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: « Previous 1 2
On July 13, 1787, the Continental Congress passed “An Ordinance for the Government of the Territory of the United States.” This law was passed again by the United States Congress and signed into law by President George Washington on August 4, 1789:
Article III
Religion, morality, and knowledge being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall be forever encouraged.
Akzed on July 8, 2010 at 11:36 AM
People who would hesitate to comment on topics they are unqualified to discuss nevertheless think themselves to opine on the Bible like they had a Th.D.
Jephthah’s Daughter
by Dave Miller, Ph.D.
[Español]
Printer version | Email this article
In Judges 11, Jephthah vowed to God that if he were victorious in battle, he would give to God whoever came through the doors of his house upon his return from battle. The term used in 11:31 is ‘olah, the normal Hebrew word for a burnt offering or sacrifice (used 286 times in the Old Testament). Did Jephthah intend to offer his daughter as a human sacrifice? Are the ethics of God and the Bible shown to be substandard by this incident?
In the first place, if, in fact, Jephthah offered a human sacrifice, he did something that was strictly forbidden by Mosaic law and that is repugnant to God (Leviticus 18:21; 20:2-5; Deuteronomy 12:31; 18:10). It would be a bit bizarre for Jephthah to think that he could elicit God’s favor in battle by promising to offer Him a human sacrifice, that is, to do something that was in direct violation of the will of God. Such a proposal would be equivalent to a person requesting God’s blessing and assistance by offering to rape women or rob banks. God certainly would not approve of such an offer—though He may go ahead and assist the individual (11:32). God allows people to make wrong choices, even while He works out His own higher will in the midst of their illicit actions. He can even use such people to achieve a higher good (consider, as one example, Judas). When Israel clamored for a king—in direct opposition to God’s will—He nevertheless allowed them to proceed with their intentions, and even lent His assistance in the selection (1 Samuel 8:7,18-19; 10:19; 12:19; Psalm 106:14-15; Hosea 13:11; Acts 13:21).
Second, if Jephthah offered his daughter as a human sacrifice, no indication is given in the text that God actually approved of the action. The Bible records many illicit actions carried out by numerous individuals throughout history, without an accompanying word of condemnation by the inspired writer. We must not assume that silence is evidence of divine approval. Even the commendation of Jephthah’s faith in the New Testament does not offer a blanket endorsement to everything Jephthah did during his lifetime. It merely commended the faith that he demonstrated when he risked going to war. Similarly, the Bible commends the faith of Samson, and Rahab the prostitute, without implying that their behavior was always in harmony with God’s will. Abraham manifested an incredible level of faith on several occasions, and is commended for such (Romans 4:20-21). Yet he clearly sinned on more than one occasion (Genesis 12:13; 16:4; 20:2ff.).
Third, Jephthah’s action may best be understood by recognizing that he was using ‘olah in a figurative sense. We use the term “sacrifice” in a similar fashion when we say, “I’ll sacrifice a few dollars for that charity.” Jephthah was offering to sacrifice a member of his extended household to permanent, religious service associated with the Tabernacle. The Bible indicates that such non-priestly service was available, particularly to women who chose to so dedicate themselves (e.g., Exodus 38:8). [Sadly, Eli’s sons were guilty of taking sexual liberties with them (1 Samuel 2:22).] Even in the first century, Anna must have been one woman who had dedicated herself to the Lord’s service, since she “did not depart from the temple” (Luke 2:37).
Several contextual indicators support this conclusion. First, the two-month period of mourning that Jephthah granted to his daughter was not for the purpose of grieving over her impending loss of life, but over the fact that she would never be able to marry. She bewailed her virginity (bethulim)—not her death (11:37). Second, the text goes out of its way to state that Jephthah had no other children: “[S]he was his only child. Besides her he had neither son nor daughter” (11:34). For his daughter to be consigned to perpetual celibacy meant the extinction of Jephthah’s family line—an extremely serious and tragic matter to an Israelite (cf. Numbers 27:1-11; 36:1ff.). Third, the sacrifice is treated as unfortunate—again, not because of any concern over her death, but because she would not become a mother. After stating that Jephthah “did with her according to his vow which he had vowed,” the inspired writer immediately adds, “and knew no man” (11:39). This statement would be a completely superfluous and callous remark if she had been put to death. Fourth, the declaration of Jephthah’s own sorrow (11:35) follows immediately after we are informed that he had no other children (11:34). Jephthah was not upset because his daughter would die a virgin. He was upset because she would live and remain a virgin.
