Teaching the Bible in CA Public Schools
posted at 6:52 pm on July 7, 2010 by Laura Curtis
It hardly seems possible that with California’s irreligious reputation, a school district would choose to add the bible to its curriculum. But the Chino Valley School District has done so.
Beginning this fall, high school seniors of the Chino Valley School District will have the chance to enroll in a new course called “Bible as/in Literature and History.”
[The class] will offer a survey of the Bible, beginning with the historical context of the Old Testament, and then will focus on the New Testament later in the semester. It will also provide students with a historical knowledge of the Middle East.
I’m certainly not opposed to students learning that yes, Israel was a nation long before 1948, and that Jews have been a part of that region for thousands of years. Perhaps that will reduce the number of people who think they should “go back” to Germany and Poland. If high school seniors learn Jewish history, then maybe Jewish students will be safer on California college campuses where Israel is routinely delegitimized.
If it really is taught in that way, it could be a valuable addition to the curriculum. But the article leads me to believe it’s a back door effort to proselytize. Fred Youngblood, president of the Board of Education, said, “It is my belief that better understanding the Bible will help all students with their decision-making process. …The Bible has been a part of my life ever since I could remember. It has had a very positive influence on me and my family. It is my hope that our students will have a better understanding of the impact the Bible has had on all that surrounds us.”
Social cons will celebrate this development. California schools have whitewashed Islam and allowed Islamic proselytism, they’ll argue, and this doesn’t even come close to counterbalancing that. But fiscal cons will groan, and rightfully so. California already has a budget shortfall of more than $25 billion. Chino Valley School District already must cut the budget by $30 million. Now is not the time to add an inevitable, expensive, legal battle. Social cons would do better to work at getting Islam (and other religions) out of the schools rather than getting their own in.
.
Cross posted to Pursuing Holiness.
This post was promoted from GreenRoom to HotAir.com.
To see the comments on the original post, look here.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
The Bible has no place being taught in our school system. If a group of children want to read the Bible in, say, study hall, that’s fine. But teachers actually teaching the historical context of the OT….what does that even mean?
Narutoboy on July 7, 2010 at 6:58 PM
Well put. Like you, I wouldn’t mind it if the class were truly one of simple cultural literacy and studied in the same manner as Shakespeare, for example. But I share your conclusion that undoubtedly this is an attempt to advocate religion in schools and has no place.
MJBrutus on July 7, 2010 at 6:58 PM
Obligatory
Inanemergencydial on July 7, 2010 at 6:59 PM
Never. see. the. light. of. day.
Might just as well ponder blue polka dot bunnies.
nico on July 7, 2010 at 6:59 PM
It’s a literature class not a Bible Study. It’s not like they are going to teach religion. They’re going to deconstruct a two thousand year old book. Also, I’m tired of always having to be PC around liberals. Since I’m in the majority, shouldn’t the liberals be PC around me?
Tommy_G on July 7, 2010 at 7:01 PM
The last thing a child’s mind should be exposed to is the book of Proverbs.
Inanemergencydial on July 7, 2010 at 7:02 PM
If the Bible were taught any way it was in my college hum class, I’d think any self-respecting Christian parent would be outraged…
MeatHeadinCA on July 7, 2010 at 7:03 PM
Or it could be just what they say it is. It is a historical document regardless of your religion; christianity, islam, buddism, judism, environmentalism, secular humanism, apathy. The content of the old testament is thousands of years old and the new was canonized 1800+ years ago. It’s contents have changed the world. Why should anyone wish to be ignorant of it? It’s laughable that anyone would say, “no, no, don’t read that book, it’s dangerous” while extoling Alinsky, Marx, Wright, Darwin, et al. Knowledge is not danger, ignorance is.
Haunches on July 7, 2010 at 7:04 PM
I’m a bit torn because I think the bible is essential to an understanding of literature. So much alludes to the bible that we lose the meaning of thousands of texts if we become biblically illiterate.
