A bible in every Texas classroom

[skeptifem]

Originally Posted by DOC





If you look at the first post in this forum, it talks of "elective courses". I assume the words "A Bible in every classroom" are the words of the forum creator"

ok fair enough, but plenty of kids get forced into electives because all the other ones are full. I know ive been there before, so someone would still end up getting forced into reading the bible in a school, and that should never, ever happen.

 

[Meadmaker]

study guide" for Joshua....We are under his orders to eliminate any thoughts, practices, or possessions that hinder our devotion to him."

I;ve read the book of Joshua. The study guide leaves out that we are also apparently under order to eliminate any people that might do the same.


I'm generally much, much, more supportive of religion than your average JREFer, but those quotes from Cactus Wren do make my skin crawl just a bit. Yeck.

 

[ReligionStudent]

I;ve read the book of Joshua. The study guide leaves out that we are also apparently under order to eliminate any people that might do the same.


I'm generally much, much, more supportive of religion than your average JREFer, but those quotes from Cactus Wren do make my skin crawl just a bit. Yeck.

I know what you mean. Historical inaccuracy in religion bothers me (ie Isaiah is a prophesy of Christ), but that is just professional. Those quotes go well beyond that though, they are often just offensive, and if someone is going to learn them (I would really rather they didn't learn some of those things), it should be at church, not in a public educational facility.

 

[Ladewig]

You might want to compare this to similar classes in Florida a few years ago, as described in PFAW's report, The Good Book Taught Wrong: Bible History Classes in Florida Public Schools. (That link is to the PDF version -- non-PDF files are available here.)

A few pertinent quotes:

How come these Bible teachers never focus on Matthew 6:5-6 ?

"When you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, who love to stand and pray in the synagogues and on street corners so that others may see them. Amen, I say to you, they have received their reward. But when you pray, go to your inner room, close the door, and pray to your Father in secret.

We could really get away from school prayer if Christians would just read the Bible.

 

[Cleon]

We could really get away from school prayer if Christians would just read the Bible.

Personally, I always thought the most eloquent call for the separation of church and state was "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, and unto God that which is God's."

 

[ChristineR]

Personally, I always thought the most eloquent call for the separation of church and state was "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, and unto God that which is God's."

Jesus probably wasn't being sincere here. The questioner was trying to trick him into saying something openly anti-Roman, which would be grounds for arrest. The Jews of course wanted to arrest him because he was a religious fanatic, but the Romans didn't care about that. Literally the quote reads "pay your taxes" but it can also be read as "Give Caesar his just desserts" or "You don't have to obey an unjust government."

His followers in the audience probably saw through it, but there was nothing actionable.

 

[grayman]

From SAB:

Romans 13:7 Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.

I like this quote actually and use it as a sig on another forum.

 

[Cactus Wren]

I'm generally much, much, more supportive of religion than your average JREFer, but those quotes from Cactus Wren do make my skin crawl just a bit. Yeck.

I know what you mean. Historical inaccuracy in religion bothers me (ie Isaiah is a prophesy of Christ), but that is just professional. Those quotes go well beyond that though, they are often just offensive, and if someone is going to learn them (I would really rather they didn't learn some of those things), it should be at church, not in a public educational facility.

There's much more: the PDF version of the document includes a county-by-county analysis of what's taught in these "history" classes. Some examples:

In one school in Clay County:

For example, one "true or false" question given to students is: "The first three commandments deal with our relationship with God." The teacher here is assuming that "we" have a relationship with God, bringing a religious perspective to the course, and also putting a student who does not believe in God in a very difficult position in terms of answering this question as "true" or "false."

