Do you think a class focusing on the Bible should be taught in public school? This is from a Virginia school that is trying to implement a Bible studies class — and if you’ve got some idea that maybe it’s an intellectual course which discusses the social and literary contributions of an important book in Western culture, it’s plugged as “the first step to get God back in your public school”.
There’s also a wee poll to crash at the bottom of that article.
Should the bible be taught in public schools? Duh.
The nation’s decline began when Madalyn Murray O’Hair and others like her took prayer and the Bible out of public school.
But at least O’Hair’s son became a Christian, and has undone some of the worst of his mother’s work. His testimony is worth reading.
Good grief, no! I remember always thinking (rather snobbily; blame my parents) that the only proven superiority of an American education was in the fact that there was no compulsory religious education or religious involvement in schools. I know better now, having grown up somewhat in the meantime, but the separation of church and state is still one of the best things going for American schools.
*facepalm* Should pay attention to the title of the post. Sheesh!
PS. I remember when I was young, we actually had a ‘bible in schools’ class once a week. I was about 6 so this mainly comprised of singing songs and listening to watered-down biblical stories. I remember enjoying this but also thinking that it was pointless because I didn’t believe in god.
So, even if they get this class into their school (which they bloody well shouldn’t), the non-believing kids will probably stay non-believing. Give them some credit.
That ACLU , always interfering in Christian business.
=P
Why these knuckleheads keep leaving Reese’s Pieces around for courts to follow all the way to “obvious violation of the First Amendment” is beyond me, although I guess we should be happy for that.
“The nation’s decline began when Madalyn Murray O’Hair and others like her took prayer and the Bible out of public school.”
Ignore the fact that a lot of schools weren’t forcing students to read the bible or forcing prayer on students, and ignore the fact that numerous religious schools continued and continue to do so. Never mind that bible thumpers failed again in logic and common sense.
You might as well blame society’s decline on the moon landing, but it’s sad to think fundies think society was a step up when we had slavery and lynchings.
I knew *you* weren’t asking, PZ. I was just being… rhetorical? That doesn’t feel right there. Anyway.
Sorry, I just had an attack of paranoia about looking stoopid.
As long as they teach the controversy; I’ve got some class materials to sell them.
Considering that, and the fact that the earlier class died for lack of interest, ought to be a sufficient answer to the question.
And I seriously doubt that the ACLU is simply suing any time that a Bible class is taught, hoping to scare them out of it. Indeed, the fact that the earlier class died simply due to lack of interest would seem to support those doubts.
The fact is that there is not much interest in classes which would discuss the Bible merely as history and literature. The interest in the Bible is primarily religious, so Bible classes eventually tend to violate the constitutionality tests.
The crux of the matter is that schools are not crying out for material to teach. So why invite trouble, either by teaching the Bible with the proper skepticism, or by teaching it in a manner that violates church and state separation?
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
I find it interesting that so many U.S schools are trying to put religious classes into their curriclums. Do these people (already religious, I assume) not find it enough to go to their place of worship AND pray in their homes AND raise their children with religion? Why the fear of an education without more religion?
I’ve never been able to fully understand why these Christians can’t be satisfied with reading their fables at home or in church where they freakin’ belong.
How many times do they have to be sued before they wake up and realize that this issue is more about respect than anything?
whoknows @ # 2, why do you think that “The nation’s decline began when Madalyn Murray O’Hair and others like her took prayer and the Bible out of public school.”?
That book is full of immoral injunctions, & suggests venerating an evil, jealous, amoral, misogynistic, magic spirit monster man..
Or are you suggesting that exposure to such feckin’ nonsense, (it says that the Earth is flat!), might help make the kids become atheists.
Me and I seem to have the same question (Man! Now that was a fun sentence to write).
Not you, that’s for sure.
Unfortunately, coming from that area of VA, that is a saying that is spread frequently. “Get GOD back” in schools, government, and life in general. Its a sad way to live trust me. These people actually believe that life would be better for all of us if an imaginary being ruled the world.
what what what. Geeze, what part of “public” and “No religious shit” is so fucking hard to understand?
