Elective courses in public schools on the Bible

[Kandahar]

Recently, Georgia's Board of Education approved a decision for public high schools to offer elective courses on the Bible, if they want to. I'm not Christian, but this seems like a good idea to me. It's undeniable that the Bible is one of the most influential books ever written. It's such a big part of Western culture that it needs to be taught to all students. Otherwise, you end up with a nation full of people who claim to be Christian but have absolutely no clue what their religion teaches.

If the courses are taught in a non-denominational way, this seems like a great idea. It would also educate people enough that they could ignore the morons who claim to speak for God.

 

[Thelost1]

The bible deserves about as much school time devoted to it as Homer's works.

As long as it is not taught from a religious standpoint, i don't really care that much.

 

[Edify_Always_In_All_Ways]

The Bible contains numerous phrases and vocabulary which are a major part of the English language- a week or so should be devoted to covering it in high school- providing they don't try to pass anything off as "absolute truth" and they don't skip the bad parts (Sodom and Gomorrah, Jericho massacre, Golden Calf Slaughter, etc.)

 

[Jerry]

........and they don't skip the bad parts (Sodom and Gomorrah, Jericho massacre, Golden Calf Slaughter, etc.)

Those are some of the good parts.

 

[Alex]

Its fine to teach, but ONLY as an elective and voluntary.

I have a problem with:

It's such a big part of Western culture that it needs to be taught to all students

Government-sponsored schools should not force religion on "all students".

Also, if people want to teach the word of their god without the Bible, that is fine also. To say that they need to be educated in order to spread the word does not make any sense to me. Belief in a god should come from within, not a book.

 

[Kandahar]

Government-sponsored schools should not force religion on "all students".

It would be an elective, and would be taught from a non-denominational perspective. Teachers would just teach the stories, history, and meanings of the Bible, without indoctrinating students or telling them whether or not the Bible is accurate.

Also, if people want to teach the word of their god without the Bible, that is fine also. To say that they need to be educated in order to spread the word does not make any sense to me.

I didn't say they need to be educated in order to "spread the word." I don't believe in God. They need to be educated on the Bible for the same reason they need to be educated on the Roman Empire and Shakespeare. The Bible is a major influence on Western history and literature.

 

[BodiSatva]

I think that it is a great idea. They need to balance that by incuding the other major religions and spiritual ideas as well though...

 

[Jerry]

I think that it is a great idea. They need to balance that by incuding the other major religions and spiritual ideas as well though...

There is no necessity to include non-Abrahamic texts in a class about Abrahamic texts just as there is no necessity to include China's national history in a US History class.

 

[Kandahar]

I think that it is a great idea. They need to balance that by incuding the other major religions and spiritual ideas as well though...

If there is an interest among the students/parents/administration for such classes, I would support those too. But I'm not sure that those classes would be as popular.

 

[talloulou]

If there is an interest among the students/parents/administration for such classes, I would support those too. But I'm not sure that those classes would be as popular.

It won't be a matter of "popular" so much as it will become political warfare particularly in large urban cities where there will be a demand for such and such to also be a literary elective in school. And that would be my only hesitation in supporting such a class at the high school level. I know such a class will needlessly but inevitably lead to the insistance of other arguably less important literary works to be included in the curriculum on the basis of PC fairness in order to quell the liberal screams as they squawk for every offended religious minority under the sun and demand that even the most inconsequential religious texts also be represented.

Given that I see all that happening it might be best to leave such a course to the colleges where individuals shell out their hard earned cash upfront for classes and where classes can be dropped for low attendance.

 

[Gardener]

Those are some of the good parts.

Heck, who could have thought up a story where a man offers his two young daughters to be gang raped and later gers drunk and has sex with them, but it is the man's wife who ends up getting punished by God in this sleazy tale, and only for the crime of looking over her shoulder at her city in flames?

Not just a good story, but a great one! Doesn't make any sort of moral sense,and God sure acts petty and vindictive, but it's sure a rock em sock em thrill ride worthy of hollywood as far as the plot is concerned!

 

[Alex]

It would be an elective, and would be taught from a non-denominational perspective. Teachers would just teach the stories, history, and meanings of the Bible, without indoctrinating students or telling them whether or not the Bible is accurate.

Then why did you post:

It's such a big part of Western culture that it needs to be taught to all students

Does not seem like you were saying "elective" there.

