Full Version: Seperation Issue?
QUOTE
ATLANTA - Georgia is poised to introduce two literature classes on the Bible in public schools next year, a move some critics say would make the state the first to take an explicit stance endorsing — and funding — biblical teachings.
The Bible already is incorporated into some classes in Georgia and other states, but some critics say the board's move, which makes the Bible the classes' main text, treads into dangerous turf.
On a list of classes approved Thursday by the Georgia Board of Education are Literature and History of the Old Testament Era, and Literature and History of the New Testament Era. The classes, approved last year by the Legislature, will not be required, and the state's 180 school systems can decide for themselves whether to offer them.
The school board's unanimous vote set up a 30-day public comment period, after which it is expected to give final approval.
Senate Majority Leader Tommie Williams, the Republican who sponsored the plan, said the Bible plays a major role in history and is important in understanding many classic literary works.
"It's not just 'The Good Book,'" Williams said. "It's a good book."
Charles Haynes of the First Amendment Center, a nonpartisan civil liberties group, has said the Georgia policy is the nation's first to endorse and fund Bible classes on a statewide level.
The bill approved overwhelmingly in the Legislature was tailored to make it clear the courses would not stray into religious teaching, Williams said.
The measure calls for the courses to be taught "in an objective and nondevotional manner with no attempt made to indoctrinate students."
But critics say that while the language may pass constitutional muster, that could change in the classroom if instructors stray.
The Bible already is incorporated into some classes in Georgia and other states, but some critics say the board's move, which makes the Bible the classes' main text, treads into dangerous turf.
On a list of classes approved Thursday by the Georgia Board of Education are Literature and History of the Old Testament Era, and Literature and History of the New Testament Era. The classes, approved last year by the Legislature, will not be required, and the state's 180 school systems can decide for themselves whether to offer them.
The school board's unanimous vote set up a 30-day public comment period, after which it is expected to give final approval.
Senate Majority Leader Tommie Williams, the Republican who sponsored the plan, said the Bible plays a major role in history and is important in understanding many classic literary works.
"It's not just 'The Good Book,'" Williams said. "It's a good book."
Charles Haynes of the First Amendment Center, a nonpartisan civil liberties group, has said the Georgia policy is the nation's first to endorse and fund Bible classes on a statewide level.
The bill approved overwhelmingly in the Legislature was tailored to make it clear the courses would not stray into religious teaching, Williams said.
The measure calls for the courses to be taught "in an objective and nondevotional manner with no attempt made to indoctrinate students."
But critics say that while the language may pass constitutional muster, that could change in the classroom if instructors stray.
Rest of story.
Question for debate.
Is this a breech of our constitution? If so why, and if not why?
Is this a breech of our constitution? If so why, and if not why?
I would say not, if the teaching remains absolutely free of any opinion, one way or the other, as to the religious validity of the writings that are studied. Here's a quote from the landmark decision dealing with this issue. (I have deliberately used a conservative, religious, pro-Bible website as the source of the quote.)
Link
Thus, a genuinely objective study of the Bible -- and, for that matter, a genuinely objective study of all the major religions of the world -- is not only legal, but probably a good idea. This is part of one's cultural literacy.
The problem comes up when a teacher violates objectivity. If a student asks her if, for example, the story of Noah's ark is really true, she is going to have to say that she cannot offer an opinion. Obviously, there will be some teachers who will go too far, one way or the other. These situations will require individual scrutiny.
I would say not, if the teaching remains absolutely free of any opinion, one way or the other, as to the religious validity of the writings that are studied. Here's a quote from the landmark decision dealing with this issue. (I have deliberately used a conservative, religious, pro-Bible website as the source of the quote.)
Link
QUOTE
In 1963, the Supreme Court made a ruling, not against the study of the Bible, but against the devotional, religious use of the Bible. Supreme Court Justice Clark stated,
It might be well said that one's education is not complete without a study of comparative religion or the history of religion and its relationship to the advancement of civilization. It certainly may be said that the Bible is worthy of study for its literacy and historic qualities. Nothing we have said here indicates that such study of the Bible or of religion, when presented objectively as part of a secular program of education, may not be effected consistently with the First Amendment.
School District of Abington Township v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203,225 (1963)
It might be well said that one's education is not complete without a study of comparative religion or the history of religion and its relationship to the advancement of civilization. It certainly may be said that the Bible is worthy of study for its literacy and historic qualities. Nothing we have said here indicates that such study of the Bible or of religion, when presented objectively as part of a secular program of education, may not be effected consistently with the First Amendment.