Borrowing from Dan Dennett, an upper-level high school comparative religion course – or a module in a history or social studies class – would be useful for understanding human culture. Somehow I doubt that such enlightenment is the typical motive for such proposed Bible studies classes, however.
Yes, absolutely. You have to know what it says and what it means. As long as PZ has control of the curriculum.
Every single one of the people who voted “Yes” in that poll needs to be swatted twenty times on the rump with a rolled up copy of the U.S. Constitution.
Sure, I think I class discussing the bible is pretty much a must in these days.
BUT,
It should simply be discussed as a work of literature, and there should be other classes covering other religions. Nobody ever got hurt by understanding the beliefs around them.
To bad that’s not their intention though, so my vote is NO
doing well so far:
Yes 162 (19.42%)
No 672 (80.58%)
James F,
Exactly, the proposed course offers nothing to compare with the Bible, so it’s not comparative religion.
Dan, #12
For these Christian nutjobs, the issue isn’t about getting their own kids to read their fairy tales. I am sure they force their kids to do plenty of that at home. What these loons are really after is FORCING OTHER PEOPLE’S KIDS TO READ THE BIBLE. That is what they are really after. They know what is best for everyone else’s kids. Everyone’s kids will learn THEIR fairy tales. That is what this is all about.
James F,
No, I don’t think that comparative religion from a sociological or anthropological perspective is what is on the minds of these people. There are thousands of religions on this planet, how long would a truly comprehensive comparative religion class take? :)
My prediction regarding the poll results…
Poll is majority YES: “Hooray! The majority says we should teach the Bible in school. That makes it right!”
Poll is majority NO: “Boo! This is firm evidence of our nation’s moral decline! We need more Bible in our schools to erase the taint of this godless secularism!”
I studied the 23rd Psalm in a public school poetry class – I feel that was appropriate and sufficient.
You have to wonder what kind of trouble it will cause when the parents hear that the wrong version of the Bible is being used- or that the teacher is a member of the wrong denomination.
I don’t object to courses on biblical studies per se – as long as there are certain caveats:
1) The course is not mandatory
2) It is comparative in nature – e.g. where different sects disagree, the different positions are given equal “air time”
I’d like it to go a step or two further actually and embrace comparative religious studies. I’m sure that all of the squabbles between faith groups will do wonders for tangling things up more or less indefinitely.
There has actually been another 17 YES votes in under six minutes. But there has also been another 78 NO votes in the same time.
Yay Freedom FROM religion.
Yes 179 (19.27%)
No 750 (80.73%)
Also: from the article:
I wonder – would a similar request from faculty and students to have a class discussing the history and imagary of the Bhagavad Gita get the same ‘reasonable’ treatment, or be dismissed out of hand?
Damn recalcitrant blockquotes….
The last para is mine – and the Bhagavad Gita is merely a suggestion — I’d also like to see others in a real comparative religion class.
No, no, no. It began when “under God” was forcibly inserted into The Pledge of Allegiance.
[Kids in the Hall]
What weights more: the Bible or the Bhagavad Gita? Well worldy scholars and scientists have known for quite some time that the Bible outweighs the Bhagavad Gita here by a pound to a pound and a half sometimes, outweighs the Talmud sometimes by three to four pounds, outweighs that mighty Koran sometimes by five to ten pounds. You think about that.
[/Kids in the Hall]
To all those who see a nation in decline:
What was your high point? What are your criteria for said high point and also for insinuated decline?
I can’t wait to hear what K-Toad’s OPINION is on this.
From the National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools website page for “Is this Legal”
hoooooboy
No no no our subject matter is about learning the bible as a piece of hhistorical literature. Um.. right.
Project much?
I’d love to see these history classes that completely ignore religions place in history. Not shockingly, this is an outright lie.
Christian Persecution!!! OH NOES!!!11
Love that reversal of truth via projection.
Yawn. More trumped up fear mongering.
Which would be fine if that was how it was used, as a means to explain one religion in a big fish tank full of different religions. But that is never the case.
Ooops. Link to the National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools
I think you should start taking a page out of their book:
“This is a secular nation. If you don’t like it, you can go live in England/Denmark/Poland/Iran/Jonestown/&c.”
