Sure, I'll bite--teaching the Bible, Torah, Koran, etc is a good thing. Understanding the books of worship of those around you might allow you to function as a member of society, not a bumbly, narrow-minded tit. Now, on the contrary, preaching the Bible, Torah, Koran, etc is a steamy pile of poo.

jefe_gonzo: preaching the Bible

My wife is a teacher at a public school in NC and they still have a preacher open at the start of all PTA meetings. It's what I imagine being in church would be like. Pray, bible verses, then a hymn. The other teachers there are always forwarding emails about angels and Jesus, Obama being a Muslim, etc. It just amazes me.

When they say "Bible History" somehow I don't think they mean "The History of the Bible" or "The Historical Events that Inspired the Bible" or "Hey, This Stuff Right Here in the Bible Didn't Really Happen, But This Stuff Did" All of those I would have no real problem with.

No, I'm fairly certain they mean "The Bible Taught as History", which just doesn't work.

back in college I took a comparative class on world religions. it's pretty important to understand them all if you want to try to make sense of the geopolitical situation.

They taught about biblical events in my Jr.High Social Studies class.
They also taught about Greek Myths, Hindu Legends, and American Indian religions too.

It's an elective. No one is forcing anyone to learn this stuff, and like jefe_gonzo said, knowing the foundations of the major world religions is a good thing.

I went to a Catholic school for a while, and outside of the religion class and church we never really talked about God or the Bible in any direct fashion. In history, it would come up that European explorers and conquerers would build missions and force conversions, but that's about it.

When I was in high school, the World History classes talked in depth about relgious strife and general history throughout the duration of the course, because it is somewhat important to understanding a lot of events that occurred throughout history (muaahaha! Used that word three times in one sentence!). I have no problem with kids being taught about religion, but they shouldn't be taught religion, itself. It's kind of a slippery slope, though, and I don't know how one could possibly separate the two in a way that would satisfy everyone.

My ideal curriculum would have a religious studies class that would give an equal amount of time to discussions of christianity, judaism, islam, buddhism, hinduism, and maybe a section on some other smaller and/or defunct religions (my personal favorite was always Greek/Roman polytheism). The problem is there would always be nutjobs who insist on comparing all the other religions to their own and belittling those other beliefs because they're obviously not as good. The hiring process would have to meticulously and ruthlessly search a teacher's credentials and abilities.

will post to Politics on Thu, 17 Apr 2008 at 12:37 PM

Just in time for liters who get back from lunch to start/join the inevitable flamewar.

/in before Bevets
//in during Bridget (see below)
///in after some people say that teaching comparisions between religions is a good thing, but teaching one particular religion as fact and/or truth in public school isn't kosher(I'll agree with that)

.
.
.



////because I can

I read the bible in literature class in high school.

As long as it's not in science class, I agree with teaching it, AND the Koran and Torah- to show their basically the same book, and Greek mythology and the Bagadavita- for the cool stories.

what_now: I read the bible in literature class in high school.

As long as it's not in science class, I agree with teaching it, AND the Koran and Torah- to show their basically the same book, and Greek mythology and the Bagadavita- for the cool stories.

THIS

While we're at it, teach the Shinto creation myth - basically an orgy that makes Spring Break look like an abstinence-only sex-ed class.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kojiki#Creation (new window)

I learned quite a bit about the Bible in English Lit...

King Something: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kojiki#Creation (new window)

I hate you.

what_now: King Something: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kojiki#Creation (new window)

I hate you.

Step 1: CTRL-C
Step 2: CTRL-N or CTRL-T
Step 3: CTRL-V
Step 4: ??????
Step 5: PROFIT

King Something: Step 5: PROFIT (wiki^ NRR this time)

I went to the most secular high school in the US and they taught a english class called "bible literature." It was taught by the english teacher and while we read some parts of the bible, we also read other stories from around that time period. It was really just a literature class with a free source of text books. There was no prostelitizing in it at all. Granted, this was ~1980. God (hehe) forbid if anyone do anything like that today.

/Suck it up.

I took a Bible course in high school. It was the class that taught me to question blind faith in religion.

