New U.S. textbook aims to teach Bible

[Tony]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/EDUCATION/12/01/life.bible.general.reut/index.html ...full article

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- Since the U.S. Supreme Court banned the promotion of religion in public schools in 1963, the Bible has virtually disappeared from most American classrooms.

But in recent years, as evangelical Christians have grown in numbers and gained political clout in the United States, Bible studies have been creeping back into schools.

Now, a new textbook for high school students aims to fill a gap by teaching the Bible, both the Old and New Testaments, in a non-sectarian, nonreligious way as a central document of Western civilization with a vast influence on its literature, art, culture and politics.

"It's not about belief. It's about crucial knowledge and knowledge belongs in our schools," said Chuck Stetson, a New York investment banker who is the driving force behind and co-author of "The Bible and Its Influence" -- a glossy, 387-page book recently released and now being tested in a small number of schools mainly on the West Coast.

Religion in sheep's clothing?

Barry Lynn of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State said the book sanitized the effect of religion throughout history, by minimizing Christian support for slavery and Christian anti-Semitism.

"To teach religion objectively, you really have to teach the good, the bad and the ugly and this book only teaches the good," he said.

I'd be much more inclined to support this book if it were re-written to include "the good, the bad and the ugly" of the Bible and it's history. Only presenting the "good" parts of the Bible seems like an attempt to promote christianity.

 

[clk]

Maybe the atheist groups should spend some time and money combatting this, instead of wasting their time on stupid bullsh*t like taking the word 'God' off of money.

 

[cbish]

Religion in sheep's clothing?

Perhaps. We had a "knock-down, drag-out" battle about ten years ago because our English dept wanted to create a course about the Bible. Their argument was that so much Literature has biblical references that it was foundational.

They settled on teaching a "bible" unit.

 

[Euromutt]

I can see the arguments for studying the Bible as an influence on art and literature. I'm reading Moby Dick right now, and there are so many allusions to scripture that it's certainly useful to know what Melville's referring to. But if you're going to go there, I think you need to be objective about it, and also point out, say, where Melville--or more correctly, Ishmael--twists the scripture to suit his own ends, glossing over glaring inconsistencies and the like.

From the CNN article:

On the other side, Dennis Cuddy, a Christian who has worked as a consultant for the U.S. Department of Education, said the book raised doubts about God and prompted students to ask the wrong questions.

"If you are going to teach the Bible, are you going to teach it as if it were the word of God? At the least, it should be taught as truthful. It shouldn't be presented as something that is false," he said.

Without wanting to go too deeply into the false dichotomy Cuddy presents, if the Bible is going to be studied in taxpayer-funded schools, that study should be objective. The goal here is education, not indoctrination (one way or the other). Very simply, you have to take the contents as they come, examine corroborating evidence or lack thereof, and make your assessments based on that; you cannot posit a priori that Bible is truthful or false. And if closer examination indicates that at least certain parts of the Bible are not supported, or even flat out contradicted, by secular historical evidence, you should not attempt to whitewash that, because it's scientifically dishonest.

Cuddy's statement illustrates a fundamental misunderstanding, or possibly dishonesty, among such religious types who rail against the exclusion of religion from public schools. What they object to is the exclusion of their own religion, and (perhaps wilfully) fail to acknowledge that avoiding the topic of religion altogether also shields their children from being exposed to opposing viewpoints--both those of other religions and denominations, and of the non-religious--and some pretty uncomfortable truths. E.g. if you're a Biblical literalist, you're going to have a problem when your kid comes home from school and asks why, if the Bible is the direct word of God, He tolerates the existence of so many different versions. Or why there's zero historical evidence that the events described in Exodus ever took place. Or why, if God is Love, He directs and aids the Israelites in committing multiple acts of genocide in the book of Joshua. Or why the Gospels contain numerous contradictions. If you're going to study the Bible in serious and objective fashion, you can't gloss over that stuff. you either have to examine it warts and all, or just avoid the subject entirely.

 

[Tmy]

What class would this be taught in? In high school I had a greek mythology class. Thats basically the teaching of religion. A dead religion.

Id be ok with it as long as they called it "christian mythology". Man would that term really bring out their true colors.

 

[slingblade]

What class would this be taught in? In high school I had a greek mythology class. Thats basically the teaching of religion. A dead religion.

Id be ok with it as long as they called it "christian mythology". Man would that term really bring out their true colors.

I already use that term while teaching my 10-11 grade mythology class.
No one has a problem with it.

I'm an atheist, but I know the Bible is literature, and is historic (not the same as "history," please note). Students do need some kind of background into the Bible in order to better comprehend much of Western literature.

I am willing to teach such a class, if I can conduct it in the same way I do all my literature lessons on fiction or mythology.