I found it amazing that in Queensland, Australia ‘Religious Education’ is taught in public primary schools. I had assumed it was some sort of cultural education class, but when the kids brought their text books home it was nothing but Christian dogma… of the most ridiculous kind. For example one exercise had the kids draw a billboard to inform everyone to get ready for Jesus’ return. And the kids got high marks just for filling in the blanks…with anything. One son had drawn stick figures on his billboard with speech bubbles: ‘Jesus is coming, look busy!’,’HELP,Jesus is coming!’, and ‘Arrrrrrrrrg!’ and got 90% for his effort :).
You can opt out of these classes, and the kids get to sit at the back of the class doing nothing.
This goes on and there is no public debate about it, NONE. No one questions it’s presence at a public school….
Turdus:
Yep.
(And a few generations from now, kids will be taught that Thomas Jefferson was a Congregationalist minister who entered public life to ensure that The Holy Bible was enshrined as an integral part of the foundation of the government of the United States.)
From the article,
Which rights are those?
No wonder these people won’t stop in their crusade to bring religion into the public sphere; they have an invisible, immaterial set of guidelines to match their invisible, immaterial father figure.
I must have missed the amendment to the Constitution that gave people the right to bring God back into the public schools through teaching the Bible.
@ Kseniya #31:
AND when “In God We Trust” was added to U.S. currency.
Aside: see here for a suggestion on how to “de-God” your money ;-)
@ Kseniya #31:
AND when “In God We Trust” was added to U.S. currency.
Aside: see here for a suggestion on how to “de-God” your money ;-)
And all this time I thought Thomas Jefferson’s claim to fame was having a species of Mammoth named in his honor. :)
In principle this wouldn’t be a bad thing. As some have said, after all, there’s nothing like a thorough read through of the Bible to accelerate deconversion. If they were forced to ensure a detached study of the content of the Bible, instead of preaching of its contents, such a class might actually help deconvert some people! Somehow, though, I worry that far too many teachers would be not quite so dispassionate.
Sorry for the double post – the link is:
http://www.lava.net/~hcssc/godlessmoney.html
in general, i’m all for getting people to read the bible, and bible classes, at least at the college level. it’s an interesting book, and is a big influence in western society and history. and, as an added bonus, education in the subject generally deters fundamentalism, and in many cases, promotes atheism.
but i have a feeling these guys aren’t gonna be academically teaching the bible. i have a feeling it’ll be “bible study” and not studying the bible. and “bible study” is about the most useless thing ever.
in any case, i’m not terribly sure where the constitutionality lies here. schools can (and do) support religious groups for students on campus. but teaching a class (even an elective one) is a little different in that agents of the state (teachers) will be the driving force. that said, reading the bible in school is not inherently religious — i read parts in my high school english class one year — as long as it’s treated in a literary way, and shown alongside other similar texts. so “equal opportunity” if not equal time, might end up being the standard. hard to say, but if i were a lawyer i would certainly have a much easier time arguing for unconstitutionality of it.
When contemplating the idea of a high school course on Bible as literature, my reasoning about it goes like this:
(1) Sure, that *could* be OK, in the same way that studying any work of fiction can still be enlightening.
(2) The question then is: does it hold up as a work of literature? I think it fails for the most part. There are individual stories that have meaning, but the whole is not very well put together.
(3) OK, if it isn’t literature, then why study it? Perhaps view it as a historical document. There, too, the signal/noise ratio is too low. The Iliad has a greater proportion of historical fact than the Bible, but few people read it is a historical document; they read it for the literary angle.
(4) So if it isn’t good literature, and it isn’t good history, perhaps it can be viewed as a sociological document. Study what is it about this document that has so many people spellbound.
Although #4 seems like the best justification, I doubt any HS curriculum will take that angle.
I’d like to teach all their kids Mormonism. :) That’d shut the project down right quick.
Well, yes, if it’s one step closer to getting public schooling abolished…
@me (#11)
It certainly seems as though the ‘christians’ are terrified that their religion is so feeble that they cannot allow ANY countering information, lest it ‘confuse’ the poor little kiddies.
Sound familar? Wasn’t that the same argument used by the Expelled folks for not including the views of the Christian scientists (not the sect, the scientists who happen to be Christian) in their ‘documentary’?
