Bible Study

[six7s]

...education about a subject does not mean that one need be indocrinated into believing in its factual accuracy

I agree

However...

Why is the Bible the single work of fiction to which students are allowed to opt out?

Alas, it's not

ETA: The children of powerful parents have been allowed to opt out of all too many books

The Online Books Page: BANNED BOOKS ONLINE

The Savannah Morning News reported in November 1999 that a teacher at the Windsor Forest High School required seniors to obtain permission slips before they could read Hamlet, Macbeth, or King Lear. The teacher's school board had pulled the books from class reading lists, citing "adult language" and references to sex and violence.

<snip/>

An illustrated edition of "Little Red Riding Hood" was banned in two California school districts in 1989 ...The school districts cited concerns about the use of alcohol in the story.

<snip/>
However, in 1978 the Anaheim (California) Union High School District woke up to the danger of George Eliot's Silas Marner and banned it.
...
Also banned there, ... as reported in Dawn Soya's Banned Books: Literature Suppressed on Social Grounds, was Margaret Mitchell's Gone With the Wind, for its depiction of the behavior of Scarlett O'Hara and the freed slaves in the novel

<snip/>

Shakespeare's The Merchant of Venice was banned from classrooms in Midland, Michigan in 1980, due to its portrayal of the Jewish character Shylock

Wikipedia: List of banned books

Various scriptures have been banned (and sometimes burned) at several points in history. The Bible, the Qur'an, and other religious scriptures have all been subjected to censorship and have been banned in various cities and countries. In Medieval Europe, the Roman Catholic Church created a program that lasted until 1966 to deal with dissenting printed opinion; it was called the Index Librorum Prohibitorum (index of prohibited books).

<snip/>

Books deemed critical of the state or its interests are another common target for banning.

Transcript of Richard Dawkins reading The God Delusion

I’m now going to skip to an extract from Chapter 2: The God Hypothesis.

The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction.

• Jealous, and proud of it
• A petty, unjust, unforgiving control freak
• A vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser
• A misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, philicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sado-masochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.

Those of us schooled from infancy in his ways, can become desensitised to their horror.

A naïf, blessed with the perspective of innocence, has a clearer perception.

Winston Churchill’s son, Randolph, somehow contrived to remain ignorant of Scripture until Evelyn Waugh and a brother officer, in a vain attempt to keep Churchill quiet when they were posted together during the war, bet him he couldn’t read the entire Bible in a fortnight. Unhappily, it has not had the result we hoped. He has never read any of it before, and is hideously excited, keeps reading quotations aloud, ‘I say, I bet you didn’t know this came in the Bible!’ or merely slapping his side and chortling, ‘God, isn’t God a ◊◊◊◊?’

Thomas Jefferson, better read, was of a similar opinion. ‘The Christian God is a being of terrific character; cruel, vindictive, capricious and unjust.’

<snip/>

Are we not educating to double standards?

 

[Tokenconservative]

I disagree. I couldn't opt out of studying The Scarlet Letter no matter how much I loathed it. Why is the Bible the single work of fiction to which students are allowed to opt out?

Well, primarily because some parents are so brittle about it. The atheist parents are much afeered that their chiluns will become snake handlers or start rolling around speaking in tongues during the next Solstice Selebration, while Evangelicals are worried that a heathen teacher will not teach it "correctly," and of course Muslims and Hindus are just afraid of anything else that isn't part of their faith.

Tokie

 

[PAC]

The bible should be open for study in schools but not compulsory. A study of it is important because of the impact it has on our world. Literature, policits, history, etc. have been shaped by this text. I tried to read the entire text once but couldn't force myself through it. The best result of this study might come from experiencing so many of the issues that I, and many others, find to be so insane about this book. In general, the bible itself is the best argument against the "teachings" of the bible.

 

[Paulhoff]

"Speaking in tongues", if is so funny that most people don't really know what that means.

Paul

 

[Mashuna]

And education about a subject does not mean that one need be indocrinated into believing in its factual accuracy. I can tell you quite a bit about Moby Dick, but I don't believe in Captain Ahab.

Ok, but can I still call you Ishmael?

 

[Tokenconservative]

"Speaking in tongues", if is so funny that most people don't really know what that means.

Paul

Sorry, I forget that this is an internation forum.

Most Americans over the age of say, 10 or 12 know what it means.

For those under that age and non-Americans (including Canadians and others who take great umbrage at being called "non-American" because, after all, they live in America too!) among fundamentalist Christians, especially Southern Baptists and Seventh Day Adventists, there is a thing called "speaking in tongues" in which the spirit of the Lord enters you and you begin babbling in what some will tell you is a "forgotten language" from the time before the Tower of Babel, or in some Godly language never known to man.