 

[Art Vandelay]

I'm willing to accept that studying the Bible is useful to understanding literature, but I think it's silly to call it "crucial". If you can't understand something without studying the Bible first, it's not "great literature", it's derivative claptrap.

Maybe the atheist groups should spend some time and money combatting this, instead of wasting their time on stupid bullsh*t like taking the word 'God' off of money.

It's not just the word "God", it's "In God we trust". If that isn't government endorsement of religion, than nothing is. Our national motto used to be, loosely translated, "everyone is welcome". Now it's, loosely translated, "f*ck you, atheists". How is that acceptable?

 

[Kerberos]

What class would this be taught in? In high school I had a greek mythology class. Thats basically the teaching of religion. A dead religion.

Id be ok with it as long as they called it "christian mythology". Man would that term really bring out their true colors.

In high school I was taught both a class Ancient lore (a losse translation, it was about Greek mythology) and one called Religion which obviously featured Christianity prominently. Christianity and Greek mythology were treated much the same way, and I found nothing in either class that offended me as an atheist. I suspect a hard core Christian would have been none to thrilled with it though.

 

[slingblade]

I'm willing to accept that studying the Bible is useful to understanding literature, but I think it's silly to call it "crucial". If you can't understand something without studying the Bible first, it's not "great literature", it's derivative claptrap.

That depends on what you mean by "understand."
Dante's Inferno isn't derivative claptrap, nor are the works of Shakespeare or Chaucer, just to name three obvious examples. But they all rely fairly heavily on Biblical references, and if you've never read the Bible, it's more difficult to connect to the themes, motifs, and motivations in those works. Even if you could understand what the works say, it's much harder to understand why they say it without some background in the Bible and Christianity as political and social motivators.

My experience so far as a (student) teacher is that even many of my Christian students haven't yet read the Bible. After all, it is reading, and many HS students have a severe allergy to the written word.

It's not just the word "God", it's "In God we trust". If that isn't government endorsement of religion, than nothing is. Our national motto used to be, loosely translated, "everyone is welcome". Now it's, loosely translated, "f*ck you, atheists". How is that acceptable?

It's not acceptable, and it excludes more American citizens than just atheists.

 

[TragicMonkey]

It seems to me that understanding the tenets and practices of Christianity would be vital to the study of European history, if nothing else.

As for literature and art, a student would need to know more Greek mythology than Christian mythology, although both would be handy. Funnily enough, they seem to merge quite a bit.

Although I don't see that one need study the Bible to study Christianity. For most of its history the religion was Catholic or Eastern Orthodox, and neither of those denominations bother too much with the Bible.

 

[clk]

Now it's, loosely translated, "f*ck you, atheists". How is that acceptable?

Are you serious? Do you really think that the government put that phrase on money just to piss off atheists?

See, this is the problem I have with atheist groups. They get all pissy about stupid crap that nobody gives a damn about, and meanwhile, there are Christian groups spending a lot of time and resources to get BS like ID taught in schools. Now that is what really needs to be combatted. Nobody gives a damn if the word 'God' is on money. If their 'belief' (for lack of a better word) in atheism is so fragile that a single word on a piece of paper shakes their faith, then that's messed up. The US has better separation of church and state than many many other countries in the world.

 

[Melendwyr]

Although I don't see that one need study the Bible to study Christianity. For most of its history the religion was Catholic or Eastern Orthodox, and neither of those denominations bother too much with the Bible.

This statement is both grossly inaccurate and (at least to the factions referenced) insulting to the point of being a slur.

Don't make me break out the toddler death ninjas.

 

[Melendwyr]

Nobody gives a damn if the word 'God' is on money.

Clearly, the people you're complaining about do care.

If their 'belief' (for lack of a better word) in atheism is so fragile that a single word on a piece of paper shakes their faith, then that's messed up. The US has better separation of church and state than many many other countries in the world.

Your statement may be true, but that's not what they believe. The US doesn't need to have better separation than most places - it simply needs to keep the two separate. Nothing less is permitted, and the states of other countries are not relevant.

 

[clk]

Clearly, the people you're complaining about do care.

They're just about the only ones.

Nothing less is permitted, and the states of other countries are not relevant.

Yes, the state of other countries is very important if you want a society that has realistic goals and expectations. If you know that the US has better separation of church and religion that most other countries, then why would you waste your time on very petty issues ('God' on money) instead of major ones (ID taught in schools)? Hell, why would you ever waste your time on petty issues instead of major ones?

 

[pgwenthold]

Are you serious? Do you really think that the government put that phrase on money just to piss off atheists?

Well, that is basically why they added the phrase "under God" to the pledge, so it's not the biggest stretch.

Actually, I wouldn't say they did it to piss off atheists. Just to exclude them.