Honestly, I think it would be a good idea, as long as it’s not taught in standard Sunday School style–the style that skips all of the contradictions, inconsistencies, and situations that put God and Jesus in a very negative light by modern moral standards–and keep the reading objective, God’s genocides and other atrocities abound. Maybe people will start to see that the Bible isn’t in fact perfect, and it’s got more loop- and plotholes than Swiss cheese.
I voted yes.
OK, here are my suggestions for units in such a course:
What is the evidence that Jews were ever enslaved in Egypt?
Who was in Jericho when the Israelites entered Canaan?
How much of basic physics, astronomy, chemistry and biology would have to be rewritten if the Genesis account were true?
In fact, what evidence is there that any fact claim in the Bible is true?
I took a bible class in high school. It wasn’t fiercely evangelical, but it wasn’t really neutral either. The Bible is culturally important, and teaching about religion is not unconstitutional, but I suspect that the Bible classes the christian right wants are not intended to be neutral.
My AP English class in high school had a segment that dealt with the Bible from a literary standpoint (thought he teacher was *very* into it). We read the book of Job and discussed it from a literary point of view. To this day I am not sure if the teacher was trying to sneak bible study into the class, or was really impressed with the literary quality of the Bible.
In any case, choosing the book of Job was probably not a good idea if he was trying to convert us, for obvious reasons to anyone who has read that part of the Bible.
I like the idea of a “study bible” which disentangles the different sources which were slopped together to form canonical books. You’d start by separating the Pentateuch into J, E and P documents, for example, and in the New Testament unit, you’d have a chapter on the Pauline epistles, a chapter on the material derived from Q, a chapter on the material the synoptic gospels lard on top of Q, followed by a lesson on the Johannine books, and so forth. “Apocryphal” books would be treated on equal footing, of course, since somebody saw them as sacred, and the public schools shouldn’t judge whether they were right or not.
Even proclaiming that you are going to teach “the Bible” is a violation of Church-State separation, since it asserts the primacy of a particular book going under that name. (And let’s be honest here: it’s gonna be the King James Version.) You think I’m joking? Well, maybe. But should the State lend its authority to legitimize the KJV and the Protestant book tally at the expense of, for example, Marcion’s expurgated canon, which consisted of a purified Luke and a few epistles; or the Diatessaron of Tatian, in which the inconsistencies among the gospels were ironed out to make a text about three-quarters the total length of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. People used this as their gospel truth for almost three hundred years!
If anyone is interested, I drew up a letter and sent it into the School Board.
It isn’t that I am opposed to the use of public school class time to prostelitize for a particular religion, I just want to make sure that my particular religion has been included in the puddle…
There’s no better way to turn someone into an atheist than to have them study the bible really closely. Maybe not such a bad idea
I am continually amazed at how some Christians can believe there’s this omnipotent, omnipresent being who somehow can’t be present in schools without special government sanction.
The fundies want to get the camel’s nose under the side of the tent, but a substantive course about the Bible would move the camel in the other direction. Worked that way for my father.
That old joke that keeps going ’round: “you keep your bible out of our classrooms and we’ll keep our science out of your Sunday schools”…
… I’ve only just gotten up (in the “Down Under”, I believe you American cousins call it) and the caffeine hasn’t had a chance to hit my bloodstream. So please be kind when you tear to shreds my suggestion/question.
But my question is: is it really worth sticking to that aphorism? If they keep pulling crap like this, then why NOT go to churches? Why not wait for the local priest-or-whatever to say something provably false and then stand up and call him/her/it on it?
I don’t expect the caffeine to hit maximum concentration in my bloodstream for another 30 minutes…
WHAT?!!
And risk being stuck by lightning?
Better have another cuppa, Troff.
I suppose it’s okay to bring up the Bible in a literature class, just so you have some background related to early American culture. Sure, I can see that. Maybe you spend a week or two on it.
Then you move on to books that are written better, such as, well, pretty much all of them.
And you wouldn’t spend a semester on, say, a single Mark Twain book. If someone gets far enough ahead in their college education, then sure, you might have a class on the works of Mark Twain, but it’d be an elective. But there ain’t a semester’s worth of good writing in the Bible.
