Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.
Bad Idea/Worse Idea
Georgia to OK Bible-based Lit Class
First of all, the 'Bible as literature' thing has been attempted before. There is NO NEED for a class entirely on a single book, at all, ever. Particularly one as poorly-translated into English as, say, the King James version. The KJ is also one of at least a dozen different translations. I've attempted to read a couple of them, and as far as 'well written', I'd argue the contrary. The book itself doesn't stand well even as a work of fiction, and is riddled with plot inconsistencies and poor 'moral advice'. While an interesting look at how the writers thought human beings should be treated and punished, it has no other value than being just a book.
Aside from those facts, the class is a giant trap for any teacher. Christian teachers will be at the mercy of an understandably twitchy atheist/any other religion's parents who would be quick to claim the teacher was proselytizing. Christian parents would be just as quick on the trigger in the opposite direction, claiming that their religion is being blasphemed and that they are an oppressed group. This quote also shows another major problem with the descision:
The ACLU will naturally be up to their eyeballs either way.
This thing has debacle written all over it...but mostly because it's been tried many times before.
First of all, the 'Bible as literature' thing has been attempted before. There is NO NEED for a class entirely on a single book, at all, ever. Particularly one as poorly-translated into English as, say, the King James version. The KJ is also one of at least a dozen different translations. I've attempted to read a couple of them, and as far as 'well written', I'd argue the contrary. The book itself doesn't stand well even as a work of fiction, and is riddled with plot inconsistencies and poor 'moral advice'. While an interesting look at how the writers thought human beings should be treated and punished, it has no other value than being just a book.
Aside from those facts, the class is a giant trap for any teacher. Christian teachers will be at the mercy of an understandably twitchy atheist/any other religion's parents who would be quick to claim the teacher was proselytizing. Christian parents would be just as quick on the trigger in the opposite direction, claiming that their religion is being blasphemed and that they are an oppressed group. This quote also shows another major problem with the descision:
"They didn't put in any outlines describing what they can and can't do constitutionally," she said. "The same traps are there for teachers who decide to teach the class."
The ACLU will naturally be up to their eyeballs either way.
This thing has debacle written all over it...but mostly because it's been tried many times before.
Comments
http://bible.cc/
It's a parallel bible! Look up a verse, or whatever they are called (I come from a deeply religious background...), and it shows it from 10 or so sources. I am not sure what they all are, but it's really interesting to see all of the different versions of the same words. Some of them have really had the meaning skewed.
If they were looking at every iteration of the bible, and the manner in which they have differed meanings and morales for the same story, then it would be an interesting class.
Notable complaints by concerned parents on this course? None.
Furthermore, knowing roughly what the Bible about is really helpful in understanding anything by late Renaissance writers, whose titles go with out saying.
Bible oriented curriculum is really not a big deal. If you want to talk about a bad/worse idea, how about talk about why our World History curriculum, required to get a diploma, spends a collective month on Islam and Hinduism, about a week on Judaism, and about a day or so on Christianity as the four cradle-religions of civilization. This a little more dubious.
writings in which expression and form, in connection with ideas of permanent and universal interest, are characteristic or essential features, as poetry, novels, history, biography, and essays.
Even an atheist has to admit that the bible is a work of literature. It's entirely appropriate to study this aspect of the bible. If public universities can have religion departments, then this elective (if done correctly) will pass legal muster.
No offense to any Christians, but it has all the literary merit of a book I could "write" in 4 hours by gathering all of my manga and putting it into one binding. It's a collection of works, rather than one big one, and yet, it doesn't cite its sources or check its facts, and somehow manages to offer neither a consistent message nor a balanced range of opposing viewpoints. I've seen grand bibliographies of the Cthulhu mythos that were far better put together.
It is invaluable as a historical resource, but is, admittedly, extremely slanted. I'm far more inclined to believe the writings of ancient Greeks on the Hebrews of Egypt, and the writings of Roman emperors on the early cult of Christianity. Distance breeds objectivity, even if it isn't intended. Every word said in the Bible is meant to promote a certain viewpoint. It's the religious equivalent of a giant collection of selective quotes from political figures meant to show how everyone is a Republican and we all agree and can't those stupid liberal terrorists just shut up? I don't think I need to explain how selective quoting and fact distortion can be used to prove just about any point.
The people who put the Bible together, from the earliest days to the most recent translations, knew full well what the purpose of it was: to define authoritatively the religion to which it belonged. It is as important to Judeo-Christian religion as the Constitution is to the United States. Without it, people might have been confused as to the precepts of the religion(s). Unity of purpose helped the religion(s) prosper. By the time the Bible was in its complete form, and distributed to all Christian monasteries in the world, the message was unified, and the religion had become strong.