 

[TragicMonkey]

This statement is both grossly inaccurate and (at least to the factions referenced) insulting to the point of being a slur.

Don't make me break out the toddler death ninjas.

Really? I was raised Catholic, and nobody read the Bible. We got the significant bits read out during the Mass, but certainly nobody was exhorting people to read the Bible, or using the word "Biblical" as a synonym for "good", or obsessing over the book like Baptists and Presbyterians and Methodists all seem to. The theology of the Roman Catholic Church owes more to Aquinas and the various councils and conferences like Niceaea (I know I spelled that wrong) than it does to the Bible. The Greeks have their Fathers of the Church, who wrote volumes of extra-Biblical theology.

I went to a rather religious school and was surrounded by fundies. They venerate the Bible as much as Catholics do Mary and all the saints put together. They read the damn thing, or bits of it, and draw whole giant bits of meaning out of single phrases. That Reformation business decided them that they can each interpret the word of their god without needing a priest or a hierarchy or holy men or centuries of scholarly agreement. Which is very democratic of them, but I don't think the popes have found Christianity, with its omnipotent dictator, particularly democratic by nature.

"That's not in the Bible" is, to Catholics, not an argument against a theological position or religious practice. It's not an insult, either. The Bible is important, but it's not the be-all and end-all of the religion. It was immensely difficult to get this to sink in during theological arguments at my school, because to most of the students it had to be in the Bible, or somebody's interpretation of what was in the Bible. The Bible is much more important to Protestants, even to the point that they chucked out several books that they didn't like. They simply couldn't leave them in because that would make it official, whereas Catholics simply ignore or interpret as symbolic or purely historic anything that doesn't fit. (Like the creation myths, and all the anti-graven images business.)

 

[TragicMonkey]

Well, that is basically why they added the phrase "under God" to the pledge, so it's not the biggest stretch.

Actually, I wouldn't say they did it to piss off atheists. Just to exclude them.

Interesting:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_God_We_Trust

From Treasury Department records, it appears that the first such appeal came in a letter dated November 13, 1861. It was written to Secretary Chase by Rev. M. R. Watkinson, Minister of the Gospel from Ridleyville, Pennsylvania, and read:

Dear Sir: You are about to submit your annual report to the Congress respecting the affairs of the national finances.

One fact touching our currency has hitherto been seriously overlooked. I mean the recognition of the Almighty God in some form on our coins.

You are probably a Christian. What if our Republic were not shattered beyond reconstruction? Would not the antiquaries of succeeding centuries rightly reason from our past that we were a heathen nation? What I propose is that instead of the goddess of liberty we shall have next inside the 13 stars a ring inscribed with the words PERPETUAL UNION; within the ring the allseeing eye, crowned with a halo; beneath this eye the American flag, bearing in its field stars equal to the number of the States united; in the folds of the bars the words GOD, LIBERTY, LAW.

This would make a beautiful coin, to which no possible citizen could object. This would relieve us from the ignominy of heathenism. This would place us openly under the Divine protection we have personally claimed. From my hearth I have felt our national shame in disowning God as not the least of our present national disasters.

To you first I address a subject that must be agitated.

As a result, Secretary Chase instructed James Pollock, Director of the Mint at Philadelphia, to prepare a motto, in a letter dated November 20, 1861:

Dear Sir: No nation can be strong except in the strength of God, or safe except in His defense. The trust of our people in God should be declared on our national coins.

You will cause a device to be prepared without unnecessary delay with a motto expressing in the fewest and tersest words possible this national recognition.

Yeah, so appropriate for the US today.

 

[glsunder]

Any "good" christian should be in favor of teaching the bad and the ugly in the history of christianity. Lest history repeat itself. On the other hand, without that bad and ugly, would christianity be where it is today?

 

[Melendwyr]

Really? I was raised Catholic, and nobody read the Bible. We got the significant bits read out during the Mass, but certainly nobody was exhorting people to read the Bible, or using the word "Biblical" as a synonym for "good", or obsessing over the book like Baptists and Presbyterians and Methodists all seem to.

So you intended only to draw a comparison regarding the relative importance of the Bible between the various sects of Christianity. Got it. Toddler ninjas withdrawn!

It's clearly untrue to say that Catholics and Orthodox don't use the Bible - but they do use it differently.

 

[Melendwyr]

They're just about the only ones.

Well, duh.

If you know that the US has better separation of church and religion that most other countries, then why would you waste your time on very petty issues ('God' on money) instead of major ones (ID taught in schools)? Hell, why would you ever waste your time on petty issues instead of major ones?

If you don't mind the little things, you'll never be able to control the big ones. Why do you think the religious references were added to coins in the first place? If it's not important that they're there, why were they put there in the first place?

Finally, comparisons to other countries are irrelevant. Why are you bringing them up?