I voted no on the poll. Surprised?
Andrew@37,
Bizarre though having a religious education class in primary school is, after having lived in both Aus and the US, I prefer the Aus version.
Why? Because having everyone do the classes means that they are really watered down, and relatively inoffensive. But more importantly, their presence inoculates any fundie element that wants to tear down science.
Why would you tear down science to get religion taught in schools when it is already there? It gave the ID people no traction with Brendan Nelson a couple of years ago, when they tried to get ID in science classes. The overwhelming response was to say if your going to teach ID, teach it in RE.
In any event, despite, or maybe because of, RE, Aussies are not a particularly religious crowd.
Score:
182 vs 1796.
Win to the No vote.
#62: And by “college education”, I meant “high school education.”
Oops.
I should always preview.
Should the Quran, the Tarot, the Jehovah’s Watchtower magazine, The God Delusion, be taught in schools?
I certainly wish all schools could focus on science…only…please?
Lies and violence from the Death Cults are never too far below the surface. Why do you think they are called Death Cults? On a good day your car would likely end up torched. On a bad day, you would be in it while it burns.
Reading about the bible it useless, unless
you have a particular interest in ancient mitology…
Anyway, the real purpose of those frigging religous
its crystal clear, they have to be stopped right now,
before they achieve their unholy goals. Poor kids,
toying with their lives like that its abuse…
Should the Quran, the Tarot, the Jehovah’s Watchtower magazine, The God Delusion, be taught in schools?
Yes, yes, yes, and yes. I’m a big fan of Daniel Dennett’s idea of teaching non-sectarian comparative religion classes in public schools.
I certainly wish all schools could focus on science…only…please?
So no art, literature, or language?
I forgot, reason its winning over misticism, 326 a 1947…
*Sigh*. Sometimes I think I read this blog just because it gives me reasons to swear a lot.
Speaking of religious nonsense, you’ve been challenged by Conservapedia:
“Conservapedia message to evolutionist and atheist PZ Myers: Conservapedia has noticed that you have yet to point out a single error in the Conservapedia theory of evolution or atheism articles, let alone multiple errors. Also, in respect to your rather empty statement that you might address Conservapedia’s homosexuality article, we are not holding our breath. There is entirely too many citations in the Conservapedia homosexuality article from mainstream medical sources for you to contend with and let us not pretend otherwise.”
I eagerly look forward to your response. :D
They don’t have evidence he ever attended and their god would certainly be a rather feeble, and not at all omnipresent, god to have allowed himself to be expelled. All he’d have to do if he really wanted to be in a public school is bother to exist and to turn up. Though, even then, it would make a lot more sense if he addressed the comparative religion issue rather than merely reading from a single story-book.
Speaking of abusing children, CNN broke this story today:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/05/27/charity.aidworkers/index.html
This is just hideous, if it’s true.
I hate religion
From Mane’s copy-n-paste job (#72),
Speaking of inanimate objects/entities as if they are sentient must surely be a sign of dementia, no?
185 for, 2110 against. The No’s have it.
The caffeine has begun crossing the blood-brain barrier.
Kseniya:
> WHAT?!!
> And risk being stuck by lightning?
> Better have another cuppa, Troff.
The lightning has to go through their roof before it hits. Tit-for-tat, I’m just saying.
And don’t you worry. I’ve graduated to the chocolate-coated coffee beans.
Post #74: I did hear about this horrible news. Isn’t religion hideous? Getting money from the gullible just to abuse children. Sad and pathetic.
How can you not teach it, when it leads to results like this: Florida churches urged to pray for rain June 1.
I don’t see what #74 has specifically to do with religion… “Save the Children said the perpetrators of sexual abuse of children could be found in every type of humanitarian organization at all levels.” Abuse knows no boundaries. It’s a people-problem. Some people abuse their positions of authority. That’s the problem.
That blatant plug for “getting the Bible back in schools” is unfortunate, because I’m not actually opposed to teaching the Bible in the classroom — provided it’s taught as literature and not some thinly veiled attempt at spreading The Word (which the current case clearly is). Frankly, my Christian upbringing and all those nights of Bible study really paid off when I majored in English in college, because so much of Western literature (and art, and music) references Biblical passages. There’s some great stories in there, and some lovely lyrical passages (Song of Songs, eg).
