Bible Literacy

baraka · July 2007

I read an interesting article in the April edition of Time magazine the other day. Since there are a couple of religious threads floating about, I thought this would be interesting.

It seems there is a push to get the bible taught in public schools. Here's the thing.............it would NOT be the teaching OF the bible and Christianity, but the teaching ABOUT the bible, in other words, taught in a secular fashion. The article urges, "The Bible so pervades Western culture, that it's hard to call anyone educated who hasn't at least given thought to its key passages". And, "The 'new consensus' for secular bible study argues that knowledge of it is essential to being a full-fledge, well-rounded citizen". The following is a snip from the article. The entire article is linked at the bottom (It is kind of long, but an interesting read) I'm curious what others here think about this.............................................................

So what? I'm not a very religious person

SIMPLY PUT, THE BIBLE IS THE MOST influential book ever written. Not only is the Bible the best-selling book of all time, it is the best-selling book of the year every year. In a 1992 survey of English teachers to determine the top-10 required "book-length works" in high school English classes, plays by Shakespeare occupied three spots and the Bible none. And yet, let's compare the two: Beauty of language: Shakespeare, by a nose. Depth of subject matter: toss-up. Breadth of subject matter: the Bible. Numbers published, translated etc: Bible. Number of people martyred for: Bible. Number of wars attributed to: Bible. Solace and hope provided to billions: you guessed it. And Shakespeare would almost surely have agreed. According to one estimate, he alludes to Scripture some 1,300 times. As for the rest of literature, when your seventh-grader reads The Old Man and the Sea, a teacher could tick off the references to Christ's Passion--the bleeding of the old man's palms, his stumbles while carrying his mast over his shoulder, his hat cutting his head--but wouldn't the thrill of recognition have been more satisfying on their/own?

If literature doesn't interest you, you also need the Bible to make sense of the ideas and rhetoric that have helped drive U.S. history. "The shining city on the hill"? That's Puritan leader John Winthrop quoting Matthew to describe his settlement's convenantal standing with God. In his Second Inaugural Address, Abraham Lincoln noted sadly that both sides in the Civil War "read the same Bible" to bolster their opposing claims. When Martin Luther King Jr. talked of "Justice rolling down like waters" in his "I Have a Dream" speech, he was consciously enlisting the Old Testament prophet Amos, who first spoke those words. The Bible provided the argot--and theological underpinnings--of women's suffrage and prison-reform movements.

And then there is today's political rhetoric. For a while, secular liberals complained that when George W. Bush went all biblical, he was speaking in code. Recently, the Democratic Party seems to have come around to the realization that a lot of grass-roots Democrats welcome such use. Without the Bible and a few imposing secular sources, we face a numbing horizontality in our culture--blogs, political announcements, ads. The world is flat, sure. But Scripture is among our few means to make it deep".

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1601845-1,00.html

ForestBrain · July 2007

I really hope they don't do that.

baraka · July 2007

ForestBrain wrote:

I really hope they don't do that.

I'm still thinking about the pros & cons myself. What are your reservations?

Gremmie95 · July 2007

Just an opinion but.........Isn't it hard to have an intelligent argument or debate without educating yourself on BOTH sides of an issue? What can it hurt to familiarize yourself with the bible? I'm not a "religious" person but I do have a pretty good understanding of the bible, which has never been a BAD thing.

harmless_little_f*** · July 2007

People, liberals, need to stop being shit-scared of the Bible as if it mindwarps anyone who touches it. Nothing wrong with teaching it as excellent literature; nothing wrong at all. It contains some of the most archetypal narratives humanity has ever written.

Maybe forestbrain needs to get his brain out of the forest.

Urban Hiker · July 2007

As an atheist leaning agnostic, I would have appreciated the opportunity to learn about the different religions and how they shape the beliefs and ways of living of their followers in some sort of social studies setting. I am absolutely clueless about so much in religion that I often find myself experiencing a sort of culture shock when around the devout.

However, I'm not sure I would have appreciated studying the Bible as literature, because not many view it just as that. It is read and studied as the word of God.

negationist · July 2007

i'm all for religious texts to be used in teaching. But if they were, they should teach more than just the bible. Maybe the quran, the mahabaratha and the ramayana as well. All great literary works in their own right. And something on buddhism as well. Believe me, they're all brilliant reads. The problem is that i think it requires a certain amount of maturity to comprehend these books and not take them too literally, which is why they probably should be introduced to a slightly later age group.

qtegirl · July 2007

I'm a liberal and I think that learning about the bible is good and necessary.
But rather than a course on the Bible, per se, it should be an "interpretative" course.

For example, the Bible says (insert passage).
Baptists believe this means that....
Catholics believe this means that...
Mormons believe this means that...

(you catch my drift)

Also, I agree with others that say that you need to teach other texts as well. Sort of a comparative-religion kind of course.

If the arguments from conservatives is that you can't be an educated person in the West unless you know the Bible, I would argue that you're uneducated if the bible is all you know.

Uncle Leo · July 2007

It's going to open up tons of cans of worms. For one, we will have some people saying to teach other religious texts. And we'll see how many people pushing this stay on board with that.

