While we were all celebrating Darwin Day last month, the Republican led Christian Crusaders launched a bold offensive in Georgia. All hope is not lost, but they appear to be on the verge of a crushing victory. The Georgia Board of Education has been infiltrated and subsequently passed legislation approving two Bible literature classes for all public schools.
While intelligence is scarce at this point, here’s what we’ve uncovered. The two classes are Literature and History of the Old Testament Era, and Literature and History of the New Testament Era. While the classes don’t appear to be mandatory, public funding will be used to support them. In addition, the Bible will be used as the sole textbook thus providing a nice unbiased learning experience. Intel also reports that Christianity is the only religion offered. Muhammed, Buddha, and all those funky Hindu Gods and Goddesses aren’t invited to the party.
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. He says it best:
“It’s not just ‘The Good Book,’” Williams said. “It’s a good book.”
Well Mr. Williams then I have one question to ask you. Will you sponsor legislation offering other “good books”? How about the Qur’an, the Tripitaka, the Bhagavad-Gita, the Tao-te-Ching, or the Guru Granth Sahib? Oh! You say you don’t even know what those books are? Well there’s another reason for you to add them to the curriculum.
Now I’ve made it clear in the past and I stand by it today. We need to teach religion to our children. It is an inescapable facet of life that has an enormous impact on our well-being as a society. But to teach just Christianity using the Bible as the sole source of information is foolhardy and shortsighted. To me it’s like teaching kids addition and leaving out subtraction. Yea I know that analogy stinks but you get the picture.
You can all thank deletedsoul for this one!
Thoughts, comments, and complaints are always welcome here at the house of all things religious :)
Related posts:
[...] to gasmonso for posting this article on Religious Freaks (and for linking to [...]
Given many of the problems with Christianity in America are due to alliterate(*) followers, a course like this could be good, provided they teach the bible as a literary work and focus the discussion on all the available interpretations, its role in history, influence on Western thought and literature, and so forth, it’ll be good.
(*) This is a real word
@Hoodlum:
Indeed it is a real word my friend :) The proof is in the pudding!
gasmonso
I do think that presenting the Bible as a literary work would be fine, as long as it wasn’t focusing on the Bible only, and “Pastor Bob the Science Teacher” isn’t using the class to attempt indoctrination of impressionable children.
In the town where I grew up, the Pastor of the largest church in the county was also the high school science teacher. He would teach the first day’s class, going over the evolutionary theory, and spend the rest of the time pushing creationism. I have no idea how he got away with this, but no one ever raised an eyebrow about it.
I think a religious history class would be beneficial and helpful, something that portrays religions in a truthful light. However, I don’t think the Georgia literature class is going to help anyone.
The problem is Georgia is one of the main states with the “Bible Belt”. The vast majority of this state (Which I currently live in) is deeply Christian. I would have no problem if these classes were counted as “Electives” but I would prefer that they offer the same for other religions. I don’t know about the rest those here, but I would’ve loved to have had a high school class teaching me about the literary aspects of Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, and so on. The biggest issue I have with this is that if it becomes a mandatory class or if they fail to provide classes that recognize other religions. I pride myself of my ways, especially of my patience, and understanding. But once it comes to forcing only ONE religion to get through school. That’s too far. I do agree with deletedsoul in his statement of
“I think a religious history class would be beneficial and helpful, something that portrays religions in a truthful light. However, I don’t think the Georgia literature class is going to help anyone.”
Like I said before, Georgia is too heavily christian for it to work properly. Why don’t they ask the originaly in habitants of georgia what should be taught? Oh wait I forgot they captured them all, shoved them in wagons, and forced them all to migrate to the west. This world is steadily running out of room for “Off-Brand” religion What isn’t christian isn’t right or so it seems. The “Faith Based” iniative program for example, and now this. Those of you on this site must take into account, if it happens here, then it will make precedent elsewhere, and by our legal system that will be enough justification for it to spread.
So I’ve typed a lot, said a little, or said a lot. It all depends on how you read it. But this is a threat to free religion in many ways and yet a good thing in others. The only question is, how will the people as a whole allow it to grow?