Dancin_In_Anson: I took a Bible course in high school. It was the class that taught me to question blind faith in religion.

Depends who teaches it.

FTA:
Superintendent Dr. Jim Scales says, "No one is forced to take the course.

yeah. right.

In English or lit or philosophy or world history, no problem.

Real bible education leads to skepticism.

Before these revisionist Chuckleheads continue to invoke the "get back to our fathers intentions" bullshiate they should crack an American History text and reacquaint themselves with intentionally secular nature of our constitution.

brap: Before these revisionist Chuckleheads continue to invoke the "get back to our fathers intentions" bullshiate they should crack an American History text and reacquaint themselves with intentionally secular nature of our constitution.

Reading comprehension and logical thought is usually not their forte.

Ok, can this article (and the several comments made above regarding bible classes in public schools) officially end the "Liberals dont let God in Schools" rhetoric now?


/prob'ly not
//let a girl dream!

I agree that this is not a bad thing. But imagine the hypothetical shiatfit these people would throw if a koran was included in this.

The teacher sounds like he's getting a good use out of money from a shiatty orginization.

/Bible in the Schools?!

oh, and FTFA: Bible in the Schools president Doug Stromberg agrees, "Knowing the Koran, for example, is not vitally important to living in Western Civilization. Knowing the Bible is, because of how it has affected. It permeates our language, it permeates our code of ethics, our morals, the values that we have as a country

See, i disagree with this. We talk about "Islamofascists" and "culture wars" all the time, I think it's arguably MORE important to know the Koran and the history of it and its followers than the Bible. Chances are those students will learn about the Bible in church, but not the Koran or Torah or Bhagivadgita... so shouldn't we put more emphasis on creating well-rounded citizens, not just citizens who know only about their country?

TMBGfreak: I agree that this is not a bad thing. But imagine the hypothetical shiatfit these people would throw if a koran was included in this.

I don't necessarily think they would throw a fit if the history of the Koran was taught with the history of the Bible.

Bhagavad Gita

/that is all

It is disgusting that people believing in a magical zombie who demonstrate their faith with ritualized cannibalism and vampirism are charged with spending my tax money.

I took a History of American Religion class in college.

My professor was an evangelical baptist and wrote much of his main work on the political life of preachers. He was by no means someone who would be hostile toward Christianity.

But he made damn sure before he lectured that the Bible itself is not a history book, and if you had taken this class as a Christian wanting to learn about the bible, to get out.

We critically analyzed every single American sect of religion from the colonial period onwards. You could watch the more religious people in the class (who didnt drop) get real defensive when he started to get extremely critical of Christian movements.

That is how the Bible and American Religion should be taught. With a heavy emphasis on critical thinking and neutrality.

Ryan2065: TMBGfreak: I agree that this is not a bad thing. But imagine the hypothetical shiatfit these people would throw if a koran was included in this.

I don't necessarily think they would throw a fit if the history of the Koran was taught with the history of the Bible.

How much money do you want to put on that?

Koalaesq: oh, and FTFA: Bible in the Schools president Doug Stromberg agrees, "Knowing the Koran, for example, is not vitally important to living in Western Civilization. Knowing the Bible is, because of how it has affected. It permeates our language, it permeates our code of ethics, our morals, the values that we have as a country

See, i disagree with this. We talk about "Islamofascists" and "culture wars" all the time, I think it's arguably MORE important to know the Koran and the history of it and its followers than the Bible. Chances are those students will learn about the Bible in church, but not the Koran or Torah or Bhagivadgita... so shouldn't we put more emphasis on creating well-rounded citizens, not just citizens who know only about their country?

That would interfere with the Christianity industry.

Ryan2065: TMBGfreak: I agree that this is not a bad thing. But imagine the hypothetical shiatfit these people would throw if a koran was included in this.

I don't necessarily think they would throw a fit if the history of the Koran was taught with the history of the Bible.

That would make people aware that they don't have the monopoly on Abrahamic religion. Can't have that.

RandomExcess: It is disgusting that people believing in a magical zombie who demonstrate their faith with ritualized cannibalism and vampirism are charged with spending my tax money.

Way to not RTFA. It is paid for with private money....

