• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

In California

Arguably (and I'll argue this until everyone agrees - if only insincerely to shut me up) there is no book so "relevant" that it needs to be not only studied every single year, but given away for children to keep for free by the state every single year if they only ask for it.

If a student wishes to do a book report on the bible, or a paper on the Bible's impact on civilization, then fine. That's one book report or paper for a class. There are other books to read. There are other books to comment on. There are other books to study. Hundreds of thousands of other books.

Why should students be encouraged to repeatedly read one (exceedingly boring, long-winded, and archaically written) book over and over again when there are many books on many subjects that reflect modern English as written in the the U.S.A., modern thinking and commentary on thousands of subjects, and many of which are much more interesting, even fun to read?

Reading this one book every year will be to the exclusion of other books that (while perhaps not having a great "influence" on someone's interpretation of how history was created by God through His Holy (KJV WITH OFFICIAL STATE SANCTIONED ONLY NOTES) Bible), have their own intrinsic value.

Especially the value of teaching kids to love reading. No kid will honestly say they "love" reading ALL OF the bible.


Besides, how will you introduce the impact of the Bible on "Literature" and "Culture" without introducing the fact that the KJV Bible is not the Catholic one, and the "OT" is not even really the same as the Hebrew one? The KJV impacted ENGLISH Bible readers (a minority of Europeans by any measure), but other versions impacted other language readers. The CATHOLIC BIBLE (in Latin) is most appropriate for the longest period of influence, and continued influence on European history and American histories. "Where's the petition to make this one the standard?" After all, Martin Luther wasn't even born until 50 years after the Americas were discovered, the his original non-Latin version of the Bible was into GERMAN, the vote to make the American "standard" language ENGLISH, instead of GERMAN was only off by one, and the first issue of KJV didn't even happen until 1611.

http://www.av1611.org/kjv/kjvhist.html
http://www.wycliffe.org/history/BibleTranslation.htm

Now you have to go into slippery little details in a class full of children who just might BE Catholic, Hebrew or even Mormon (with additional books) about the relevant "impact" of why there are Protestants, and the differences between all of them, and oh, by the way, SOME of these kids who belong to the more "proactive" churches will have been primed in Sunday School (and after-school study groups) for what to ask and introduce, and how to answer (as well as continuous pressure to invite/coerce/drag other children into these "study groups").


In short, the Bible (AS WELL AS OTHER WORKS) probably should be studied by mature students with a sincere scholarly goal of understanding its "impact" on American culture, European culture, other cultures, etc. Few students in primary school, high school, even COLLEGE ages, fit a description of "mature enough" (emotionally, or academically) to get anything out of it but good fights over witnessing and attempted indoctrination into other people's <s>cults</s>churches.
 
evildave said:
In short, the Bible (AS WELL AS OTHER WORKS) probably should be studied by mature students with a sincere scholarly goal of understanding its "impact" on American culture, European culture, other cultures, etc. Few students in primary school, high school, even COLLEGE ages, fit a description of "mature enough" (emotionally, or academically) to get anything out of it but good fights over witnessing and attempted indoctrination into other people's <s>cults</s>churches. [/B]
Click to expand...

Nonsense. I would expect *well-educated highschoolers to understand what it means to refer to Martin Luther King as a "modern day Moses" who was demanding "Let my people go." When a female in a novel is refered to as a "Jezebel," or a songstress croons of "Sampson succumbing to Delilah," or a betrayed character in a play asks how the betrayer will spend his "thirty pieces of silver," those are references and allusions a culturally literate, well-educated teenager should know. Such references/allusions to people, sayings and events in the Bible ***suffuse*** our literature, music and intellectual musings. The same is not true of the Koran, notwithstanding Islamic contributions to (and, as you document, preservation of) the Western intellectual corpus.

I have no strong opinion on the CA plan to give students Bibles every year, because I'm not clear on the purpose. Your opposition may well be justified, but not for all of the reasons you have given.
 