That said, I don’t support using the time as an exercise in evangelism. Tough call.
Vera on July 7, 2010 at 7:04 PM
It’s my school system too. I say it’s OK. Hey I got an idea, let the people of California vote on, we both know which side will win. Then it can go before the 9th Circuit Court to be overturn. Would love to see the arguments against it. Would make for some great Tru TV.
Tommy_G on July 7, 2010 at 7:05 PM
Yeah, and who’s gonna teach the Bible if it’s allowed to be taught in school? Mr Garrison?
MeatHeadinCA on July 7, 2010 at 7:07 PM
You never were taught what Confucius’ said, or the Buddah? You don’t remember having learned the history and general concepts of Hinduism or Islam? You know nothing of Judiasm or the Shinto religion? You haven’t the first clue about Greek mythology or Roman? Who were the Druids? What did Martin Luther do? What’s Voodoo? Did the Native Americans have gods? What did they worship? What about the Aztecs or the Mayans? What were their beliefs? Why did the ancient Egyptians mummify their pharoahs?
Seriously, do you really want that kind of ignorance? Or just about Christianity? What are you afraid of?
Haunches on July 7, 2010 at 7:10 PM
In normal times, yes. But in these times maybe the direct approach is not the best. Maybe this is a way to do it. It never hurts to have bargaining chips.
Tav on July 7, 2010 at 7:10 PM
Tommy_G on July 7, 2010 at 7:05 PM
Here’s the problem with letting people vote on it.
Amendment 1 to the US Constitution:
The whole point of having a Bill of Rights is to place certain decisions outside of the political process. It is to make certain facts of our society not subject to the will of the majority. The very first words of the very first amendment to our Constitution forbids what you are advocating.
MJBrutus on July 7, 2010 at 7:11 PM
It couldn’t be taught any worse than math, english or science are. It’s just a literature class, no different from say Shakespeare. Really nothing to get upset over. You have to allow for individual tastes. Lighten up.
Tommy_G on July 7, 2010 at 7:12 PM
……….Who put the bomp in the bomp-she-bomp-she-bomp? Who put the ram in the rama lama ding dong?
nico on July 7, 2010 at 7:13 PM
That’s the opposite of how PC works…
Lehosh on July 7, 2010 at 7:14 PM
I could easily teach a bible course as a history course. You simply avoid teaching “faith” and explain what the book says and the historical/cultural context. How would that be any different than explaining Alexander Pope or the Canterbury Tales? Instead of saying that the Judeans were punished by God, you say that the Judeans thought they were being punished by God. I don’t understand the fear of knowledge. Do you think that by reading it the students would suddenly turn into Tammy Faye Baker? Seriously? Pick it up and read it yourself–warning–it’s not a page turner.
Haunches on July 7, 2010 at 7:15 PM
Maybe the had an Oedipus Complex.
Tav on July 7, 2010 at 7:16 PM
You have a good point. I didn’t learn about Hinduism or Islam (in school), but I did learn about Greek and Egyptian mythology, which included information about their gods. I still say it’s a little different. Nobody opened up the Koran in front us and began reading it. If we were learning about another particular religion it was in the context of the society and its people as a whole.
Narutoboy on July 7, 2010 at 7:16 PM
The problem with letting people vote on it is that your side would loose. Come on be a pal, show a little of the tolerance thing you Atheist are always whining about.
Tommy_G on July 7, 2010 at 7:16 PM
So what you’re saying is, “Political Correctness was designed to protect losers.”
Tommy_G on July 7, 2010 at 7:17 PM
Why should this be any different? I took several religion classes in college and they all had this format. “Hebrew Scripture” for example, went beyond just reading the Torah.
Vera on July 7, 2010 at 7:19 PM
How is teaching the historical context of the bible establishing a state religion or prohibiting the free exercise of a religion? Establishing a state religion is a much different thing than saying; “here is judea on a map, it is the year 1000AD, over here were the Babylonians, and over here were the Egyptians, the Judeans were monotheistic, the others were not.” That has no bearing on “establishment of a religion”. Do you even know what that means or why the bill of rights says that? Do you understand the historical context? Do you know what happened in Europe preceeding the writing of the bill of rights? Do you grasp what an actual establishment of religion is or means?
