Kentucky Senate Passes Bill To Teach Bible Classes

Remove all ads!

The Kentucky Senate has passed a bill allowing Bible classes to be taught in public schools! Surely the end is nigh! Or, maybe not. First off, it turns out that the bill doesn't really permit this, as it was never impermissible in the first place, but rather it lays out a road map of how such classes could be built. Secondly, the classes are focused on the social and literary impacts (of which there have been many), not religious indoctrination. Not all agree with it, though, even those who have voted for it in the past:

I find I like Shaughnessy's reasoning. There are enough different translations out there, and the differences can be big enough, that it really is important to identify one, or possibly more than one, to work off of. Substitutions would just lead to a mish-mash of confusing interpretations.

 

Riight.

As long as they teach while explaining about the Torah and the Koran that probably doesn't matter, but I gather they don't.

 

Honestly, I would suggest having seperate classes for those, simply because cramming them all into one would be a little rushed. I don't think you could do any of them justice if you tried to do all of them at once.

That being said, if there's nothing stopping them from doing Bible classes, presumably there's nothing stopping them from doing Torah or Koran classes (or any other holy book you care to mention). Except maybe demand.

 

It is not a problem as long as it is not mandatory and as long as students can opt out if and when they want.

 

English literature is frikkin riddled with Biblical images, symbols, allusions and themes. A class devoted to reading and discussing those elements is not necessarily forcing theology onto people. Heck, it might stop some Christians from garbling their quotes. Given this is in one of the southerly states I can understand some peoples' fears about indoctrination, but not all classes that discuss the Bible are the great evil some want to make them out to be.

 

It sounds like a stealth 'let's have mandatory bible classes again' bill to me, with a better rationalisation than usual.

As I said, if they taught religion proper and explain other religions as well (since popular culture is also replete with references to the other world religions) ... but it appears that is nowhere there in the bill.

 

I don't see it being mandatory anywhere, either. In fact, from this article, it seems it would be an elective.

After a little looking, I found the actual text of the bill here (there's that google working for you, Ragusa). It says:

So, at least Hebrew Scriptures would (or could, by the wording of the bill) be included just in this bill. And, even today and especially in classical western lit, the Bible and Torah have a lot more influence than any other religious texts.

 

No big deal. We covered a few of the books within the Bible in a World Literature Survey class in college. But it was taught there as an example of Hebrew literature. Note that there are examples of other texts as well. Here's an updated version of the text we used, including a table of contents:

http://www.ecampus.com/norton-anthology-world-masterpieces/bk/9780393973006

 

NOG,
limiting it to Hebrew scriptures and the Bible makes it essentially Christian. Nothing else, just Christian.

 

That appears to be the case in Kentucky. But LKD took the topic in a different direction. The Bible in literature would be a better approach. Of course, Moby Dick could be a "religious" text to some readers, I suppose.

http://www.bookrags.com/notes/mob/TOP3.htm

 

Ragusa, that's because, as I said,

And it's not like this is going to be taught as an accurate history of the world or anything. It's going to be taught as "knowledge of biblical content, characters, poetry, and narratives that are prerequisites to understanding contemporary society and culture, including literature, art, music, mores, oratory, and public policy".

 

I don't see much of a point about the bill, actually. As an elective class, I think it's allowed already - and if someone should make a "roadmap" about how these classes are structured, I think it should be the teachers or school organizations, not the state Senate. I think it's voter pandering, nothing else.

Still, I can't help but wonder if other religions will get similar treatment - I'm not familiar with how open public schools in the US are to niche electives, but I'd be surprised if there are similar classes about study of the Torah or Quran at the same level. Granted, Christianity has had more of an impact on America - but if we are looking from a simply social sciences perspective, I'd say the interpretations of Christianity are more important than the book itself. After all, the US' neighbors are also Christian countries, and they read the same (or nearly so) Bible.