Well, I think all students should play Grand Theft Auto, so we can know what "Six Stars" means in another quote.

These biblical references are all accessible through on-line searches, footnotes, asking questions, or just getting a "feel" for them, without handing someone a physical copy of the bible of their very own to play "State Funded Gideon" with.

We can start from:
http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible

From that, we can get that the Moses story appears in Genesis and Exodus, but it's unlikely anybody will NOT have been introduced to the Moses story through one channel of media or another.

Typing "Jezebel" into the search engine yields essentially "Cliff's Notes" for her actions. (Traitor) Of course, it's used frequently in acted media, and by individuals, and the tone can deliver the meaning to anyone who isn't totally numb.

The Sampson/Delilah is a similarly well-known fable, and another wicked woman who brings about another sorrowful (although "triumphant") end.

With another quick search, we not only find out that the precise 30 silver pieces is only mentioned in Matthew, and that Judas hanged himself, did nothing unusual AND fell headlong into the field he bought and his guts splashed out.

Once again, anyone in a Christian-filled society will have ended up being exposed to an Easter treat, like "Jesus Christ, Superstar".


Instead of teaching children to fumble around with a thick, boring tome (that WILL cause fights and draw lawsuits to the schools), teach them to operate a search engine and get any holy text they could ever wish to peruse (especially the RELEVANT text, and quickly). Sure beats memorizing that drivel.
 
evildave said:

These biblical references are all accessible through on-line searches, footnotes, asking questions, or just getting a "feel" for them, without handing someone a physical copy of the bible of their very own to play "State Funded Gideon" with.

<snip>

Instead of teaching children to fumble around with a thick, boring tome (that WILL cause fights and draw lawsuits to the schools), teach them to operate a search engine and get any holy text they could ever wish to peruse (especially the RELEVANT text, and quickly). Sure beats memorizing that drivel.
Click to expand...

Don't you get it? A literate person can read a text and recognize references and allusions without stopping every few minutes to use a search engine. They can employ such images themselves, in their own writing and conversation, to communicate with the rest of the literate world. Not long ago I said to a 20-something person: "Physician, heal thyself" and he had no freakin' clue what I was talking about. (Luke 4:23). Whatever else all that religious training I sufferd as a kid did to me, I do greatly appreciate the reservoir of cultural literacy it endowed on me.

The Bible and Shakespeare are two sources with which a Westerner who wishes to communicate with "intellectuals" about culture and ideas simply must be well familiar. Reading high- and even low-brow fiction implicates familiarity with both.

Additionally, I disagree that the Bible is boring. It is a fascinating collection of many kinds of writing that illuminate the evolution of a people and religion -- several religions, actually. Just because some Xians pound on it and insist on a facile, literal and supernatural understanding of its contents does not mean it cannot be appreciated at "higher" levels.

[I need to review what I f*cking type (or in my case, typo) before I post the first time!]
 
Mona, I still don't see why you won't allow that such study should be made in high school. In elementary and middle school, children are simply too busy learning the parts of speech, proper grammar, punctuation, and spelling. You cannot interject an "oh, by the way, you know the phrase 'thirty pieces of silver' is a biblical reference. Open your Bibles at page...." while you're trying to teach kids about adverbs. Further, the current study of "figures of speech" doesn't happen until high school anyway, nor does the real study of literature. And if you're going to be teaching young children about the cultural relevance of biblical passages, you must first teach them to understand the archaic language presented in King James. It's a waste of time. By high school, they will have developed the skills to understand the language as used in the bible simply through context, without having to be taught anything extra.

Like it or not, there will always be religious intonations when the Bible is involved. You and I can seperate the issues; not everybody can, and many will refuse to. Revert to my first post, and evildave's post above in regards to children being "primed" by Interest Group X into forcing discussions over religion. There are some who will outright reject having to be "issued" a Bible; whether they eventually have to accept one as a textbook or not will not matter - those kids are marked. If taking the Bibles are to be voluntary, it is completely impossible for any teacher to develop and implement any type of cirriculum around it. How can you teach a (secular) Bible study class if only half your kids have the materials?

