While I think a non-sectarian comparative religion course would be a fine idea for our public schools, I don't trust these bozos at all. Tennessee legislators want to stuff a bible studies class into the curriculum.
"Our government school teachers cannot constitutionally preach the Bible, but they can teach the Bible," Herron said.
"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."
A Bible class is not non-sectarian. A course that begins with the premise that the Bible is the greatest book in history is not unbiased. This is a completely phony bill that is trying to smuggle religious instruction into the public school system.
As usual, I expect the politicians to be completely oblivious to their religious agenda.
- Log in to post comments
First Bible Land USA, now this. I gotta get packing and get the hell out of this state.
According to the article, it's not law yet. It passed in the state senate, and the state house deals with it tomorrow. It'll probably pass. But it's not a creationism issue, strictly speaking. Just a straight-up First Amendment issue.
A literature course that begins with the premise that Shakespeare is the greatest English-language writer is not unbiased, either. Yet there they are.
Anybody who says it's the greatest book in history is neither promoting it for the sake of non-sectarian interests, nor to be trusted in any intellectual sense.
That it is a very important book in the history of the world I'll agree. Unfortunately, that's not what he said.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
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.
Ooh, great, another Democrat is Herron. Unfortunately, we're being bombarded with religion by Democrats now, though it's true that the Republicans are yet easily the greater offenders.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
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.
By showing that they ain't in the Bible, sure.
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.
*snicker* No pinning this on the "evil Republican theocrats" this time.
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.
I wonder how he gets away with claiming he's not talking about religion there... Because as far as values go, the bible's pretty barbaric, vague, contradictory, hateful, and purely inflammatory in some parts. Which is why only someone who reveres the book as a holy text would want it within ten miles of a room designed to teach kids how to think critically.
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.
"Ooh, great, another Democrat is Herron. Unfortunately, we're being bombarded with religion by Democrats now, though it's true that the Republicans are yet easily the greater offenders."
First off, i apologize for not knowing the quote tags offhand.
Tennessee Democrats would be considered Republicans practically anywhere else. The state has its own little Democratic machine which is quite conservative. Occasionally, an Al Gore (Jr. or Sr.) pops out. But in the last ten years, a rapid growth of the fanatically conservative religious population has pretty much kept men like him at bay.
I'm all for it provided they teach the Principia Discordia and Book of the Subgenius alongside.
The Bible has better monsters anyway.
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...
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?
It's the "greatest book evah" that has me worried.
I studied the Bible and other mythology in my 9th grade lit class because of all the literary allusions that go back to them. In my all faith, largely Jewish school, this wasn't a problem at all. It was all in the context of literature.
I don't trust anyone who says greatest and best to present it in that context.
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"?
I would like to teach a Bible class focusing on Ezekiel 23:19-21.
Ezekiel 23:19-21 (New Living Translation)
New Living Translation (NLT)
19 Yet she turned to even greater prostitution, remembering her youth when she was a prostitute in Egypt. 20 She lusted after lovers with genitals as large as a donkey's and emissions like those of a horse. 21 And so, Oholibah, you relived your former days as a young girl in Egypt, when you first allowed your breasts to be fondled.
This is the Word of the Lord. Thanks be to God.
MikeG (#7):
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.
What I wanna know is, why did Jesus off the fig tree?
Not preach? O rly?
(Emphases mine.)
I'd agree that there is good literature to be found in the bible, but as a whole text it is rather incoherent and cobbled together. Centuries of misinformation and politics have ensured that when someone says the word bible today, they have to qualify it by naming which version, because the King James Version is a lot lighter than the Catholic version, which itself excluded more texts than it included. So when they say they're teaching the bible, are they going to include the Apocrypha? Are they going to teach students about the Nag Hammadi Library of religious texts that include the Dead Sea scrolls?
In the end, it is Tennessee, and I'd be willing to put money on the fact that the bible used in these classes will be the good old WASP King James Version. And that will be a shame, too, because the Dead Sea scrolls are quite good reading, especially the Gospel of Mary Magdalene and the Gospel of Thomas (of doubting Thomas fame).
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.
"I want students to study the greatest and most popular book in history. "
because of course they can't do that in a church.