School District of Abington Township v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203,225 (1963)
Thus, a genuinely objective study of the Bible -- and, for that matter, a genuinely objective study of all the major religions of the world -- is not only legal, but probably a good idea. This is part of one's cultural literacy.
The problem comes up when a teacher violates objectivity. If a student asks her if, for example, the story of Noah's ark is really true, she is going to have to say that she cannot offer an opinion. Obviously, there will be some teachers who will go too far, one way or the other. These situations will require individual scrutiny.
QUOTE(gordo @ Mar 9 2007, 08:44 PM) 
QUOTE
ATLANTA - Georgia is poised to introduce two literature classes on the Bible in public schools next year, a move some critics say would make the state the first to take an explicit stance endorsing — and funding — biblical teachings.
Perhaps correct in being the first individual state to do so, although I doubt it, but there is plenty of precedent for this.
The Congress of the United States for a hundred years funded missionaries and churches among the Indian tribes. Congress imported Bibles and funded the printing of an American edition of the Bible.
The same Congress that passed the Constitution also passed the Northwest Ordinance. The relevant clause to this topic is as follows: "Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged."
Finally, the District of Columbia utilized the Bible as a public school reading text. The chairman of the school board and author of that plan? None other than Thomas Jefferson, also author of "separation church and state."
Is this a breech of our constitution? If so why, and if not why?
It is not a breach of the Constitution, as it is in complete accord with the actions of the same folks who wrote the Constitution. Unless we assert that they didn't know the meaning of what they wrote and ratified, we must conclude that their actions were constitutional. Since then, the First Amendment has not been amended, therefore, barring extra-Constitutional redefinition, the meaning is the same as when it was written.
As a kicker, explicitly prohibiting the non-religious use of the Bible constitutes censorship, and a particularly egregious form as well. The Bible, as a literary work, is alluded to and quoted in the great works of English literature more often than any other work in the English language.
QUOTE(Bikerdad @ Mar 10 2007, 04:16 AM)
QUOTE(gordo @ Mar 9 2007, 08:44 PM)
QUOTE
ATLANTA - Georgia is poised to introduce two literature classes on the Bible in public schools next year, a move some critics say would make the state the first to take an explicit stance endorsing — and funding — biblical teachings.
Perhaps correct in being the first individual state to do so, although I doubt it, but there is plenty of precedent for this.
The Congress of the United States for a hundred years funded missionaries and churches among the Indian tribes. Congress imported Bibles and funded the printing of an American edition of the Bible.
The same Congress that passed the Constitution also passed the Northwest Ordinance. The relevant clause to this topic is as follows: "Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged."
Finally, the District of Columbia utilized the Bible as a public school reading text. The chairman of the school board and author of that plan? None other than Thomas Jefferson, also author of "separation church and state."
Is this a breech of our constitution? If so why, and if not why?
It is not a breach of the Constitution, as it is in complete accord with the actions of the same folks who wrote the Constitution. Unless we assert that they didn't know the meaning of what they wrote and ratified, we must conclude that they're actions were constitutional. Since then, the First Amendment has not been amended, therefore, barring extra-Constitutional redefinition, the meaning is the same as when it was written.
As a kicker, explicitly prohibiting the non-religious use of the Bible constitutes censorship, and a particularly egregious form as well. The Bible, as a literary work, is alluded to and quoted in the great works of English literature more often than any other work in the English language.
I have to disagree. Firstly, there is no political push to mandate a class based around say some other book. I could imagine though it would be interesting to make a class for the objective studying of say a book from Asimov in our public schools. The reality as I see it is what is objective study of the bible, are they going to include all the points in which the bible does not match reality, as in say scientific fact, I hardly doubt this. I mean since you are so sure it would be some objective study of it, tell me how you would do that exactly?
Its a Christian camp move for a foothold in public schools, there is no desire to say use another religions text, nope just “the good book”. Barring anything else the separation clause has had so much attention giving to it as to basically be rendered hopeless because of political motivations. This of course not to be to partisan has its political leader being a republican.
Ya BD- and at one time, slavery was legal, for what, about a hundred years as a nation, prety close anyway? Gee, why did we get rid of that slavery thing- oh, perhaps because it is wrong? and maybe, we stopped funding church because it was wrong? Hey- see the connect- we through off the shackles of slavery and the church about the same time? Coincidence? I think not! 