I contest the notion that understanding of Biblical stories is absolutely "necessary" in a society which alludes to them often. In this day and age, extraterrestrial visitation is alluded to at least as much; yet we don't need to force-feed kids Berlitz or Randle books in order to make sure they "get" the metaphors. It can be said that several classic authors were influenced by the Bible or Christianity; I have yet to read any work by anyone which is incomprehendible without knowledge of similar biblical stories. If one wishes to study classical literature in depth, at the college level, there are courses which directly study the Bible, for that specific purpose.

The public at large will suffer due to the enourmous loss of tax dollars, used not only to supply the books, but to support lawyers in the litigation that is certain to follow. Several organizations will most definitely sue over this issue; for instance, Americans United (of which I am a member). The ACLU is bound to raise an objection as well, spurned by local Christian and other religious groups who object to the type of Bible being introduced, or to the fact that the school is intruding on personal religious matters. That's how it always is.
 
Since when did it become necessary to know the origins of a word or phrase to understand, or even enjoy, its usage? That idea is preposterous. Any cultural idiom derived from the Bible will continue to be transmitted (as long as it's useful) throughout the culture, whether or not the origin is remembered. Furthermore, many of them are self-explanatory. Even without awareness of the source, I can't imagine a 20-something not being able to figure out the intent of the phrase "Physician, heal thyself." The words and phrases from the Bible are part of the language now, and are acquired just like the rest of the language. Special knowledge of origins is irrelevant.

To illustrate: "children" is a double plural. The original noun "child" was in use at a time when the plural suffix was "-er" so the proper original plural was "childer." Later, the plural suffix shifted to "-en." Some people kept the old plural suffix as they added the new, producing "childeren" which in time became "children." And in some American dialects today, you can find the word "childrens." OK, now you know the origin. Does that shed light on anything? Will it make it easier to understand what someone means the next time they ask how your children are? I didn't think so. Origins are neat things to know, and fun to investigate if one doesn't know them, bt they are far from requisiste knowledge.

Should the Bible be taught (as literature) in public schools? Probably. Is being the source for many figures of speech in the English language a cause for it being taught every school day for 13 years to American students. Hardly.
 
Re: Re: In California

elliotfc said:
Gobs and gobs and gobs of literature, great literature, allude to the Bible, assume a knowledge of the Bible, or deserve to be compared to the Bible. It's the most important book in existence, from a literary standpoint.
Click to expand...
Sure, but there are other classic works of literature that are on near-equal, if not equal, footing with the Bible in that regard.

Not having a good knowledge of classical literature could be the Achilles' heel of many students of English, but having the Bible taught as literature, especially as literature for all of K-12, would end up being a big Pandora's box.
 
evildave said:
In short, the Bible (AS WELL AS OTHER WORKS) probably should be studied by mature students with a sincere scholarly goal of understanding its "impact" on American culture, European culture, other cultures, etc.
Click to expand...

Well, considering that's almost precisely what I said a few posts back, I don't think we have a disagreement. I was under the impression that you thought the Koran was equally influential on Western literature, which is patently untrue.
 
Joshua Korosi said:
Mona, I still don't see why you won't allow that such study should be made in high school. In elementary and middle school, children are simply too busy learning the parts of speech, proper grammar, punctuation, and spelling. .
Click to expand...

Sorry, I must not have been clear: I do think high school is about when comparative religion and/or the Bible as literature should be taught. A teacher with a background in religious studies, especially (tho not necessarily) from a secular university well knows how to present this subject academically . Yes, there can be some tension; there was when I was a college student in the major. The fundamentalists and evangelicals were sometimes uncomfortable with approaching their sacred text in so detached a manner. (And not treating the Creation accounts as either only one version, or as literally true.)

Our children live in a world where religion and religious differences continue to cause disruption and even violence. One thing studying religion academically does is to show the similarities of idea, evolution, and very importantly: syncretism. Xianity borrowed from other faiths, a whole lot, as did Islam and Judaism. Understanding religion and how religions grow, their meaning to individuals and cultures, is important and potentially pacifying.
 