Haunches on July 7, 2010 at 7:21 PM
Heh. That’s actually what I’m concerned about.
I took one of these “literature” classes and I would never want my children “educated” in such a way (when I have kids). Let’s not forget that literature classes are becoming very one-sided as well.
If we must have government schools, why don’t we only allow them to teach the very basics. Mathematics, English/Grammar, and some Biology, Chemistry, and Physics — perhaps with more trade being taught as well? Oh, and probably some form of American History (scary how that would be interpreted, though).
MeatHeadinCA on July 7, 2010 at 7:25 PM
You win the cookie. That is exactly the point. The intent is not to stand in front of a class and recite scripture. Even if they did, the class would be asleep in 10 minutes. Most Catholic schools teach classes on judiasm and who was Jesus in the historical reference context. The faith itself is taught earlier and in formation classes.
I had a excellent education and have read or read most of all the major religious texts of the world. I don’t lie awake nights torn between Greek mythology, Islam, and Gaia worship.
Why remain ignorant?
Haunches on July 7, 2010 at 7:26 PM
Haunches on July 7, 2010 at 7:21 PM
Based on the reporting, to wit:
It leads me to the same conclusion. Please read my first post in this thread. If I were convinced that this is just an exercise in social literacy I would say fine, but it appears to go well beyond that and to constitute an establishment of religion.
MJBrutus on July 7, 2010 at 7:27 PM
I have no problem with the Bible being taught in the classroom for literary, historical, or just having a general understanding of religion.
However, if the teacher starts using it as a soapbox to proselytize their faith, then it starts getting uncomfortable.
Presumably, the founding Fathers would have no problem with the Talmud, The Bible, The Book of Mormon, The Koran, Rig-Veda, or any other any other religious text being taught in the school classroom.
I know that that idea will rub many Christian Social Conservatives the wrong way but the Founding Fathers were quite open to people of faith teaching their faith to others.
As David Barton, a frequent guest on Glenn Beck’s show points makes the following point about the founding fathers:
In other words, the Founding Fathers knew that even though they believed in the correctness of Christianity, they can’t force that on other people because then we become much like England that the Puritans had left or become like Saudi Arabia of today where a particular religion and participation is mandatory.
The Founding Fathers realized that the freedom to choose, even if its wrong, makes for a more free people.
Another point I’d like to make is that the Founding Fathers wanted promote the traditional religious and moral values – values that are embraces by everyone (and by all) of those groups because such values make for a good people and a strong nation.
Conservative Samizdat on July 7, 2010 at 7:30 PM
How very wrong you are. You cannot understand much of the history and literature of the West without understanding the Bible. Millions of undereducated lib Knownothings will tell you different but their inferior and incomplete educations make them just a loud mob who can add little but noise and confusion to any discussion of this issue. Just as you need to understand the Confucian Analects and the Tao Te Ching to understand China before Mao (and also to fully understand Mao), libs remain ignorant of Western culture since they are too prejudiced against the Bible. Maybe you can weigh in on a topic you understand if one ever comes along.
snaggletoothie on July 7, 2010 at 7:30 PM
If they aren’t teaching the bible as literature then they are teaching Richard Wright, Rachael Carson, Al Gore, Christopher Hitchens, et al. Seems like a no brainer. Of course, they may be teaching it to make fun of it too. Like why couldn’t the Israelites find their way out of the desert for 40 years? Huh, Huh? You never know in CA
Haunches on July 7, 2010 at 7:31 PM
So basically either choose the Bible or Rachael Carson? Nope. I don’t buy it. What if we cut some of the “opinionated” literature, of do we believe the government has a responsibility to teach opinion?