So to get our local feel, read this letter from Central Virginia, not atypical.
“I am a teenage homeschooler…”
http://www.fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2008/052008/05272008/380702
Nice how the paper let the anti-ACLU perspective have the last words.
“It’s a backhanded way for the ACLU to deny some folks their constitutional rights” to have such classes, he contended.
He contended incorrectly. It’s a forthright defense by the ACLU and others to defend what the constitution says.
As for “the bible being taught as literature”, that will never happen. To treat it as literature is to (rightly) surmise that it is a storybook, at best a work based on actual events and (more likely) a fabrication that has become fact in the minds of the deluded.
I can’t wait to hear what K-Toad’s OPINION is on this.
really?
The proposed Bible course law apparently specifically notes that there will be no religious test, including faith or lack of faith, to teach the course.
It would be rather amusing to be an atheist certified to teach Bible courses. Could you imagine the reaction of the parents?
Not when the Pledge, that flagmaker’s slogan, was introduced in the first place?
I always get that picture of the little girls in Yemen saluting the flag and cheerfully shouting “al-Thawra!” (The Revolution, that is.)
Oh, gospel harmonies were common before the idea took hold that each gospel was inspired holy scripture and each word therein untouchable — and that took a while.
Kseniya #31: Foxfire #41
It began when “under God” was forcibly inserted into The Pledge of Allegiance
AND when “In God We Trust” was added to U.S. currency.
Aside: see here for a suggestion on how to “de-God” your money ;-)
It really began when President Eisenhower gave North Korea and North Vietnam to those Godless Communists instead of A-Bombing them back into the stone age. Which coincidently enough was about the same time that God was added to everything. Go Figure…. Anyway on with the rant, It accelerated when President Nixon surrendered Vietnam to those same Godless Commies! And now look at the mess we’re in… I’m OK now thanks, these spells only last a couple of minutes. Can I get away with “the Devil made me do it?”
Here’s a few reasons why the bible should not be taught:
“This book, the Bible, has persecuted, even unto death the wisest and the best. This book stayed and stopped the onward movement of the human race. This book poisoned the fountains of learning and misdirected the energies of man.
“This book is the enemy of freedom, the support of slavery. This book sowed the seeds of hatred in families and nations, fed the flames of war, and impoverished the world. This book is the breastwork of kings and tyrants – the enslaver of women and children. This book has corrupted parliaments and courts. This book has made colleges and universities the teachers of error and the haters of science. This book has filled Christendom with hateful, cruel, ignorant and warring sects. This book taught men to kill their fellows for religion’s sake. This book founded the Inquisition, invented the instruments of torture, built the dungeons in which the good and loving languished, forged the chains that rusted in their flesh, erected the scaffolds whereon they died. This book piled faggots about the feet of the just. This book drove reason from the minds of millions and filled the asylums with the insane.
“This book has caused fathers and mothers to shed the blood of their babes. This book was the auction block on which the slave-mother stood when she was sold from her child. This book filled the sails of the slave-trader and made merchandise of human flesh. This book lighted the fires that burned “witches” and “wizards.” This book filled the darkness with ghouls and ghosts and the bodies of men and women with devils. This book polluted the souls of men with the infamous dogma of eternal pain. This book made credulity the greatest of virtues, and investigation the greatest of crimes. This book filled nations with hermits, monks, and nuns – with the pious and the useless. This book placed the ignorant and unclean saint above the philosopher and philanthropist. This book taught man to despise the joys of his life that he might be happier in another – to waste this world for the sake of the next.
“I attack [the Bible] because it is the enemy of human liberty – the greatest obstruction across the highway of human progress. Let me ask you one question: How can you be wicked enough to defend this book?”
— Robert Ingersoll”
Kinda says it all, doesn’t it?
A poll asking, “do you think a class focusing on the Bible should be taught in public school?” on Pharyngula?
Isn’t that a bit like the local authorities asking whether or not you voted for Saddam Hussein, back in the old days in Iraq?
