LIBERALS FAVOR TEACHING THE BIBLE IN PUBLIC SCHOOL

It seems that David van Biema of Time Magazine must read Feministe -- either that or Jill is tapped into the zeitgeist.  In any case, his article advocating teaching the Bible in public schools echoes (although does not match precisely) what Jill was saying in this post.

Contrary to right-wing propaganda which holds that liberals want to remove all references to the Bible from public life, most liberals probably favor the teaching of Biblical literacy in public schools -- as long as it is done without preaching or denigrating the Bible.  I disagree profoundly with much of what the Bible contains but the fact is that it is a foundational text for western culture.  I certainly felt it important enough, notwithstanding my agnosticism/atheism, to take a number of courses in the Bible at my private high school and my private college (including a course called "The Hebrew Bible" taught by a teacher who happened to be a rabbi, a one year survey on Christian theology,  a language class on New Testament Greek, and a seminar on New Testament Eschatology taught by a professor who happened to be an ordained Prebyterian minister).  After all, teaching the facts is a cornerstone of liberalism.  Love it or hate it, the Bible is a fact of life in western culture.  Even if we are not ourselves Christian, we should understand the religious beliefs that are motivating the majority of our fellow citizens.  If we are Christian, we should understand what our key religious text says.

According to Van Biema, polls show that 2/3 of Americans believe that the Bible contains  the answers to "all or most of life's basic questions" but 1/2 of Americans cannot even name one Gospel.  Only 44% of Evangelical teens could identify a particular quote as coming from the Sermon on the Mount.  Van Biema observes that such ignorance may hobble many Americans' understanding of their own religion, and also prevents those of us who are neither Jewish nor Christian from fully understanding our own secular literature, western art and music, and American political ideas such as John Winthrop's "shining city on a hill" not to mention the current political influence and ideas of the Religious Right. 

So can we teach the Bible without causing a whole cascade of problems?  The problem is that there will be abuses.  Undoubtedly, teaching the Bible in many places will include all sorts of constitutionally impermissible conduct such as praying or proselytizing.  There will be some places where non-Christian students are made to feel profoundly  uncomfortable in their own public schools.  There will be efforts to privilege Christianity above other religions.

But how I would love to see American students given the tools to not be so painfully ignorant without teachers seeming to endorse or put down Christianity.  Certainly, that ideal was met in the classes I took in liberal secular institutions.  It is possible for students of all religious beliefs to study the Bible and ask hard questions (as in my New Testamant Eschatology seminar) like, "What did Jesus say about the end of the world? What did he mean?  What do the parables tell us about Jesus' view of the Kingdom? Also, what did theologians and scholars conclude about Jesus's beliefs? Based on your reading of the Bible, do you agree with so-and-so's conclusions about what Jesus meant?  If so, what implications might that have for Christian belief? How does Christian eschatology differ from Jewish eschatology?" And on and on.  You don't need to be a believer to grapple with those questions. And in all the classes I took, often side by side with students studying for the ministry, I never once felt that anyone was trying to convert me or that our differing perspectives prevented us from discussing the Bible's meaning and influence together.  Am I too optimistic in my faith that this can happen in public schools across America, even in places like Texas or South Carolina?  Van Biema gives an example of just such a class taught by a conservative Protestant Christian. 

Of course, I also wish that public schools would teach other world religions, the understanding of which help to illuminate our own religious beliefs and which may help us to understand millions of non-Christian people around the world with whom we have political, business and other types of relations as the "global village"  gets smaller and smaller.  Am I too pessimistic when I assume that many conservative Christians would object to that?

Comments

[Chalicechick]

Word.

CC

[Erin]

Do public schools not already teach world religions? If not, then they should. I believe many Christian and homeschools already do. Learning about other worldviews is big part of what it means to be educated. Frankly, I find it fascinating to discover how peoples' perspectives on EVERYTHING in life stem from what they believe about a few ultimate basics...or even more fascinating: the inherent contradictions within some belief systems.

[eyesgogo]

hello,i found a funny video.I think you will have an interest in it. That rocks so much.... I hope they have a life.

[Charlotte]

Excellent post! As a radical Christian (think "going back to the roots where Christianity is thoroughly political and thoroughly liberal") coming from Europe (where we are taught to question everything, anyway), I really appreciate your thoughtful observations. The problem with today's religious right in the U.S. is that believers are not trained to think critically about what the Bible means in real life, nor that the translations/ canon of Biblical books with which they're confronted have themselves a political history. Instead, you get a mass of self-righteous cranially vacuous evangelbots chanting in unison, unable to apply whatever teachings come from the Bible to social action.

[R]

"I disagree profoundly with much of what the Bible contains but the fact is that it is a foundational text for western culture."

Totally! I was raised in an atheist/agnostic household, and didn't have any real contact with organized religion, growing up. When I got to college, I ended up doing a lot of work with biblical and extra-biblical texts, and was really impressed very early on in my readings and research to see how much of the stuff I was finding was echoed in later works of literature and other cultural artifacts that I was already familiar with.