“All hope is not lost, …”
I don’t think that does mean what you want to say.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_quantification
Even if their intention is to teach the bible objectively, which seems pretty doubtful, it seems unlikely that that would be the result. In college, I took a “Bible as Literature,” course, that despite the profs best intentions, almost always devolved into noisy debate between the believers and those who would place the good book in historical perspective (rather than interpreting history from biblical perspective). Unfortunately, with the advent of evangelism in this country, there has risen a vocal contingent always prepared to shout down the idea that the bible might not be the word of god.
I love the Tao-te-Ching. I think all religious works should be readable in 20 minutes.
I took an Old Testament class in college (it was required). Honestly, the class was so god-awful boring (no pun intended) that it helped accelerate my path to atheism. I don’t look forward to this developing in Georgia, but maybe this is a bright spot.
Some guy begat some other guy, ad infinitum. Granted, there is a good bit of smiting and a great deal of God killing folks, but focusing on that is just as likely to make someone fear God but not necessarily worship him.
@Hoodlum: I do not think that word means what you think it means. :)
You meant not-literate?
One ‘l’ makes all the difference.
I don’t think you meant to say that “Caring Christians commonly are curmudgeonly”.
Or “Hindu’s are hoping to be happy helping heifers hide from hungry hunters.”
Or even “Merry Muslims make marmalade a must for moviegoers.”
Alliteration is fun. :)
Of course the aliterate do not know what they are missing.
This all goes back to the basic ‘ideal’ (hah)
Comparative Religion class = Good, educational, expands your perspective, culture, etc. In College!
Any attempt to do this in High School (or *shudder* Middle or Elementary School) = Bad. Period. This also applies to almost any class dealing with religious writings that is NOT ‘Comparative’. I said ‘almost’ above because the exclusive study of the Tao-te-Ching (Thnx Tommy for a readily available example) is less likely to devolve into an emotional shouting match about ‘Who’s right’ in our culture and more likely to be a genuine educational experience.
And ‘Bible as Literature’ is a joke. The Bible isn’t exactly what I’d call ‘high culture’ literature. I hated Shakespeare and Poetry, but at least it taught me about the development of modern literary techniques. The Bible is exactly what it is, the writings of some sun-maddened dude from a few thousand years ago. At least the Egyptian legends were more interesting. Like many pantheistic writings, it was like a soap-opera!
Which says alot about the Bible’s literary value. A primitive ‘holy soap opera’ is a more highly evolved bit of literature than the Bible is. Gimmie the ole Greek or Roman holy texts anytime, at least those folks had some style, some creativity. Tune in next week! Ohh! I can’t wait to see who Zeus is gonna boink next!
Also I agree with Doug, the only thing a study of the OT proves is that God is one sick twisted freak. Hardly the type of being that would inspire worship, unless you to are also a sick twisted freak, but I digress ;)
Laffin,
While the old testament and the gospels may have been written thousands of years ago, today’s bible is actually the product of interpretation and translation within the past few hundred. In that sense, it is as much literature as the Odyssey or the Canterbury Tales.
I think any religious course in high school should be comparative. However, I studied parts of the bible as required reading for a literature course in high school. Uh… I think it was Ruth and Mark? Maybe? I guess that shows how much it affected me. We didn’t actually discuss it in class though, it was summer reading.
By ‘literary value’ though, it means that much of Western literature is affected by Christianity. There are plenty of novels and the like that borrow from stories in the bible. For example, if you were taking a Chinese Literature course, it would probably be important to understand something about Confucianism and Buddhism. Otherwise, you’ll probably miss out on certain meanings or interpretations of the literature you are reading.
I don’t think it’s necessary for it to be a whole course offered in a high school. Something that specific should probably be saved for college. I think my school may have had one, but it wasn’t that popular. I think it was only available for one year.
This class in Georgia sounds ok, except for the bible being the only book. I mean, your missing out on a ton of history that way. Are they going to talk about Jewish life and culture? What about Roman culture? They should just make the classes “Early Jewish History and Culture” and “Roman History and Culture” or maybe “The fall of Rome and the rise of Christianity”. These cover the same area of time we’re talking about here. From any scholarly stand point, these classes don’t make much sense – unless they are just a blatant bible study course. Its pretty obvious by their exclusive use of the bible as their text that they aren’t trying to teach a real history course.
Using the Bible as the -only- books, in a place like Georgia, gives me the feeling there will be no objective stance, which is why this probably shouldn’t happen. Besides, which Bible are they going to use? Catholics and Protestants have different books within their Books. Of course, to answer that, they’re going to use a Protestant Bible (since this is a Protestant country), because the other books don’t make up the right Book (according to them). It would be nice if this was done right, but that’s simply not going to happen. If they decided, however, to include aprocryphal books among others, then I’d be impressed.