MeatHeadinCA on July 7, 2010 at 7:33 PM
*or
MeatHeadinCA on July 7, 2010 at 7:34 PM
I had a similar college course and it was anything but an effort to proselytize. Quite the opposite.
I always wonder why people get so reactive when teaching the Bible is mentioned and not so much about other religions/books/myths, etc. Might it be that the Bible has had such a major impact for good in the world? Or maybe that it is, in fact, “powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.”? When people do not want to hear the truth, they are willing to hear anything else.
IrishEyes on July 7, 2010 at 7:35 PM
Tommy_G on July 7, 2010 at 7:35 PM
Oooh. He said it has a positive influence on him. Scary. Atlas Shrugged had a positive influence on me and so did Pride and Prejudice and Anna Karinina, should they be banned? We wouldn’t want knowledge influencing people. We should only want the teachers’ unions and the main stream media forming our children’s minds.
Haunches on July 7, 2010 at 7:35 PM
It’s all fun and games at first but what happens when they start talking in tongues and casting out devils?
longfeet on July 7, 2010 at 7:35 PM
All literature has opinion.
I know why. Read the comment. I used that as example of what a teacher intent on denegrating the bible might ask.
Haunches on July 7, 2010 at 7:37 PM
Don’t think the kids should be in the middle of a proselytizing tug of war. Just teach basic facts- like the historical truth that a primary textbook in Colonial schools was in fact the Bible (used to teach reading).
Hehe.
cs89 on July 7, 2010 at 7:39 PM
Bible should be taught in school.
After all how many of you knew that the Bible has over 40 authors from Kings to slaves written in a period of 2,000 years span?
This just the beginning.
b1jetmech on July 7, 2010 at 7:39 PM
All marxists fear, not just oppose but fear, Christianity because it teaches the worth of the individual as opposed to the colletive.
Haunches on July 7, 2010 at 7:40 PM
colletive =collective
Haunches on July 7, 2010 at 7:41 PM
I’m aware of this. You didn’t answer the question. Do you believe it’s the responsibility of the gov’t to promote opinion to children?
MeatHeadinCA on July 7, 2010 at 7:41 PM
Good points, though Barton is little off base. The founders had differing views among them on the relationship of church and state. The Madison/Jefferson view was the most influential, not based on their deep understanding of Christianity (though they had that), but more likely influenced by the wars of religion in Europe during the previous century and a half.
dedalus on July 7, 2010 at 7:42 PM
And what happens when a child asks their teacher, “Do you believe Jesus came back from the dead?”
If we’re lucky the student would get a simply “yes” or “no” answer. More likely, though, we’ll get “Well, do you think it’s possible for people to come back from the dead? I can’t answer that question, but I think you know what’s real and what isn’t.”
MeatHeadinCA on July 7, 2010 at 7:44 PM
The Bible taught in schools? Wow. If to be taught, it should be taught by someone who has at least a little bit of knowledge of it, not someone who would use it to bash religion.
For those opposed to it, There are some great stories in there about war, romance, intimacy, gardening, cooking, architecture, poetry, and so much more.
ConservativePartyNow on July 7, 2010 at 7:45 PM
This I can live with if we must have gov’t schools.
MeatHeadinCA on July 7, 2010 at 7:45 PM
If true neutrality is desired, the best answer would be “my beliefs aren’t important.”
Vera on July 7, 2010 at 7:51 PM
Teachers are already teaching the cult of global warming and liberalism. A little bit of scripture would be a sight of relief.
Maybe they didn’t but the book of mormon was written until 50-60 years later. But the Founding fathers were rooted in Christianity as in being the source to a civil society. Some of them were no practicing Christians but held a deep respect for it to declare our rights come from God and not from man.
Have to disagree with your description. There is NO such thing as a liberal Christian. Jesus said “you are either for me or against me”. If your a liberal then your liberal. that means a liberal is who that person is before anything else, it’s a cult of personality of it’s own.
b1jetmech on July 7, 2010 at 7:52 PM
Haunches on July 7, 2010 at 7:35 PM
I see, so you wouldn’t mind if a teacher would present the stories and talk about how immoral and a negative influence he may find them. For example, I recall the time when I was old enough to actually consider the story of Abraham. One of the primal myths of the entire Judeo-Christian faith.