Foundational text is a very apt description - I think anyone living in the modern West can benefit from some close reading of biblical texts.

[ck]

Conservative Christians would probably object, because there is disagreement over some facts, such as the dating of the NT Gospels, the way they were written (whether cobbled together from an earlier text and redacted to fit the early church theology...), as well as the importance of the surrounding culture as an influence of Christianity--like you cite, about Jewish/Christian eschatology. And that's just the New Testament.

If you're not giving early dates to the Gospels and dismissing the results of the Jesus Seminar, many evangelicals will not be happy. But "just reading" the text of the Bible is a poor way to study the origin of Christianity, because folks will bring a multitude of assumptions in.

I'm all for teaching religious studies in public schools, but it's a tough line to walk. Heck, just teaching the first chapter of Genesis would bring up the evolution controversy all over again, in most school systems.

[BetaCandy]

I think today's fundamentalists who call themselves Christian (sorry, if you're full of hate and fear, I don't think you're Christ-like in any sense) will stir up trouble about this, because putting the Bible into proper historical context raises questions about a lot of their claims as to the content.

Put more simply: real Christianity stands up to academic Biblical study. Example: yes, the parting of the Reed Sea is a natural phenomenon, but that timing - right after the Israelites walked through and before the Egyptians could - was pretty amazing, wasn't it? One might even say "miraculous". ;)

Whereas the fundamentalist bastardization of the religion tends to fall apart if you so much as question, "Where exactly does it say Mary's a virgin, if this Hebrew word here just means 'young woman'?" Because the fetishization of virgins - a perspective that comes not from Christianity but from a worldwide tradition in which virgin daughters were a better commodity in trade than non-virgin ones - is what really counts.

Fundamentalists in ALL religions are really just patriarchs co-opting the most powerful religion in their culture to promote their patriarchal values. That's why they will oppose any sincere attempt to educate the masses on the real basis for/meaning of those religions.

[Reb]

Hmm. I'm really conflicted on this. I do think it's important for students to understand the impact of religion on the world -- especially in western civ (which is basically what global studies is in this country). The bible/religion has had a huge impact on world history, how civilization got to where it is, and on the way people interact now. But I feel like studying it from that pespective is very different than actually studying its content: it would be important to seek out a main idea for religions (just the one wouldn't be enough in a historical perspective) for understanding of how they've changed the world, but actually teaching what the religion says would step over a line in my mind.

You summed it up when you wrote, "There will be some places where non-Christian students are made to feel profoundly uncomfortable in their own public schools." I was the only Jew in a small, otherwise entirely Christian public school. It made things uncomfortable for me numerous times that I can remember, even without it coming up in class; I really can't imagine that I'd have felt like I was in a safe environment if we had actually been studying religion in and of itself, rather than the way it had an impact on the world/culture.

Americans not being familiar with gospel or having read the Bible they believe isn't something I think should be remedied in schools. If it's problematic (and I do see ways it can be) that's something that I feel strongly needs to come from church and family, not public school education.

[The Happy Feminist]

Hmmmm . . . you make good points. I am now imagining some kind of ecumenical public education campaign encouraging people of all religious orientations to become literate in the major world religions.

[Antigone]

We read the Bible in my AP literature class, and the only people who objected were "Christians". The Bible, with or without context, is a really horrible book.

[Mermade]

My public high school offered a course on Bible as Literature. Unfortunately, I could not take it because I was in AP English Literature. I am glad it was an option, though. It was the most popular English elective for seniors. I am from Los Angeles, so a considerable percentage of the students who signed up for it were not Christian. Although all of the teachers were Christian, I think my school did a pretty good job at rationally and objectively looking at the Bible as opposed to religiously. It was taught as literature, a book containing numerous stories. The only book conservative Christians had a problem with at my school was "Inherit the Wind." I don't care for it myself, but that's because I do not think it is has a lot of literary value. I do believe in evolutuion, though, and I see no contradiction with the story of Genesis and Darwin's theories.

I agree with you, Happy. I think the Bible should be part of the cirriculum at public schools. Once I studied the Bible a little more in depth (I'm Catholic -- my Protestant friends generally know a lot more about it than I do) I began to read Western lit with a different "lens." I picked up so many more Biblical allusions. It really enriched my study of English, not to mention deepened my spirituality.

There is A LOT of misunderstanding about the Bible and world religions at large. Religion (not just Christianity) is used to justify ignorance, anger and fear. I wish my high school offered a course on world religions so that maybe, just maybe, our country's understanding about religion and thus other people will improve. Heck, I think offering such a course would be rather "American." This is the melting pot, right?

Reading the Bible cover-to-cover is a bit tedious (as you know). I like that old joke, "If God is the author of the Bible, why wasn't he a better writer?" Or something.

[matt]

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

Galations 3:28

What a radical statement! The end of sexes in Christ! How can this be though? Merely rhetoric? A neat philosophy that looks good on paper? No, something must happen to get there...