*sigh*
let's face it, this is simply Sunday trying to take over the other days of the week.
@ #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.
This fails the lemon test big time!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemon_v._Kurtzman
@Mike, you forgot the The Gospel of The Flying Spaghetti Monster.
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.
...
Um ... what? Seriously?
I have a very hard time thinking of the Bible as "most popular" considering that people generally have the Bible forced upon them, and they are subsequently threatened into believing it.
I mean, it's like saying Stalin was the most popular leader in the history of the world. People seem to believe the Bible not because they want to, but because they feel they have to out of fear of some punishment.
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.)
I've been emailing every representative I have since this has started. Combined with the Bible Theme park they're trying to build in Rutherford County, I'm almost ashamed of my state.
le sigh
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.
Jumpin Jupiter!!
That Ezekiel is one screwed up puppy!
No wonder they only gave us the New Testament to take home from school! I always suspected I was missing out on some of the more interesting stuff in R.E. at high school...
hmmm...*clicky click*
nope - just checked - the Brick Testament hasn't done Ezekiel yet... although that would be kinda messed up to see in Legos.
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.
"As usual, I expect the politicians to be completely oblivious to their religious agenda."..........obviously you expect more from some that can't fight their way out of a paperbag.
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)!
That's a great news for us communists!
Clearly, the same principle can be applied to the teaching of Communism. Teacher can not preach communism, but can teach Das Kapital and Communist Manifesto.
So call your senator NOW and ask to support this bill!
Workers of the world, unite!
:)
Grumpy said:
Shakespeare's works aren't generally considered religious texts, thus such a class wouldn't be in danger of running afoul of the Constitution. So what's your point?
Personally, I doubt it. At least, I doubt that all of them are. 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; advancing a religious agenda (or having it protested to or challenged legally, thereby feeding their martyr complex) is something that I expect such people take in stride, no matter how unconstitutional.
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.
In Tennessee, teachers
Can now become preachers--
So says a unanimous vote--
Cos Senators Herron
And Maddox were rarin'
To see it, so that's what they wrote.
With so much invested
They made sure they tested
To pass Constitutional rules
The Establishment Clause
Is mere guideline, because
We want Bibles galore in our schools!
They teach them the latest,
Well why not the greatest?
There's no greater lesson, you know:
"The things that you're liable
To read in the Bible
It ain't necessarily so"
http://digitalcuttlefish.blogspot.com/2008/05/aint-no-place-id-rather-b…
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.
Time to get out those Magic 8 balls and pray!
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.
The Bible may have had much cultural influence, but it certainly is the worst book I've ever tried reading. It just plain sucks.
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.
If that is true, why in the hell does this moron have to pass a bill then? It is equivalent to passing a bill making it legal to cross the street in the crosswalk or buy bread at the store.
I wonder if they will teach about selling your kids into slavery as in Exodus, stoning disobedient children to death as in Deuteronomy and the genocides of the Amalekites and Canaanites?
"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.
@#20 Tom
Ezekiel 23:19-21
(LOLCat Bible Translation Projection)
19 Buts she just maks teh notty danse mors and mores becuz is how she useded to play as chiled. An she wuz rly gudz at it.20 She liekd teh guys with teh big dixxxes... teh RLY big uns, like donkeys LOL... and massiv cumbuckits like horse! 21 So u longd 4 da lewdnes ov ur youth, when in egypt ur bosom wuz caresd an ur young boobs fondld. mmm....
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.
I think a tasty compromise would be to allow the bible class to be offered, but the teacher must be an atheist.
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.
Sounds like a case made for the courts. I can hear the wheels of the ACLU starting to turn in preparation for this one. How hard would it be to strike this one down if they don't provide equal time in teaching all other religious texts?
On the other hand, maybe it's a good thing. Maybe kids should be taught and tested about the bible. One test question might be
1a) "He that is wounded in the ------, or hath his ----- ------ cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD." (from Deuteronomy aka The Art of Stone Throwing)
1b) Discuss the impact of 1a on the world.
Answer 1a: FGBARF, CEVIL ZRZORE (ROT 13 encrypted)
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.