I asked myself what I would think of someone who packed up their kid and took him in to the hills to murder. I wondered what I would think of someone who claimed that he was going to kill his son because he thought he heard the voice of some god. The answer was not very flattering with regard to such a man. In fact, I would insist that such a person be locked up for the rest of his life.
I’m sure that you wouldn’t mind the material being presented by one who sees it as I do.
MJBrutus on July 7, 2010 at 7:53 PM
Heheh. That’s not exactly true, though. Perhaps their beliefs are important.
That said, you really think some California teachers would stick to this? Christians (and same could be said for many other religions) have enough disagreements without including atheists, agnostics, secularists, other religions, &c.
MeatHeadinCA on July 7, 2010 at 7:54 PM
I don’t think the very first words mean what you think they mean. The key word is establish – hence the line being known as the establishment clause.
Let’s looks at the definition of the word establish shall we?
So based on the definition, which as you see, dates the the 15th century – a wee bit before this nation came into being – the First Amendment prohibits the Federal Government from establishing a national religion or church ala the Church of England. It does not prohibit endorsing a religion (hence “In God We Trust” being on our currency and “Under God” in the pledge) or studying religion (hence the many religious study courses at publicly funded schools).
Prayer or study of the bible in school is in no way establishing a religion as the religion of the students and materials being studied are already established outside of the scope federal government.
Since this course is not the establishment of an official state religion, we are left with the simple reality that the federal or state or local government cannot prohibit the free exercise thereof or the free study thereof.
It’s as simple as that.
gogman on July 7, 2010 at 7:56 PM
No, I don’t. Which is pretty sad because, as I said before, an understanding of biblical texts really is necessary to understand literature in general. We do everyone a disservice by refusing to look at it in an objective manner.
Vera on July 7, 2010 at 7:59 PM
A few random thoughts from the nations Founding Fathers.
Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep for ever…The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend all to the happiness of mankind.
Thomas Jefferson
Statesmen…may plan and speculate for Liberty, but it is Religion and Morality alone, which can establish the Principles upon which freedom can securely stand.
John Adams
Religion and good morals are the only solid foundation of public liberty and happiness.
Samuel Adams
It is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favors.
George Washington
The only foundation for a useful education in a republic is to be laid in religion. Without this there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty, and liberty is the object and life of all republican governments.
Benjamin Rush
Just a couple of additional thoughts-
When the Founders spoke of “religion”, they were speaking of the Biblical based, Judeo-Christian faith. Not Islam. Not Shintoism. Not Buddhism.
And if you study what and where children learned in Colonial times, they generally had access to two books; The King James Bible and Bunyan’s “Pilgrims Progress”. If you’ve never been to Washington DC and seen the original documents, I strongly suggest you go. May be you, as a pastor I know will ask the question, “Who taught these men to write?” The answer is simple. Their mothers. And The King James Bible.
My fear is not that children will be exposed to the Bible, but that they will be exposed to nothing but the non-stop indoctrination of Secular teachers.
oldleprechaun on July 7, 2010 at 8:03 PM
My High School English teacher taught a semester on “The Bible As Literature” my senior year (1980). It was the best literature course I ever took, including my college courses. Regardless of religious belief, you can’t really understand the development of the modern English language or literature without dealing with the King James version of the Bible.
My teacher was an observant conservative Jew —- so that probably helped defuse the politics of teaching the Bible as literature. The Catholics and Protestants in the class didn’t have to worry about sectarian bias, and the Jewish kids in the class didn’t have to worry about stealth efforts at Christian evangelism.