Then Jesus said to His disciples, “If anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me. For whoever desires to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake will find it. For what profit is it to a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul? Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul?

Matthew 16:24-27

Truly, the self has a never-ending desire for recognition, fame, riches, and love from others! For how can one know they're alive unless they receive such things? It seems to me that we constantly try to dethrone God, and place self as the king of our life. I must agree with Jesus...those things can get you only so far in life, until you realize it was all for nought...thus, crucify the self! For the end of want, is the beginning of life! But of course, it's never that simple...you can't use self-will to deny the flesh. That's religion, and religion is an evil construct of man used to constrain and formulate God. Look what it's done over the years...but I reckon they just didn't know...

Thus, you've got to make a decision to die to the world, and say, "Wonderful Jesus, I simply can't do this on my own. Even though I've tried helping others and the world without You, it only further inflates my feeling of self-love. Jesus take this life, and I trust you to use it toward your Will."

I'm talking about the end of self; when your will dies!! Then you begin to live! Do you understand what I'm saying? Are you willing to give up your job, your finances, your family, everything, to truly live? I would say that the Christian life is an ever-increasing participation in the death of Christ.

For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.
John 3:17

Yes! God is a good God. He did not come to condemn, but to tell us the truth, that this is life...

The LORD has appeared of old to me, saying:

“ Yes, I have loved you with an everlasting love;
Therefore with lovingkindness I have drawn you.

Jeremiah 31:3

[LindaJoy]

The Bible in public school classrooms? NO, NO, NO and NO. To say that there may be some abuses is an understatement of gigantic proportions. Here's an idea- if students come across a Biblical reference in another piece of literature, the teacher can give them the place it is found in the Bible and tell them to look it up for themselves. My girls were raised without that book and they both have masters degrees. Their Biblical ignorance hasn't seemed to have been a problem. This foundation of Western culture excuse is the perverbial Trojan Horse!

[Maria]

Speaking as a Christian homeschooling, stay-at-home mom, I must say I find this post interesting and the comments intriguing and overall entertaining. However, I would like to share a few things with you.

As a Christian and a homeschooler, I could really care less if the Bible is taught in state schools or not. Because, I firmly believe that the federal government has no right to be telling the parents, who's children attend public school, what they should or should not be teaching. I believe it should be left to the parents of the children in each school district to decide, not the federal government. Does anyone remember the "PTA" and the locally elected "School Board". I mean there was a time when these to organizations decided what would and would not be taught in their local school district.

If the "local majority" voted to allow the Bible in a "local school district" then so be it. If the "local majority" voted not to, then so be it.

Image a "local community" deciding for it's own "local school district" what is best for its "local students". Ummmm, I think it's called "local control".

[Samara]

I second Maria- and also agree that as a Christian, it's very important to understand where people of other faiths are coming from & what they believe so that one doesn't make a fool of oneself when engaging them.

[sdsharpe]

There are always problems when public schools teach the Bible. Read what Christopher Ruddy thinks about this issue.

[aizheng]

癌症 肺癌 胃癌 肝癌 食管癌 肿瘤 直肠癌 结肠癌 宫颈癌 乳腺癌 脑瘤 甲状腺肿瘤 胆囊癌 胆管癌 前列腺癌 白血病 鼻咽癌 肾癌 恶性淋巴瘤 皮肤癌 喉癌 舌癌 胰腺癌 膀胱癌 天涯在线 神话 家庭建康 心碎了无痕 pallyboy 幸福 医药类 我的快乐 胃癌的博客

[Dave]

I don't think teaching the Bible in public school would be a good idea unless it was not compulsory.

-Dave
online christian dating services

[cialis discount]

cheap@cialis.com

[discount cialis]

cheap@cialis.com

[order levitra]

cheap@levitra.com

[fadsfsd]

好秘书 呼吸网 肿瘤网 演讲稿 竞聘演讲 就职演讲 比赛演讲 征文演讲 节日演讲 演讲技巧 方案制度 工作意见 活动策划 工作方案 整改方案 实施方案 企划文案 销售方案 培训方案 应急预案 材料大全 事迹材料 先进事迹 个人事迹 申报材料 学习材料 考察材料 经验材料 交流材料 个人鉴定 工作计划 工作规划 年度工作计划 学校工作计划 个人工作计划 财务工作计划 团委工作计划 工会工作计划 单位工作计划 德育工作计划 教学工作计划 班主任工作计划 党支部工作计划 先教活动 整改措施 剖析材料 反腐倡廉 三农问题 和谐社会 三个代表 八荣八耻 先进性教育 党团工会 党性分析 民主生活会 入党志愿书 入党申请书 入团申请书 转正申请书 公文写作 板报设计 公文 秘书 广告启事 通知 求职指导 求职信 自荐信 学术论文 企业文化 毕业论文 合同 社交礼仪 常用书信

[buy levitra]

cheap@levitra.com

[cheap levitra]

cheap@levitra.com

[generic levitra]

cheap@levitra.com