A bible in every Texas classroom

[ponderingturtle]

You are drawing a distinction without a difference.

Well to start with one is a book and the other is a group of people who sometimes claim to be dirrected by that book. Usualy this dirrection is cherry picking sections to advance their agenda.

This seems to be a significant difference.

ETA: Perhaps I should express myself a bit more fully. I have actually seen "The Bible as Literature" taught, from an even-handed secular perspective, and successfully. I've even seen it done at officially church-related institutions. My main concern -- I suspect most others on this thread share this -- is that I do not trust the State of Texas to respect the division I laid down above. In fact, I feel confident that it is the sponsor's implicit intention not to respect this division, and that he's using the phrase "literature" as a lying fig-leaf to cover his true intentions. But the fact that we suspect the sponsor of lying should not be an excuse for us to misrepresent the truth as well.....

Did they limit themselves to just the bible as the only source?

 

[drkitten]

Well to start with one is a book and the other is a group of people who sometimes claim to be dirrected by that book. Usualy this dirrection is cherry picking sections to advance their agenda.

This seems to be a significant difference.

Er, no. Every teacher cherry-picks sections from the books under study in order to advance their agenda. Life is too short to read all of Moby Dick in detail, and there's only so much I need to know about the process of rendering sperm whales into lamp oil. Not many people studying the Illiad pay that much attention to the catalog of ships.

It's a poor instructor who can't select appropriate and illustrative highlights from the work of literature for directed discussion and assignments.

The difference is that you object to one agenda, but not the other.

Did they limit themselves to just the bible as the only source?

No, although they certainly could have if they had chosen. It's an odd pedagogical technique, and not one I would personally recommend, but it's not unreasonable.

 

[ReligionStudent]

Er, no. Every teacher cherry-picks sections from the books under study in order to advance their agenda. Life is too short to read all of Moby Dick in detail, and there's only so much I need to know about the process of rendering sperm whales into lamp oil. Not many people studying the Illiad pay that much attention to the catalog of ships.

It's a poor instructor who can't select appropriate and illustrative highlights from the work of literature for directed discussion and assignments.

The difference is that you object to one agenda, but not the other.



No, although they certainly could have if they had chosen. It's an odd pedagogical technique, and not one I would personally recommend, but it's not unreasonable.

Man I remember AP English in high school, we spent the entire first day on the first paragraph of Grapes of Wraith, That was normal, not cherry picking.

But on a more serious note. Cherry picking of the bible on what to teach can go two ways.

The good way, focusing on parts of specific historical or literary importance.

The bad way, picking the pieces that support/focus on the theology of the instructor. Unfortunatly I imagine there will be way too much time spent on Isaiah because of this second method.

 

[drkitten]

But on a more serious note. Cherry picking of the bible on what to teach can go two ways.

The good way, focusing on parts of specific historical or literary importance.

The bad way, picking the pieces that support/focus on the theology of the instructor. Unfortunatly I imagine there will be way too much time spent on Isaiah because of this second method.

Yes, exactly. I suspect that I could teach a full-semester secular class on the literary impact of the Gospel of Matthew alone, and between several rounds of "spot the Christ allegory" and "spot the different types and elements of the Christ figure" (Is Dirty Harry a Christ figure? What the hell happened to "love thine enemies"?) and "what has this parable turned into in the modern world" (Oh, that's why my insurance company is called "Good Samaritan") I'd have a full schedule. And no one would have realistic grounds for complaints.

Job is another good one. And Genesis -- oh, we can do creation myths and questions of reification for months.

Frankly, from a literary point of view, there's almost nothing in Isaiah. I't's not even good prophesy. Of course, from a theological point of view, it's critical.

And that's the difference. The material per se is not objectionable, but it's all in what (and how) you choose to treat.