That said, I still don't agree with it.

I went to a catholic high school and the bible was taught as literature and not much else. The emphasis of the school was on trying to live a life of understanding Christ but the bible was not used as a history book.

/Forking over at least 5K a year (when I went there, no question it's gone up) books not included, you expect your child to learn how to think.

JPJ007:
No, I'm fairly certain they mean "The Bible Taught as History", which just doesn't work.

Back in the 1980s when I was in high school they offered a class called "The Bible as Literature". This remains the most ingenious approach I have yet to see.

I actually graduated from the Hamilton county school system last year.

The class is an elective, and not a very publicized elective at that. At least at my school the teacher was a *very* enlightened Christian. He read any and all opinions on religion. Hitchen's "God is Not Great" was next to "A Purpose Driven Life" in his classroom's bookshelf.

The class itself, at least under him, was essentially the reading of stories from the Bible, discussing them, the morals or lessons they attempted to impart, and a healthy dose of commentary, questions and discussion from the students. No prayers, no invocations, no evangelism and as the article said, it's being funded by an outside group. Granted, I'd rather see it replaced with a class dedicated to comparative studies of world religions rather than just focus on one.

Or better yet, for some Muslim/Hindu/Buddhist/Taoist group to get everyone up in arms by attempting to do the exact same thing.

szyska: I went to a catholic high school and the bible was taught as literature and not much else.

I guess my school wasn't so unusual after all. I still think its a creative approach.

Intelligent Design isn't science; It's History!

I'll agree the Bible is a historical document, both as account of history and in its impact on history. (Also an essential piece of Western literature.) However, any historian working from only a single source would raise eyebrows. Does the course provide any other outside perspectives on the material?

On the other hand, they have 75.8% graduation rate, 11.5% dropout rate. If it gets the kids interested in some kind of education, that might be an improvement over the alternative. While a "learning for the sake of what you learn" approach might be more beneficial, that idea might not be as easily instilled. Raising kids' interest in anything (besides getting laid) is difficult. Maybe if History teachers emphasized the sex and violence more?

My alma mater, a public, northeastern, elite, liberal arts college has very popular courses that look at the bible as both history and literature. Both courses tend to be taught by tweedy academic types, and guess what? They don't tear it completely to shreds. The english professor I took the lit course with even went as far as to rationally explain some miracles Jesus performed and also described the bible as an "instruction manual for life."

*shrugs*

I teach 12th grade British Literature, and I cover the King James version of the Bible every semester.

The kids read the first couple of Chapters of Genesis ('cause it makes a nice lead-in to "Paradise Lost") and about a half-dozen psalms. It's also important to help teach the structure of modern English, English poetry, and the oral tradition..things like symmetry, repetition, etc.

But it never fails...I get one smart-ass kid (or a-hole parent) every year who biatches 'cause I'm preaching the Bible in school.

/I should offer the Koran as the alternate assignment...

jefe_gonzo: Sure, I'll bite--teaching the Bible, Torah, Koran, etc is a good thing. Understanding the books of worship of those around you might allow you to function as a member of society, not a bumbly, narrow-minded tit. Now, on the contrary, preaching the Bible, Torah, Koran, etc is a steamy pile of poo.

That right there, yeah. Although I'd probably settle for an overview so you can cover more books.

There are very many allusions to Bible stories in modern English, just as there are allusions to Aesop's Fables and Shakespeare. Even in completely non-religious contexts, you will see references to someone being a "prodigal son," for instance.

Complaints about "Adam and Steve" don't make sense unless you know what "Adam and Eve" refers to. Debates over alcohol policy often refer to making things "forbidden fruit." We have "sour grapes," "why don't you climb down off that cross, huh?" or "it's his cross to bear," the list is endless.

If nothing else, you'll learn them from context, but it's helpful to at least see the Cliff's Notes versions of the stories.

Meanwhile, the same can be said of references to Buddhism and Confucianism in Japanese, as well as references to various really old Chinese tales. Even if you're completely non-religious, you need to learn the references to keep up when someone makes a vague pun reference to one (akin to "Adam and Steve").

All that is in addition to learning about the core tenets of the various religions and how they've affected history.