 

NOG,
I live in a city that is nearly 2000 years old, and its history has been richly influenced by Christian themes and religion, to an extent that you probably cannot even begin to imagine. You don't need to tell me about the importance of such context to the understanding of history, literature art and even architecture. Now that importance is one thing.

Co-opting the issue and using it as a vessel to reintroduce mandatory religion classes into the school syllabus, by people who feel that religion has been wrongly excluded, is something else entirely, and to me it sounds just like that.

Religious indoctrination, kicked out of school at the front door, tries to sneak back in through the back door, respectably dressed up as lessons to provide religious 'context' and better understanding of the various translations of the bible. Aha. Sorry, if I remain unconvinced.

It has been tried before in similar ways, by quite incorrigible and persistent people, and I would not at all be surprised if is just what it looks, sounds and smells like: Stealth religion classes. Sorry, but for that you have voluntary Sunday school and considering the religious fervour in the US, there is no lack of attendance (and there they can talk creationism until they're blue in the face, rightly so because that is where it belongs).

 

Yes, well this is religion co-opted into conservative poltics. Most of these political fools couldn't care less about religion. How many of these so-called social conservatives have been caught in 3-ways, guy-on-guy relationships, affairs with hookers, whatever else. I've lost count.

This is not about art, literature, culture, or even religion. It's about conservative ideology; a particular form, which is based upon selective biblical passages and assembled into a poltical and social narrative. That narrative is used as blatant propaganda to restructure society and politics into a particular, exclusionary pattern. Remember Obama not being "Christian" enough? That he had to go to church on camera to satisfy the occupants in the echo chamber? While no one even knows if Sarah, "moma grisly," even goes to church, or even what church. I haven't seen any pictures [not that I really give a flip]. But this is hardly about anything "Christian," or religious, for that matter.

 

Shaman, I don't think teachers generally 'make roadmaps', so much as they 'trailblaze'. The important difference is that every teacher or principle can 'trailblaze' a unique path. That difference is important and useful in some cases, but it can also be dangerous, especially where a touchy issue like religion is concerned.

You're right, that is something else entirely. For example, it's not what this thread is about. Nothing here is mandatory, no matter what you believe.

 

NOG,
you don't disappoint and reliably miss the point: It's not just about it being mandatory or not. From the page you googled for your kind consideration:

Emphasis theirs.

Teaching only Hebrew scriptures and the Bible can reasonably interpreted - and it will be - as giving "preference ... to a religious sect, society or denomination; or to a particular creed, mode of worship or system of ecclesiastical polity" - under the pretext of providing knowledge of biblical content, characters, poetry, and narratives that are prerequisites to understanding contemporary society and culture - in a word - (stealth) religious indoctrination.

That one of the bill's sponsors, Mike Wilson (R), is General Manager of WCVK Christian Family Radio doesn't make that scenario any less plausible.

 

Oh, so I take it in that case the Hebrew text will not be taught in the context of the Jewish religion? I wonder which evangelical, wholly [holy?] Protestant, "Christian" instructors [ministers?] will prepare the lesson plans?

 

Well Chandos, it just so happens that for that particular subject seminary attendees are the most qualified teaching staff. Rabbis just have too narrow a field of expertise; they are overspecialised so to say.

 

Again, I don't see it as a religion class necessarily, though I do see your fears, Ragusa. It is possible to teach the content of the Bible, and its influence on English literature, without preaching or indoctrinating. As for other texts, I'll say what others have said: The Koran has not had anywhere near the same impact on English literature as the Bible. Nor has the Bhagavat Gita (pardon my ignorant spelling). I'm going to go out on a limb and say that in KY, any elective courses dealing with the Bible are likely to get a fair amount of enrolment. Elective classes dealing with other religious texts are not going to get much enrolment. That's not favoritism, that's just knowing your population's tastes and desires.

If the State were to create a framework for the classes that specifically inhibited any religious slant to the teaching, simply making the class be a "this is what the text says, some believe it, some don't, but that's irrelevant" sort of class, I think that would be best.