 

[ReligionStudent]

Yes, exactly. I suspect that I could teach a full-semester secular class on the literary impact of the Gospel of Matthew alone, and between several rounds of "spot the Christ allegory" and "spot the different types and elements of the Christ figure" (Is Dirty Harry a Christ figure? What the hell happened to "love thine enemies"?) and "what has this parable turned into in the modern world" (Oh, that's why my insurance company is called "Good Samaritan") I'd have a full schedule. And no one would have realistic grounds for complaints.

Job is another good one. And Genesis -- oh, we can do creation myths and questions of reification for months.

Frankly, from a literary point of view, there's almost nothing in Isaiah. I't's not even good prophesy. Of course, from a theological point of view, it's critical.

And that's the difference. The material per se is not objectionable, but it's all in what (and how) you choose to treat.

Nothing in Isaiah, except that its three authors spread over the most important part of Israelite/Jewish formation. And his prophesy is right on, he picks the messiah, its just that it happens to by Cyrus he's talking about.

 

[Meadmaker]

I'm Jewish, and "interfaith" to me apparently means something different than to a Christian.

I was discussing whether or not to send my son to a Jewish school with the admissions director. She was somewhat hesitant, because she knew I wasn't "really" Jewish. Somewhere in the course of the conversation, I made a comment something like, "Well, I wouldn't send my kid to a Jewish school if a diverse environment was what I was looking for." She replied (I kid you not), "You would be surprised. Our student body is very diverse. We have Reform, Conservative, and Orthodox families here."

I guess it just depends on your perspective.

 

[bignickel]

I would posit that any class teaching the Bible as literature would HAVE to discuss each section of the Bible and WHERE it that myth originated... outside Judaism/Christianity. ie the Flood coming from multiple traditions, sacrifices, multiple gods along side Yahweh.

Any class that didn't try to show HOW the book was put together from outside myths and stories would betray itself as a class for the purpose of proselytization, and should immediately be shut down on that discovery. Thus, all teachers of this class in TX should get a guide listing that must discuss which traditions and stories were worked into the Bible from the outside. Of course, the creation of such a guide would immediately lead to a huge fight between the pro and con forces on this issue (and immediately tip the hands of the pro forces in terms of their agendas).

(I could have spend a bit more on writing this, but I spent 8 minutes (!) on finding the correct spelling of 'Proselytization', and this spell checker still says it's incorrect)

 

[drkitten]

I would posit that any class teaching the Bible as literature would HAVE to discuss each section of the Bible and WHERE it that myth originated... outside Judaism/Christianity.

Um, no. That's certainly a way of teaching a literature class, but it's far from mandatory.

Again, think of a traditional lit-class. How many high school students get told that the story of Hamlet probably originated in a tenth-century Icelandic saga by a bard named Snaebjörn, or that The Murder of Gonzago, the play-within-a-play, is actually a genuine play, from 15th century Italy? Some, definitely -- but not all of them.

Did you know that Two Gentlemen of Verona is taken from the Decameron?

Does it count as proselytization if I teach Hamlet without mentioning Snaebjörn?

 

[drkitten]

Nothing in Isaiah, except that its three authors spread over the most important part of Israelite/Jewish formation.

... and what part of that is literature?

What parts of The Three Musketeers are the most historically accurate? Are those parts the reason that the book keeps getting made into a film?

 

[ReligionStudent]

Um, no. That's certainly a way of teaching a literature class, but it's far from mandatory.

Again, think of a traditional lit-class. How many high school students get told that the story of Hamlet probably originated in a tenth-century Icelandic saga by a bard named Snaebjörn, or that The Murder of Gonzago, the play-within-a-play, is actually a genuine play, from 15th century Italy? Some, definitely -- but not all of them.

Did you know that Two Gentlemen of Verona is taken from the Decameron?

Does it count as proselytization if I teach Hamlet without mentioning Snaebjörn?

While I would like to see the bible taught in a historic context, I realize this is just because I study the bible in a historic context. I think that it can be taught as literature without doing so and without proselytizing. However, I still think that presenting it in other ways is more likely to allow for proselytization and such will be the outcome.