I agree with both of my critics ;)
Yes, DcMusic, I agree that a more ‘proper’ Bible as Literature class would be a description of how it influenced further literature, legends, etc. While pointing out the fact that many, if not all, of the legends in the Bible dated before the Bible was written. As in, it’s not that original, but traditional Western culture thinks it is, so it influenced us in that way. With current American culture being the way it is, it is difficult to present the Bible in the same manner as Homer’s Odyssey. It’s a deeply emotional issue. You don’t have people in class shouting at each other about the ethics/morality, of the various actions of the characters in the Odyssey. You discuss the Bible in the same way, and it rapidly goes downhill.
Stacy, I love your point. Study of religious texts should, by definition, include cultural studies. In fact, they should be defined AS cultural studies. However, since the Bible has influenced Western culture so much, the study of how it has done so is a College-level course. You have to be a bit older and wiser and more experienced to be prepared to study how your own culture came into being from it’s very roots, it does require perspective. Doing it on a lower level counts as indoctrination, since the student does not have the necessary background to compare and contrast their cultures ‘vs’ others.
Hoodlum got pwnd!
I was waiting to see if anyone was smart enough to call him on it. Congrats Jew Boy 420, it appears you are the only literate person in this thread. :P
That being said, of course MORE education is a good thing; it’s the only way we’ve ever influed the religious children. (too poor to go to a private school, that is)
I took an Honors World Literature class in high school, and we covered a couple passages of the Bible. The thing was, we covered it during the mythology unit, along with The Odyssey, parts of the Bhagavad-Gita, and the Epic of Gilgamesh. My teacher would stress how Christianity and other religions are mythology just like Zeus and Thor are (people used to believe those stories too). That certainly pissed a lot of the Christian kids off in class. I’m glad that we covered the Bible though, and I actually wish we would have learned more. So many allusions are made to Biblical stories no matter where you look, and I always feel sort of stupid when I don’t understand them from a literary perspective.
The thing is, a Bible as Literature class wouldn’t work as an elective, even if you made equivalent classes for the Qur’an or other texts (especially in highly Christian states). I can just imagine parents (or zealous counselors) forcing children to take the Bible class against their will. The demand for a Buddhist class would be low in comparison and would have a harder time getting a high enough enrollment to actually keep the class. The best bet would to have something like I had, a comparative religion class. At least, that’s my two cents.
Setting aside the practical fact that the Bible is the only book and that Christianity is the only religion in these courses because they are geared toward indoctrination, not education, there’s another more practical reason why it’s only the Bible and only the Christianity:
Christian figures and Christian stories don’t have the pop of Muslim and Hindu stories!
The Bible, unedited, is the best case for atheism as long as the sections where “God’s People” indulge in murder, genocide, slavery, and herims “in his name” aren’t glossed over. I mean Abraham had his first child with his wife’s handmaiden, then cast her out. Then his second son was about to be sacrificed in “God’s name”. Joshua was ordered to kill every man woman and child in the “Land of Promise”. Paul gives slaves instructions to obey their masters and that those who run away are sinning by doing so. The list goes on ad infinitum. If they are really going to teach the Bible, they must be forced to teach it in grueling detail, showing every violent, heinous, act committed in the name of the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob. The next semester should take a trip through the violence of Allah in the Qur’an. Next we could look at all the multi-handed bitch slaps handed down on behalf of Shiva. There is nothing better to cure the disease of religion than an in depth study of it.
Other than never being molested as an altar boy, that mispelling the word aliterate on this blog is the most embarrassing thing I have ever done.
Deus, you beat me to it man..
How they are going to get around all the murder, homosexuality, rape, torture etc.. is beyond me.
Heck, just recently (in GA) we had a student suspended from public school for sayinq *quote* “That is gay”
I was floored when i saw this on the news today, and the first thought i had?
religiousfreaks.com
I think i have become a junkie…
Fine with me, as long as they teach it as FICTION.
@Speedjunkie:
I’m surprised you object to that suspension. I presume the student was suspended because his/er remark was implicitly homophobic, not because it had to do with ‘evil homosexuality’.