At another school in the same county:

The Christian perspective of the course (and assumption of religiosity on the part of the students) is underscored by such exam questions as "Five great sermons of Our Lord are recorded in (a) Matthew (b) Mark (c)Luke (d) John." (Emphasis added.)... One of the apparent assignments is entitled "Time Line Project: New Testament. The students are asked to "[p]repare an illustrated time line of events mentioned in the New Testament of referred to by prophecy. Some events are important to the Jewish people. If you think I have omitted an important event please feel free to add it to your time line." (Emphasis added." The teacher then lists 18 events, including "Birth of Christ"; "Crucifixion"; "John Writes Revelation"; "Discover of the AIDS virus"; "Desert Storm"; and "Assassination of Yitzhak Rabin."
[ ... ]
Similarly, questions are posed to the students that depend for their answers on the students' own religious beliefs. For example, students are asked to "Imagine that God appears on earth and says: 'Hear this! I am going to make sin impossible.' In writing, explain your reaction: -- Would this be a good thing? -- How might God do it?" Likewise, in a lesson entitled "History of Miracles", it appears the students are shown a Time-Life video, "Miracles of Faith." The end of the written instructional materials state: "Now that you have seen this compelling evidence.... decide for yourself. WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT MIRACLES? Do you believe they happened or not. On a separate sheet of paper explain how you feel about miracles." (Ellipsis and emphasis in original.)

In a school in Santa Rosa County:

The biblical text is presented not just from a religious perspective, but from the sectarian perspective of Christianity: "In his original state, man was innocent and perfect. Through the temptation of the serpent (Satan), sin entered the heart of man. Physical and spiritual death followed as the penalty for disobedience. The promise of redemption closely follows the fall.... The key word of the book is election. God personally chooses individuals with whom he will work out his redemptive plan for the fallen race." (Emphasis in original.) Interestingly, however, the curriculum claims that this is a summary of "Facts from Genesis 1-11 As Believed by the Hebrew People," even though this is a Christian and not a Jewish interpretation.

One school in Hillsborough County uses for its "history" class materials published by "Gospel Light Publications":

These same materials also interpret Hebrew Scripture in light of the "New Testament" and as predictive of the coming of Jesus, which is a purely Christian interpretation of the Bible. For example, referring to Numbers, which is a book not only of the "Old Testament" but also of the Hebrew Bible, the materials state: "Numbers and the Coming of the Saviour: The bronze serpent (Numbers 21:1-9) gives us a picture of Jesus. The serpent high on the pole before the people makes us think of how Jesus on the cross was made to bear our sins. Those who believed God's promise to heal them looked at the bronze serpent and were saved. Those who believe in God and the sending of His only Son to die on the cross will be saved." (Emphasis added.)

In Indian River County:

The course materials devote a great deal of attention to the study of religious and life lessons to be drawn from the Bible. For example, under the topic of "Parables" is the lesson: "Does Jesus still call his disciples today? How does he teach them? There will be challenging group and individual work to figure out what the parables are telling us today." (Emphasis added.) Another lesson calls for students to "devise an instrument to judge the amount of love they have."...

[O]ne exam contains these questions: "In North America, the largest religious group is the _____. The second largest group in North America is the Non-Christians. (I answered this one for you)."

Students in Levy County were presented with

a New Testament lesson on John 8, which says: "Who, according to Jesus, is the father of the Jews? The devil." And the teacher asks the following in connection with 1 Corinthians, Chapter 2: "Why is it hard for a non-Christian to understand thing about God?"

Why yes, I am just a little cautious about the idea of teaching "the Bible as history" in public schools.

 

[Meadmaker]

[O]ne exam contains these questions: "In North America, the largest religious group is the _____. The second largest group in North America is the Non-Christians. (I answered this one for you)."

So, my father died about a year ago, and a Deacon of the Catholic Church came to the house. Mom's Catholic. Dad was - noncommittal. The Masonic ritual they did for him was extremely appropriate for him and his beliefs.

Since he wasn't Catholic, he didn't get a priest, just a deacon. So, the deacon was there asking us about what service to do, and what readings we might like. I almost volunteered that maybe I should take the Old Testament reading. Then, he asked if we (the kids) were Catholic. Suddenly, an uncomfortable silence descended on the room as we fidgeted. The deacon said, "That's ok. We say that the largest religious group in America is the Catholics, and the second largest is the Fallen Away Catholics."

Like many JREFers, I joined what the deacon called the second largest religious group in America after reading the Bible, but on my own, where I didn't have anyone filling in the answers for me.

 

[ReligionStudent]

There's much more: the PDF version of the document includes a county-by-county analysis of what's taught in these "history" classes. Some examples:

In one school in Clay County:

At another school in the same county:

In a school in Santa Rosa County:

One school in Hillsborough County uses for its "history" class materials published by "Gospel Light Publications":

In Indian River County:

Students in Levy County were presented with Why yes, I am just a little cautious about the idea of teaching "the Bible as history" in public schools.

