What Do You Think? The Bible as Elective in High School
March 28th, 2006 | by Paul Merda |Really what do you think? Should public schools teach the Bible as History and the Bible as Literature classes? Georgia has just passed a law that will add two such classes to their curriculum as elective courses. No one will be forced to take the classes, supposedly the classes will be taught in a “non-devotional” manner and will not attempt to indoctrinate students into a set of religious beliefs. If the schools don’t use it to force their beliefs on students, I don’t see anything wrong with it . . . .
22 Responses to “What Do You Think? The Bible as Elective in High School”
By ken grandlund on Mar 28, 2006 | Reply
“If the schools don’t use it to force their beliefs on students, I don’t see anything wrong with it…. “
The only belief system a public school should have is the belief that they should teach their students the fundamentals of reading, writing, amth, science, history, etc.
Electives are great and mind-expanding and necessary. Teach the bible as literature? Why not? It fits the category. As hisotory? Not necessarily. It reflects some historical events, but not all verifiably. Maybe as historical reference to other historical events, but not as history in and of itself. That’s too much like calling ID science.
But if you want to offer the bible, why stop there? Bring in other literature in the form of the Talmud or the Koran or the writings of Buddha. All great in literary value for curious minds. And when you say teach- you need to be sure that the texts are treated as any other piece of literature and not in some extra-human capacity.
By Jet on Mar 28, 2006 | Reply
I think offering the Bible as an elective is a fine idea. I wrote a post here about a new text book doing just that. Good and bad, the impact of the Bible is part of our culture, and bears candid study.
By Paul Watson, Cranky Brit on Mar 28, 2006 | Reply
I have concerns about teaching the Bible AS history. Teaching the role religion has played IN history is a very good elective, albeit very complicated and likely to be controversial, too, but until someone finds Noah’s Ark, I think the Bible and actual history classes should be kept as far apart as ID and science.
By Kevin W. on Mar 28, 2006 | Reply
Ken, in response to your post, maybe they should have an elective class centered around studying the texts of the world’s religions. I’d support it.
By Liberal thinker on Mar 28, 2006 | Reply
In history courses of Western culture/society a discussion of the impact of the bible is necessary. However, that is not teaching the history of the bible. The history of the bible is in many ways questionable and theoretic in nature. Furthermore, the literary value of the bible, I think, is hard to remove from the ideas. There is an inherent danger in these courses. How does one teach politics without being political? How does one teach about the bible without being religious? High school teachers, in my experiences, are not trained for this inherently gray type of discourse. And most students are not prepared for these courses in high school. These courses I think may be better left to undergraduate education. The value to high school students not going to college is minimal and to those going to college courses like this already exist, taught by people trained to teach them.
Long answer short: I see a lack of direct value to high school students at the same time that it presents a situation that could easily slip into a most disagreeable situation.
By ken grandlund on Mar 28, 2006 | Reply
When I was in high school, I was taking advanced literature and history courses and the topics of religion, politics, the bible, and other religious texts did come up. Most of the students were able to discuss the literary-historical characteristics of the texts without problem and our instructors did a great job of not bringing personal beliefs into the equation.
Was that an anamoly? Perhaps, but I’d like to think not. There are many educational tacks to take in parsing literature and history in relation to religion- you simply don’t profess the ideals espoused in the texts as authoritative in the class, but rather to the characters who were writing them or how the interpretations/applications of those ideals affected characters and events historically.
By the stuffed tiger on Mar 28, 2006 | Reply
Slippery slope, for sure. I really think, though, that a philosophy or history of religion course should be offered. I think Americans are woefully uneducated about what other cultures believe. My only problem is that I frankly don’t trust every teacher in every school to be fair.
By Jet on Mar 28, 2006 | Reply
I took a world religion class in high school, and it was a real eyeopener. 30 years later I remember it a favorite class. I certainly understood the material.
