1
   

New US textbook aims to teach Bible as knowledge

 
 
husker
 
Reply Fri 2 Dec, 2005 12:05 am
Wed Nov 30, 2005 10:09 AM ET

By Alan Elsner

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Since the U.S. Supreme Court banned the promotion of religion in public schools in 1963, the Bible has virtually disappeared from most American classrooms.

But in recent years, as evangelical Christians have grown in numbers and gained political clout in the United States, Bible studies have been creeping back into schools.

Now, a new textbook for high school students aims to fill a gap by teaching the Bible, both the Old and New Testaments, in a nonsectarian, nonreligious way as a central document of Western civilization with a vast influence on its literature, art, culture and politics.

"It's not about belief. It's about crucial knowledge and knowledge belongs in our schools," said Chuck Stetson, a New York investment banker who is the driving force behind and co-author of "The Bible and Its Influence" -- a glossy, 387-page book recently released and now being tested in a small number of schools mainly on the West Coast.

Stetson knows he was stepping into a potential minefield. But he said polls have shown that over two-thirds of Americans want to see the Bible taught in public schools while only around 8 percent of schools were offering it.

The process of approving the book for use in schools differs from state to state and district to district. In some places, it can be added to the curriculum as an elective by the principal; other locales require the approval of a local school board and in some places the state itself would have to approve it. Stetson is hoping to see the book used by hundreds of school districts by the next academic year.

"This is the first student textbook we've had that is both constitutional and age appropriate," said Charles Hayes of the Freedom Forum's First Amendment Center, a nonpartisan foundation that monitors free speech.

"It teaches the subject in a way that will satisfy people who take the Bible as their scripture, but it will also appeal to a broad range of students interested in becoming biblically literate," he said.

"The Bible and Its Influence" is not the only game in town. A North Carolina group called the National Council on Bible Curriculum in the Public Schools has a Bible course now being used in 316 school districts in 37 states.

'CROSSES THE LINE'

The Anti Defamation League has denounced this program, which uses the King James translation of the Bible as its text, saying it "blatantly crosses the line by teaching fundamental Protestant doctrine." But the group's legal counsel Mike Johnson denied this.

"Take the resurrection of Christ. A teacher cannot tell a classroom that it's a historical fact. That would be a violation of the Constitution. But a teacher can say that the Bible says it's a historical fact," he said.

"One can't teach that the Bible is objectively true, but one shouldn't teach that it's objectively false," he added.

"The Bible and Its Influence" sets out its ground rules and philosophy on its opening pages. "You are going to study the Bible academically, not devotionally. In other words, you are learning about the Bible and its role in language and culture," it tells its readers.

"You will be given an awareness of religious content of the Bible but you will not be pressed into accepting religion. You will study about religion as presented in the Bible but you will not be engaged in the practice of religion."

With prominent theologians of different religions and denominations among its editorial board, the authors made a serious effort to make sure that the book did not elevate one religion over any other.

'FACTUAL ERRORS'

"We caught quite a few factual mistakes, but I also looked for places where the Christian point of view was assumed. There were some and we made some changes," said Marc Stein, general counsel of the American Jewish Committee who reviewed the text before publication.

Still, there has been criticism of the book coming from both the political left and right. On the liberal side, Barry Lynn of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State said the book sanitized the effect of religion throughout history, by minimizing Christian support for slavery and Christian anti-Semitism.

"To teach religion objectively, you really have to teach the good, the bad and the ugly and this book only teaches the good," he said.

On the other side, Dennis Cuddy, a Christian conservative who has worked as a consultant for the U.S. Department of Education, said the book raised doubts about God and prompted students to ask the wrong questions.

"If you are going to teach the Bible, are you going to teach it as if it were the word of God? At the least, it should be taught as truthful. It shouldn't be presented as something that is false," he said.

But Joan Spence, a high school teacher in Battleground, Washington, said she as well as students of her elective English class on the Bible appreciated it very much.