I have been a supporter of teaching religion as history etc in secular ways in public schools. While unscientific, this look at quotes has completely frightened me away from it, unless it were actually done by scholars I was familiar with. Apparently most people who have been teaching it so far no nothing about seperation of church and state and even less about religion.

 

[pgwenthold]

I have been a supporter of teaching religion as history etc in secular ways in public schools. While unscientific, this look at quotes has completely frightened me away from it, unless it were actually done by scholars I was familiar with. Apparently most people who have been teaching it so far no nothing about separation of church and state and even less about religion.

I see it as something a little different.

I think that the people teaching these classes are so ingrained in their religion that they don't understand how to separate their religion from what they are teaching. They think they are doing it "objectively" but it is only objective from a Christian perspective.

IOW, their interpretation of the bible comes completely from the perspective of their religious beliefs. It's not that they don't know about the separation of church and state, it is that they don't even realize that their own christian biases.

 

[Cleon]

In my opinion, the whole debate about whether it's possible to teach the Bible as literature objectively misses the boat, for one very simple reason:

As literature, the Bible has had very little impact in the United States.

The Bible has had a lot of impact in the sense that religion, particularly Christianity, has had a significant impact on the United States. Its import lies in the religious beliefs around it, not in the book as a work of literature. So what has had influence in American history is not the book itself, but the various interpretations of the book.

I would argue that the most influential religious trends in the United States have been:

1. Anglicanism - due to the origin of the United States as colonies of Anglican Great Britain
2. Deism - this was the religious philosophy of many of the founders, and Deist concepts are littered through many of their political writings as well as documents like the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.
3. Roman Catholicism - Catholics settled/conquered/occupied much of the American continent, and the Church remains one of the largest, most influential organizations in the nation.
4. Fundamentalist Protestantism - From the Puritans to Ralph Reed, I hardly need to explain.
5. African-American Protestantism - Although there is some religious overlapping with #4, African-American Protestantism has played a much different role historically and culturally. Much of the Civil Rights movement was/is driven by this religious movement, while other fundamentalist protestants (such as the Southern Baptist Convention) played a much different role.
6. Mormons. You can hardly talk about "how the West was won" without talking about the Mormon settlement of Utah, not to mention the history of that state.

Now, I'm sure you could quibble with my choices, or make additions/subtractions. That's not the point. My point is that while each of these six movements has had a major impact on the United States historically, culturally, and politically, each one has a radically different interpretation of the Bible and its teachings. The Mormons even came up with an addendum.

So to really teach about the Bible in American society, the Bible itself is almost useless; knowing who begat who and what God gave to Moses on Mt Sinai (Jews and Christians would have a different answer anyway) contributes nothing to knowing about the role of the book in US history.

So to properly teach the subject, it wouldn't be a course on the "Bible" so much as "Religion in the Shaping of the United States." You would have to go beyond the text of the book itself, teaching about the religious aspects of the Spanish conquest, the theological motivations behind the Mormons' settlement of Utah, why there was widespread bias against Catholics, and so forth.

Or, to put it in terms DOC can understand*, to truly understand why the Bible is the "all-time best seller" (i.e., to understand why the Bible is important), you have to study the movements motivated by the Bible and what they saw in it that motivated them.

Studying the text of the Bible, without studying the many different interpretations of said text, is nothing more than a Bible study course--and belongs in church.



* Yes, I realize that was hopelessly optimistic.

 

[drkitten]

In my opinion, the whole debate about whether it's possible to teach the Bible as literature objectively misses the boat, for one very simple reason:

As literature, the Bible has had very little impact in the United States.

Um,.... I disagree. Perhaps I need a jaw-dropping icon there or something.

The Bible has had a lot of impact in the sense that religion, particularly Christianity, has had a significant impact on the United States. Its import lies in the religious beliefs around it, not in the book as a work of literature.

You are drawing a distinction without a difference.

So to really teach about the Bible in American society, the Bible itself is almost useless; knowing who begat who and what God gave to Moses on Mt Sinai (Jews and Christians would have a different answer anyway) contributes nothing to knowing about the role of the book in US history.