As a side note, when I did take a class called Literary Approaches to Sacred Texts, it was taught with at least some note to origional context and varried traditions.

 

[bignickel]

Um, no. That's certainly a way of teaching a literature class, but it's far from mandatory.

It is if it's the Bible, and we suspect that theists are trying to do an end-run around the Constitution. Because otherwise, without indicating where the myths are coming from, the default classroom discussion will be: they didn't come from anywhere outside the Bible, because there won't be any discussion outside the Bible. Leaving students with the idea that only the Bible had stories of Floods, etc.

Once you force this particular course to include commentary on where the myths come from, you will see the true colors of the people pushing for this to be included in the public schools.

 

[DOC]

Oh, please. Do you really see no difference between the Christian bible and Quotations from Chairman Mao?

One has sold around 7 billion and has mostly the teachings of the historical person, Jesus Christ. One has sold about 1 billion and has the teachings of the historical person, Chairman Moa.

If they want to study the Bible, that's what churches are there for. If students want to study Quotations From Chairman Mao, that's what the Revolutionary Communist Party is there for.

Actually many Church services are not about individuals studying the Bible, especially the largest Christian denomination, the Catholics, which is mostly about liturgy and worship.

And what about the atheists and agnostics who don't want to go to a church. Why shouldn't they be given the freedom of studying the world's all time best selling book in an elective course. That's educational censorship and prejudice against certain teachings.

 

[slingblade]

That's educational censorship and prejudice against certain teachings.

Yes. We call it "discretion," generally. There are certain teachings, to use your far-too-loose term, that I simply would not teach in a public high school setting. Or anywhere, for that matter. Such as an elective course on the Kama Sutra.

Not addressing the topic specifically, Doc, but just in general, make sure something you're griping about is actually a problem and not also a safeguard.

If I let one holy book in, it allows me to let them all in. We'll be starting Qur'an studies next month.

 

[DOC]

If I let one holy book in, it allows me to let them all in. We'll be starting Qur'an studies next month.

See you added the word "holy". Your being prejudice against the book by calling it names. A book is a book. And there is absolutely no reason why the best selling book of all time should not be studied for educational purposes. Some might bring up the non-constitutional invented legal term "Separation of Church and State". Well, the Bible is not a Church, its a best selling book. It should be studied by all truly educated people.

Your comment about having to let all the books in is not true. The educational school board can decide that question just like they decide which of the hundreds of languages should be studied.

 

[slingblade]

See you added the word "holy". Your being prejudice against the book by calling it names.

I am using the proper appellation for that sort of text. You see, one of many things teachers both teach and are taught is context. To remove the bible from its context and present it as a generic representation of "any old book" is intellectually dishonest in the extreme.

A book is a book. And there is absolutely no reason why the best selling book of all time should not be studied for educational purposes.

You are blatantly using a fallacy here to support your argument. I reject your premise outright, therefore. How many copies a book has sold is NEVER used as a reason to include it in the curriculum. It simply never, ever comes up, because it is meaningless as an educational standard.

I suggest you do as much work with educational standards as I have had to do, and educate yourself on just how a school/class curriculum is created. You do not appear to know, and the knowledge appears crucial to your argument.

No one can stop you continuing to use this fallacy, but you need to know it carries no weight, whatsoever. Not just here, either. Ask any educator you care to ask how often they consider a book's place on the best-seller list when making choices.

Some might bring up the non-constitutional invented legal term "Separation of Church and State". Well, the Bible is not a Church, its a best selling book. It should be studied by all truly educated people.

Take that fallacy to Politics. I've no patience to instruct you in the gross error of those statements.

Your comment about having to let all the books in is not true.

Your comment that I made such a comment is not true. Permit me:

If I let one holy book in, it allows me to let them all in.