Key word is "about" though.

Yep, took a similar class in High School, comparing/contrasting all the brand name religious books. The teacher was fine, very academic and straight forward. It was the few Jebus nutjobs in the class that almost ruined it. "OMG! You can't say there are religions older than Jesus! That's not true!!!" Every time one of them raised their hand the whole class collectively rolled their eyes and sighed in anticipation of their stupidity. "The Bible was the first book to talk about a big flood! You can't say most religions have a reference to a big flood! THE BIBLE DID IT FIRST!" Everyday they all made a big point of holding hands and praying together right in front of the class door 2-minutes before class started.

Friar Simon: I teach 12th grade British Literature, and I cover the King James version of the Bible every semester.

The kids read the first couple of Chapters of Genesis ('cause it makes a nice lead-in to "Paradise Lost") and about a half-dozen psalms. It's also important to help teach the structure of modern English, English poetry, and the oral tradition..things like symmetry, repetition, etc.

But it never fails...I get one smart-ass kid (or a-hole parent) every year who biatches 'cause I'm preaching the Bible in school.

/I should offer the Koran as the alternate assignment...

Good for you, man. Keep fighting the good fight. I'm a card-carrying recovering catholic AND bedwetting liberal, and yet it bothers me when people get their panties in a twist about studying the Bible and its effects on history, literature, society, etc. Love it or hate it, its influence on western thought is profound and undeniable and it needs to be studied and understood.

(As does the Koran, Torah, etc...)

I just took a quick glance at this Bible in the Schools website. They're trying very hard not to appear like their proselytizing, though this page does reveal they're one of those "America is a Christian nation" and "separation of church and state doesn't exist" types of organizations.

Of course, if these classes do make students actually read the entire Bible, not just snippets, then they're in trouble. I'm currently reading the Bible myself (managed to get up to 1 Kings), and reading the Bible word-for-word, not just bedtime verses, is quite enlightening. For example:

- In Exodus, God claims he is slow to anger, though he threatens to kill the Israelites every time they complain.
- David (he of Goliath-slaying fame) asked a man to feed him because David and his men didn't steal his flock when they had the chance (you know, mafia tactics). The man refused, God killed him, and David took the guy's wife.
- In 2 Samuel, God* asked David to take a census of Israel. David did so. God punished David for taking the census by sending a plague that killed thousands of Israelites. Um...that'll teach David for doing what God asked, I guess.

*A cursory glance at 1 Chronicles says that it was Satan who got David to take the census. So...God is Satan?

They should teach the Bible in public schools. They should also teach the Qur'an, the Talmud, the Bhagavad Gita, the Tao-te-ching, and the Veda. All of these books are full of superstitious nonsense that should not be taught as fact, but each is an essential and important part of the global canon, and should be familiar to every well-educated person.

CossackMossis: The class itself, at least under him, was essentially the reading of stories from the Bible, discussing them, the morals or lessons they attempted to impart, and a healthy dose of commentary, questions and discussion from the students.

While it doesn't sound like a rabid establishment effort, or even all that bad a course to teach it also doesn't sound like a History class. Which means it sounds like a wolf in sheep's clothing, and suspect.

Bag of Hammers: It was the few Jebus nutjobs in the class that almost ruined it.

If the class is taught objectively, then yeah odds are the hard-core religious won't want their kids anywhere near it.

What you can't do in school is teach the Bible as normative. But non-normative study of a religion is threatening to those who are trying to bring their kids up inside the religion (for the strict, anyway). Comparative classes that show various religions in parallel would be right out.

That doesn't even begin to address all the issues with the different interpretations of the Bible from different strains of Christianity (all of whom insist they are right, of course) - just toss in some Calvinist postmillennialists in with some Baptists who believe in the Rapture for some lulz.

My high school had a course that everyone had to take freshman year, "early world history". Within that course we discussed all of the major religions within the context of their period in history. It was very interesting, particularly because we had students who adhered to every major modern religion so we could get the 'inside view' as well.

I still despised the allegory of the cave, though.

If kids don't learn about the Bible, they'll never be able to fully enjoy the Matrix. There. I said it.