Okay- as a literary work- yes, the bible is absolutely appropriate in schools as a literary tool- to say so would be dishonest- but the risk is, especially in the freakin' BIBLE BELT- is the application of "literary teaching" really being "brainwashing into the church" - and growing up in the south- this was happening even when they knew they weren't supposed too!
I mean Bikerdad- it isn't like the goverment to abuse it's new authority or anything, is it, I mean, they won't ever do that right?
I don't think primary school is the place- but absolutely okay for honors English students in high school and perhaps even advanced/honors middle school. For kids that can kind of think for themselves and aren't just regurgitating whatever they are told to regurgitate.
Thomas Jefferson abhored slavery, but owned slaves, loved a slave,but married a white woman.
Thomas Jefferson, talked about how great the bible was in one letter, and call it a "dungheap" in the next.
John Adams was absolutely devout- no doubt about it.
Funny though- Gawd isn't mentioned in the constitution once- coincidence considering this group? I think not!
Okay- as a literary work- yes, the bible is absolutely appropriate in schools as a literary tool- to say so would be dishonest- but the risk is, especially in the freakin' BIBLE BELT- is the application of "literary teaching" really being "brainwashing into the church" - and growing up in the south- this was happening even when they knew they weren't supposed too!
I mean Bikerdad- it isn't like the goverment to abuse it's new authority or anything, is it, I mean, they won't ever do that right?
I don't think primary school is the place- but absolutely okay for honors English students in high school and perhaps even advanced/honors middle school. For kids that can kind of think for themselves and aren't just regurgitating whatever they are told to regurgitate.
Thomas Jefferson abhored slavery, but owned slaves, loved a slave,but married a white woman.
Thomas Jefferson, talked about how great the bible was in one letter, and call it a "dungheap" in the next.
John Adams was absolutely devout- no doubt about it.
Funny though- Gawd isn't mentioned in the constitution once- coincidence considering this group? I think not!
QUOTE(gordo @ Mar 9 2007, 11:40 PM)
I have to disagree. Firstly, there is no political push to mandate a class based around say some other book.
The class is not mandated. Each school district in Georgia may offer the class or not. Had you paid more attention to the article you cited, you would know that. My guess is that in Georgia, the state determines a small realm of required curriculum and a much larger realm of acceptable optional curriculum. This falls into the latter category.
Second, there's no "political push" based on some other book for two reasons. First, there is no other book that's even a tenth as important to American literature, English literature or Western literature as the Bible. I challenge you to provide contenders. Second, and this does matter, any contender that you do come up with hasn't been actively "hounded" out of the classroom by lawsuits. If the State Legislature decided to conjure up a class on the Foundation Trilogy, do you really think that ABC would bother reporting it? Sure, Analog would, but I doubt if any of the major media outlets would do so, and who would be protesting it, aside from the Romance Writers of America?
ABC reported this story because it is a political story. You mischaracterize it as a "political push", when you should have characterized it as a "political pushback." QUOTE
The reality as I see it is what is objective study of the bible, are they going to include all the points in which the bible does not match reality, as in say scientific fact, I hardly doubt this. I mean since you are so sure it would be some objective study of it, tell me how you would do that exactly?
I don't mean to be harsh here, but have you ever taken any literature classes? The Bible, as literature, can be studied on multiple levels. There is a significant amount of poetry, primarily in the Psalms and also the Song of Solomon, regarded as one of the great love poems of all time. It is one of the great works of wisdom literature, and most importantly, it is the great work of wisdom literature of Western Civilization. It is unique in the Western canon as the only significant book that combines so many different forms of literature. Poetry, wisdom, song, history, biography. It is also unique in having so many different "voices", and as such gives an unprecedented opportunity for students to see how different authors can cover the same material. It also is unique in "great literature" in that it has some remarkably pedestrian writing in sections, and some of the most boring recitations of mind-numbing accounting I've ever encountered.The Bible is a veritable font of iconic images that suffuse our culture. David and Goliath - the quintissential little guy taking out the big guy. Samson and Delilah - strong tough guy taken down by the betrayal of a woman. John the Baptist - zealot in the desert. Balaam's *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. *** - straight talk from the unlikliest of sources. Solomon's wisdom. The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse. Angels. Satan. Adam and Eve. Cain and Abel. "the patience of Job." Unless one has read the Book of Job, its hard to understand what that allusion actually means. Jonah and the Whale.
As for whether or not it matches scientific fact, since its a literature class, what does that matter?
QUOTE
Its a Christian camp move for a foothold in public schools, there is no desire to say use another religions text, nope just “the good book”.