It's fun to watch. And if add rolling to it, you really should bring some popcorn. Maybe a soda.

Tokie

 

[Tokenconservative]

The bible should be open for study in schools but not compulsory. A study of it is important because of the impact it has on our world. Literature, policits, history, etc. have been shaped by this text. I tried to read the entire text once but couldn't force myself through it. The best result of this study might come from experiencing so many of the issues that I, and many others, find to be so insane about this book. In general, the bible itself is the best argument against the "teachings" of the bible.

It's probably best to read it in pieces, and to have either some works handy to help you understand the language and the intent (of course, that can get bogged down in lots of politics and religion and stuff) or to take a class that will, hopefully, help you understand it.

It is archaic, after all...and you really can't even read The Scarlet Letter with any hope of truly understanding it ere you have at least a basic understanding of the NT at any rate.

Tokie

 

[Paulhoff]

Sorry, I forget that this is an internation forum.

Most Americans over the age of say, 10 or 12 know what it means.

For those under that age and non-Americans (including Canadians and others who take great umbrage at being called "non-American" because, after all, they live in America too!) among fundamentalist Christians, especially Southern Baptists and Seventh Day Adventists, there is a thing called "speaking in tongues" in which the spirit of the Lord enters you and you begin babbling in what some will tell you is a "forgotten language" from the time before the Tower of Babel, or in some Godly language never known to man.

It's fun to watch. And if add rolling to it, you really should bring some popcorn. Maybe a soda.

Tokie

No, true speaking in tongues meant at when a person spoke in Tongues, all people in a crowd would understand that person no matter what language they spoke, now it means BS.

Paul

 

[Andronicus]

"When spoken by schizophrenics, glossalia is recognized as gibberish." ROBERT TODD CARROLL, THE SKEPTIC'S DICTIONARY 155 (2003).

A even better line is on Carroll's updated article:
"There is nothing in Joel, however, that prophesied that, when the last days didn't come as predicted, plan B would be to wait 1900 years and have a revival and claim that when you speak gibberish it is a sign that God loves you." (online source: http://skepdic.com/glossol.html )

 

[Paulhoff]

claim that when you speak gibberish it is a sign that God loves you.

It must love the hell out of Bush.

Paul

 

[Prospero]

As much as I resented having to go to Sunday School while growing up, it's provided me a lifetime of ammo against Christians that have no idea what their holy book says. I'll teach my kids about the bible and read them some of the myths presented in it. There are far too many allusions made to the text not to give something of an education on it.

 

[Mercer]

I think that more time needs to be spent on the Bible than other religions in Western/Christian countries. As has been said before, it's central to cultural reference etc. On the other hand, I think comparative religion is massively important for tolerance and understanding, and that the children who would be barred from it by their parents would be the ones who needed it most.

 

[Wildy]

I disagree. I couldn't opt out of studying The Scarlet Letter no matter how much I loathed it. Why is the Bible the single work of fiction to which students are allowed to opt out?

I probably should have thought my statement through before I wrote it down.

Thinking about what I was going on about when I said it, in the US do they have 'electives'? Or subjects that the children get to choose? That would probably be a better idea and most likely what I was thinking of at the time.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

So to make my point clear, I think that instead of bible studies classes there should be classes taught about world religions. I am sure that even in the US, if taught correctly, would not be a violation of whatever section of the US constitution that covers the separation of church and state.

As long as you make sure you cover ALL the religions, including the beliefs of and differences between the various sects of each. And give equal time to each strand of non-religion in order that you are not seen to be promoting belief over non-belief.

Now providing we agree to ditch education in all other subjects and extend the school day to 14 hours, I reckon we should have the kids finished with that class in their early 40's.

 

[drkitten]

As long as you make sure you cover ALL the religions, including the beliefs of and differences between the various sects of each. And give equal time to each strand of non-religion in order that you are not seen to be promoting belief over non-belief.

That's almost a straw man. That's certainly not the standard to which other disciplines are held. In a course on "European history," for example, teachers are free to select only the most important and influential events and countries to study in detail. Any serious discussion of 19th century European history would have to deal with Napoleanic France, but I'm afraid that Luxembourg has always been something of a historical footnote. If you're going to discuss Germanic states, Prussia is quite important, but we can probably ignore Schwarzburg-Sondershausen.

Similarly, in philosophy class, Plato and Aristotle tend to get more press than Geulincx or even Bosanquet.

I have no problem suggesting that Christianity is deserving of more classroom time than John Frum-ism.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

That's almost a straw man. That's certainly not the standard to which other disciplines are held. In a course on "European history," for example, teachers are free to select only the most important and influential events and countries to study in detail. Any serious discussion of 19th century European history would have to deal with Napoleanic France, but I'm afraid that Luxembourg has always been something of a historical footnote. If you're going to discuss Germanic states, Prussia is quite important, but we can probably ignore Schwarzburg-Sondershausen.

