Georgia Considers Bible as Textbook

Updated: 11:18 AM EST
Georgia Considers Bible as Textbook

By Patrik Jonsson, The Christian Science Monitor

ATLANTA (March 27) - Decatur High School student Kurt Hughes wouldn't call himself religious. He's never even read the Bible.

But he wouldn't mind taking a class on the holy text if it were offered at his high school in Decatur, Ga. After all, "You look at 'The Old Man and the Sea,' 'King Arthur' and even 'The Matrix,' all have biblical allusions," the junior says. "It'd be useful to know exactly what's in it."

The Georgia legislature seems poised to endorse just such a course. Though students in many states enroll in classes related to the Bible, Georgia would become the first to require its Department of Education to put in place a curriculum to teach the history and literature of the Bible. Schools would use the book itself as the classroom textbook. Specifically the bill would establish electives on both the New and Old Testaments.

It has overwhelmingly passed both chambers, but needs a final vote on a minor House change. The vote is expected as early as Monday. If it passes, the state's Department of Education has a year to establish Bible elective courses in the curriculum.

more at:
http://articles.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20060327103409990005&cid=2194

Can you say clusterfuck?

The only way I'd even consider approving this is if they use the Jefferson Bible. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Bible

Does it involve chickens? Grapes?

Around here you can take golf and bowling for credit. Might as well take the Bible. Or the Koran. Or the first five seasons of South Park.

the real test would come if a teacher pitches the idea for a Quran class. What then?

I think I would have taken a bible class as a high school student. I'm agnostic, but churches scare me so I've never really had a chance to study the bible...

on Jeopardy if you don't know the Bible!

I had Greek mythology in high school. The Iliad, Oddesey of Homer. Why not Christian and Hebrew mythology. These stories reflect the human culture. As long as they don't try to portray it as history or science, a good critical study would be OK with me.

I am a Jewish atheist.

--IMM

I suspect teaching it as sacred doctrine and literal truth is more what they have in mind.

written on a 5th grade level.
And I know that IS the version those peckerwoods will overwhelmingly choose.

Too bad too. There is some wisdom in that book, and it has a fascinating history. If they could teach it like they teach The Iliad that would be OK.

--IMM

are considered gospel to teach people how to live.

Must be margarita time! :toast:

know what an allusion is.

I don't think it will stand, as it doesn't allow for elective courses to be taught on all religious texts. I'm a teacher in Georgia, and we cover the basics of all religions anyway, so I'm confused. Is this supposed to be a Bible-as-literature course?

want to learn about the bible, a)go to church b)go to parochial school c) take a religion class in college. Will a student who doesn't "elect" to take this class be looked on differently? bad move IMO

while poorly written and inconsistent, the Bible is second to none in influence on following works. You cannot reasonably understand most western european literature without an understanding of the Bible, not as a work of faith, but as a work of highly influential literature.

Its also the second most alluded to work of Western literature, after Shakespeare. Knowing it and its influence on literature is necessary to understand the history of Western liturature.

The problem is going to be in making sure that the instructors actually teach it as a liturature class, and NOT as a 'bible study' class.

the curriculum, now. I'd imagine they will be very careful to write the syllabus in such a way that there will be no doubt it is a literature class. Teachers aren't all mouth-breathing neanderthals, even in GA.

I would place the Bible at the level of supremacy again.

but the Song of Solomon, the Proverbs and the Psalms..and even some lines in the NT (through a mirror darkly) (In the beginning was the Word) are in my opinion, good writing.

but there is certainly some awful writing as well (turns out God is either really bad at giving dictation, or doesn't bring his A game all the time)

But my favorite line is the one where Jesus rode into Jerusalem on his ass.

The King James Bible is one of the best-written works in the English language, I would argue. Inconsisent, yes, but the same is true of most of Shakespear, for example (he said with feeling, after having just watched Twelth Night and tried to work out why the characters were doing all this...)

I completely agree with you about the influence of the Bible, and that it should be taught as literature, not as theology.

I read parts of the Bible in my World Lit course in high school -- Book of Job, the Song of Solomon bit, the story of Ruth (I think)... great stuff!

And it is useful to understand biblical references.

But trying to get the whole Bible in schools as a textbook is obviously just a Trojan horse deal. Spending more than a week or two on this particular piece of literature is inappropriate at the high school level.

The first one that points out the correlation between biblical stories and common Middle Eastern myths.

I'm betting that teacher gets hung.

Likely spend some time in Gitmo.

that's not the state of Georgia's fault. Wanna learn the Bible? Do it the old fashioned way: READ IT!

the bible but would find it useful to know exactly what's in it - GO TO BIBLE SCHOOL. Problem solved.

through to the back cover like any other book, I say that's fine. The bible, like it or not, is one mythic basis for our culture.