I didn't say they need to be educated in order to "spread the word." I don't believe in God. They need to be educated on the Bible for the same reason they need to be educated on the Roman Empire and Shakespeare. The Bible is a major influence on Western history and literature.

You left out the pivotal point of that part of my response: "Belief in a god should come from within, not a book." If people do not need to learn from the Bible, then so be it. You claim that Christians need to be educated on the Bible so they know what their religion teaches and that is not true.

As far as your comparison to Shakespeare, there is not a Constitutional clause that states "Congress shall pass no law respecting the establishment of old English literature."

 

[Kandahar]

Then why did you post:



Does not seem like you were saying "elective" there.

Personally I would support incorporating the Bible into regular English and History classes where appropriate. But that's just me. I meant that in this particular Georgia program, as well as in the poll question, it's elective.

You left out the pivotal point of that part of my response: "Belief in a god should come from within, not a book." If people do not need to learn from the Bible, then so be it. You claim that Christians need to be educated on the Bible so they know what their religion teaches and that is not true.

Everyone in Western society should be educated on the Bible, Christian or not, because it has an enormous influence on Western society. I'm not talking about even addressing "belief in God" in these classes; that's a personal matter, as is the accuracy of the Bible.

As far as your comparison to Shakespeare, there is not a Constitutional clause that states "Congress shall pass no law respecting the establishment of old English literature."

There's also not a Constitution clause that states that school boards shall pass no policy respecting the establishment of non-denominational academic classes on religious works.

 

[Gibberish]

The history of the Christian bible should be taught in school, along with the history of every other major religion. Children should be educated in the major world religions as they are part of world society.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

How does one teach the bible in a non-denominational way? Religious studies, I can get, but the bible is solidly Judeo-Christian. I'm not sure how it could be taught without that being incorporated.

 

[Kandahar]

How does one teach the bible in a non-denominational way? Religious studies, I can get, but the bible is solidly Judeo-Christian. I'm not sure how it could be taught without that being incorporated.

The same way that any other work of literature is studied. What did the author mean by Gen 11:1-9?, what is the historical context for the Ten Commandments?, who do historians believe was the Egyptian Pharoah in Exodus?, are the central messages of the Old and New Testaments the same?, etc.

I know that it can be done without pushing the Bible as the word of God, because I took a couple religion classes in my undergraduate studies at a public university. At the end of the quarters, I still had no idea what (if any) religion my teacher was.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

The same way that any other work of literature is studied. What did the author mean by Gen 11:1-9?, what is the historical context for the Ten Commandments?, who do historians believe was the Egyptian Pharoah in Exodus?, are the central messages of the Old and New Testaments the same?, etc.

I know that it can be done without pushing the Bible as the word of God, because I took a couple religion classes in my undergraduate studies at a public university. At the end of the quarters, I still had no idea what (if any) religion my teacher was.

I, too, took a couple of religion classes as an undergraduate, and had the same experience as you. One difference, though. The bible was not used as a textbook. The bible itself is fairly preachy, which tends to lend itself to prostylizing . I think if done right, this could be a very interesting class, one I might want to take. I am jsut concerned about the practice of the how's beyond what is stated in the rules.

 

[Jerry]

Heck, who could have thought up a story where a man offers his two young daughters to be gang raped and later gers drunk and has sex with them, but it is the man's wife who ends up getting punished by God in this sleazy tale, and only for the crime of looking over her shoulder at her city in flames?

Not just a good story, but a great one! Doesn't make any sort of moral sense,and God sure acts petty and vindictive, but it's sure a rock em sock em thrill ride worthy of hollywood as far as the plot is concerned!

God can not be held responsible for a father offering his daughters for rape or in that father's sexual exploits of his children. Responsibility for a crime rests on the criminal, therefore since it was not God who offered these girls up for rape, nor was it God who had sexual exploits with them, it can not be God who is held accountable for those actions.

Remember, the bible is not a humanist document. That means that *people* do not set the standard. God sets the standard, and if people choose to not comply, that's their choice, not God's fault.

But yes, an entire city burned to cinders in but a moment of time.
A good story.

 

[Jerry]

How does one teach the bible in a non-denominational way? Religious studies, I can get, but the bible is solidly Judeo-Christian. I'm not sure how it could be taught without that being incorporated.