Similarly, in philosophy class, Plato and Aristotle tend to get more press than Geulincx or even Bosanquet.

I have no problem suggesting that Christianity is deserving of more classroom time than John Frum-ism.

But there is nothing in the Constitution about not promoting one European nation over another.

Can you explain why a government funded school granting more time to Christianity than John Frum-ism should not be seen as a value judgement indicating that one is more "correct" than the other? I am pretty sure that the lawyers for those beliefs NOT granted equal time can find reasons why it should be seen as endorsement of those granted more time.

 

[drkitten]

But there is nothing in the Constitution about not promoting one European nation over another.

Education isn't promotion.

Can you explain why a government funded school granting more time to Christianity than John Frum-ism should not be seen as a value judgement indicating that one is more "correct" than the other?

By that line of reasoning, if I created a course entitled "Why Christianity is Wrong," I am indicating that is is "more correct" than any other. Classroom time is not an indicator of correctness.

I am pretty sure that the lawyers for those beliefs NOT granted equal time can find reasons why it should be seen as endorsement of those granted more time.

Well, lawyers can find reasons for everything, but the courts are under no obligation to respect the reasons (or to respect the lawyers, for that matter). Is there a legitimate secular purpose to spending more time on Christianity than on John Frum-ism? Of course there is; Christianity is demonstrably a more important influence on both world and national culture; a simple study of Biblical quotes in the Congressional Record vs. Frumist ones will show this. Precisely because classroom time is limited, something must (for equally secular reasons) be cut -- and the stuff to cut is the stuff that isn't important. The courts actually show schools and other professional groups a lot of deference in how they structure their own profession....

There might be arguments that something was cut unjustly; for example, if the treatment of Christianity excluded Catholicism, that's hard to justify in secular terms. It's not clear whether Taoism should make the cut; it's got a lot of believers, but not much global influence, and one could make a case either way. But the simple idea that education about something is promotion of it has actually been made in front of the courts and specifically rejected.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Education isn't promotion.

There might be arguments that something was cut unjustly; for example, if the treatment of Christianity excluded Catholicism, that's hard to justify in secular terms.

Why?

You just told me that education isn't promotion. So what is the problem?

[Note that the original comment was intended to be fairly lighthearted, but I can see problems in practice when schoolboards are deciding which religions are important enough to include. Both of omission - as some boards conclude that only Christianity is really important - and of inclusion - as some boards load the curriculum with a superficial overview of loads of different beliefs in a limited timeframe.]

 

[drkitten]

Why?

You just told me that education isn't promotion. So what is the problem?

The problem is that there doesn't appear to be a legitimate secular reason for excluding Catholicism. The general rule is that you can teach anything you like as long as you have a convincing secular motive for what you're teaching.

[Note that the original comment was intended to be fairly lighthearted, but I can see problems in practice when schoolboards are deciding which religions are important enough to include. Both of omission - as some boards conclude that only Christianity is really important - and of inclusion - as some boards load the curriculum with a superficial overview of loads of different beliefs in a limited timeframe.]

And, indeed, both of those are potential problems. But they're only potential problems.

If you read the text of the various SCOTUS decisions, there's a fairly common theme running through them -- the Justices practically beg for schools to teach about religion and make it very clear that education about religion is constitutionally permissible. A course focused entirely about Protestant Christianity would almost certainly be constitutionally permissible as long as it stayed away from proseltyzing.

But that's a big "as long as," and you know that the School Board would almost certainly have to demonstrate that they were, in fact, staying away from proseletyzing in court, when the inevitable challenge came. And they would have to defend -- on strictly secular and educational grounds -- their decision to focus that sharply.

This, for example, is how the arguments played out in Dover. The plaintiffs alleged that the school board was religiously motivated and had no justificable secular grounds for their decision. The school board claimed that they had valid secular grounds for wanting to teach ID as an alternative to evolutionary theory -- but failed miserably to support their claim. If you wanted to teach a course on world religions that excluded Catholicism, I'm not sure what possible secular motives you could have -- and I would have not problem finding someone to testify about the religious basis of anti-Catholicism.

 

[Tanstaafl]

Can you explain why a government funded school granting more time to Christianity than John Frum-ism should not be seen as a value judgement indicating that one is more "correct" than the other? I am pretty sure that the lawyers for those beliefs NOT granted equal time can find reasons why it should be seen as endorsement of those granted more time.

I think the message is that, for those in the U.S. at least, Christianity and the bible are more relevant, not more correct.