In one of my public high school English classes, we studied the Bible, well, parts of it... We studied it alongside other myths, such as those of the Greeks and Romans, the Epic of Gilgamesh, Beowulf, etc. We compared them to each other, and it was very instructive. It's a wonderful experience to get to critically read something like the Adam and Eve creation myth and compare it to other cultures' creation myths.
Anyway, if there are any students from TN wanting to get a good study resource for their upcoming Mandatory Voluntary Elective Course on the Study of the Bible, and the Impact of its Highest and Best Values on Western Civilization, may I suggest EvilBible.com?
I'm all for teaching the Bible in school. As long as it is "warts and all".
You have to at least protest in good faith that the Koran be taught along side it. That is critical for future relations with Muslim states. It serves a secular purpose. Their reactions will expose their true intentions, guaranteed.
I don't disagree, Dennis but... THIS doesn't? :-D
I'm all for teaching the Bible in school.
count me out. total waste of time, IMO, compared to all the more relevant things there are to study.
Theology itself is a dying field of endeavor.
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.
We're doomed...I am ashamed to admit I live in this state....gotta run make phone calls to the elected idiots in our state legislaure telling them what a freakin' bad idea this is.
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.
@#20...
I was skeptical of your quote at first, but lo and behold, I looked in the drawer in my hotel room, and there it was...
I should quit being skeptical of these crazy bible quotes, and Ezikiel is NEW TESTAMENT.
Now to add some of my own quotes to this here gift of the gideons...mwahahahaha!
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"
@#63 Karyn --
Well, no, it was OT (though it is a favorite book of "prophecy" for end-times obsessed Xians, and ref'd in Revalations). Doesn't make it any less hilarious, though....
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.
I thought they built churches to teach the bible, but it turns out they only PREACH there. I thought I was certian they did both, but apparently I was wrong.
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.
PZ!
I'm from this state senator's district. I've shaken Herron's hand, hand good talks with him, and read his books. I read the text of the legislation and I give it my full support. I know putting the Bible in school worries you, but I'm confident that this guy knows what he's doing. Honestly, I am going to give this a chance.
When this was first proposed, I blogged about it: http://pshaw.wordpress.com/2008/04/17/herron-and-the-bible/
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.
If this is news to people, you are obviously unaware that evangelical high school teachers have been slipping in Bible as literature for quite a while. My son had the good fortune to get one such teacher in his freshman English class. The first day of the Bible unit, the teacher informed the class that Darwin had repented on his death bed -- I guess to give some sort authority as to what was to follow.
The teacher seemed to particularly like forcing the Muslim student to read passages at great length. The unit concluded with the students creating a project based on a Biblical story. My son and several friends (all Muslims/Atheists) decided to do a video of Noah's Ark as a disaster film parody.
The were promptly given a F and sentenced to summer school, which according to them was a fair trade.
Slaughter: GOD HATES FIGS. Phelps got it wrong.
I think any high school course on English lit. should very definitely make sure the students understand a dozen or so key stories from the Bible. Much of western literature makes no sense without this context.
For the same reason, students should understand The Iliad, The Odessey, Beowulf, and a lot of other mythology.
In Western lit, the Koran is not needed to contextually understand anything until very recently (and I don't see Rushdie being put on any reading lists any time soon), and so is largely irrelevant.
I'm glad my senior English Literature Advanced Placement teacher required us to know a list of Bible stories, because it allowed me to give long, bullshit-filled explainations about nearly anything discussed in class (I once spent five minutes comparing Coleridge's Kublai Khan and the idea of "Alph, the sacred river" being the unnamed third river of Eden, and Xanadu being Eden itself. I think she came, and she definitely gave me a much higher grade than I deserved).
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.
As long as it is taught as a book of mythology, and I trust this course would be an elective and not required,what ever the case it is still crap, the fundie nuts will never give up trying ram their stupid beliefs down peoples throats
Oh good grief. Being a state employee in TN, these people are responsible for my salary. Sigh.
=LOL= You just reminded me of the scene in M*A*S*H where Father Mulcahy saw a wounded soldier reading the Bible and voiced his approval of the soldier's choice of reading matter. When he asked what the young man was reading, the man handed him the Bible. The good Father was rather spectacularly embarrassed to find that the soldier had been reading some of the juicier stuff in the Song of Solomon.