Hannah made a similar sacrifice when she turned her son over to the priestly direction of Eli for the rest of his life (1 Samuel 1:11). How many are willing to make such sacrifices? Actually, however, these tremendous acts of devotion were no greater than that which God requires of all Christians: to offer ourselves as spiritual burnt-offerings in service to God (Romans 12:1).
Akzed on July 8, 2010 at 11:43 AM
I’d be curious to hear arguments on why a voluntary class on the bible should be considered out of bounds. I know that we have come to a place in which any mixing of religion and the state is seen as verboten, but I’m curious as to why this should be so.
makewi on July 8, 2010 at 2:40 PM
Perhaps fiscal conservatism should FIRST rule out Islamic proselytizing rather than reassert the traditional American text.
But addressing CA realism, the only way to effectively remove Islamic education from public schools is to threaten to introduce the Bible. Pathetic circumstances.
Still, I am surprised that if indeed the CA public educators are delving into teaching from religious text, that they haven’t already consulted and researched all religions in order to present WHAT IS SHARED IN COMMON, and clarifying that these points of virtue are what all these sacred texts profess. If a religion doesn’t teach honesty, for instance, it isn’t the fault of the public educators that it’s text was omitted.
maverick muse on July 8, 2010 at 4:07 PM
makewi on July 8, 2010 at 2:40 PM
Tax funds are supposedly insufficient to produce literate high school students with sufficient math skills.
An after school program as a sacred text club would likely avoid the argument that taxes are being taken away from established curriculum requirements.
Amending curriculum requirements might be another battle for these parents, to transpose studies in religious texts over the current sex ed requirement. /heh
maverick muse on July 8, 2010 at 4:11 PM
I’m all for the Bible being taught in high school lit. However, nearly all of those discussions won’t involve a Th.D.
Your Dave Miller quote doesn’t offer a single compelling alternative to the text in Judges. Instead there are 3 mutually exclusive readings, each creating more problems than they resolve:
1.) We are left with a God who indulges individuals acting immorally with supernatural assistance. In this case, God can involve Himself in the deaths of thousands of Ammonites but not save an innocent young Jewish woman.
2.) The Bible condemns immoral actions of much less importance. Yet in the case of Jephthah, after he sacrifices his daughter he continues to lead the people of Israel without a word of criticism from God or, even, the divinely inspired writers of the Bible. Doesn’t child murder deserve at least some level of rebuke?
3.) Perhaps we are to read “burnt offering” metaphorically. I’d guess metaphor, symbolism, context and other lit crit terms will be applied during the high school discussion.
dedalus on July 8, 2010 at 4:23 PM
He won’t get that…hopefully the scales will fall off before it is too late.
Inanemergencydial on July 8, 2010 at 4:38 PM
maverick muse on July 8, 2010 at 4:11 PM
The inability to handle the current course offerings coupled with the inability to pay for new ones is a compelling argument to be sure.
dedalus on July 8, 2010 at 4:23 PM
I have always taken the story of Jephthah as a cautionary tale on the seriousness with which God takes promises made to or by him. If it isn’t a metaphor, it certainly wouldn’t be unprecedented for God to choose those with specific moral failings.
makewi on July 8, 2010 at 5:20 PM
If you look at the wording of the Northwest Ordinance, it states “religion” and makes no specific reference to any specific one.
Presumably, any religion would not be objectionable under that statue since the language is religion neutral. Therefore, Judaism Christianity, Hinduism, Bhuddism, Islam, Mormonsim or any other faith would be appropriate to be taught in class room.
As I pointed out before, the Founding Fathers wanted promote the traditional religious and moral values – values that are embraces by everyone (and by all) of those groups because there are certain values that are common in most religions. Moreover, by learning various different religions, it makes for a good people and a strong nation.
