states.
I'm aware of the better Bible course that Jim Lippard mentions, and it does look to me from an overview (I haven't reviewed the actual materials) that it would meet constitutional muster.
I must say, however, that even though it is constitutional, I really don't think teaching Bible courses in public school is a good idea. I just don't think that even with good curriculum it's going to be likely to manage truly neutral teaching. I think the appropriate teaching of the Bible as literature, to some extent as history, and for its involvement in various historical events and movements would best be accomplished in those classes.
I'm a Bible teacher, and I think we have plenty of opportunities to teach the Bible in churches. We waste most of them by telling half-baked versions of selected "high point" Bible stories, but the opportunity does exist.
I have posted a bit more at my own blog. (Trackback hasn't been working.)
Wow. But you're right, it's no surprise.
I posted about a school district in Texas offering "The Bible and its Influence" class back in January (from the Bible Literacy Project mentioned by Jim). I'm glad to have an update. I have to admit though, I had no idea that Bible courses were offered in so many schools across the country (if the NCBCPS claim that Jim mentioned is true, that is). Scary.
Yeah, trackbacks haven't been working. I also discuss the report, focusing on the creationism section.
http://www.dererumnatura.us/archives/2006/09/bible_stories_a.html
To stereotype just a bit, since I know and have met honest born-agains, you can never trust a Xian to do anything OTHER than proselytize, in church, over dinner, while operating your granny's iron lung, whenever: it's the only thing they take pleasure in, whether playing the good cop or bad cop.
I define Christians as Xians only when they make it clear that nothing like honesty, or shame, is allowed to stand in the way of bullying and buffaloing another innocent person into pretending to have had a spititual experience.
Ed,
If you object to "devotional" teaching of Christianity, I trust you equally object to "devotional" teaching of "multiculturalism," and "devotional" teaching of (for example) tolerance of homosexuality.
You seem to be enough of a libertarian that you may well be entirely consistent in objecting to indoctrination in the schools. But I'm sure you know a lot of people aren't.
John McAdams wrote:
I think you're misapplying the word "devotional" where it does not belong. The word "multiculturalism" is far too vague and undefined to have any idea what you might mean by it. As far as tolerance goes, schools certainly should teach tolerance for homosexuals. Tolerance for homosexuality is an entirely different subject.
I'm consistent enough that I favor school choice and would send my own kids, if I had any, to a private school over a public school (even to a Catholic school, oddly enough). The problem with claims of "indoctrination" is that people only use that to apply to teaching ideas they don't like.
I think this one needs to be filed under "Well what did you expect would happen?"
Ed,
OK, so schools should teach "tolerance" for homosexuality, but not a "devotional" view of Christianity.
I'm not sure whether you claim to be a libertarian or not, but a libertarian would say that the schools should be neutral on homosexuality, just like everything else.
In the real world, teaching "tolerance" for homosexuality is not just teaching that gays should be allowed to live in peace. It's teaching that the traditional Christian view of homosexuality is wrong and bigoted.
I'm sure you agree with the former (I do too). But do you agree with the latter? And if you agree, do think want the schools to take your position, to the exclusion of others?
As for "multiculturalism:" I mean politically correct indoctrination. You know: women, gays, "people of color" are the victims, and white European makes are the oppressors.
Basically, I wondering whether you think it's OK for schools to take a favorable view of certain secular ideologies (multicultural victim studies, gay rights), but must be "objective" about Christianity.
And note that this is an elective bible class.
Most of the secular indoctrination in the schools is in required classes and activities.
John McAdams wrote:
For crying out loud, John, did you not read what I wrote? I'll quote it again:
"As far as tolerance goes, schools certainly should teach tolerance for homosexuals. Tolerance for homosexuality is an entirely different subject."
The reason it's a different subject is because the word "tolerance" would clearly have a different meaning when it's applied to homosexuals rather than to homosexuality, to people rather than to a concept or orientation. In the context of treatment of homosexual people, tolerance is most likely to mean respect for their right to be homosexual or the notion that it's not okay to bully, harrass or harm them merely because they are homosexual. Schools absolutely should teach that kind of tolerance, as they should teach it in regard to any other people. It's certainly not okay to bully or harrass other students for any reason, and this is one of the primary reasons for such bullying. So in that sense, schools not only should but are obligated to teach tolerance for homosexuals. And one can teach tolerance of homosexuals without teaching approval or disapproval of homosexuality.