@ #23 and #65: You're now "Etha Williams, OM," dear. You've got it, and by an near-unanimous vote - now FLAUNT IT! :-)
FTW!!!!!! =ROFL=
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.
Betcha they won't be teaching the students how a good number of those classic bible stories show some very interesting parallels to stories from older mythologies that existed in the middle eastern area... or about that historical meeting of all the grand poobahs of early Christianity at which they decided which Gospels to include in the New Testament.
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.
"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."
Indeed! The Bible being of course so relevant to our modern society, that it's almost inconceivable that today's young people could survive without it. It's certainly on a par with the effective teaching of modern science.
Take for example this vital piece of information, which no school student should be ignorant of.
"And thou shalt make the robe of the ephod all of blue. And there shall be an hole in the top of it, in the midst thereof: it shall have a binding of woven work round about the hole of it, as it were the hole of an habergeon, that it be not rent." -Exodus 28:31-32
And where would our students be without these little pearls of wisdom concerning their bowel functions and how they can sometimes go awry?
Gen.43 :30 - "And Joseph made haste; for his bowels did yearn upon his brother"
And boy, was this guy in trouble:
2 Mac. 9:5-6 "But the Lord Almighty, the God of Isreal, smote him with an incurable and invisible plague: or as soon as he had spoken these words, a pain of the bowels that was remediless came upon him, and sore torments of the inner parts; And that most justly: for he had tormented other men's bowels with many and strange torments."
This poor guy had liver trouble as well as a bowel problem:
Lam. 2:11 - "Mine eyes do fail with tears, my bowels are troubled, my liver is poured upon the earth..."
Apparently even 'The Lord' suffers from the occasional bout of thunderous flatulence. Of course, every student needs to be aware of this.
Isaiah.16:11- "Wherefore my bowels shall sound like an harp for Moab, and mine inward parts for Kir-haresh."
and,
Isa.63:15- "Look down from heaven, and behold from the habitation of thy holiness and of thy glory: where is thy zeal and thy strength, the sounding of thy bowels..."
But enough physiology. What about some zoology?
Isa.11:8- "And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice' den."
or,
Isa.14:29 - "Rejoice not thou, whole Palestina, because the rod of him that smote thee is broken: for out of the serpent's root shall come forth a cockatrice, and his fruit shall be a fiery flying serpent."
and,
Isa.59:5 - "They hatch cockatrice' eggs, and weave the spider's web..."
as well as,
Jer.8:17 - "For, behold, I will send serpents, cockatrices, among you, which will not be charmed, and they shall bite you, saith the LORD."
Here there be dragons(and satyrs):
Job.30:29- "I am a brother to dragons, and a companion to owls."
Isa.13:21- "But wild beasts of the desert shall lie there; and their houses shall be full of doleful creatures; and owls shall dwell there, and satyrs shall dance there."
Isa.43:20- "The beast of the field shall honour me, the dragons and the owls..."
The students should also be warned to keep a sharp lookout for unicorns.
Num.24:8- "God brought him forth out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn: he shall eat up the nations his enemies, and shall break their bones, and pierce them through with his arrows."
Pss.22:21- "Save me from the lion's mouth: for thou hast heard me from the horns of the unicorns."
Isa.34:7- "And the unicorns shall come down with them, and the bullocks with the bulls; and their land shall be soaked with blood, and their dust made fat with fatness."
This is vital information. After all, there's nothing worse than having one's land soaked with blood, or one's dust made fat with fatness because of those pesky unicorns!
I'm with PZ, on this one, however I think the term 'bozos' is being too kind to them.
I once went to a "Bible Studies" class in 4-6th grade. Absolutely hated it. My parents pulled me out of it when I got upset about the teacher telling us that evolution wasn't true, because God didn't mention it in the Bible. Our school (which was a small "special kids" school that catered to the autistic and physically disabled) also had a ton of creationist books. That class was not the last run-in I had with creationist teachers---my 8th-grade science teacher (I had transferred to a larger, more mainstream school) also had a ton of fundy books and preached the word of Jesus virtually every class.