You're correct that the list of the begats, specifically, have had relatively little impact on US history or culture.

On the other hand, as a purely literary source, the Bible is either the single most influential work, or the second most influential work, depending on how you consider "The Complete Works of William Shakespeare."

No other book has contributed more often-cited quotations.

No other book has contributed more metaphors and conversational narratives.

No other book has contributed more iconic characters.

Similarly, no other book singlehandely defines a subdialect (Jacobean English).

Yes, of course, the reason for this is because lots of religious nutcases grew up in homes where the KJV was the only book, and the only stories that got told were "stories from the Bible." But the sheer number of volumes that you see, even today, with titles like "Biblical Stories for Children" tells of the importance of the Bible as a source of narrative.

Which, unfortunately, brings us back to the literary importance of the Bible.

So to properly teach the subject, it wouldn't be a course o[QUOn the "Bible" so much as "Religion in the Shaping of the United States." You would have to go beyond the text of the book itself, teaching about the religious aspects of the Spanish conquest, the theological motivations behind the Mormons' settlement of Utah, why there was widespread bias against Catholics, and so forth.

That would also be a valid class. But it's a different class than "the Bible as literature." You can teach about how religion influenced history all you like. But the literature class needs to cover things like exactly what a "good Samaritan" is, or the significance of "mitochondrial Eve."

Studying the text of the Bible, without studying the many different interpretations of said text, is nothing more than a Bible study course--and belongs in church.

Yes, and no. Certainly, studying the text of the Bible is BIble study. Similarly, studying the text of the Illiad is studying the Illiad, and studying the text of Tom Sawyer is studying Tom Sawyer. But that doesn't mean that any of those need to be done from a framework that assumes the truth or divine inspiration of the text under study. I can study Tom Sawyer, and even learn something about the history of 1850s America, without believing that Tom himself ever existed. And there's something that transcends the 1850s in Tom's episode of the fence painting, a reason why people keep reading that episode in literature class, despite the fact that the episode never happened. But that episode, like the Prodigal Son or the Good Samaritan, have become almost hard-wired into US culture, and to understand the culture, you need to understand those episodes.

Teaching what the phrase "Good Samaritan" (as in "Good Samaritan law") means is ordinary secular eductaion, the same as teaching what "Romeo and Juliet" means. There shouldn't be any problem with that in public schools.

Teaching that the Good Samaritan really existed -- or that the person who told the parable of the Good Samaritan really existed -- but that Romeo and Juliet didn't -- at that point, that's where we leave the schoolroom and go to the church.

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.....

 

[Cleon]

You are drawing a distinction without a difference.

No, not at all. There is a very significant difference between the Bible as a work of literature and the Bible as inspiration for a religious movement, just as there is a very significant difference between Tolkien's Lord of the Rings trilogy as a body of literature and, say, the people who play Dungeons & Dragons.

On the other hand, as a purely literary source, the Bible is either the single most influential work, or the second most influential work, depending on how you consider "The Complete Works of William Shakespeare."

No other book has contributed more often-cited quotations.

No other book has contributed more metaphors and conversational narratives.

No other book has contributed more iconic characters.

Fair points; however, I would question how much of the above applies when you put it in a purely secular context. For example, you say "no other book has contributed more often-cited quotations." Well, perhaps, but when you take religious discussion out of it, I wonder how often it's actually cited.

Yes, of course, the reason for this is because lots of religious nutcases grew up in homes where the KJV was the only book, and the only stories that got told were "stories from the Bible." But the sheer number of volumes that you see, even today, with titles like "Biblical Stories for Children" tells of the importance of the Bible as a source of narrative.

Which, unfortunately, brings us back to the literary importance of the Bible.

Actually, I see it as just the opposite. The "Biblical Stories for Children"-type books are intended to teach children Christianity (almost always, a Biblical literalist interpretation of Christianity). You don't see a lot of non-religious or non-Christian families buying these books for their literary aspect. IMO, it brings us back to Christianity as a movement, rather than the Bible as a book.

For example, knowing that "turn the other cheek" comes from the Bible is all well and good, but clearly there are various interpretations of that. George W. Bush doesn't seem to believe in "turning the other cheek."