Or whether you think you could shoot those fish in that there barrell?
Ooops; almost forgot to register my vote — No; for severals of reasons. But if kids want to have some sort of Bible study or prayer group (a la MAGIC:The Gathering Club, or Goth Club), self-organized, that’s another matter. Yes.
Latina Amor: re: Robert Ingersoll quote.
It says it all, but what does it say? I should think that here at this site (at least), hyperbolic, hysteric and historically inaccurate broadsides would be disavowed, ESPECIALLY from the atheistic side of the argument. I expect more from my (assumedly) rationally-based opponents. A knee-jerk diatribe is just that.
But — I’m off to look up some more of this Ingersoll fellow, to see if he has anything more thoughtful to bring to the table. So there is that.
93% say no at this time… The Good People of Roanoke have spoken. And BTW, all Roanoke citizens will be thrown out of The South, and will be moving to MA immediately.
Way back when I was a child I went to Catholic elementary schools for six years and I went to public school for two years. My exposure to the bible was minimal from the catholics and non-existent from the public school. I read voraciously and whenever I came across a reference I didn’t understand my mother would always say, “Look it up.” That sometimes meant a bus trip to the downtown Chicago library, but that’s what I did. This was way before the internets–we were still doing cuneiform writing. Kids who really care about literature will do the research or ask the questions, but most will just skip over it and go directly to the naughty parts.
I really think that, with the quality of public school education today, trying to get kids to see how the bible influenced our laws (it didn’t) when they can’t find the United States on a globe is totally pointless.
Wry Mouth, #93,
Ahh, yeah…your inability to decode Ingersoll speaks volumns about the intellectual acumen of some Americans AND their failed institutions of learning. Your reply clearly demonstrated yet another reason why we should leave the bible unread.
Please read as much Ingersoll as you can and report back here if you find something difficult to comprehend. We’ll do all we can to help you find your way.
More like asking a group of cardiologists and oncologists if they think it’s a good idea to give free cigarettes to schoolchildren.
This has already been going on for a while in Texas (big surprise…)
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/01/education/01bible.html
Andrew #37
We had RE in New Zealand too. When I was in the final year of primary school, once every fortnight or so a dude from the Sallies would come and babble on for a while. I got kicked out for questioning the morality of the whole Jesus thing. After that I had to go with the Hindu and Buddhist kids and draw pictures.
I don’t think that the class had the effect they were after. I doubt anyone was converted, and the little Christians started to ask inconvenient questions so they could get out of there.
One of the difficulties in assessing the efficacy of any poll is the way in which the question is framed. Should the Bible be taught in public schools? As what? As literature? As a fascinating document whose influence on Western culture has been unequaled by almost any other book? As a way of bringing people closer to God? I’m fine with the first two. It’s just the god thing I have a problem with. Thus a vote of ‘yes’ may be misconstrued.
Well, we seem to be winning the online polls.
We’ll see if we can keep Roe v Wade.
@Fedaykin:
Did you have my English teacher? He did the same (may not have been AP though), but it was pretty neutral. I had no problems with it being done in the manner he presented it.
sorry, for got to add
/sarcasm
191 6% for to 3013 94% against. Some of us PZombies should vote yes to prevent suspicion of obviousness?
Actually, I’d say it’s the truth. I think they should teach the atrocities by Christians for Christians. Let’s start with the “Colombian Exchange” and the genocide of the Arawak Indians in the Caribbean. How they were, officially, classified as “not human” or “sub human” and could, therefore, be enslaved, raped and killed at will. Or so said the Catholic Church.
I think they’re right. I think history does not properly present religion. We read about Notre Dame, Bach, Mozart, the Sistine Chapel and other minor (relative to the misery they’ve caused) accomplishments. But seldom do we hear of the great travesties, conducted and/or supported by Christianity/Christians, that make the Godless Commies look like pikers.
Only its hypocrisy. They’re the ones saying they’re morally superior and, therefore, should run our lives as they see fit.
Yet in sexual abuse (including incest) we find that the greater toward fundamentalism the family worships, the greater the likelihood of a child being raped, sexually abused or incest-ed by their father/step-father. To the point that it is just slightly greater than twice as likely.