Insulting things by calling them ‘gay’ is implying that being ‘gay’ is a bad thing. Hence why I (and most people who’ve thought about it) consider it to be a form of homophobia.
So, my hat is off to whoever stood up for his/er principles, and made the decision to suspend that student…especially in Georgia.
When I was a freshman at Dartmouth we were offered a course on the King James bible. The idea, which seems inarguable to me now, was that knowledge of the KJV is necessary for what we now call “cultural literacy.” To say that “the Qur’an, the Tripitaka, the Bhagavad-Gita, the Tao-te-Ching, or the Guru Granth Sahib” deserve equal attention is badly off the mark. When Emerson and Thoreau refer to such texts, they always name the source; but the rest of Walden and the Essays is a nonstop KJV reference-fest that simply assumes the reader will “get” it. A literate reader will know what cultural ground he or she is standing on — will feel it in his or her bones. The experience is a little hard to describe, but I assure you it is worth the effort. But if you don’t know the KJV, you can’t call yourself literate. (Some Christians will tell you that the KJV is a bad translation, and refer you to one of the modern “today’s English” versions. That may or may not be true, but it’s beside the point. For this purpose, it’s KJV or nothing.)
That said, the motivation of these un-American jackasses in Georgia couldn’t be clearer. They want to circumvent the First Amendment, and they bring shame and disgrace down on their religion by doing so.
“The experience is a little hard to describe, but I assure you it is worth the effort. But if you don’t know the KJV, you can’t call yourself literate.”
So I’m not literate because I won’t get some references made by a few 19th century philosophers? I suppose I’m also not literate if I don’t go to pussy book clubs and read slam poetry? Not everyone was a liberal arts major… and there’s more to our culture than really old books that have no bearing on todays society.
So are the works of Emerson and Thoreau more important than Plato or Socrates? So what if they worshiped different gods, you should still understand greek mythology as well as the mythology of today. And to fully experience the writing from all over the world you should have some basic understanding of all religions, christianity is no different.
“So I’m not literate because I won’t get some references made by a few 19th century philosophers? I suppose I’m also not literate if I don’t go to pussy book clubs and read slam poetry?”
Yeah, that’s just what I said.
“So are the works of Emerson and Thoreau more important than Plato or Socrates?”
That’s exactly what I said.
[rolls eyes]
i can’t tell if you being sarcastic or just an asshole, possibly both? I asked if you put Emerson and Thoreau over Plato and Socrates, to do so would be pretty ignorant because they are part of the foundation of philosophy. So to not bother studying their religions would be pretty stupid seeing as that they make frequent references to the religion of the society they lived in.
@Dave
Dave, you got a point man. I guess my gut reaction to the suspension was more or less based on how much things have changed since i was in school.
I tell you though, this was a somewhat innocent statement from a teen age girl. In my opinion it wasn’t really directed at anyone, it’s just part of the slang these kids use.
She was made an example out of though, and i guess in all honesty rightfully so.
Ultimately, what religious and philosophical texts you think are relevant, readable, and how you rank them in terms of greatness is more a function of life experience, interests, and personal than any intrisic value of the text.
That makes sense. Badly written fiction seldom has much intrinsic value :)
As long as they write in bold letter “This work contains works of fiction and stuff an unknown, unprovable, never showing his ugly face god is supposed to have said” just like they did with the textbooks on Evolution I am satisfied.
Anybody else seeing the irony of the bible being pushed as “fact” while evolution is labeled “fiction”?
“those who critisize evolution for having insufficent evidence always seem to forget that their own theories are backed by no evidence whatsoever”
Can’t remember where I saw it. Nice summary of argument from ignorance – i.e. you can’t prove you theory, therefore that means MY theory has to be true. WTF?? doesn’t that work both ways???
Considering who sponsored the bill and what that person’s religious beliefs are, this stinks of a state-sponsored endorsement of a particular religion. I’m sure the ACLU will nip this one in the bud pretty quickly.
Speedjunkie:
I disagree. This is just an example of how the PCness of some people in this country has gone horribly, horribly wrong.
I don’t think people should go out of their way to offend people, but with some people it is impossible not to. They WANT to be offended so that they can whine. I have NOTHING against gay folks, yet I also use the term “thats gay”. People need to quit being so damn sensitive. You think I would be all hurt if someone started using the term “thats atheist” in a derogatory manner? That would be a no.