As for not trusting teachers, there is a certain amount of parental oversight involved with younger students. If you disagree with the teaching method, you can either discuss it with the school or pull your kid from the class. Ultimately, the best ally a kid has is an involved parent. That said, learning something, disagreeing with it, and forming a structured opinion are the basics involved in critical thinking, and even if the subject matter is objectionable, it’s good brain food for an emerging mind.
By Ditto on Mar 28, 2006 | Reply
What SHOULD be mandatory for primary education is the study of Comparative Mythology ala the late great Joseph Campbell. His well-grounded premise was there are commonalities among the many myths and religions of mankind. We all share certain collective unconscious theories. Religious systems, whether poli-theistic or of the big three monotheisms, from opposite sides of the planet, thousands of years apart share much more than they differ. The majority of the lessons taught by both the Old and New Testaments bear striking resemblance to many of the ancient Sumerians, for example. The Bible cannot lay original claim to the stories of Eden, the Flood, Abraham’s kids, the Crucifixion and Resurrection, etc. Thru-out it all the evidence seemed to add up to all mankind’s pervasive struggle to develop individual spirituality.
I was raised by Episcopalian parents, believed as a child, lost it thru adolescence, studied Joseph Campbell in and after college, and eventually found a much expanded definition of the idea of God.
In this day and age where most (it seems) Christians cannot manage to reconcile their belief system with imperial science - we’ll never see the Bible taught within the context of what it is; mythology.
Teach the Bible in a “non-devotional” manner? Sheeeeeeit.
By steve on Mar 28, 2006 | Reply
Personally I think we should just ban public schools…
By Liberal Army Wife on Mar 28, 2006 | Reply
steve… just go slink back into your den.. thank you.
Comparative religion would be a real eyeopener for some of these students, and their parents and their teachers. I think it would be a superb idea, but I just know what would happen. Some knuckle draggin’ snake handlin’ “Chreeeestian” would have a pink fit that anything but his religion is taught… would sue the school district… the school and principal would be denounced from the pulpit…. picketing… the KKK would mutter… oh yeah, all in the name of the Prince of Peace.
Learning about other religions is a great way to learn about other people. It makes you wonder though, at how religions are twisted by those very same people, to suit their own narrow little minds and agendas.
~LAW~
By steve on Mar 28, 2006 | Reply
LAW,
What? C’mon… Can’t you take a joke? I see a group of people on a blog that lean to the left most of the time lean right for one instance in teaching religion and I can’t make an ultra right joke about banning public schools?
By Liberal Army Wife on Mar 28, 2006 | Reply
steve. sorry. didn’t know you had a sense of humour! I don’t think we are leaning right. I think we are saying knowledge, of any type, is a good thing! learning, not leaning.
By pjordansr on Mar 28, 2006 | Reply
Teaching anything on an elective basis about a book or doctrine that has lasted 2000 years and has triggered such historical events as the Crusades, Knights of the Templar, Masonic practices, Dr. Martin Luther King, Camelot, the list goes on, would be less than responsible. To fear the making aware of our youth to Christian History, and yes there is a history and it is a viable subject, is to fear that they cannot make up their own ideologies. Include other religions if you will, the more the merrier. There are truly very few influences on World History of greater impact than religion itself. Quit trying to stick our kid’s heads in the sand.
By pjordansr on Mar 28, 2006 | Reply
Btw Liberal Thinker,
Your name by definition would indicate a thinker of broad spectrum. Not exactly what comes to mind when you are exclusionary about what our youth are and are not capable of processing.
No war, just a thought.
By pjordansr on Mar 28, 2006 | Reply
And before anybody says it, Camelot as in the Kennedy’s, not King arthur (I do know history from fantasy)
By Tom Harper on Mar 28, 2006 | Reply
I think Logic and Critical Thinking need to be taught in high school (maybe earlier). If students have learned to think rationally and independently, they’re more likely to see the Bible as a religion; a belief system. Nothing more, nothing less. It’s certainly worth studying; we just don’t want another generation of people speaking in tongues and burning books.