"Before I had this book, I had to do all the research myself to teach a class on the Bible as literature. This book, with its many examples of art and literature, makes it easier to keep the class academic rather than religious," she said

link
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 14,026 • Replies: 340
No top replies

 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Dec, 2005 12:31 am
That is ionteresting.

It has been taught as literature (King James version, of course) at university for years now.

I think it is very reasonable to have the bible taught as part of a comparative religions course, especially.


I would have loved, as a kid, to have access to the koran and buddhist teachings (I was reading the latter for myself, anyway) and Indian theology.....


I read all about the Greek gods anyway.


Comparative religion is fascinating, and the King james Bible is a literary masterpiece.
0 Replies
 
Phoenix32890
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Dec, 2005 05:47 am
Dennis Cuddy wrote:
If you are going to teach the Bible, are you going to teach it as if it were the word of God? At the least, it should be taught as truthful. It shouldn't be presented as something that is false," he said.


If it is in an elective class, it should be taught the same way that the students learn other ancient literature..................this is, a book that was written by early peoples. It cannot be academically regarded as truthful, as much as Mr. Cuddy wants it to be.

Personally, I think that the teaching of the Bible in high school in going down the slippery slope, even though it is taught as literature. I think that at the age of high schoolers make them very vulnerable to absorbing the attitudes of the teacher. The school would have to be very careful not to assign biased teachers, from either direction, to conduct this class.

If you can find an unbiased teacher, who would teach the Bible as an academic subject, with no religious asides, I probably would have no trouble with it.......................That is, if you could ever find a teacher like that!

Another thing. Why the Bible? Why not a course on comparative religious literature, which touches on the major books from the major religions?
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Dec, 2005 05:55 am
In this atheist's opinion, knowledge of the Bible is an elementary part of cultural literacy, just as knowledge of the Iliad and the Odyssey is. Like the latter, the former ought to be required reading in schools. Judging by the article Husker posted, I like Jetson's approach.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Dec, 2005 06:15 am
Until you get to the part where some holy-roller insists that it be taught as embodying the literal truth . . .
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Dec, 2005 07:44 am
Thomas wrote:
In this atheist's opinion, knowledge of the Bible is an elementary part of cultural literacy, just as knowledge of the Iliad and the Odyssey is. Like the latter, the former ought to be required reading in schools. Judging by the article Husker posted, I like Jetson's approach.


Agreed.


Setanta wrote:
Until you get to the part where some holy-roller insists that it be taught as embodying the literal truth . . .


Agreed.
0 Replies
 
boomerang
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Dec, 2005 08:15 am
Anyone who has taken an art history class is pretty well versed on the Bible's influence in art.

I had a college course, taught by a Rabbi, on old testament prophets which was taught as a religion/literature class. Very interesting.

I have absolutely no qualms about the Bible being taught as an academic subject, as an elective in high school.

I think Merry Andrew should teach it!
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Dec, 2005 08:26 am
Since when do polls determine what gets taught in school? That's the part I find alarming.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Dec, 2005 08:30 am
DrewDad wrote:
Since when do polls determine what gets taught in school? That's the part I find alarming.

They don't. They determined why Stetson wrote his book, by his own choice.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Dec, 2005 08:35 am
OK. Indicated a demand; I can accept that.
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Dec, 2005 10:01 am
dlowan wrote:
Thomas wrote:
In this atheist's opinion, knowledge of the Bible is an elementary part of cultural literacy, just as knowledge of the Iliad and the Odyssey is. Like the latter, the former ought to be required reading in schools. Judging by the article Husker posted, I like Jetson's approach.


Agreed.


Setanta wrote:
Until you get to the part where some holy-roller insists that it be taught as embodying the literal truth . . .


Agreed.


Agreed, agreed...
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Dec, 2005 10:08 am
Setanta wrote:
Until you get to the part where some holy-roller insists that it be taught as embodying the literal truth . . .

You tellin me Circe didn't literally try to transform Odysseus into no pig? [raises eyebrow]
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Dec, 2005 12:17 pm
I haven't the least doubt that Circe was a mean and jealous bitch who would have gladly ripped the eyes outta any little chippie who got in the way of her passion . . . apart from that, i ain't sayin' nothin'


(Don't even get me started on Penelope and the house maids in Ithaca . . .)
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Dec, 2005 05:23 pm
Circe was no goddess....merely possessed of magical powers.
0 Replies
 
Wolf ODonnell
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Dec, 2005 06:46 pm
Frankly, I don't like the idea of the course as it stands. As is, the thing is a bad idea and is more about teaching Christianity.

I personally would advocate either comparing different copies of the Bible or comparing the Bible with other important religious texts such as the Koran or the Kama Sutra... No, not the Kama Sutra. What's the Buddhist texts and the Hindu texts called?
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Fri 2 Dec, 2005 10:13 pm
The class IS ELECTIVE. Everyone has the free will to make the choice whether to attend this class or not. No one is saying anyone has to attend the class.
0 Replies
 
Wolf ODonnell
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Dec, 2005 06:45 am
Momma Angel wrote:
The class IS ELECTIVE. Everyone has the free will to make the choice whether to attend this class or not. No one is saying anyone has to attend the class.


So? I'm still saying it's not a very good course for those who wish to take it. Why should people who wish to take this course be given some second-rate shoddy teaching? Don't you think that's unfair on them?

The least the course organisers could do is make it such that the students compare different versions of the Bible, if not other religious texts.

I mean just take this one passage in different versions of the Bible:
1 Corinthians 6:9

In NIV, homosexuals will not inherit the Kingdom of God. In ESV, males who practise homosexuality will not inherit the Kingdom of God. In King James Version only those who are effeminate will not inherit the Kingdom of God (which kinda begs the question, does that mean women will not inherit the Kingdom of God unless they act more like men?)

If they really want to get the most out of a Bible course, they must at least look at different versions.

If they really want to get even more out of it, they must at least look at the Bible in context with other religious texts.

Do you see what I'm getting at? Elective or not, that course is just shoddy and shouldn't be taught unless its been improved.
0 Replies
 
roverroad
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Dec, 2005 07:21 am
Momma Angel wrote:
The class IS ELECTIVE. Everyone has the free will to make the choice whether to attend this class or not. No one is saying anyone has to attend the class.


These religion topics are such dead issues I don't even know why I bother. It may be an elective course but unless it's 100% funded by private sources than it's tax payer supported and that violates separation of church and state. If they want to have it in the classroom they need to pay the teacher and they need to pay rent on the classroom.

Now I'm disgusted in my self for having replied to a religion topic. Can you say, pointless...
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Dec, 2005 07:22 am
Wolf_ODonnell wrote:
So? I'm still saying it's not a very good course for those who wish to take it. Why should people who wish to take this course be given some second-rate shoddy teaching? Don't you think that's unfair on them?

Where did you get the idea that that's what they're getting?

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:
The least the course organisers could do is make it such that the students compare different versions of the Bible, if not other religious texts.

Why? I thought the point is to read a piece of literature. If the King James version is the best-written translation there is, why not concentrate on that version?

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:
If they really want to get the most out of a Bible course, they must at least look at different versions.

I disagree. Those fine points are interesting from a theological point of view. But if the point is to promote cultural literacy within the frame of a limited course, how is the comparison of versions any more than academic masturbation?

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:
Do you see what I'm getting at? Elective or not, that course is just shoddy and shouldn't be taught unless its been improved.

I see what you're getting at. But frankly, I found your post rather long on assertion and rather short on argumentation. As a result, I see little reason to believe that what you're getting at is true. Apart from that, I trust students to make up their own minds on whether they find the course shoddy or not. As Momma Angel points out, nobody forces them to take the course if they come to the same conclusion as you did.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Dec, 2005 07:24 am
roverroad wrote:
Can you say, pointless...

Poorly argued, too. You cite no evidence whatsoever that this course would violate the separation of church and state.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
 
  1. Forums
  2. » New US textbook aims to teach Bible as knowledge
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/24/2024 at 07:51:45