Perhaps it is a chicken/egg scenario.

 

[ReligionStudent]

I see it as something a little different.

I think that the people teaching these classes are so ingrained in their religion that they don't understand how to separate their religion from what they are teaching. They think they are doing it "objectively" but it is only objective from a Christian perspective.

IOW, their interpretation of the bible comes completely from the perspective of their religious beliefs. It's not that they don't know about the separation of church and state, it is that they don't even realize that their own christian biases.

Either way they have no buisness in a public classroom

 

[NobbyNobbs]

I see it as something a little different.

I think that the people teaching these classes are so ingrained in their religion that they don't understand how to separate their religion from what they are teaching. They think they are doing it "objectively" but it is only objective from a Christian perspective.

IOW, their interpretation of the bible comes completely from the perspective of their religious beliefs. It's not that they don't know about the separation of church and state, it is that they don't even realize that their own christian biases.

I've seen a prime example of this when my friend invited me to an "inter-faith" service. It certainly was...it was seemingly completely unbiased with regard to Catholicism, Protestantism, Baptism, etc.....but there was still a lot of "Jesus" in it. I'm Jewish, and "interfaith" to me apparently means something different than to a Christian.

 

[ReligionStudent]

No, not at all. There is a very significant difference between the Bible as a work of literature and the Bible as inspiration for a religious movement, just as there is a very significant difference between Tolkien's Lord of the Rings trilogy as a body of literature and, say, the people who play Dungeons & Dragons.



Fair points; however, I would question how much of the above applies when you put it in a purely secular context. For example, you say "no other book has contributed more often-cited quotations." Well, perhaps, but when you take religious discussion out of it, I wonder how often it's actually cited.



Actually, I see it as just the opposite. The "Biblical Stories for Children"-type books are intended to teach children Christianity (almost always, a Biblical literalist interpretation of Christianity). You don't see a lot of non-religious or non-Christian families buying these books for their literary aspect. IMO, it brings us back to Christianity as a movement, rather than the Bible as a book.

For example, knowing that "turn the other cheek" comes from the Bible is all well and good, but clearly there are various interpretations of that. George W. Bush doesn't seem to believe in "turning the other cheek."

Perhaps it is a chicken/egg scenario.

I think the bible is an important literary source, look at Pardise Lost, Portrate of an Artist as Young Man, heck even fantasy books like the Dragonlance series by Weis and Hickman are heavily influenced by the bible. This is only books too, their are countless books and TV shows where the bible would be an important literary background.

Additionally, I do agree that those children's books are all about brainwashing.

 

[pgwenthold]

I've seen a prime example of this when my friend invited me to an "inter-faith" service. It certainly was...it was seemingly completely unbiased with regard to Catholicism, Protestantism, Baptism, etc.....but there was still a lot of "Jesus" in it. I'm Jewish, and "interfaith" to me apparently means something different than to a Christian.

"We got both kinds of music, Country and Western."

Actually, this reminds me that there was an episode of The West Wing that dealt with this. When Mrs. Landingham was killed in a car accident, they were to have a "non-denominational" service. Afterward, Jed (Martin Sheen) noted that it wasn't non-denominational, because they said "The Lord's Prayer," which is purely a christian concept (it led to a flashback when he was in boarding school where the same thing happened, and he got into a discussion about it with a younger (and hot) Mrs. Landingham).

 

[PrincessIneffabelle]

I think the bible is an important literary source, look at Pardise Lost, Portrate of an Artist as Young Man, heck even fantasy books like the Dragonlance series by Weis and Hickman are heavily influenced by the bible.

Really? I never got any particular religious vibe from the Dragonlance books. Tolkienesque perhaps, but not biblical. At least, not to me. Then again, I'm not in the habit of looking for biblical influences, either. Maybe a re-read is in order.

 

[ReligionStudent]

Really? I never got any particular religious vibe from the Dragonlance books. Tolkienesque perhaps, but not biblical. At least, not to me. Then again, I'm not in the habit of looking for biblical influences, either. Maybe a re-read is in order.

If you read annotated chronicles Tracy Hickman states that a lot of the things have to do with both the bible and his mormon background. The silver disks of Mishacle are the Golden tablet etc.