Last week, the Craig County School system in Virginia voted to drop the elective high school Bible education course that had been in place in the district and replace it with a less controversial class.[ The class used to be “The Bible in History and Literature” and the curriculum was found objectionable by civil liberties groups like the ACLU who argued that it promoted certain religious beliefs while ignoring others; it took a primarily Christian based view of the text, while ignoring Jewish interpretations. The new course will be “The Bible and its Influence”, which is intended to be more inclusive, demonstrating that the Bible is interpreted differently by different groups.
The new course was developed by a group called the National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools, a group that explains: “The curriculum for the program shows a concern to convey the content of the Bible as compared to literature and history. The program is concerned with education rather than indoctrination of students. The central approach of the class is simply to study the Bible as a foundation document of society, and that approach is altogether appropriate in a comprehensive program of secular education.”
The group explains their mission in this way: “There has been a great social regression since the Bible was removed from our schools. We need to refer to the original documents that inspired Americanism and our religious heritage. Historians say that religion has been the major motivating force in all of human history. When some people are trying to completely remove the Bible from schools, students' rights are being violated.”
This issue raises many questions. First: Is this course necessary, or an overall asset to the students’ education? A course that only focuses on the Bible ignores other religious traditions. If a course on the Bible is offered, even as an elective, should students also be given access to curriculum that discusses the influence of the Koran or other sacred texts, so that one religious tradition is not given preference? Based on their assertions in their mission statement, one goal of the National Council seems to be to inspire Americanism and to fight against the moral decay they see in society; though the course is discussing the “influence” of the Bible, isn’t it reasonable to assume that they are also promoting the Bible and its teachings as a way to combat these social ills?
Second: If the Bible is going to be discussed in public schools, is it beneficial that there is a set, consistent curriculum, so that students in different places are receiving the same information? Or, should discussions of religion be left to the discretion of the teachers as they see necessary. How closely will the contents of this curriculum be monitored? How closely do the aims and objectives of the group promoting the course meet with those of the School Board in offering it? Would it be more agreeable to teach about religion (and the Bible) as an aspect of curriculum already in place (for example, discussing the history of religion as part of a World History course, or discussing the religious imagery used in a text in an English course)? The introduction of a course based solely on the Bible, even as an elective in a public school, seems dangerously close to giving preference to religion.
Posts
6 comments:
I would have to agree that changing the course to be inclusive of alternative interpretations of “The Bible” was a positive move by Virginia schools. This is not simply to make the course less controversial or to avoid an establishment issue, but to provide the students with balanced knowledge of Abrahamic faiths.
“The Bible” typically refers to the Christian document that follows proohets from the beginning of time, through Jesus’ time on Earth up to the prophets’ warnings of the end of time. The problem is that even within Christians, different faiths cannot agree on what books make up “The Bible.” (Catholics, for example, do not recognize the King James version while many mainstream Protestants view it as the standard version.) Additionally, “The Bible” is comprised of an ‘Old Testament’ and a ‘New Testament.’ The ‘Old Testament’ is basically the Jewish Torah. Unfortunately, by placing it next to the ‘New Testament’ – which follows Christ and his disciples – it implies that the Jewish texts are ‘old’ and outdated, thus less important. Moreover, Muslims regard many of the stories in “The Bible” to be part of their religion as well. The stories vary however, for example, in the Koran, it explicitly states that both Adam and Eve were equally responsible for being cast out of paradise. Muslims do not believe in ‘original sin’ – the Pope would not agree with this interpretation and that should be called to the students' attention. Neither is 'wrong' but the views are in opposition of one another.
I would agree that the course should be included as an elective – interested students can take it, others can opt out. It is in no way mandatory (accommodating atheists or simply uninterested persons.) I think it is important for students to be exposed to these differing interpretations because it provides a background and understanding where other people are coming from.
Also, a non-Christian should teach the Christian perspectives or a non-Jewish person should teach the Jewish perspective. When people teach their own religion – of which there are varying interpretations – those people tend to only teach their personal views. So a Sunni Muslim would likely fail to suggest the alternative opinion of who succeeded Muhammed. All of these views need to be called to the attention of the students so that their education is well-rounded and balanced.
I don’t think the class is legally problematic. Teaching about the effect that a text like the Bible has had on both literature and history is much different than showing a preference to one religion or another. The fact that many religions cannot agree on what exactly comprises the Bible is an issue that would be taken up in the class, I’m sure. Introducing students to differing responses and interpretations of the Bible will better equip them to interact with people who hold those views later in life. It doesn’t make any sense to prevent them from learning about religion, because it seems to me that such a practice would only breed ignorance. I would be in favor of classes about the Koran and other religious texts for that same reason; it isn’t showing preference to one religion or another, but rather is promoting students to learn about a religion or way of life that may not be their own, which can only be beneficial in ridding this country and world of prejudice and ignorance.
I must agree with Van on this issue. I would also like to adress the issue of if having a course on the Bible preferences religion. Yes, it in fact does to some degree, but only to the extent that it acknowledges the reality that a working knowledge of the Bible might be a bit more useful than an in and out understanding of the religion of the Hittites. Even anti-religious zealot Richard Dawkins believes children should be instructed in the Bible because it is crucial to an understanding of literature and history. This is not to say that only the Bible should be taught in regards to religion; I believe that Van is correct when he asserts that students should also have a knowledge of texts like the Quran or the Bhagavad Gita, since they are crucial to an understanding of other cultures and peoples and it might be fairly said that to be an informed global citizen, one needs to know what other religions think. The document known as "The Bible" is up there in terms of what one needs to know. The idea that because different sects have different interpretations and versions of it misses the point entirely .I might wonder how the commentator who raised this as an issue even knows this info in the first place; assumably from a course that adressed religion, perhaps even one specfically on the Bible? A recommended read is Stephen Prothero's religious illiteracy and its consequences.
I do not think changing the name of the course from "The Bible in History and Literature" to "The Bible and its Influence" does a lot of good. Either way it is evident that the Bible is the main focus of the course. I took Western Civilization a few years ago and most major religions and their development through time were taught in a fair manner (none preferenced or stressed more than the others). I felt this historical perspective was necessary to understand the natural progression of religion in general and how religions have adapted over time to maintain believers. The Bible was and is an undeniably big part of our nation and I do not see why it can not be taught in a fair manner as an elective. I do not think a course like this excludes other religions or the non-religious as long as the teacher does not add to or question its credibility and states that the class is simply viewing the Bible as an important piece of literature. I would be more worried about offending strict interpretationists of the Bible because I am sure that they would not view it as just a piece of literature.
I'm not sure a course on "The Bible" is valuable unless there is an understanding of the many interpretations of the text. It is not just a piece of literature, it is the document laying out the shared faith of hundreds of millions of people. There needs to be understanding of its significance in religion(s). To understand that significance it needs to be prominently mentioned that one version of "The Bible" may not accurately represent the beliefs of certain sects of Christianity.
It's also important to share that the views held in "The Bible" are not solely Christian. It's important for people to understand that Muslims also believe in Jesus as a prophet and that Jews recognize the miracles that Moses orchestrated.
Without this understanding, the course would be nothing more than one person's beliefs being taught as the factual interpretation of either a piece of literature or a 'generalized' religious document - that course has minimal value in the public school system and I would question its worth in the curriculum.
Post a Comment