Anton on July 7, 2010 at 8:05 PM
Abraham was being obedient. You can count on he didn’t sleep well the night before, the fact that GOD asked him to kill his own son he had a hard time with it and didn’t want to carry it out. What did happen? The Lord stopped Abraham. His son was never killed and the Lord knew his son wouldn’t be killed but Abraham didn’t and we wouldn’t either.
b1jetmech on July 7, 2010 at 8:06 PM
I can agree with this. I’m glad my son learned from me and our church. Schools always screw it up.
ladyingray on July 7, 2010 at 8:08 PM
Ahhh…such refreshing words from our wise Founding Fathers.
b1jetmech on July 7, 2010 at 8:09 PM
So when the people of California voted on Prop 13 that qualified as congress making a law regarding property taxes. I’d say more but I am too busy laughing in the aisles.
chemman on July 7, 2010 at 8:11 PM
b1jetmech on July 7, 2010 at 8:06 PM
He was being obedient to some disembodied voice inside his head. Remember also that this was early in this god’s story. It’s not as though Abe knew that his god would later part seas and flood the world and all the other fun stuff the book talks about. His obedience went so far as to include the murder of his own son. I call such behavior pathological insanity at best. But whatever you choose to call it, I can find no way to call it moral in any sense of the word.
That’s simply as I see it. I’m sure you disagree, but my point is that I doubt you would want me to teach the story in a public school just as I wouldn’t want you to.
MJBrutus on July 7, 2010 at 8:12 PM
Exactly! There are biblical teachers who believe David and Jonathan had a gay relationship; many others who are Christians say no way.
How do you know which way it will be taught? If it is taught strictly as Literature, there won’t be an “Christian morals” influencing the teaching.
Think about that.
ladyingray on July 7, 2010 at 8:12 PM
I think Barton was speaking generically about the Founding Fathers. But you’re correct that many of them had their own motivations for promoting religious liberty.
All of the various reasons are valid whether it be how England required compulsory beliefs and attendance to a state religion, the Religious wars of Europe, the religious diversity in America or the religious/philosophical belief that government cannot interfere with free choice.
Barton might be a little off base but at he has access to most of the original sources and documents from the Founding Fathers. So its not like his point is without validity.
True, but as you pointed out, one of the pillar beliefs of Christianity is that every man has free will and is free to choose even if the consequences are bad. From that belief, springs the idea of religious plurality.
To say that Christianity is the only acceptable religion in America that is allowed in the halls of Government or schools is to go against a fundamental teaching of Christianity and the Founding Fathers.
But the Founding Fathers were good students of religions just as they were of politics, history and literature. Learning about other religions is good for the soul and good for the nation.
Conservative Samizdat on July 7, 2010 at 8:12 PM
I agree.
ladyingray on July 7, 2010 at 8:14 PM
While Laura thought it was a back door to proselytize, my first thought was they were going to use the class to refute Christianity.
Kafir on July 7, 2010 at 8:15 PM
By the same token, you wouldn’t understand much of Western Civilization without reading the Philosophers of the Classical World.
The Song of Songs is perhaps my third favorite behind the Havamal and The Dream of the Rood.
Holger on July 7, 2010 at 8:17 PM
I have no problem with it. It’s an elective course and the kids are not being force fed this at all. It’s their choice to sign up for the course.
the Coondawg on July 7, 2010 at 8:30 PM
I have absolutely no problem with this. Even if this course was an actual Bible study class (which it is not) I wouldn’t have a problem with it. It’s an elective course, no one is being forced to take it. In an era when the cesspool known as the public school system is handing out condoms to grade schoolers, I think a little Bible education is a great thing.
Lizzy on July 7, 2010 at 8:38 PM
Would you think it a great thing if I were to be the educator?
MJBrutus on July 7, 2010 at 8:41 PM
And that’s exactly what Jesus and the early believers did.
Or would you rather have Mohammed “persuade” you :).
maynila on July 7, 2010 at 8:43 PM
Any Religious education is a good thing. So is Philosophy. There are ways of spreading Conservative values that don’t involve religion.
