walrus said:
Reading them with hidden motives? Do you mean the students? Who cares what motives the students have in reading them.? Do you mean the teachers have hidden motives in having the students read them?
I don't care what the students think of the reading. They can enjoy reading it for all I care, and I don't doubt that reading the Bible from a secular point of view can teach some people a lesson in morality. But that, according to the article, was clearly not the purpose of having the students read them. Either way, if you
read my post, you'll find that I never totally agreed that the school was trying to impose religious beliefs on its students. The "I agree" was in response to The Noyse's second post and the second sentence was a mere critique of the article's persusasive power. Don't react to my post in a generalizing manner when I really took no solid stance on the issue to begin with.
walrus said:
What I find really ironic about this is that I am guessing most people disagreeing with this are probably either non or anti-religious, however, you are granting the Bible a magical level of power. You seem to be saying that this book, more than any other that a student might study, has the power to mysteriously influence the minds of those who read it. I hope you realize that about 85% of the Bible does not contain Judeo-Christian cosmological or mystical teachings. A large part of it is simply the history of the Hebrews. A lot of it is moral stories (and these morals are for the most part are shared by every religious group on Earth). A lot of it is poetry. There are HUGE sections of the Bible which can be studied as literature without the dangers of religion seeping into your child's apprarently vulnerable and indiscriminate mind.
Hey, guess what? If you shoot a gun at someone and miss, it's still a crime. Once again,
the article points out how
regardless of how the students react to the material, the school's intent to impose religious beliefs on its students through the Bible is something to take action against.
walrus said:
Why do these same people (for the most part) who believe in a total abscence of censorship in school reading lists have such a great terror of the Bible that they make this book the one exception to the rule?
First, I'm not totally anti-censorship, and if I comprised a reading list the Bible wouldn't necessarily be the only book I would take off it. Second, I doubt you'd like it so much if the school assigned a book that was full of slurs toward Christians and other religious people. I might change my perspective if the school offered the reading from multiple points of view, as The Noyse pointed out.
walrus said:
Yeah, absolutely pointless. I can't see anything helpful in being familiar with the beliefs of 80% of your fellow citizens and 1.5 billion of the world's inhabitants. No point whatsoever in having knowledge of the literary work which has done more to shape the history and culture of Western man than any other. By all means, study "Lord of the Flies" instead as it has had far more impact on history, literature, sociology, government, and culture than the Bible.
I've attended religious education classes myself, and I know that it probably would be best for kids to understand the faiths of those around them. But an 11th grade English class is clearly not the place for such discussions, especially from a one-sided point of view. At the Unitarian fellowship I attended, we studied all religions and were encouraged to make informed decisions of faith based on all the works we studied. Either way, regardless of the impacts of reading a Bible on some kid's faith, the discussion here is about the intent of the school. Why bother dealing with controversy and DebatePolitics topics when you could read Lord of the Flies and still recieve the same amount of literatary knowledge in order to pass the final exam? You don't read books based on the effects they had on history in English class. You read them based on how much they will teach you about literature and the English language.
walrus said:
So, we should base our reading lists on what kids like or are interested in? Might as well throw Shakespeare out the window. Funnily enough, no English teacher of professor I ever had ever seemed concerned whether or not I despised a work I was instructed to read. They just expected me to read it and understand it. I didn't have to agree with it, I didn't have to adopt it's principles in my life; but I did have to read it. As to the Bible being extremely religious, I have no idea what that means. There are religious teachings contained in it, as well as many other things worthy of study.
In that case, forget the teachers. Students learn and absorb more when they are taught subjects they are interested in. Even if Great Expectations (though not a Shakespeare book) was the most boring book I've ever read, I doubt kids are going to refuse to read it because it goes against their moral beliefs which are somehow based on the morality of Estella and Mrs. Havisham.
walrus said:
So, we should allow popular opinion to decide what our children are taught? Does that sound right to you?
It's not just a matter of popular opinion, it's a matter of the educational value that will be recieved from the reading material. Besides, it's not like I'm saying "Instead of the Bible, kids should read See Spot Run!", the article simply suggests that reading lists be comprised of non-religious materials.
walrus said:
Anybody who can not study the Bible as a literary work, and separate it's religious and literary significance, has severe critical analysis problems. I was under the impression that school was a place for growing minds to be introduced to different beliefs and to learn the skills needed to know for themselves what their OWN beliefs are. Do we teach this by "protecting" our children from beliefs that we disagree with?
See the little bolded word? Different? I would agree with you 100% if this were the case. The Bible is clearly not the all encompassing point of view for religion, and teaching it to students solves none of these principles. I would certainly hope the students can read the Bible without converting to Christianity, but the discussion here is about the intent of the school, not the critical analysis abilities of its students.
And before you question my motives, I was raised as an Episcopalian.