The same course should have them read the other myths that are present in literary allusions, like the Iliad, the Odyssey, the Suetonius chronicle of the Claudian emperors, Don Quixote, and many of the other books whose characters and situations creep into modern literature.

Of course, this isn't what the babble people want. They want a teacher to stand up and read selected babble stories for the students to talk over. They want to leave out the Song of Songs and all the inconveniently Christian bits in the New Testament about giving away one's worldly goods to the poor to follow Christ. They don't want the book to be seen as a whole, only as a series of disjointed stories that support the power elite.

This will undoubtedly pass, but let's hope there are a few conscientious teachers out there who will hand the babble people a big surprise.

I read the Odyssey and DonQuixote in high school. Again, I caution don't underestimate the teachers in this situation. Teachers are a pretty progressive group of individuals. Any group that makes up the NEA can't be all bad.

teachings of Buddha, etc, etc.

& rationale, he's a fundy. and clearly a liar.

Seriously, this is a huge mistake. In theory, on paper, it sounds good, but the bible thumpers will never allow it to be taught as it is on paper.

This is a huge mistake.

if they looked at the various translations of the Bible into English-I think it would be very important to let people know that the Bible is a compilation of various books that were selected down through the ages. It would be good if they also looked at the Lost Books of the Bible, selections from the Coptic library recently discovered, and finally if they looked at modern direct translations from Aramaic from English. Fundamentalists might find that their concepts about Biblical infallability are shattered, as well as their ideas of what Jesus thought of priests, the role of women, etc, etc.

It should irritate the stuffing out of people who think their, current, church-approved version is the exact, inerrant word of God..

Wait 'til they get a load of all the stuff the committees left out!

in various venues in the Heartland. A lady came to a Dance and was freaked out when she heard that Jesus spoke Aramaic. She refused to do the Lord's Prayer dance because it wasn't in English, like her Bible. I really felt sorry for her, because she was so afraid!

is based?

that the world history curriculum teaches about major world religions. And I live in TEXAS! I mention something about a religion other than Christianity and people look at me funny. I have a lot more knowledge about that than most people my age. That class included basics about Christianity. I think schools should have electives on world religons and culture.

Also, if there is a class on the Bible, more folks will realize that freepers don't follow it.

And we shouldn't be afraid of ANY book.

First off, taxpayer money has to be used to pay the teacher of this course, to buy the books, to pay the school to administer it, etc. Taxpayers should not be forced to pay money that is used to promulgate one religion, even if the course is elective.

But the real issue, is that the State is making it MANDATORY for schools to offer this elective course. Sure, the course is elective, but the State is MANDATING that it be offered.

That is a violation of 1st Amendment.

which means that all schools offer the same courses. So if one is offered one place, it is offered everywhere in the interest of equality.

I am on the fence about 1st Amendment. You make a good point. But there is a difference in studying about a religion and studying the religion. I guess the courts will have to sort it out.

since the Matrix is much more about Baudrillard than the Bible and the phrase "the desert of the Real" comes from Baudrillard and Baudrillard's essay collection Simulacra and Simulation actually appears in the movie. (It's where Neo hides his stash of cracking software and cash)

I'm all for people who intend to study western literature reading the whole Bible in depth, but making it a required text in public highschool is clearly a plot of religious maniacs to exalt their God over our government. The Bible is a source for authors, but hardly essential in the HS classroom to the teaching of basic reading and essay writing.

be 'required' text for every student. The class is an elective.

High school students SHOULD be past basic reading. Not that they always are, however!

... As it increases my job prospects immeasurably - less competition. The value of my advanced degee in a scientific field will increase exponentially if all those folks studied the bible more.

I fully support their efforts.

De Linkum gunboats come an' de massa run away!

...

http://sensoryoverload.typepad.com/sensory_overload/2004/11/free_states_vs_.html

I prefer this interpretation:

... while straight-politico-geographical maps are good at others. There's no competition between them - just different information conveyed.

But I was just explaining what was meant by the term "slave states". I use it since folks seem to get upset when people use the word "southern", and typically the first thing they start screaming is "it's just as bad in the north! it's just as bad in the north!". So I decided to go with a geographically-neutral term, but which can still be used for similar purposes

all the states and territories were slave states, unless I'm mistaken.

From the reply right above yours that you missed:

http://sensoryoverload.typepad.com/sensory_overload/2004/11/free_states_vs_.html

Sorry, I didn't see it and recognize our old friend "South Bashing."