Well, first off, the Old Testament is a Jewish text, so clearly you're mistaken about not wanting to "use another religions {sic} text." Second, aside from the Bible, no religious text has anywhere near the importance to American, English and Western literature, history, culture and society. Again, I challenge you to provide another religion's text that has even a tenth of the signficance as the Bible. If you can come up with something, be prepared to make your case for its importance.QUOTE
Barring anything else the separation clause has had so much attention giving to it as to basically be rendered hopeless because of political motivations. This of course not to be to partisan has its political leader being a republican.
The Democrats got the ball rolling on this one, again, something you would know if you paid more attention to the article you linked.I'm curious, since you brought up Asimov. If you were to construct a course on Science Fiction, would you include Mary Shelley and Mark Twain?
**********************************************************
QUOTE(CruisingRam)
Ya BD- and at one time, slavery was legal, for what, about a hundred years as a nation, prety close anyway? Gee, why did we get rid of that slavery thing- oh, perhaps because it is wrong? and maybe, we stopped funding church because it was wrong? Hey- see the connect- we through off the shackles of slavery and the church about the same time? Coincidence? I think not!
Kindly remind me of how it was that slavery became unconstitutional.Hold on, wait, its coming to me.
Oh yea, we amended the Constitution. By, you know, actually following the process laid out in the Constitution for amending it.
QUOTE(Bikerdad @ Mar 10 2007, 06:25 AM)
QUOTE(gordo @ Mar 9 2007, 11:40 PM)
I have to disagree. Firstly, there is no political push to mandate a class based around say some other book.
The class is not mandated. Each school district in Georgia may offer the class or not. Had you paid more attention to the article you cited, you would know that. My guess is that in Georgia, the state determines a small realm of required curriculum and a much larger realm of acceptable optional curriculum. This falls into the latter category.
Second, there's no "political push" based on some other book for two reasons. First, there is no other book that's even a tenth as important to American literature, English literature or Western literature as the Bible. I challenge you to provide contenders. Second, and this does matter, any contender that you do come up with hasn't been actively "hounded" out of the classroom by lawsuits. If the State Legislature decided to conjure up a class on the Foundation Trilogy, do you really think that ABC would bother reporting it? Sure, Analog would, but I doubt if any of the major media outlets would do so, and who would be protesting it, aside from the Romance Writers of America?
ABC reported this story because it is a political story. You mischaracterize it as a "political push", when you should have characterized it as a "political pushback." QUOTE
The reality as I see it is what is objective study of the bible, are they going to include all the points in which the bible does not match reality, as in say scientific fact, I hardly doubt this. I mean since you are so sure it would be some objective study of it, tell me how you would do that exactly?
I don't mean to be harsh here, but have you ever taken any literature classes? The Bible, as literature, can be studied on multiple levels. There is a significant amount of poetry, primarily in the Psalms and also the Song of Solomon, regarded as one of the great love poems of all time. It is one of the great works of wisdom literature, and most importantly, it is the great work of wisdom literature of Western Civilization. It is unique in the Western canon as the only significant book that combines so many different forms of literature. Poetry, wisdom, song, history, biography. It is also unique in having so many different "voices", and as such gives an unprecedented opportunity for students to see how different authors can cover the same material. It also is unique in "great literature" in that it has some remarkably pedestrian writing in sections, and some of the most boring recitations of mind-numbing accounting I've ever encountered.The Bible is a veritable font of iconic images that suffuse our culture. David and Goliath - the quintissential little guy taking out the big guy. Samson and Delilah - strong tough guy taken down by the betrayal of a woman. John the Baptist - zealot in the desert. Balaam's *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. *** - straight talk from the unlikliest of sources. Solomon's wisdom. The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse. Angels. Satan. Adam and Eve. Cain and Abel. "the patience of Job." Unless one has read the Book of Job, its hard to understand what that allusion actually means. Jonah and the Whale.
As for whether or not it matches scientific fact, since its a literature class, what does that matter?
QUOTE
Its a Christian camp move for a foothold in public schools, there is no desire to say use another religions text, nope just “the good book”.
Well, first off, the Old Testament is a Jewish text, so clearly you're mistaken about not wanting to "use another religions {sic} text." Second, aside from the Bible, no religious text has anywhere near the importance to American, English and Western literature, history, culture and society. Again, I challenge you to provide another religion's text that has even a tenth of the signficance as the Bible. If you can come up with something, be prepared to make your case for its importance.QUOTE
Barring anything else the separation clause has had so much attention giving to it as to basically be rendered hopeless because of political motivations. This of course not to be to partisan has its political leader being a republican.