Tolerance for homosexuality, on the other hand, is probably using tolerance to have a whole different meaning. It can't have the same meaning because you cannot bully or hurt a concept or orientation. So in that context, you almost certainly mean to ask whether the schools should teach that homosexuality is morally acceptable - and that, as I said, is a completely different question. My answer would be that schools should leave such moral judgements out entirely in this context. What we teach in sex education, for example, should focus on what is true and accurate from a scientific perspective and should avoid saying anything either way about what is or is not morally acceptable. It's up to parents and individuals to decide what is morally acceptable to them. For example, schools should certainly teach that abstinence is the only 100% effective means of avoiding pregnancy and STDs; it should not, however, take the position that one should be abstinent because premarital sex is immoral or Biblically frowned upon. The former is a true and accurate statement of a secular nature; the latter is a religious question that the government has no business taking a position on and it is properly left to parents and the individual to decide. The same thing is true when it comes to homosexuality. If it needs to be addressed at all, only accurate information should be conveyed, as free from those sorts of abstract moral judgements as possible. It is perfectly reasonable for students to be taught that homosexuality exists, that it exists not only among humans but among virtually every species we've ever observed, and that there are undoubtedly people among their classmates who are homosexual in orientation. I don't think the schools should get into teaching any moral judgements one way or the other. People are and should be free to decide for themselves whether they approve or disapprove of homosexuality; what they are not free to do is use their disapproval as a pretext for bullying them or hurting them or denying them equal rights.
I think you'd be hard pressed to find an example of public schools teaching such a thing. Too many anti-gay folks tend to interpret anything that even mentions homosexuality as preaching moral approval. A book that shows a family headed by two males or two females is simply portraying the reality that there are lots and lots of such families in our society (several hundred thousand, according to the last census, and growing rapidly due to the increased willingness of people to come out of the closet and live their lives openly). But even acknowledging the fact that some of their classmates may actually live in such families is viewed as "gay indoctrination" by many.
John, you seem entirely too enamored of these popular catchphrases, like "politically correct indoctrination". The fact is that women, gays and people of color far too often are the victims of a wide range of offenses, though the notion that the oppressors are always white European males is ridiculous (try being a gay or female "person of color" in Iran or Saudi Arabia and tell me who your oppressors are; they certainly aren't white European males, they're other "people of color"). Still, this catchprase means virtually nothing. You'll have to get a lot more specific on what actually is being taught that you object to. The fact is that the history of the United States is, in large part, the history of slowly extending the promises of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution to groups in our society that were initially left out. It is a simple historical fact that the for nearly the first century of our nation's history, we enslaved blacks and denied them the freedom and dignity they were due as human beings. You cannot possibly teach American history without that as a prominent part of the story (not to mention the Klan, the Jim Crow laws, anti-miscegenation laws, and so forth).
Likewise, for nearly the first century and a half of our history, we denied to women the right to vote as well as, in many places, the right to own property and much more. Correcting that mistreatment was a seminal turning point in American history, the extension of the promises of our founding to a group to whom those promises were unkept for 140 years. Likewise with the civil rights movement later, and now with the gay rights movement. It is only in the last couple decades or so that we have stopped throwing gays in prison (or worse) solely for being gay, and only in the last three years that we have actually overturned such laws and prevented them from being enforced (and even then, against howls of outrage from conservatives). So you simply cannot tell the story of our history without spending a great deal of time on such examples of oppression (and equally importantly, on the fact that we ended them by applying the principles of our founding, not by repudiating them). I certainly will agree that there's a lot of argumentation in that regard that oversimplifies and focuses unduly on "bad white men", but to wrap all of that up and call it "multiculturalism" and make it a bad thing is to commit the same kind of ridiculous oversimplification. You've got to think beyond the catchphrases.
Because the first amendment forbids the government from endorsing Christianity. There is no comparable requirement that the government not endorse non-religious ideas. You cannot teach any subject without endorsing one idea or perspective and rejecting another. Is it "indoctrination" to teach, for example, that slavery was wrong? It certainly reflects a particular ideology, and rejects the opposing ideology. Likewise, teaching that liberal democracies are preferable to dictatorships is also taking "a favorable view of certain secular ideologies", and requires reject other ideologies. Of course the government can do so, there is nothing in the Constitution that prevents that. There is, however, a prohibition on the government favoring or endorsing one religious ideology over another.
That is completely irrelevant constitutionally. The government cannot endorse or teach that Christianity is true (or Islam, or Hinduism, or any other religion) even if everyone in the class wants them to teach it.
I find this use of language fascinating. You only call it "indoctrination" if you disagree with what is being taught. But as in the examples above, by teaching that slavery is wrong, or that dictatorships are bad, we are equally teaching a particular "secular ideology" and rejecting other "secular ideologies". Yet you would not call those things "indoctrination". By any objective measure, they would have to be. The only thing that separates "indoctrination" from what I'm sure you regard as just good teaching is that you disagree with the ideas in the first case and agree with them in the second.
Well, you can teach American history without mentioning the anti-miscegenation laws. They were never mentioned once during my classes, and I had a teacher who went out of his way to teach African American history and women's history.