Conservative Samizdat on July 8, 2010 at 5:21 PM
Why should this course be any more of a problem than any other elective? Most schools have numerous offerrings that have little to do with basic skills or core subjects.
Students/parents concerned about indoctrination potential should not enroll in the class.
katiejane on July 8, 2010 at 6:35 PM
All educated people throughout Western history have had a working knowledge of the Bible. Whether or not its tenets are believed to be true, it is impossible to deny its influence. Objecting to this course is tantamount to promoting illiteracy.
JackOfClubs on July 8, 2010 at 7:17 PM
Jepthah’s vow was to offer *what*ever, not *who*ever first came through his door.
The passage is descriptive, not prescriptive of what is given us to do.
The period of the Judges (tdzedekim) is condemned as being a time when every man did what was right *in his own eyes.*
So far that regrettable event, which is duly recounted in the Scripture (which repeatedly shows the sins and errors of its fallen ‘heroes’– quite unlike the typical hagiography of ancient texts).
As a confessional Lutheran pastor I would be very chary indeed, of public school teachers doing anything more than perhaps reading the canon of familiar Bible stories to our children. ANY commentary would be a ‘bridge too far’.
The primary purpose and proper use of the Scriptures is NOT to teach morality, but man’s utter inability to make himself righteous before God, and God’s gift of merit and grace to sinners through the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus.
Again, I do NOT want public school teachers in the position of teaching this to our children. Better to abolish the government schools that the Church may fully resume her former role of educating for the commonweal.
Scribbler on July 8, 2010 at 9:06 PM
Scribbler on July 8, 2010 at 9:06 PM
It would seem wise to bring in outside assistance to teach such a class. I happen to agree that bringing Sunday school into the public classroom is at the very least problematic, and yet I fear that we fail our future generations by pretending that the public should have no interest in introducing topics so closely tied to the American experience as religion, gun safety, and a program of civics that stresses that individual liberty must always be considered in any policy.
makewi on July 9, 2010 at 2:30 AM
The Bible is one of the most, if not the single most, influential texts in the world. I would not endorse it being discussed at an elementary school level, since at that age many children wouldn’t understand that it is not being taught as an endorsement. But it is absurd to suggest that high school seniors have no business discussing the Bible in any number of contexts – historical, literary, philosophical, and cultural.
Of course, with a class like that, you need a very good teacher, one who can separate their own personal views from the more analytical discussions. But then again, that is true in any class on any controversial topic, e.g. politics, or even history.
RINO in Name Only on July 9, 2010 at 6:15 AM
My wife taught high school here in Southern California for about seven years before our first child was born. She noticed a steady decline in in the trustworthiness of the students and a growing disrespect they had for teachers. This is probably a good thing, having kids be confronted with the idea that there are objective values, right and wrong do exist, and that there are far reaching consequences to one’s actions just might cause them to think twice about doing something wrong. Remember that 15 year old girl that was gang raped in Richmond? Clearly our schools are failing at instilling any sense of morality into our youth.
Blue Collar Todd on July 9, 2010 at 10:42 AM
It would be awesome to have kids confronted with the idea that there are objective values or even natural law, et al. However, this course is intended to be historical and anthropological,not value oriented. The best outcome would be for a student to be exposed to the literature and the history and, through their own free will, seek the answers to their own spiritual needs elsewhere. There is nothing more depressing and pathetic than the angry bitter atheist.
Haunches on July 9, 2010 at 11:09 AM
I used to be a substitute teacher at a local high school that had a special program for deaf and hard of hearing high school students.
I graduated from the same high school that I was teaching at and it really woke me up as to how shoddy public education was, especially to the deaf and hard of hearing students. Many of them were at a reading level substancially below their grade level.
That’s not the most disturbing thing. The most disturbing thing was the lack of values being taught at school. Many teachers look the other way or are forbidden if they know that students are engaging in unhealthy behavior. Moreover, I suspect that good values, in many homes, are not being transmitted to their kids.
When I think about what I had seen in school, I can’t help but be reminded of Judges 2:10. There has been a generation of kids who have not been taught about American history, religious values and important information that the next generation needs to know to be successful.
Conservative Samizdat on July 9, 2010 at 4:55 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2