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.
I also agree with this. I think there should be a "mythology" class, which discusses both ancient mythologies and modern religions. Hopefully more students will conclude that the practical difference between contemporary religion and ancient religion is at the most very small.
I don't think it's accurate to call it the most "popular" book ever. Disregarding the fact that they plump the numbers by counting every Gideon Bible ever put into a hotel and every one of the millions of Bibles they send to third-world countries, it's not popular in the sense that Harry Potter is popular - because people want to read it, it's "popular" because people think they will burn for eternity if they don't read it!
I hear you, my daughter went to Head Magnet in Nashville. We started homeschooling, in part, because of the pervasive "wink-nudge" attitude towards religion. We used to get all kinds of e-mails from one of the teachers that would cite Psalms and other biblical verse, but had the words "God" and "Jesus" substituted with "King" and "a Wise Man."
He also used to use them as exhortations to do better to the kids in his Advanced Math & Science classes. Why he taught Science, or is in the Public School system, still boggles my mind.
I told the Principal about it. Said we're not trying to make trouble over them, but they need to stop. It stopped for a while. By the time he started again, we'd already decided to start homeschooling.
Homeschooling, so far, has been great. And we're not even a bunch of creo-tards, no matter what the ignorant parasite Greg Laden thinks about homeschoolers.
Odd, but I don't see the anyone asserting "Oberon is the King of the Fairies" and passing laws that say you have to teach "A Midsummer Night's Dream as the Bard's Own Truth, In his Name We Are Blessed" because of this belief. I don't see biologists, or other scientists, being bullied because Evolution can't explain the Stupendous Power of Fairies. Especially was we Zelazny-ites know that Oberon, son of Dworkin, was the King of Amber. :)
Even among English writers, I've never seen him proclaimed the best. I'd really love to see the syllabus that says "Shakespeare was the greatest ever!!!;" because I'd get a hell of a laugh.
One of the greatest of his time, yes. To some extent the undisputed master of the Iambic Pentameter, perhaps. But the greatest, upon which all the positives of Western Civilization is based, as the creobots sometimes over-reach, not so much...
Yes. Another word you should understand, if you deal with overly -religious is ineffable...
1. incapable of being expressed or described in words; inexpressible: ineffable joy.
That's the fall-back position on all the non-sense a "wonderful God" allows to happen, why there are so many errors in the Bible. His plan is ineffable and it is not for us to question or doubt. Kind of like the great big "BECAUSE I SAID SO" you give to the two-year old.
Ah, I wish they taught that at my school. Then I could go ballistic.
Carl (#84) - don't forget many of them don't even READ it.
It may, however, be the most frequently quote-mined book ever, seeing the salad-bar approach most of its adherents use to justify their own lives.
--
As for the original topic, FWIW, I went to catholic school, and they managed to avoid teaching the bible anywhere else but our religion classes. The few times that a bible reference was present in something we read in English class the teacher would explain the reference. It seems ANY competent literature teacher would already be doing this.
And, of course, competent science, math, social studies, and government teachers would already be ignoring it...
If the bill had some reference to "teaching the strengths and weaknesses" of the Bible and having students "think critically" about the stories in the Bible, the bill -- and its sponsors -- would quickly disappear.
CortxVortx for Molly.
Yes, it is dead obvious, but sometimes the dead obvious still needs to be said aloud.
Tu quoque is still a logical fallacy. Logic -- ur doin it rong.
From the article, currently "78 of Tennessee's 95 counties do not have a single high school offering Bible courses"
*gasp* How horrific!
I think 78 of Tennessee's counties had school districts that decided for themselves to use their money on better things. I view this as a somewhat positive sign. Hopefully, this act doesn't spell doom for Tennessee, either -- while it eases the process for creating a Bible course, it doesn't mandate creation of one. School districts could still decide against creating one.
James' blog posting indicates the bill specifically states that "no religious test" shall be made for who teaches the course, including "faith or lack of faith".
So, in theory atheists could teach the course.
Of course, it's a bit of a sham. To teach the course, one would have to prove themselves "qualified" to teach the course. I can't imagine too many atheists go through the process of getting themselves certified to teach Bible courses.