And you know, I treat my slaves so damned WELL! Why I took one to the doctor right before I voted for Bush in '04!

I've taken on board The Universal Cry Of All Southerners - that the north can be just as bad. You're right. You win on that.

If you look at the map of slave states, you'll notice that it is NOT geographically biased against the south. Well - not any more biased than actual history itself is at any rate.

You can SAY it's southbashing if you want, but it just isn't. My eyeball-guesstimate is that the center of mass of the slave state region is southwest Kansas - hardly the deep south.

But such a map does furnish a convenient means for talking about that part of America that desperately wants a theocracy - which is precisely why I referred to them in the first place.


EDIT: I dare you to change The Universal Cry Of All Southerners to "the free states are just as bad as the slave states". rofl.

I live in the deep south (although I was born and raised in NJ) and I just don't see this desperation for theocracy you are referring to. Most of my friends are fairly progressive. A few are old time conservatives who aren't real happy. And there is what I would call a fringe element who fit the mold you see. My informal estimate, given that 50% of the population is African American, would be maybe 10-15 percent of the people in this town are fundamentalists.

I'm no historian but I think that the comparison of the two maps is disingenuous. Slavery was legal in the north for years. Indeed, it was first introduced in MA. The West was barely populated. The South, because of climate, had an economy based on agriculture, much of that cotton that the northern mills happily wove even though it was picked by slaves.

I think you are just on the wrong track all together when you try and pin anything on any one geographical region. We're a nomadic people. We move constantly. I know only one native (white) Floridian..my son-in-law. Mass media has homogenized our culture. When folks try to pin blame on any one group of people or one region, it is usually in order to absolve themselves. I am not necessarily saying this is true in your case, B-I-B, because I don't know you that well. But I have noticed this tendency in humans.

And I'll leave you shrieking THE FREE STATES ARE JUST AS BAD AS THE SLAVE STATES!

It was an ancient texts unit, and we covered the Koran, the Rig Vedas, the Old Testament, and some older myths. Of course, it was in a Catholic high school, but it was in the textbook and no big deal. In fact, I was pretty amazed at what the kids didn't know.

When one of my students who was Muslim read out the Koranic verses in the original and wrote them on the board, it was a wonderful moment. She really opened a lot of eyes that day, answering questions about her faith and showing how beautiful a faith it is.

:puke:

I had one teacher who taught the Bible, and I can honestly say that I picked up things from the other texts I've read since that I would have otherwise missed. That being said, she taught it strictly as a book of mythology, in much the same fashion as we'd studied the Greek myths years before. If there is accountability, and if the teachers are able to separate their religion from their professionalism, it would be a very useful class. However, more than likely teachers will use this as a backdoor way to preach in the classroom.

teacher who gave any sort of indication that he or she wanted to be a "backdoor preacher" in the classroom.

The Bible as literature is a GREAT thing and quite honestly, I think the more people read it with some guidance (as in someone to help them sort through the old-fashioned langauge) the more chance that some people will actually be able to THINK about it rather than just take some Sunday mornign preacher's word for what it means.

And, quite honestly, we should ALL be reading the Bible these days, if only to see what the fundies are trying to get all of our laws based on. We have to know where they are coming from in order to be able to fight back.

The Bible just gives me a headache.

in public school. And we took turns reading the psalms. It meant absolutely nothing to me, except I tried to find psalms with hidden meanings that were slightly dirty. I didn't turn into a raving fundamentalists nor did ANY of my classmates.

I'm surely not advocating going back to that. It was a waste of time and with everything we teachers are supposed to deliver during the school day, we have no time to evangelize. What I sense here in many of us is a fear of this document. There are kids from families who never open a Bible and don't go to church and yet they see 85% of their countrymen classifying themselves as Christians. Add Jews to that and the number goes higher. The Bible is referred to in most English literature, poetry, prose, diaries, etc. Many of these kids will NOT go on to college. This is the last chance they have at a scholarly discussion of the Bible as a comparison to other works of literature and/or religion. If you leave them completely vulnerable in their ignorance to the concept that this document is magical, mystical, infallible...well you are leaving them defenseless. The best way to defend against fundamentalism is to educate. If a person sees the work as one in a whole series of similar works, they are less likely to fall into a cult or other strange thinking. We can't be afraid of this book! We need to face it and look at it and know it because it is controlling a large portion of the population.

The course would not, in my understanding, be mandated. It would be an elective.

It's ironic to me that people who demand aggressive sex ed and birth control at this age are yet demanding that children not be exposed to the Bible. To me, it is the same thing. One of these days those kids are goinse g to have sex and they need to know what it is and how to handle it. And one of these days, especially in GA, somebody is going to thump a Bible at them.