Marquis de Carabas said:
Since when did it become necessary to know the origins of a word or phrase to understand, or even enjoy, its usage? That idea is preposterous. .
Click to expand...

Well then, we have opposite ideas of what is preposterous; a well-read person should know the origins and what they mean. I'm a libertarian and frequently read politics at the Reason magazine blog. Recently they headlined a posting "Accountant, Account for Thyself." One needs familiarity with a scriptural admonition to physicians to "get" that. Those who wish to converse with other thinking people greatly benefit from knowing common cultural references and where they originate.

Indeed, without an understanding of the messiah role in Xianity, messianic themes are not likely to be well grasped. Take a novel such as John Irving's A Prayer for Owen Meany . Meany is a Christ figure in that story, and the allusions to Christ are frequent. That is but one example of many persons/events/ideas from the Bible that permeate the body of Western thought and literature.

Sure, someone may glean what it means to ask about "thirty pieces of silver" by context, but without already knowing the story behind it and where it is from, the connection is feeble; the person mostly bereft of such background is, to a great extent, cutlurally deracinated.

When one snarls that an arrogant superior at work issues orders "as if he just descended from Sinai," a literate person infers the accusation that said superior thinks he has the authority of God behind him. Articulate and well-read people just do talk like that often, and they understand such commentary. I'd as soon that the only such people are not the indoctrinated children of religionists.
 
Whatever happened to plain communication? Does everything have to be allusion and metaphor to be labelled "communication" by some people, or can we simply say, in so many words, what we mean?

If you ever had to deal with BUSINESS or TECHNICAL, even LEGAL communication, you'd notice that it doesn't contain much in the way of metaphors. Being prone to use them is potentially quite a handicap, as you basically make it more likely the reader will not follow the ideas you are trying to present.

No matter how popular a particular work is/was, there are always people unfamilar with it.

Theoretically, if you wanted to work in a geek profession, you'd go watch all the classic Star Trek episodes you could find, so you'd "get" the "He's dead Jim", or "I canna change the laws of physics", or "He's a Red-Shirt". Of course, this doesn't actually add to communication; it only makes you more a part of the clique that uses these quotes and such to identify each-other.

And that's sort of the way I see the KJV study thing: make kids a part of the Christian clique, so they "fit in" more in church.

Perhaps the state should mandate children being shown Star Trek? I'm sure it's as frustrating to the learned individual when he says "Am I my brother's keeper?" in a witty way that draws blank stares as it is for a geek who blurts one of Dr. McCoy's "I'm a doctor, not a ... !" quotes.

And really, what is the difference between a techy geek and a literature geek, but for the focus of their geekiness?
 
So, in the end, it all comes down to cultural and intellectual snobbery? A lot of people know the Bible, and its influence on our figures of speech, so should we all. Every schoolchild needs 13 years of instruction in the Bible just in case a coworker ever says "as if he just descended from Sinai." Every schoolchild must need 13 years of instruction in the history of the NFL just in case a coworker ever says "trying to get an idea through the boss's skull is like trying to break through the Steel Curtain."

No, no, no. Imagine a guy with no Bible learning sitting in an office who overhears the Sinai comment. Assuming he works for the same boss, and hears the tone of the speaker, he understands the message being conveyed. And if he's curious, he might even ask what descending from Sinai means. Someone will tell him, and that will be that. What's the big deal?
 
I guess everyone agrees the California Bible thing is basically Jesus Geeks who want to have their cultural influence felt by everyone, so they don't have to feel so "socially isolated" when their Bible quotes fall flat.

A bit like Star Trek geeks who think the state should build a statue of Gene Roddenberry and mandate all school aged children watch the entire original Star Trek TV series every year at school (ONLY the officially sanctioned one, of course, and except, of course, for the kids who have objections to Tribbles: they will have to stand quietly outside in the hall).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom