Bible Course Becomes a Test for Public Schools in Texas
It's late, and I don't have the energy for the kind of rant this really deserves. Just tell me, someone, what don't these people get about bringing religion into public school classrooms? That there's even a serious argument to be made that teaching about the bible, as opposed to teaching adherence to it, is nauseating.
I don't try to push my way into your church and teach evolution, despite your getting a free ride on everything (or would you like to start paying taxes on your many properties?). So why should my tax dollars pay for your bible course?
For that matter, how is it that your wonderful religion is so weak that you can't get the message across in church and your own homes? Why does it need to be in the public schools, too?
9 comments:
Sometimes I think we need another Soviet Union. It's unlikely that our current "enemies" will beat us into space and cause the kind of accountability in math and science education the likes of which came out of the Cold War.
Of course, maybe this just means that, like in the Cold War, we're trying to beat religious fundamentalists at their own game. There's a scary thought.
I read that, and it totally boggles my mind - especially when the course was reviewed and deemed biased.
Can't these funds be better used.. like investing in metal detectors?
Lots of things to say. (You're shocked, I know.) First, it was a terrible article. Completely he said/he said with almost zero information about what's actually in the course.
Secondly, I was APPALLED that the article felt it was necessary to add that the course covers Creationism but not evolution. Christ on a cracker, people. Secularists shout till they're blue in the face that Creationism and ID belong in religion courses, not biology, and now the Times is faulting a religion course for not discussing evolution. Who wrote this thing? Editor, hello?
That said, there is a SERIOUS need for truthful, objective information about religion. Look at the world in which we live today. We are involved in a religious war in the middle east, and don't anyone tell me we're not, because the Muslims sure believe we are and Bush has done a poor job convincing them otherwise.
Furthermore, it is irrelevant whether one "believes" in the Bible. One cannot really hope to understand western art, history and culture unless they have an appreciation of the contents of the Bible and Christian tradition. You would not assign students to read "Animal Farm" and not tell them about Karl Marx. But teaching world history and not teaching the Bible is just that ridiculous.
Having said all that, given the wacko groups that have given this course a thumbs-up, we should all be worried.
I'm with Andy... the article is actually poorly written with a bit too much of the normal NYT bias. But, the key point in this article is to look at who supports this curriculum. Its supporters are avowed indoctrinators who believe the nation will only be good when we bring everyone to Jesus and put us fags on crosses. Not a single one of the organizations supporting the curriculum has a respected religious studies authority backing it. That should be enough to raise the eyebrows of anyone with a hint of care about individual liberties.
Coming from a Southern Baptist household, I can tell you how this works: they want your children. They scare your children, they get you... and that's their plan and philosophy. It's freakin' scary!
Ditto QueerGeorgiaBoy.
If only the course could actually be objective and sophisticated; it would do many Christians a world of good to learn about what the Bible actually says and the historical contexts in which it was written.
Not sure I can agree about teaching the contents of the Bible. Yes, general discussions of which religions believe in Jesus Christ versus those who don't, the general principles espoused, fine. If, on the other hand, there will be discussions (and reading assignments) of whole sections of the Bible, then I think that's something that doesn't belong. I never was given reading assignments from the Old Testament (or the New Testament, for that matter) in public school--that's what religious school was for--but I still got an overview of the various widely practiced religions, as well as the more influential acts done in the name of those religions.
I simply don't think teaching the Bible has any place in public school. That it exists and the influence it (or the religions using it) have had, sure. The contents in detail? No. It doesn't belong--even if it includes what my religion considers "the Bible". That's really the point. What I consider right may be anathema to people of other religions (or those who hold no religious belief whatsoever). If I want my kids to learn about my religion, I should teach them myself and/or get them involved in the appropriate religious institution. I shouldn't expect your taxes to pay for it.
But would you teach Shakespeare and not assign passages?
The purpose of Shakespeare's works is not to encourage devotion to a particular religious belief. The purpose of the Bible is.
It's apples and oranges, Andy. Teaching the general ideas of what religions stand for is appropriate for historical context. Having public school students reading the Bible as a class assignment isn't.
For the sake of argument, let's call the Bible a historical document. Not to say that it's historically accurate, but to examine it as a reflection of the culture that produced it. There's great value in studying it that way. Additionally, Hamlet, Macbeth, Julius Caesar, etc., are all frequently dealt with in ethics and philosophy courses. Granted, Shakespeare does not advocate a particular philosophy or viewpoint (hence the strength of his dramas), but the Bible can in fact be read with a similar approach. But I'm just being argumentative. TGIF, baby.
Post a Comment