The people least likely to conduct these heinous sexually deviant crimes are non-relgious/atheist. So while you say it’s a “human” issue. We find the worst of the humans being the most religious.
Yet they parade themselves as “the best.”
Hey, I’m all for it.
On the proviso that they choose a suitable companion volume to go along w/it, say like…Paine’s Age of Reason. Or just about anything from Ingersoll.
Next time some nimbulb tells me about the resurrection, I’ll be sure to say, “Were you there?”
As many others have pointed out, in an advanced class dealing with western literature, knowledge of a couple of dozen Biblical stories is absoloutly essential, as is knowledge of Greek/Roman mythology, the Illiad, Odessey, Aeneid, and Metamorphoses.
What’s great is that to actually be conversant in the literary significance of these works, one has to be taught about the inherent symbolism in them.
None of the “classics” makes a lick of sense unless the work is abstracted to the symbolic.
#37
I went to a public primary school in Queensland and had RE. At the time I belonged to the Uniting Church, which has a very mild approach as far as I can remember. Unfortunately, most of my other friends were Anglican so it was kind of annoying to be stuck with the other church kids, most of whom were kind of dull. And in the final years of primary school it was really frustrating, ’cause all the hot girls seemed to be in other denominations as well…
But it didn’t help them indoctrinate me – at that age I was a terribly disruptive child and the older, rather quiet minister couldn’t deal with my energetic trouble-making. I distinctly remember being unable to accept that God was ‘inside us’, as he was insisting. ‘Did we eat him for breakfast?’ I inquired – to a roar of approval from the group.
I’m still wondering just why it is the Xians seem to need to know the kids are having faith pushed down their throats at school. They’ve already got all the hours they don’t spend there to lie to them as much as they see fit.
And they have the gall, when trying to push ID, to ask pro-evolutionists what they’re afraid of?
No doubt they’d be ‘teaching’ the worst form of simplified apologetics, i.e. explaining what was ‘ really meant’ when they wrote about Job and Sodom and the other unpleasant stuff that’s in there.
Part of it relates to the rather strange (to my mind) belief that many of these people have that simply reading the bible will make you love God, and that if they can trick your kids into browsing through choice passages then they’ll embrace the faith. It’s quite baffling, really.
It kind of goes to show that they either haven’t read the bible they claim to love so much, or have glossed over the many, many sections that have led many a believer to atheism.
Wrymouth (#91) surely you are aware that the poll is not on Pharyngula, that it’s actually on the Roanoke Times website? How, then, is that like shooting fish in a barrel?
Moses, yes, I understand how a virtually unlimited and diverse body of fact undermines faith-based claims of moral superiority – we see evidence of that every day. Yes, I’m aware that conservative religiousity coupled with rigidly-defined traditional gender roles is the second-best predictor (behind drug and alcohol abuse) of incest. Do you happen to know if there is comparable evidence to suggest that similar correlations exist between conservative religiousity and perpetration of sexual abuse outside the family?
Maybe the school would like some study materials, perhaps from Religious.Tolerance.org? “Which came first, Noah or Ur-Napishtim?”
Yet in sexual abuse (including incest) we find that the greater toward fundamentalism the family worships, the greater the likelihood of a child being raped, sexually abused or incest-ed by their father/step-father. To the point that it is just slightly greater than twice as likely.
Have you run across a good cite for that?
I’d like to add it to my collection, if you have.
Yes, I’m aware that conservative religiousity coupled with rigidly-defined traditional gender roles is the second-best predictor (behind drug and alcohol abuse) of incest.
…same question to Kseniya.
I got kicked out for questioning the morality of the whole Jesus thing. After that I had to go with the Hindu and Buddhist kids and draw pictures.
I don’t think that the class had the effect they were after.
ah, so THAT’S why xians make such claims for their religion being the basis for good art.
;)
This is what I have in my notes:
The source is “Sexual Abuse in Christian Homes and Churches”, by Carolyn Holderread Heggen [Herald Press, Scotdale, PA, 1993] which in turn cites the following:
I don’t have the source handy – this came to my attention in the form of an excerpt I ran across on the web a couple of years ago.
k:-D