It would be a delicious irony, though, if parents signed their kids up for a Bible study course only to learn it was taught by an atheist.
I'm nervous to see how the similar Texas law plays out in practice. There was an article in our local paper, and the teacher they picked to teach it? Why, the gym coach, of course. *roll eyes*.
When I was in High School in the Greater Houston area the 1980s, I did once have a biology teacher in summer school proclaim his personal opposition to abortion based on his God beliefs, and some students voiced approval. I just stared down at the floor and clenched my fist around my pencil, and mumbled incoherently but disapprovingly. I guess I should have been grateful he was one of those "God used Evolution" Christians rather than an out-and-out creationist.
Earlier, in a different science class, a fellow student was passing around a petition advocating against abortion, which I pointedly refused to sign. My classmates seemed genuinely taken aback by my vehemence. I was appalled at their apathy, many signing it out of mindless conformity, not really paying attention to what it said. This was all before class had officially started, with students still milling around and the teacher out in the hall, making sure students were not loitering but proceeding to their next class, etc.
It's purely subjective, of course, but when I later taught High School very briefly from 1997-1998, it seemed that those students uniformly took religion much more seriously, while my classmates in the 1980s were decidedly more secular in outlook and the few religious kids kept to themselves and didn't make a fuss. Also, re-visiting the town of my former alma mater, Texas A&M circa 2005 (I graduated from TAMU in 1994), it seemed to me that many conversations around me were of a religious bent, talking about scripture this, scripture that, which would've been downright ODD in the early 1990s. Sure, we had plenty of religious groups on campus in the 1990s, but you rarely, if ever, heard people "talk religion" out in casual conversation in and around town. They saved that for their group meetings, etc.
Sorry to have drifted off topic--anyway, I think the Texas ACLU plans to keep a very close eye on how things go down in Texas w/ these bible literacy courses, and TN's state ACLU would be well advised to do the same.
This shit is always just so childish.
"Gosh, religion in your school? Whatever do you mean?"
I taught atheism in a private school, though. Take that.
"I taught atheism in a private school, though. Take that."
I went to a private school in the UK and it is pretty much down to a couple of teachers there that I am now an atheist.
Personally, I think studying th Bible in class is a great idea, as long as they make the kids actually read the Bible, not bounce them around, taking one verse here, three verses there, another verse over there and two more over there, which is the way most Bible Study courses go. Read the damned book. To paraphrase Asimov (among numerous others) reading the Bible is the best way to create atheists.
It sure worked for me.
Posted by: otrame | May 20, 2008 1:06 PM
I would hope that it would happen like that, but we are talking about a bill introduced in a heavily Christian state by a legislator who is also a minister of the Christian faith, so I wouldn't bee too optimistic about their intentions. I guarantee that the first time someone decides to generate their own interpretation of an assigned passage, there will be a ruckus. That is, if the kid in question has been taught to think for him or herself, and when the inevitable "F" comes for perverting the common interpretation of the good book, the kid has enough wits about him to make a scene.
Having spent five years in the Tennessee schools system, I don't have that much faith in their intentions with this bill at all.
Teaching the Bible as literature has the connotation that it's a work of fiction, doesn't it? If they try to pass off the non-poetic parts as based on a true story, then it moves a bit out of the realm of literature and more into the realm of history. Just another blob of cognitive dissonance to deal with, IMHO.
I've actually had a couple of good experiences with Bible instruction in public school. One was at a small high school in Iowa, where a unit on Bible stories was included in a course on mythology: we talked about Osiris, Zeus, Jehovah, and Odin, and wrapped up with Beowulf and Arthur. It was all handled neutrally by a teacher who treated the stories as stories. Nonbelievers weren't pressured to accept Jesus any more than Thor as their personal savior, and the believers didn't feel threatened.
The second was in a German Gymnasium I attended as a foreign exchange student. The instructor did a unit on Genesis, and it was fascinating. We read Gen. 1-11 (creation through the flood) very closely, finding the narrative seams where different sources had been sewn together; we talked about how the Priestly source assumes an exotic Babylonian cosmology; and we compared the Biblical myths to older stories of other Mesopotamian civilizations. It was a great course: I've not been able to read Genesis since without imagining myself in that classroom, discovering Genesis for the first time, and not only Genesis but an entire world four thousand years gone.