Another thing is that when you bring it in, you cannot avoid having frank discussions that including questioning the bible. I don't think that that is the intent here either. But invariably, you are going to get some kid asking about thoughts on homosexuality or the notion that non-believers go to hell and the teacher is going to either have to engage in that discussion, upsetting the very religous parents/students, or nip it in the bud, which will lead people to think that he/she is preaching it as the truth and not worthy of discussion. Students are there to learn and engage. If they want to question it they should and it should be open, but I think there'd be a lot of will to close it.

Or if someone says "how can someone part a sea?" the teacher is opening his/herself up to criticism by saying "this is literature." That will be interpreted as condemnation. The other thing the teacher might say is "It's here, so it happened." And you know what the evil secularists would say about that.

I don't think the general student population--or even the general parent population--has the maturity for this. IF you are going to do this, I don't think it should be required reading--who says the Bible is beter than "The Grapes of Wrath" anyway? Sure it sold more copies, but Britney Spears outsells Pearl Jam. At my school we had a lot of elective English classes aimed at the college-bound. Perhaps this could work as an elective. Perhaps a religious literature course. I think having the bible as a required reading is rooted in a different agenda than "Hey, it's great literature."

deadnothingbetter · July 2007

actually, when i was in high school my english textbook had the entire first three chapters of genesis. and it was focusing on the literature of the book not merely the context and its teachings... i thought it was cool.

my brother took a course in college of bible literature... they focused on the literary aspects and well usually it led them to study its teachings. personally, i think... if they do this that's what it would lead to. eventually we'll have kids talking about the body of christ and how the entire old testament points out to jesus christ.

Juberoo · July 2007

As a Christian, I personally do not like the idea of the bible being taught in the schools. I want to teach my children what I believe is the truth therein.

I would however like to see the tables balanced....remove ALL holidays and evolution concepts from the secular school setting. We have several schools in our area who have done this and are instead focusing on character issues rather than moving from one holiday to the next throughout the school year. This concept focuses on personal responsibility to society rather than frivolous "tradition".

deadnothingbetter · July 2007

Juberoo wrote:

As a Christian, I personally do not like the idea of the bible being taught in the schools. I want to teach my children what I believe is the truth therein.

I would however like to see the tables balanced....remove ALL holidays and evolution concepts from the secular school setting. We have several schools in our area who have done this and are instead focusing on character issues rather than moving from one holiday to the next throughout the school year. This concept focuses on personal responsibility to society rather than frivolous "tradition".

well, then what will happen to vacations and their two weeks off for christmas?

Cosmo · July 2007

I don't see a problem with that.. al long as the Bible is taught as literature, not the source of religion.
and while they are at it... have a class in the Qouran as well.

Ahnimus · July 2007

It's almost required reading for English literature.

qtegirl · July 2007

Juberoo wrote:

I would however like to see the tables balanced....remove ALL holidays and evolution concepts from the secular school setting.

First, most holidays in the school year are secular, not religious. Only Easter and Christmas are religious holidays. The rest, President's Day, Memorial Day, Labor Day, Columbus Day, New Year's Eve/Day, Thanksgiving, etc. are secular. Maybe they should just change the name from "holidays" (implying that the days are Holy), to "days of celebration" or something like that.

Second, in that little sentence, you paired together "holidays" with "evolution concepts". I don't know what you mean by "evolution concepts" but I'm thinking you're refering to the theory of evolution. In case you didn't know, the theory of evolution is a scientific theory, not a "belief". It doesn't require "faith" to be true. Unlike God, religion and faith, evolution can be investigated, tested, etc.

Ahnimus · July 2007

In fact Christmas and Easter aren't Christian celebrations either.

More people know the names of all the Reindeer than the three wise men.

deadnothingbetter · July 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

In fact Christmas and Easter aren't Christian celebrations either.

More people know the names of all the Reindeer than the three wise men.

that's because the three wise men didn't have names. in fact, there were probably a hundred wise men for all we could ever know.

qtegirl · July 2007

Ahnimus wrote:

In fact Christmas and Easter aren't Christian celebrations either.

More people know the names of all the Reindeer than the three wise men.

They may have their roots in other pagan celebrations, but in the US, they are Christian celebrations. Maybe not everyone celebrates them as such (of course... not all people in the US are Christians), but the reason why they are school holidays is because of christianity.

CorporateWhore · July 2007

Knowledge is power.

markymark550 · July 2007

I don't have a problem with the Bible being taught in school as it was described in the article as a literature course and not a religion course. However, the problem with this idea is that it will be really hard to find someone that can teach it without bias. A Christian will probably teach it as both literature and for pro-religious purposes while a non-Christian will teach it as both literature and for anti-religious purposes. It seems that everyone has such a firm opinion on religion/Christianity that I don't think anyone can be truly impartial to either side.

Ahnimus · July 2007

qtegirl wrote:

They may have their roots in other pagan celebrations, but in the US, they are Christian celebrations. Maybe not everyone celebrates them as such (of course... not all people in the US are Christians), but the reason why they are school holidays is because of christianity.

And.. the other holidays are holidays because of.... tradition?

Then why could the same not be true for Christmas and Easter?

Bible Literacy

Comments

Categories