Amen, brother!
As one great person said (quote may not be exact, but the idea is there): “If you get offended, you are not fit for the democracy.”
@Michael: Using that vein of thought one could justify using “That is so Jew” or “That is so Black” as derogatory terms. Were it simply used a descriptor it wouldn’t be a big deal but implying that gay=bad makes it hate speech. This idea is one supported by the Christian right and therefore isn’t frowned upon the way the “N” word is. The fact that a school is punishing students for its use is actually refreshing in that it shows a turn of the prevailing tide to acceptance of gays and lesbians.
Deus, I understand that, but if you try to create a list all the offensive terms that you want to designate “hate speech” and make them illegal, you have a biiig job ahead of you. It probably would be hard to communicate at all as well, since you would have banned half of every language in the world.
To me, it is just like passing laws designed to protect stupid people from themselves.
Man I wish we could edit our posts :)
Thinking a little more on it, I have to keep reminding myself that we are talking about public schools here, a place that no kid should ever be sent. Unfortunately most kids’ parents can’t afford to send them to private school.
I GUESS letting kids go around saying anything they want is not the answer there, so I grudgingly admit I may not be 100% correct here, but I refuse to say I am wrong either. What it boils down to is a lack of parenting. Do we want public schools parenting our kids? With some (most?) parents being as horribly ill equipped to be parents is public school actually better suited to parent than them? Talk about your social conundrums.
@Michael: I think we are coming from the same place. Being of a bit of a libertarian bent, I am not a fan of anything that imposes on an idiot’s ability to hang themselves but in this case the prevailing opinion still looks favorably on mistreating gays so someone must take a stand against this.
“I have NOTHING against gay folks, yet I also use the term “thats gayâ€.”
If you have nothing against them, then why do you use that term in a derogatory way? Lack of imagination?
Tommy, because it means nothing to me one way or another. I gather from your response that you are one of those easily offended people. I just don’t happen to belong to your super sensitive club. Sorry.
Oh and one other thing. Why are you assuming when I say “thats gay” that I mean something derogatory? In fact, I would more say that I mean that it is strange. You may find THAT derogatory, but whatever. Gayness is different from the norm. Many find it hard to comprehend. Thus, strange. I understand, I am an atheist and THAT is strange to most people. Hell, I might even say it makes me more of a minority than someone that is gay, there are probably a lot more gays than atheists. I personally don’t find gay strange. I also say “oh my god” or “jesus” when startled. Does that mean I believe in god? It is just a term.
Isn’t “that is gay” should mean “that is happy”?
@Deus ; Michael
Hey guys,,, there are a lot of good points being made here. Regarding PC/Conformity, and being a free thinker.
I thought carefully before making that statement. Although i was borderline at making a rant about what words we can, and cannot use. I felt like it was more important to show respect/ tolerance/ understanding/ or whatever you want to call it.
This was a young girl who was just talking to her peers in normal teen conversation. I would equate the usage of this word to “square” or “goofy”.
She was not screaming obsenities targeted at people who live “alternative” lifestyles. I would think they could have taken this into consederation.
Speed, I think that pretty illustrates my point. When do we stop making speech illegal “just in case” and start teaching our kids that they shouldn’t let another person’s words define them? Are we going to start allowing one kid to beat another kid up because they said something that “offended” them? Just brush it off and say they shouldn’t have said what it was they said?
Words have no power. None. It is the “victim” that gives them power. If you refuse to give it power, it is harmless. Society gives them power by over reacting.
This morning’s Washington Journal on C-Span featured an interesting discussion on teaching the bible in public schools. Here’s a link to the program: rtsp://video.c-span.org/15days/wj040507.rm . Skip to the last 45 minutes.
I must make the attached to thanking customers in the high quality methods Ive often times taken pleasure in discovering your web page. We’re hopeful for this particular graduation concerning the group or perhaps studies also the complete foot placement could not seems to be finalize devoid of turning up onto your site. Considerably more than simply should be of one’s help to other brands, We are grateful to assistance of what I did realized at this point.
Nice 1, there is actually some really good issues with this web site many of my personal readers will find this valuable, I must send out one of the links, thanks.
certainly like your website however you have to test the spelling on several of your posts. A number of them are rife with spelling problems and I in finding it very troublesome to tell the reality on the other hand I’ll surely come again again.