Georgia teachers are not fundamentalists. Especially high school teachers. They will deliver this content appropriately.

"exposed" to the Bible.

The easiest and cheapest way, of course, for those folks to do that is to send them to a (Tax Exempt) Church on Sunday Morning.

It's having kids FORCED to study the bible in public school that I --strenuously-- object to.

These classes are (supposedly) elective, so that objection may not apply to this situation. However, I get suspicious because I've seen so many fundy-dominated state agencies and school boards (the philosophical leanings of high school teachers notwithstanding) try to use funny business like this -or renaming creationism "intelligent design science"- as cheap and cheesy attempts to do end runs around the Establishment Clause.

And that said, I still think if they're going to present the Bible in ANY context, they need to include the seminal works of ALL OTHER belief systems, including (but not limited to) the Koran, The Bhagavad Gita, the Tao Te Ching, the Book of the Subgenius, and of course, the Principia Discordia.

No one is going to be forced to take a bible class if s/he doesn't want to.

and probably the only thing I would add is that I'd give the teachers and the curriculum writers a chance and see what they come up with.

I ALWAYS "vote" for expanding the minds of adolescents and have no problem with a comparative approach. Elective is a must. But I don't think Sunday morning church school is the best place to study the Bible. It is if you want another generation of fundie, but we need to look at this piece of literature a bit more critically and analytically than they will get in Sunday school.

If it's really an elective, I see no real problem. My wariness comes, again, from suspicions that this is some sort of end run around the First Amendment.

And I would also say, if schools are being forced to offer the class, then the Bible should be presented in context, as I said, with other books for other belief systems. Otherwise why just the Bible, unless they're trying to promote (or even "study") just one worldview?

see a problem with it. If they see enough students are interested in it to warrant putting together a curriculum for it, and it is completely voluntary, than I have no issue with it. It's no different then if enough of the student body wanted an elective on scrapbooking or something. I generally will never have a problem with ANY 100% voluntary program that doesn't in any way cause adverse effects to those not volunteering.

But I live here in 2006, and the idea of even making this an elective makes me itch.

This is a poor idea, only proposed for political reasons, not educational.

it is being mandated that the schools offer it. Even if it is elective for the students, it isn't elective for each individual school to choose to participate or not based on the student body desire. And that, I do think is absolute bullshit.

of instruction, in a time and place that allow for free inquiry. This is neither that time nor that place. In our time, here in Georgia, politicians want to insert the Bible into public schools for reasons that have nothing to do with genuine understanding or freedom of thought.

as much as explaining it here. In Florida and Georgia, there are no unique high school courses. In other words, as a teacher I couldn't decide to offer a class in the French Revolution, for example, just because it was my specialty. All courses have to pass state curricular standards and in the interest of equality, they must be offered at all school. All new classes, therefore, will be taught at all high schools. And if you understand anything about the disparity of education in GA, you'll see this is a good thing. I live in FL, but as I look outside in my back yard, there a tower for cell phones I can see that is in GA, so I know a bit about the state.

That puts it in a bit more perspective. Course, now I don't know which way I lean with it. I think really good arguments could be made for both sides.

http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=663

which version of the Bible will they use?

They should also consider the joy of sex as a textbook and the brother grimm if they're gonna include the bible as a textbook.

"So these were just 10 crazyass laws made up ONLY for some ragtag band of herdsmen to follow? Supposedly handed down by their magic man in the sky ONLY for them to follow?"

And, of course, there are many more "embarrasing" questions one can ask about this "holy writ"

It seems like this is a great opportunity to examine that book of comtradictory and silly fairy tales

There's a fundamental difference between teaching the Bible and teaching catechism. In other words, this isn't necessarily a bad thing. The Bible is the foundation of Western literature and much of its philosophy, after all (the phrase 'God-given rights' comes to mind).

If such a class was taught like the Catholic priests I knew in high school or the Methodist ministers I knew in college, then I'm all for it. They analyzed the books in various ways, such as intended audience, time of writing, style, and how the message of the text related to the structure of Roman Catholicism and Protestantism.


I suspect a class like this will end being the World History and World Geography classes I knew in high school. Impressive names, but poorly taught and taken only for the guaranteed A.

including the ones which criticize the Bible. That is when the fundy heads will explode.

Which religion will be given a privileged position in public schools?

And which children will learn that they have the 'wrong" bible?

we're missing the forest for the trees: This is about politicians dictating what should be taught in schools. Debating the merits and methods of teaching about the Bible should be done by the educators, not by fiat handed down from a self-serving legislative body whose members put reelection above reality.