You don’t need God to understand why hard work is better than laziness or sexual promiscuity is far more risky than sexual restraint.
Holger on July 7, 2010 at 8:46 PM
Though no angel stopped Jephthah from sacrificing his daughter after his vow to God and victory over the Ammonites.
dedalus on July 7, 2010 at 8:50 PM
It’s refreshing to hear a theist say this. Myself, an atheist, couldn’t agree more :-)
MJBrutus on July 7, 2010 at 8:51 PM
Jepthah made an oath before God that he shouldn’t have. It isn’t even close to a comparable situation.
Inanemergencydial on July 7, 2010 at 9:00 PM
Technically I am a Polytheist.
I was an Atheist at one time.
Holger on July 7, 2010 at 9:00 PM
The state shouldn’t be in the business of spreading liberal or conservative values. It should be in the business teaching kids truth, common sense and goodness.
All of the things you advocated are things that are true, sensible and good.
Conservative Samizdat on July 7, 2010 at 9:17 PM
Most Conservative values equal truth, common sense and goodness, except when they are taken to the extreme.
A lot of liberal values are decadent, such as Sexual Liberation.
The State and her free people, if they want to Endure, Propser and remain Free, have a vested interest in spreading such ideas and values that to them seem the best guides to effect such results.
Holger on July 7, 2010 at 9:25 PM
Many places in the Bible are page-turners; at least they are the first time you read them. The Acts, for instance.
itsnotaboutme on July 7, 2010 at 9:26 PM
Fair enough. :)
Conservative Samizdat on July 7, 2010 at 9:27 PM
Well, seeing as we are a nation built on the backs of Christians and their religion. That it is a great work of lit. then I would assume intelligent people would want to have this course.
Our nation wasn’t built upon other religious works, but the inspiration of most of our heritage comes from this book. What makes this book unique, what has inspired nations to become mighty, and some to go to war…I would think that arguably the most important work of literature ever written would be taught in school.
This book has built nations, and destroyed nations…it is a historical cornerstone, a keystone, without it our would be unrecognizable.
There is no other book that has done what this book has done, yet we ignore it like it doesn’t exist…time to release your bigotry, and become educated.
right2bright on July 7, 2010 at 9:45 PM
I didn’t know that, and where has that been done?
I don’t think any civilization has existed like you state.
You may think you have developed those thoughts independent of religion, but sit and think…it has been there with you from birth.
right2bright on July 7, 2010 at 9:48 PM
Following the oath he won the battle, apparently with God’s help. From Judges 11:
Of course he saw his daughter first and burnt her as an offering to God. After that Jephthah would continue to lead Israel to victory in battle.
dedalus on July 7, 2010 at 10:19 PM
dthorny on July 7, 2010 at 10:22 PM
Congrats you are familiar with the story!
Inanemergencydial on July 7, 2010 at 10:23 PM
The Bible has no place being taught in our school system. If a group of children want to read the Bible in, say, study hall, that’s fine. But teachers actually teaching the historical context of the OT….what does that even mean?
Narutoboy on July 7, 2010 at 6:58 PM
You are a historical and ignorant moron who knows nothing of our countries history. Our colleges were founded on religious principles and based on Biblical teaching, see EVERY national monument over 70 years old and EVERYONE of them has a religious meaning or quote on them. Because our modern teachers have veered from biblical teaching on some phony “wall of separation” means nothing.
The point is all religions have the right to express themselves on school grounds and you liberals only want Christianity to be prohibited from being taught.
Does the free exercise of religion therof clause mean anything? It sure did to the founding fathers.
dthorny on July 7, 2010 at 10:23 PM
So I guess Horace Mann, who is considered the father of public education, has nothing to say about it: “So the religious education which a child receives at school is not imparted to him for the purposes of making him join this or that denomination when he arrives at years of discretion, but for the purpose of enabling him to judge for himself, according to the dictates of his own reason and conscience, what his religious obligations are, and whither they lead.”