All of which is to say that the Bible can be taught well in a public school, and can be done in a variety of ways. What the senator may not realize is that nonsectarian instruction tends to crack the Biblical shell of unquestioned authority -- at least it worked that way for me.
I hope for Tennessee's sake that the measure fails, but if it doesn't I'm not convinced that it will be a disaster: the worst cases will be taken to court, and the best cases will have an effect precisely opposite the senator's intent.
BillyC wrote:
"I've actually had a couple of good experiences with Bible instruction in public school. One was at a small high school in Iowa, where a unit on Bible stories was included in a course on mythology... The instructor did a unit on Genesis, and it was fascinating. We read Gen. 1-11 (creation through the flood) very closely, finding the narrative seams where different sources had been sewn together; we talked about how the Priestly source assumes an exotic Babylonian cosmology; and we compared the Biblical myths to older stories of other Mesopotamian civilizations. It was a great course"
I agree that if the study curriculum was based on the best current Biblical scholarship, such as you described, and such as would be compiled by the likes of Robert Price, Hector Avalos, or Bart Erhman, then the students could actually enjoy a genuinely educational experience. But what are the chances of something like that hapening in a place like Tennessee?
I imagine that many parents, legislators and school boards would be outraged by such an approach to teaching their holy book.
I also suspect that it would most likely be the most pious and deeply committed CHRISTIANS who would be the first to volunteer to teach such a course. Just how dispassionate and unbiased are they likely to be?
Still, if it was possible in Iowa and Germany, then it might be possible in Tennessee.
Roy Herron used to be a United Methodist preacher. It's listed at his senate page in the biographical information section.
Also from his senate page:
Legislation Sponsored:
Student Religious Liberty Act
Oblivious? Only to the notion that non-fundie Christians,non-Christians, and the non-religious would see right through the charade. They think, like the school board in Dover, that those who disagree with their efforts to promote their beliefs are so myopic as to not understand their motives.
Motherfuck goddamnit, why am I forever embarrassed for being from Tennessee? This. This right here. And that Bible Park thing, too. That's pretty bad.
I don't see this as a 1st amendment problem depending on the context of the class. While the motives of this particular bill are certainly suspect, the Bible is a legitimate object of literary and cultural study. I know a critical study of the old testament in my freshmen honors civ course was a real eye opener for me, and really helped to solidify my skepticism.
Hear hear! Hit 'em with the Higher Criticism. That will rattle a few Fundy Dementedist cages. IMO that's the only way to study the Bible: in the context of the times in which it was written (after decades - if not centuries - of oral transmission), translated, interpreted, and handed down.
Give 'em a generous dose of archaeology and other outside resources on the general history and customs of what some people insist on calling "the Bible Lands." Tell 'em about the textual variants and uncertain meanings among text sources (according to some modern scholars, there are as many as 30,000 such inconsistencies and uncertainties) and the tremendous difficulty of translating even a mundane piece of writing, let alone a "sacred" text surrounded by centuries of tradition. I simply can't imagine studying the Bible - even for a "normal" Christian - any other way.
But then I'm weird (as most of you have already figured out =grin=). Ever since I was a kid, biblical criticism has been an essential tool in the toolbox, just like a hammer and saw for building a house. I grew up knowing about the JEPD and Q hypotheses, the "three Isaiahs," and the misattribution of many of "Paul's" epistles. If I didn't understand something, often as not my dad would point me to the Greek lexicon (or occasionally the Hebrew, which gives me a headache because I can't keep the alphabet straight).