So, that's the purpose. Not saying it's good or bad. Hey, the Constitution isn't bad. I'll bet if you like America, you like the Constitution, and the reverse might be true. So, if the same is true for the Bible, I have no problem with that.
Now, because of this, to consider it as literature is just not right. The purpose of the document is to promote a religion, straight up. A class studying the Biblical era of history could and should cite the Bible as one of many sources (for their are many) on the era of Jesus, and should include opposing views on the events of that time, as provided by Roman and other historians. To omit such viewpoints would be misleading, erroneous, and demonstrate an obvious, likely intentional bias of a religious and dogmatic nature.
A subjective, biased work has merit only when other works with different biases are considered. Much like a child trying to understand an argument between his parents, a student can learn from differing viewpoints, thinking for his or herself to determine the likely truth of the matter by taking into account the bias of each viewpoint. This cannot be done if only one viewpoint is presented, especially if it is stated to be factual and/or authoritative.
So no, a class to study the Bible is not a good idea, and should be considered unacceptable by our educational standards, unless the class thoroughly examines the issue, using multiple sources. I highly doubt the majority of schools considering such a curriculum have an interest in this idea, and, in fact, I accuse them all of desiring to present the material for purely religious reasons. After all, with a wealth of information available on the topic, do children truly need the help of public school to understand the Christian religion?
My biggest question is this... who is paying for this BIble as lietrature class? Are local, state, and federal taxes paying for this? How much of the budget is going toward this class? By offering this class are you depriving other classes and courses that are more relevant to a modern education?
The fact that public schools are funded by the public (natch), and the public at large, especially those who care enough to attend meetings with the school board, tend to be simple, conservative, lowest-common-denominator types, leads us inexorably to the current state of public education. That is: basic, legally-mandated education is provided for, as well as sports, and everything else is a luxury that can be cut when budgets are tight (and when aren't they?).
Art and music are every bit as important as sports. Even the Spartans had a little, tiny bit of that, hidden behind all the swords. What kind of brutes are we to glorify sports over more academic pursuits, even as the world is increasingly owned and run by geeks?
I'd love to see a comparative religion class in a public school, even if it were horribly biased, because at least it's academic. However, if it's the only thing other than the four food groups (math, history, English, and science) and sports, then that only deepens my resentment of those in power.
And let us not be fooled. Bush isn't in charge of public schools. The religious right isn't, either (they still teach evolution in...most states). 45-year-old, undereducated soccer moms and dads are. Rural Americans who are highly opinionated about their children's education, and their experience in public school, attend the local school council meetings en masse. They don't often sue, but often enough to make school boards listen. It doesn't take a tyrannical President, a political party, or an overbearing religious cult to intimidate a school board...a couple of angry letters do the trick.
It's tough to combat this kind of ignorance.
But it's easy to throw money at it. Oddly enough, that seems to be working with college. Admissions are up, way up, on every time scale, for every race and gender (except while males). It's not just because the baby boomers have a lot of disposable income (are you kidding?). But where's the money for high school?
Every school board complains that their budget is tight. Sometimes, they want to consider canceling soccer, foosball (sic), or whatever they're dumping cash into, but they know they'll piss off a lot of vocal, assertive parents and students. Canceling art and music is pretty easy, since all those shy artsy types don't usually fight back.
Why are their budgets tight? Are we so poor? I know it's hard to get the numbers, but every now and then, we get to see something resembling the truth. And the truth is, we spend dick on education at the Federal level. There's no use comparing it to the monsters that are health care, defense, and interest on the national debt. Even compared to the money the White House spends on new paint jobs, our education budget is pretty slim.
If you give public schools money, they can do everything, and make everybody happy. It's damn well worth taking money out of defense (I don't need to say that here), and I think it's worth taking money out of health care. Why spend money prolonging the lives of old people when you can educate young people? Hey, I'm a fucker, but I'm a pragmatic fucker.
If you don't like giving public schools money...what the fuck is the point of public school?
Statistically speaking, I'll have a high-school-age child some time within the next 30 years. I'll be tickled pink if he complains to me about having too many choices for his 6 electives in freshman year, especially if he's trying to decide between Quantum Computer Engineering and 21st-century Art as Expressed in the Medium of Nude Body Paint. Hey, it's my dream, so loosening the anus of censorship and narrow-mindedness is part of it. =Þ