There is a great difference between "have to" and "allowed to." I will, therefore, graciously allow you to figure out just how much more threatening to your beliefs is what I did say, than what you tried to fabricate me saying.

The educational school board can decide that question just like they decide which of the hundreds of languages should be studied.

Again, had you the personal experience in this matter, as I have, you would know that school boards are neither autonomous, nor powers entirely unto themselves.

It may surprise you to know that I support, and have always supported, Bible as Literature classes, provided they are not used as vehicles for espousal or expression of the religious beliefs of those in authority. The Bible, after all, plays a major role in Western Civilization. Understanding that role is necessary to understand the context and subtext of much great literature.

And don't make the mistake of thinking I've never read it. Cover to cover. Over THIRTY TIMES.

 

[Cleon]

And what about the atheists and agnostics who don't want to go to a church.

I'm sure the teeming millions of atheists and agnostics who don't want to go to church but still want to study the bible will find a way to do so.

School is for education.
Bible is for church.

It's really very simple.

 

[Meadmaker]

And there is absolutely no reason why the best selling book of all time should not be studied for educational purposes.

I don't think anyone here would object to studying the Bible for educational purposes. We simply doubt that that is the purpose for which the legislators are actually encouraging study of the Bible.

 

[ReligionStudent]

One has sold around 7 billion and has mostly the teachings of the historical person, Jesus Christ. One has sold about 1 billion and has the teachings of the historical person, Chairman Moa.

Actually many Church services are not about individuals studying the Bible, especially the largest Christian denomination, the Catholics, which is mostly about liturgy and worship.

And what about the atheists and agnostics who don't want to go to a church. Why shouldn't they be given the freedom of studying the world's all time best selling book in an elective course. That's educational censorship and prejudice against certain teachings.

I would just like to point out that for someone all about biblical education, you seem woefully unknowlegable about it. Well over have of the Bible (in page count our number of books) is the OT, which has absolutelly nothing to do with Jesus.

Additionally, yes it does include some likely historical figures, but it is not all history. For instance, Dan. 2-4 deals with a real Babylonian ruler, but is completely fictional in this. Additionally, any rational and non-religious presentation of the bible would have to look to much of the gospels as similar historical fiction. There was no walking on water or resurection in any provable historical analysis of the text.

If you are stating that it should be read for its effect on American history, Catholics are not a very cogent examples, as they are no the largest group of American Christians.

And everyone, weather they go to church or not, has the freedom to study the bible (at least in America), and just because the state does not offer a veniew (which it does through state universities anyway), does not mean this freedom is somehow taken away. There are countless books on it that anyone could read, including the bible itself. If someone really wants to study the bible and does not go to church, they can even get a free one (while I don't like most of the translations that are distributed for free, this does not negate their presance). Most of the books at Borders or Barnes and Noble are crap, but there are still some good ones there, such as Elaine Pagels's works, and this seems to be more than will be included in the proposed classes in Texis.

 

[Ladewig]

And what about the atheists and agnostics who don't want to go to a church. Why shouldn't they be given the freedom of studying the world's all time best selling book in an elective course.

No. They can use the Bibles in (1) the school library and in (2) the public library and (3) online to study this book. Why do you believe that they should have the option of receiving course credit for studying this book? If I said, "Seinfeld is the most popular television show in the history of the world, therefore students should be given the freedom to study it in an elective course" then you would see how inapproriate your argument is. Wouldn't you?

That's educational censorship and prejudice against certain teachings.

I believe it is negligence of the highest order for an adult other than a parent to expose children as young as 14 to a book that contains incest, murder, genocide, rape, infantcide, torture, and adultery. Why do you think that type of thing is acceptable?

 

[ponderingturtle]

... and what part of that is literature?

What parts of The Three Musketeers are the most historically accurate? Are those parts the reason that the book keeps getting made into a film?

Faulty comparison. There is no large movent vested in proveing that the Three Musketeers is a dirrect historical telling.

So the need for context varies.