I'm not familiar with Avalos (I've only heard his name mentioned), but the other two are among my favorites. I also like:
Marcus Borg*
John Dominic Crossan*
John Shelby Spong*
Spencer Burke, author of A Heretic's Guide to Eternity
Karen Armstrong*
*current or former members of the Jesus Seminar (as are Price and Ehrman)
I'm constantly amazed at how many of my favorite contemporary heretics come from extremely conservative religious backgrounds. (I think that's what's known in the business as a "clue." =another grin=)
BTW, check out Bob Price's podcast series The Bible Geek, which grew out of his recurring appearences on the Infidel Guy show. (Reg Finley RAWKS!) There's also The Reason Driven Podcast based on his book The Reason Driven Life (which utterly demolishes the ridiculous - and ridiculously popular - The Purpose Driven® Life... yeah, that ®idiculous ® is in the title). Both terrific! and available via iTunes (DUH!)
I don't think it's beyond a reasonably intelligent 16-year-old any more than, say, Shakespeare. (Having been in honors English classes all the way through high school probably warps me on that score too. So sue me. =yet another grin=) I suspect that getting beyond the students' religious misconceptions would be the real tough nut to crack.
My high school offers a Bible as Literature class, it's an elective. I'm fine with that. The student's that take it will be the ones that are already indoctrinated or the ones that want to mess with the indoctrinated student's heads.
Oops, I messed up on one of my links. It's The Reason Driven Podcast. This podcast isn't by Price, but it follows Price's book chapter-by-chapter.
With regard to Bible as Literature electives, I agree with others that these are perfectly good sorts of courses. I must point out, however, that aside from the worry of teachers preaching in the classroom, there is another potential problem with Bible as Lit. classes that parents and teachers should be aware of if such classes are going to be offered in their local high school. We all know kids can be mean. And Christian kids can be REALLY mean if they take you to be attacking their faith.
I took a Bible as Lit. class as a sophomore in high school, and I was the only student in the class who was not a die hard Christian (at the time, I was an agnostic). I made the terrible mistake of doing what you are supposed to do in a lit. class; I asked critical questions about the consistency of the stories, the changing understanding of the meaning of the text, the relation of the stories to other myths, etc. As a result, I was verbally attacked by the other students both in class and outside of class, and I was harassed on school grounds and at work. It was mostly the usual spiel - you're going to hell, you're evil, you're stupid, you need to be saved, blah, blah, blah. It was a really trying experience for me, one that no teen should have to go through just for thinking critically about a work of literature.
I find it hard to believe that, given the number of Christians in this country, my experience would be an anomaly. If high schools are going to teach Bible as Lit., they need to be aware of what might happen to students who are not Christian and actually approach the book as a work of literature and not the inerrant word of god. They should do what they can to prevent this sort of thing, and they should be prepared to deal with it properly if it does happen.
When I was in high school, we had a course that was available called "The Bible as Literature". I had no objection to that, though I'm not seeing why it couldn't have just been folded into the Mythology class I was taking (got a good grade in that, too! Even made up my own pantheon of gods, with all the required stories, for extra credit!).
I spoke to a colleague last night from Tennessee. His opinion was that this was overall a good thing.
As others have already said in this thread, Bible classes are already allowed in public schools, provided the instruction is neutral and does not violate the establishment clause. Problem is, there are several Christian advocacy groups who sell Bible-as-lit curricula, and who claim that their products conform to public-school standards for public schools. No surprise, a more critical eye reads things differently. One might say these curricula are "nonsectarian" only in the sense that they don't advocate Baptist doctrine over Pentecostalism.
What the senator proposes is that the state Board of Education be authorized to develop a curriculum. If it is really developed in the way the senator proposes, it will be safe for public schools. Since the state is the author, there will be plenty of eyes scrutinizing the curriculum.
Then, in some district where the school board decides to add a Bible course, someone can point out that Bible courses are legal minefields and the state BOE's curriculum is safer than say Focus on the Family's.
From this view the measure is less an attempt to force Bible studies into school as it is an attempt prevent abuse -- and not incidentally lawsuits -- in those schools where the Bible is going to be taught anyway. This view is a bit rosy: it overlooks the fact that a teacher inclined to proselytize will not be deterred by any curriculum, and the fact that developing the curriculum would tend to encourage the class where a district might otherwise opt against it, but maybe it's not entirely a bad idea.
A cynic might point out that from the senator's viewpoint, the measure can be spun to appeal both to Christians and to skeptics. Not being a cynic, I won't mention it. Oh. Oops.