Alot has been said by both arach and randman while I was out, so I will write this post in response to points raised by both.
I am not against teaching history, and I am not against teaching how religion fit into history. I am not against teaching literature, and I am not against teaching how religious literature fits into literature.
But something else is going on here entirely, especially when the original position taken was that without knowledge of the Bible from the aspect of a believer (which has still remained conveniently undefined) then one has a deficit in knowledge, both in history and literature.
While one can certainly argue that such instruction might add to a liberal education (indeed that's how I took it myself) it's absence does not detract from education one iota.
There is absolutely no reason one needs to understand what is in the Bible, particularly the sections that are LITERATURE, in order to understand history. While those in the past were Xian, they were of various denominations. Jefferson himself cut up the Bible to create his own, by removing what he viewed as crap.
Actually that starts the ball rolling right there... what version? That is on top of what denomination's interpretation of which version? And should people then also read the books which were excluded from the Bible?
In order to understand history all one needs to know is that people did things, not exactly what they were reading. That doesn't hurt, but it doesn't hurt not to know it either. Indeed, it is my guess Xians will not be allowing children to read religious literature of those groups predating and perhaps directly opposed to Xians.
There was a suggestion that such a thing could be allowed AFTER full years of indoctrination in the Bible, but why would that be if the question is teaching history?
But I digress. In the end there is only so much time that a public school can spend on any subject. There is absolutely no importance about the Bible, such that schools have to spend more than a minute (that is mention that it was there and believed by such and such a group) on its part in and as history.
Other nations and cultures produce fantastically functional kids (the US is getting its ass kicked academically already) without such education. That suggests there is no connection between teaching the Bible and better functioning students and civilians.
On the subject of literature. Certainly some passages COULD be taught as literature. The problem is the entire book IS NOT LITERATURE. It is bizarre to me that people are seriously treating this conception as plausible. It contains sections that are prose, sections that are poetry, sections that are historical lists, and sections that are sets of laws. Hell some parts are simply letters from some body to some body else!
The Bible is a COLLECTION of different things for use by a specific group of people.
Given that no passages were originally written in English, I am uncertain how it is to be a part of teaching english. I mean absolutely none of my mandatory english classes had me reading "literature" except some specific sets to show ways of writing, like iambic pentameter. The greeks were brought up by rand... I never read greeks at all until I was in college and decided to read them on my own. Who read greek literature as part of learning English?
The only time I ever read "literature" was part of elective courses. They were not fundamentals for public education, but electives. Even then, I did not have greek or latin classics (though some may have). I agree that this might be a format for teaching the sections of the bible as lit just as any other kind. Why not?
That is a far cry however from mandatory teaching of a single interpretation (theology) of the Bible in order to provide basic fundamental education, and without it some one is lacking.
Somewhere in here randman suggested that science is nice for scientists, but not much worth for regular people. Science is what drives everything we do in the real world. Yes I agree that history is important, but one must understand how one gains knowledge, and what we have accumulated as knowledge, in order to make good decisions.
Learning a history without understanding how good choices were made, how knowledge was gained, is kind of empty isn't it?
And in suggesting such a thing, isn't the true bias seen? Science isn't a part of history? How can we truly understand the building of civilizations, which has been as much about technology and knowledge as literature, without the history of science and what science says? Particularly US history is steeped in science.
The founding fathers were men of the enlightenment, and particularly champions of science and scientific method. The industrial revolution was based in science. All of our successes within the 20th century were based in science.
The Bible, in contrast, played a much lesser role in recent history, or how civilization has grown in ability and knowledge. Really, which is more important when discussing what led the US to its role as superpower... the Bible or scientific knowledge?
Right now other nations are kicking our ass in science and math. History is great, but if our educational system gets set up to look only at the past, we are not going to have much of a future.
I might also repoint out something I tried to raise earlier. THE BIBLE CAN BE READ IN CHURCH. That is if one cannot bring onesself to read it on ones own. IF it is so important, you can teach your kids about the Bible for many more than 4-5 years. Why on earth would theological aspects need to be brought into a time period that the public needs to spend on getting basic knowledge and skills to their kids?
But let me end with a WMD on this teaching the Bible in public school stuff. If we have problems with children seeing or reading about sex, how on earth could it ever be appropriate to teach the Bible mandatorily to anyone under 18?
It is filled with all sorts of lewd activity, and some patently graphic language regarding sex including underage sex? We are being told that children should not have health education courses which instruct children about sexual organs or how to maintain sexual health. Kids are able to get passes out of such classes by fundie parents. But we are supposed to have all children read and discuss passages stating that girls who do not have their hymens break on their wedding night are able to be stoned? Indeed we HAVE to teach them what homosexuality, incest, fornication, and masturbation is? I thought that the very mention of such things to kids was harmful as it raises an interest they may not have.
The hypocrisy seems to know no bounds here.
holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
™ Version 4.2