The Democrats got the ball rolling on this one, again, something you would know if you paid more attention to the article you linked.I'm curious, since you brought up Asimov. If you were to construct a course on Science Fiction, would you include Mary Shelley and Mark Twain?
**********************************************************
QUOTE(CruisingRam)
Ya BD- and at one time, slavery was legal, for what, about a hundred years as a nation, prety close anyway? Gee, why did we get rid of that slavery thing- oh, perhaps because it is wrong? and maybe, we stopped funding church because it was wrong? Hey- see the connect- we through off the shackles of slavery and the church about the same time? Coincidence? I think not!
Kindly remind me of how it was that slavery became unconstitutional.Hold on, wait, its coming to me.
Oh yea, we amended the Constitution. By, you know, actually following the process laid out in the Constitution for amending it.
That still did not answer my question though. How would you study the bible objectively, I mean I am taking an art class right now, and for what’s its worth its a lot of it is garbage, that is the tests and so on. There is no particular truth to any of it save for who made the work and the physical properties of that piece of work, its who’s opinion is counting for fact at the current moment. So how would you label bible study as objective? I am sorry but the article is wanting to allow for a bible only based class to exist in public schools, and why? Because its important? TO who and why? Is that objective, but we will without a doubt have some objective study of the bible, instructed by objective people that are knowledgably experienced about the bible? The objective study of the bible, there is no such thing, that is there could be, but then again that wont occur. It will be a school period for kids to go and read the bible and then talk about the bible, it wont be some class to read the bible, and then the Koran, and talk about religion in general, or read the bible and then look at evolutionary phylogeny in respects to biochemical structures and homologies, no sir. If its just an important piece of writing, as you would word it, why its own class, and more so why its on class on such a level of education? There is no real reason, save for Christian camp America to work its plots, thanks to bushco that likes to give millions on a regular basis to such nutcases, then again god told him to invade Iraq so I just worry about nuclear weapon codes and so on.
I mean do you think kids in say the seventh or either grade are going to understand the literary complexity of the bible? No, they will hear about how god made the everything in five days and of course god years which are any amount of time at any point in time because it does not make sense but that wont probably be in the bible class either and so on…
Its getting a bit comical, because I though liberals were to be the ones with an agenda.
BD is absolutely right about it's value as a literary piece- it would be intellectually dishonest to say otherwise.
However- like the patriot act, or any other goverment agency allowed too much leeway- there is enormous room for abuse.
Also - there is an HUGE amount of porn in the bible- I mean, it is naughty, naughty, naughty. I certainly wouldn't let my kids read big portions of the bible until they are oh, about 35 -\
incest, rape, poop, genocide, slavery- all parts of the bible, mostly condoning or commanding the bad parts. Gawd of the bible is one mean dude!
It is far too adult material for anyone below 13 years of age, way too hardcore.
Porn is typically much cleaner and less dirty than what the bible has to offer- and I am not condoning 13 year olds to study sex via porn OR the bible.
Besides- most christians don't really even read the thing- if I were to re-write the bible stores, saying EXACTLY what the bible is saying, in a book- and represent it as my own words it would immediately get banned- no doubt about it.
It is the most pornographic and murderous English book allowed in school or around children you will ever see.
Do we really want our kids exposed to genocide, incest, rape, and those are the parts Gawd TOLD his followers to do- gawd condones slavery, genocide and incest in the bible- I sure as hell don't want my children exposed to it too soon!
However- like the patriot act, or any other goverment agency allowed too much leeway- there is enormous room for abuse.
Also - there is an HUGE amount of porn in the bible- I mean, it is naughty, naughty, naughty. I certainly wouldn't let my kids read big portions of the bible until they are oh, about 35
-\incest, rape, poop, genocide, slavery- all parts of the bible, mostly condoning or commanding the bad parts. Gawd of the bible is one mean dude!
It is far too adult material for anyone below 13 years of age, way too hardcore.
Porn is typically much cleaner and less dirty than what the bible has to offer- and I am not condoning 13 year olds to study sex via porn OR the bible.
Besides- most christians don't really even read the thing- if I were to re-write the bible stores, saying EXACTLY what the bible is saying, in a book- and represent it as my own words it would immediately get banned- no doubt about it.
It is the most pornographic and murderous English book allowed in school or around children you will ever see.
Do we really want our kids exposed to genocide, incest, rape, and those are the parts Gawd TOLD his followers to do- gawd condones slavery, genocide and incest in the bible- I sure as hell don't want my children exposed to it too soon!