By chicago dyke on Mar 28, 2006 | Reply
i spent 8 years in a grad program (ma and phd work) in divinity school. i love religion, as a subject of study, and i had a “liberal arts” education on the subject- i’ve read texts and mythology and theology from all the “major” religions and lots of the minor ones, and dead ones. for me, it’s simple. no religion whatsoever in schools.
“but xtianity is foundational in western culture!” you say. yeah. i don’t really care. wanna know about what believers think you should know? go to church. otherwise, treat religion like you do, say, the fashion industry. you don’t see calls for schools to teach ralph lauren’s latest musings on why women look best in a middle hem, do you? and yet, some how, we can teach kids how to sew in home ec, and the various dressing modes of men and women thru the ages. the religionists don’t need any “help” in our schools. let’s let schools instead be places where kids can learn things that will help them get jobs, raise families, stay healthy, etc.
By Joe Snitty on Mar 28, 2006 | Reply
Sounds like election year grandstanding to me.
I guess the three questions I would ask are these:
What gap do such classes fill?
If they’re critical to provide, then why are they being introduced into the public school system only now — and as optional electives, at that?
Who is predicted to teach and take these classes — and how will their audiences react if they’re not being taught as ‘Bible as Fact’.
I think that the marginal benefit that might be provided by these courses would be far better served by classes called ‘Comparative World Religions’ and ‘World Religions and Geopolitical Conflict’.
There’s definitely benefit to having a foundational knowledge of Christianity when analyzing American and British literature, but at the level at which literature is taught in high school, that benefit is minimal. It’s also already discussed in some detail within the textbooks containing authors for whom religious context is important (Hawthorne, Dickinson, Faulkner, Frost and the like).
By cooper on Mar 28, 2006 | Reply
I have always felt that religion should be taught in / middle school/high school as an elective. Religion and philosophy or philosophy of religion….there should be a mixture of choices if the class is not a mixed religions class.
Knowledge, whether you agree with it or not, is power.
Certainly not as history nor as literature …although I personaly believe it is an excruciatingly fine piece of fiction.
By LiberPaul on Mar 29, 2006 | Reply
Thanks for all the thoughts! Guess we will see how this pans out. I do not doubt that the ACLU will be keeping a close eye on these classes…… Nice test case I should think.
By Liberal thinker on Mar 29, 2006 | Reply
I think many people misunderstood what I was trying say. I did not say nor intend to imply that high school students aren’t intelligent enough to handle these courses. Nor am I trying to say that they don’t need critical thinking skills. My point is that our current education system I think would not benefit from THIS course. Critical thinking and logic are very very important, but there is more than one way to go about developing critical thinking. Our public education system is built upon memorization and the regurgitation of facts. Critical thinking is not part of that discourse. It has become even less a part since NCLB. So, we need to add critical thinking to the discourse but is this the best way? I do not think that these courses are the best way to do it. I’ve never been one to throw the child in the pool and say “swim”. This is a widely practiced method of teaching but I don’t agree with it. These courses, if for the purpose of critical thinking, seem to be of the sink or swim type. They don’t proved the tools and methods for critical thinking only the subject of the critical thought. Finally, our education system is intended to prepare students not for “real life” but for college. I think that those going to college will be able to get these types of courses in almost any liberal arts school where the course will be more rigorous and of greater long term value because the educator was trained to teach not merely fact memorization but critical thinking, a skill our current high school teachers have not had to learn because, as stated, the education systems are geared differently. Students not going to college would not benefit in their real-life beyond critical thinking skills. I’m not opposed to critical thinking skills, in fact I see the lack of this type of education in our high schools as a major problem; however, I do not feel that these courses are the BEST way to go about it. Furthermore, they are too easily misdirected and misunderstood. I just think that these courses are better left to college courses and college professors and we can and should introduce BETTER courses for critical thinking education.