DrMagnolias on July 7, 2010 at 10:31 PM
You are a text-book example of religious zealotry taken to absurd proportions.
Are you so faithful that you cannot make a simple value comparison between laziness and hardwork, that you cannot see the results of laziness and hardwork laid out side by side and say one is better than the other? Have you been so retarded by your religion that you need God to tell you that if you sleep around you might get diseases and if you keep it zipped that you won’t get diseases?
Holger on July 7, 2010 at 10:54 PM
……. It was a one-eyed, one-horned, flyin’ purple people eater.
Basil Fawlty on July 7, 2010 at 11:18 PM
I’ve never seen that quote. I love it.
If had said that today, the ACLU would have filed a suit.
Conservative Samizdat on July 7, 2010 at 11:22 PM
The ones that have their “devils” cast out become Republicans.
Basil Fawlty on July 7, 2010 at 11:26 PM
How ridiculous. All history and all literature as well as most electives must have opinion in them by their very nature. Do you mean “promote” as in teach or show? Then yes. They should teach literature, history, and science. I would like them to stick to proven science but they could explain that there are theories and what they are if they also explain that they are unproven.
Haunches on July 8, 2010 at 12:08 AM
Your opinion is fact. Teach the literature and/or the history, or are you not up to that concept? “The history of the jewish people begins with Abram. Abram truely believed that his god spoke to him and told him to…etc.”
It’s really not that hard.
Haunches on July 8, 2010 at 12:13 AM
Your opinion is not fact or literature or history.
Haunches on July 8, 2010 at 12:22 AM
Here’s an idea for people against this idea; Have an opt-out policy, so parents who don’t want their kids to take this class have to make a special effort to stop the school from teaching it to their kids.
You know, like how the public schools force the parents to have to opt their kids out of all the “alternative lifestyle” and “diversity”(read “homosexual, transgendered, any other sexual perversion you can think of, etc) training. At least, where those are not made mandatory.
Yeah, an opt-out policy. Problem solved. RIght libs?!
Sterling Holobyte on July 8, 2010 at 1:25 AM
After reading closer and finding out that it is an ELECTIVE course, I just have to say…
Then what the H E double hockey sticks is the problem?!
The public schools can teach alot worse things to kids(even kindergartners) than what the Bible can show them, and, once again, the only thing a parent can do for those is opt-out their kids(when they let them anyway).
Sterling Holobyte on July 8, 2010 at 1:39 AM
During the early days of America, the Bible, biblical history and theology were taught in the schools. Were the Founding Fathers guilty of proselytizing? If so: good. The Will of God is more important than yours, Curtis. The order to make disciples of men, and to insure that children are properly taught is paramount. Not whining about the right to be a heathen. I hope you’re whining just as loudly about California’s gay agenda teachings in classrooms.
Virus-X on July 8, 2010 at 1:43 AM
Or…..let’s have charter schools and everyone can pick the flavor they want.
YehuditTX on July 8, 2010 at 1:55 AM
So let me get this straight: the author is okay with teaching about Jewish heritage, but not Christian heritage. Got it.
shawk on July 8, 2010 at 6:07 AM
Did anybody else here have to read the Book of Job from the KJV as part of a literature class?
Dear lord, nothing wrong with studying the Bible as part of a literature study. Heck, I had a class my senior year in high school, that was a Western Civ history/literature class. The Bible showed up as well as Plato, Shakespeare, etc.
Given the number of Biblical allusions that occur in English literature, one might think it appropriate.
meep on July 8, 2010 at 6:41 AM
The Will of God is more important than yours, Curtis.
Good Lt on July 8, 2010 at 8:04 AM
The will of whose god?
/pimf
Good Lt on July 8, 2010 at 8:05 AM
So lemme get this straight: so long as teaching the
Bible in public schools benefits Jews and Israel, you’re good to go. But you’re concerned that students could become Christians?
Who is Laura Curtis and why is she writing for HA?
Akzed on July 8, 2010 at 11:31 AM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »