Welcome to Gaia! ::

Note to fellow Guildies: this post belongs more in the subforum "Religion and Politics" but for the time being I am going to create the thread in here where it will be visible (I know not everybody checks subforums regularly!). Once the discussion gets going a bit, I'll be moving this thread into its proper subforum. So if it appears to disappear, that's where it went!

It was either this last week or a week before that one of the major news magazines, Time, ballparked an article making the case for teaching the Bible in schools. I suggest that you read the article here to get a background on this issue before posting. The core of the argument is that the Bible, plain and simple, is a cornerstone of Western culture and to be ignorant of it is to not have a complete and full education, regardless of what your personal religious beliefs are. It is suggested to teach it in the style of a literature course and to draw a very careful distinction between teaching the Bible as literature and teaching the Bible as religion (aka, indoctrinating/prostyelizing).

arrow Can that distinction even be made? Is it possible to have the Bible in schools without in some way indoctrinating people into the reilgion?
arrow The broader question here is... do you agree with the idea of teaching the Bible in schools? If so, why? If not, why not?
arrow If we're going to teach the Bible, why just the bible? Why not have a world religions survey course?
arrow How might teaching the Bible in schools influence issues of religious tolerance?

Yes, its possible to separate the Bible from the faith and teach one without the other. However, strict fundamentalists and/or those who interpret the Bible literally would likely take offense at some point.

Hmmm. Yes. I'll explain at the bottom.

Well, you could do a world religions suvey course... but it largely depends on the hows and whys you're teaching the Bible. A survey course of world religions wouldn't get as in depth (which could be a good thing in some ways), but at the same time I think that folks would miss out on a great deal of the depth of the subject matter. Too, how do you decide which religions to cover and how much time to allocate to each? Three, where do you find adequately skilled teachers?

Hmmm... meh. shrugs I dunno, that's largely going to be an localized thing and I'm not sure if we can generalize a wide-spread reaction. I'd like to say that it would encourage religious tolerance, but I'm not confident of that.


Ok, for some more in depth analysis (and an explication of point number two)... as you may or may not know I was a high school teacher for a couple of years (English/Language Arts, mostly 9th grade but with a little 10th and a little remedial). As I was going through school (college and graduate school) my biggest thing was taking an interdisciplinary approach to literature (I minored in both History and Art, got a diversification in Philosophy, and then went on to join a monastic order). Literature is very much a product of the time period (and place) in which it is written. Frequently, literature is taught as a seperate thing, floating all on its own. In English classes you learn parts of speech, literary devices, blah blah blah, and you read a bunch of books and plays and poems. But, (in my opinion) unless you also get a background on the time and culture that a work comes from you are going to miss a great deal of the beauty and depth of that work.

For an example, take Gulliver's Travels by Jonathon Swift. (Heck, do they even use that in school anymore? I think I had it in 10th or 11th grade.) When you read it, or excerpts from it, typically what is emphasized is that it is an exemplar of satire. However, unless you know the political and religious landscape of the United Kingdom during Swift's life, its hard to understand exactly what he is satirizing... and if you don't know what he is satirizing are you really getting the best description of satire?

So, I think that the study of the Bible as a literary document (and maybe parts of it as a historical document as well) could be well applied in public schools. However, I also think that unless you had teachers trained to use it as a literary source instead of a religious one that some folks would get offended. Maybe used in an honors (or AP) English class for 11th/12th graders.

Here's an amusing thought to throw in that popped into my mind when I was reading the article originally. We already to teach a recognizable religion in schools as literature-only.

Our schools teach Hellenic Paganism.

We even usually teach it more than once, but every school always seems to have a unit on Hellenic mythology. However, most instructors fail to recognize that reconstructionalist Paganism is alive and well, and the myths are religious literature as much as they are plain and simple storytelling. It is taught so strongly in the context of fiction or "nobody really believes in the old Gods anymore" (which isn't true) that it ends up not being seen as indoctrination into Paganism. A similar approach could in theory work for the Bible; if it is treated as mythology rather than as a religious text or a literal historical account. Of course, however, there'd be a bit of a fiasco about such an approach. Most (in my mind, mistakenly) associate mythology only with untrue fictitous tales. Mythology at its base can often be grounded in history, but its purpose is to teach a worldview, a practice, an ethic, or how nature operates.

Exactly which Bible indeed! So many translations, so which would be picked out? Or perhaps the differences in translations could be part of the coursework?

The funny thing is we now live in a reverse Monkey Trial world. What I mean by that is that you could have a civil trial of someone teaching the bible in class because it's against the Constitution. Yes, I'm talking about the separation of church and state. I'm an atheist and I sure don't want the bible taught in schools. I think people have a good idea in asking the question: What religion? While that might be an idea to teach all the religions in school, it still broaches the separation of church and state. Do we really need the bible taught in school to teach morals in this country?

And the idea that some people are trying to get around the Constitution by calling the subject "Intelligent Design." It's the same thing as religion. Please don't tell me it's not. You know it is. Too bad not telling the truth isn't one of the Ten Commandments. Bearing false witness isn't the same thing.

Unfortunately, in this country, if religion is ever gonna be taught in schools, it'll be the Christian religion and not all the religions. But let's keep it in the churches where it belongs. Not in school, please.

ok, if there's a class that teaches all the religions. I mean all of them. Not just Christianity, maybe.

But then again, I must refer you again to a lil thing they came up with in 1789 called the Constitution of the United States that has an amendment that says separation of church and state.

I agree. It's no place to be converting kids in school, but informing them of their existence and beliefs is not unconstitutional, in the least.

That notion that one must intristically respect another person's beliefs because they believe them reminded me of a joke:

"I believe that the universe was created by two giant turtles who did battle with space-god"

"That view is ridiculous"

"It's my religion"

"And I respect it!"

Now, given the nature of the guild, this would be an off-colour thing to say, but it raises an interesting point. Do we have an obligation to tolerate nonsense, simply because it's religiously-worded nonsense? Not to say that any religious person deserves prosecution (surely not, we all have the right to believe in whatever it is that pleases us), but when we have a situation on our hands (and this is true), where there is a large group of people who want to infringe on our rights because it fits their religious worldview, do we have an obligation to give them enough power to be able to take those rights (many of which are constitutionally provided) away? Should personal belief in deity be allowed to affect public policy?