If I were to assume the Atheist pov, I would say that teaching the bible in a secular fashion would be no more difficult in teaching Moby Dick, Huckleberry Fin or any other work of fiction in a secular fashion.

 

[Gardener]

God can not be held responsible for a father offering his daughters for rape or in that father's sexual exploits of his children. Responsibility for a crime rests on the criminal, therefore since it was not God who offered these girls up for rape, nor was it God who had sexual exploits with them, it can not be God who is held accountable for those actions.

.

But God chose Lot's wife to turn into a pillar of salt instead of Lot.

Is God not be held accountable for God's decisions?

 

[Willow]

But are you merely talking about teaching the Bible from a literary point of view or of going in depth into into it's history, that is how it was created, changed and manipulated over the centuries. And would you include parts of the Bible which have been removed or excluded? Not to mention the fact that the Bible itself is a series of books and writings from various sources. Some of those books contradict each other. And then of course there's the whole problem of what version to use.
Personally I find the history of the bible and it's effects on western civilization interesting but for a proper study of it by qualified unbiased teachers I think it would be best left for a college course.
On a practical note I don't think high schools have the money to hire a professional scholar of the Bible and it's effects on civilization. It would be a speciality course and it would need a professional historian/archaeologist to properly be taught. I don't think it would be a good idea simply based on the monetary costs associated with teaching it properly.

 

[Willow]

But God chose Lot's wife to turn into a pillar of salt instead of Lot.

Just an off topic side note...
At the time when that story was written, being turned into a "pillar of salt" did not literally mean being turned into a pillar of salt, it meant in the slang of the time that a woman was infertile.
It would be much like someone two thousand years from now reading the phrase "Well I'll be a monkey's uncle" and thinking you really were a monkey's uncle. It's seems silly to us that anyone would misunderstand that slang phrase that way, but I'm sure the people of that time period would have a good giggle if they knew anyone took a woman being a "pillar of salt" literally.
There are many more examples in the Bible of slang being taken literally. That in itself would make an interesting class.

 

[rivrrat]

Heck, who could have thought up a story where a man offers his two young daughters to be gang raped and later gers drunk and has sex with them, but it is the man's wife who ends up getting punished by God in this sleazy tale, and only for the crime of looking over her shoulder at her city in flames?

Not just a good story, but a great one! Doesn't make any sort of moral sense,and God sure acts petty and vindictive, but it's sure a rock em sock em thrill ride worthy of hollywood as far as the plot is concerned!

And that's not even one of the more gruesome stories in there. And people worry about what their kids are watching on TV. LOL

Someone else said that atheists would "fear" this class being taught. Not I. Teaching people what's actually contained in the bible can only help my case, not hurt it.

 

[Jerry]

Just an off topic side note...
At the time when that story was written, being turned into a "pillar of salt" did not literally mean being turned into a pillar of salt, it meant in the slang of the time that a woman was infertile.
It would be much like someone two thousand years from now reading the phrase "Well I'll be a monkey's uncle" and thinking you really were a monkey's uncle. It's seems silly to us that anyone would misunderstand that slang phrase that way, but I'm sure the people of that time period would have a good giggle if they knew anyone took a woman being a "pillar of salt" literally.
There are many more examples in the Bible of slang being taken literally. That in itself would make an interesting class.

That's why I'm not a literalist :2wave:

 

[Jerry]

But God chose Lot's wife to turn into a pillar of salt instead of Lot.

Is God not be held accountable for God's decisions?

So you accept my clarification regarding a man offering his daughters up for rape and in his sexual exploits of them, and now we move on to other misunderstandings.

Very well.

Genesis 19:25-27;

25 Thus he overthrew those cities and the entire plain, including all those living in the cities—and also the vegetation in the land. 26 But Lot's wife looked back, and she became a pillar of salt.
27 Early the next morning Abraham got up and returned to the place where he had stood before the LORD.

Lot's wife was told of what would happen to her if she turned and looked at the city.

Lot's wife chose on her own to turn and look at the city, that was not a choice God made for her.

Her turning into salt was a consequence of looking at the weapon used in the city's destruction while it was in operation (similar to how your retinas will be burned and you will become blind if you look at a nuclear detonation) not a direct punishment from God for disobedience.

It was God who targeted the city for destruction.
It was God who sent word to those disserving to live, to leave.
It was God who destroyed the city with some weapon.

It was Lot's wife’s choice to turn and look, not God’s.