QUOTE(gordo @ Mar 9 2007, 05:44 PM)
But critics say that while the language may pass constitutional muster, that could change in the classroom if instructors stray.
This is the key phrase in the article. Teaching a class focused on an ancient, likely mythological tome is certainly not a problem. However, any teachers would have to be thoroughly prepared with the consitutionality of the course curriculum, as it's a pretty easy lawsuit for the school to expose themselves if, for instance, a child were to question the logical absurdity of say Noah's Ark, or the order of events in Genesis, or the . hundreds of contradictions found within the bible. If he were not allowed to express descent from the text (as is available with all English Literature, Greek Literature and myths, etc.) than this is a slam-dunk for the ACLU. The class would have to be taught from a religiously neutral perspective that fully allows for criticism and analysis of the work.
I know if I were in high school, I'd take the class simply to discuss the various absurdities within the bible. This is a signficantly different pretext than what Christian children are learning in Sunday school. And to be honest, if I were a card-carrying AFA Christian Parent, I really don't think I'd want my kid attending this class as I'm sure they would get exposed to much more negative criticism of the "infallible" book than they would elsewhere (in the church.)
In the end, this is a disaster that is waiting to happen. I don't believe it is currently a consitutional issue.
This is Georgia we are talking about. I have no confidence in the teachers being objective while teaching the Bible. But I will say this, many Christians do not read the Bible, they listen to it preached to them. Once they study the book, there will be scrutiny and these students will come to question religion. It worked for me. I was a devout Christian until I really started to study the book, then I realized how many glaring inconsistencies there were that I started to read with a "Prove it" attitude, which is why I am Agnostic now. Society will be better for it if there are more thinkers than believers. Whether or not this new law will bring that about is a different question.
QUOTE(smorpheus @ Mar 10 2007, 12:16 PM)
QUOTE(gordo @ Mar 9 2007, 05:44 PM)
But critics say that while the language may pass constitutional muster, that could change in the classroom if instructors stray.
This is the key phrase in the article. Teaching a class focused on an ancient, likely mythological tome is certainly not a problem. However, any teachers would have to be thoroughly prepared with the consitutionality of the course curriculum, as it's a pretty easy lawsuit for the school to expose themselves if, for instance, a child were to question the logical absurdity of say Noah's Ark, or the order of events in Genesis, or the . hundreds of contradictions found within the bible. If he were not allowed to express descent from the text (as is available with all English Literature, Greek Literature and myths, etc.) than this is a slam-dunk for the ACLU. The class would have to be taught from a religiously neutral perspective that fully allows for criticism and analysis of the work.
I know if I were in high school, I'd take the class simply to discuss the various absurdities within the bible. This is a signficantly different pretext than what Christian children are learning in Sunday school. And to be honest, if I were a card-carrying AFA Christian Parent, I really don't think I'd want my kid attending this class as I'm sure they would get exposed to much more negative criticism of the "infallible" book than they would elsewhere (in the church.)
In the end, this is a disaster that is waiting to happen. I don't believe it is currently a consitutional issue.
I agree with you about this; if the Bible is taught objectively, and within a literature context it is far more likely to turn kids off from religion than anything else. It is nice to be able to agree with bikerdad, and I do here - the Bible is the most important referent in Western literature. As a songwriter I use a lot of Biblical allusions, precisely because they are not only poetic, but part of our "collective gnosis."
But smorpheus is absolutely right. This could really backfire for any Christians supporting this measure. Laid bare, the Bible is a fairly atrocious book; the good bits are like gold dust that must be sifted from amongst all the junk.
What are kids going to think when they read the story of Abraham pretending his wife is really his sister, and having her join the Pharaoh's harem? Or when they read about Lot, presumably the "good" man in Sodom, who offers up his daughters to be raped by the crowd, who is later seduced by and impregnates both of his daughters? Or what about Joshuah, whose army of righteous folks kills every man, woman, child, and animal in Jericho, and burns the buildings down?
An evangelical kid is gonna see when the class studies Leviticus that he/she's not nearly hardcore enough. He'll either balk, or become truly scary!
In the context of history and literature this class would be fascinating, if taught by an objective teacher. Certainly one is going to make little sense of Dante, Shakespeare, TS Eliot, or many other great writers without at least some foundation of Biblical knowledge. Likewise, historically, the Old Testament is important for understanding the three religions that book spawned - Judaism, Christianity, and Islam - the religions of "the book."
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.