Stirring the Pot ;)

[Charlie Hatchett]

TIME editors endorse Bible education in schools
April 2, 2007

We can’t say it’s the most surprising thing we’ve read in some time, but it’s close: TIME magazine, on the cover of last week’s U.S. edition, vows to explain “why we should teach the Bible in public school (but very, very carefully).” In the article, titled “The Case for Teaching the Bible,” TIME senior religion writer David van Biema outlines the current state of Bible education in America’s public classrooms and offers several reasons why Bible education should be welcomed in public schools nationwide.

The role of religion in American life has become such a much-discussed topic that TIME’s rival publication Newsweek magazine (the U.S. edition) has similar articles in its just-released issue, including the results of a recent national poll, which revealed that: “Nearly half (48 percent) of the public rejects the scientific theory of evolution; one-third (34 percent) of college graduates say they accept the Biblical account of creation as fact”1—this finding (which mirrors the results of recent Gallup polls) strongly suggests that biblical creation organizations in America have had an impact in stemming the tide of evolutionary indoctrination in public schools, science museums, and the secular media.

Van Biema of TIME begins his piece with brief coverage of a Texas Bible class offered at a public school. The course “has its share of conservative Christians,” but is not without at least one atheist; two interviewed students indicate that they took the course to ward off their ignorance of the Bible—even though the mother of one is a Sunday school teacher.

But is it legal?
Of course, the question at the top of many minds is: is it legal? Decades of a misconstrued “separation of church and state” idea (the words are not found in the Constitution) have led many Americans to wrongly assume any course dealing with the Bible must be against the Constitution. Van Biema cites the 1948 Supreme Court case McCollum v. Board of Education, in whose concurring opinion Justice Robert Jackson wrote, “One can hardly respect the system of education that would leave the student wholly ignorant of the currents of religious thought that move the world society for ... which he is being prepared.”

Additionally, Van Biema recalls a clarification Justice Arthur Goldberg presented in his response to 1963’s Abington Township School District v. Schempp (which outlawed public school prayer): teaching about religion is permissible, but the teaching of religion isn’t. The conclusion: “It is beyond question that it is possible to teach a course about the Bible that is constitutional,” according to Marc Stern, general counsel for the American Jewish Congress.

So why teach the Bible?
The article continues by giving several reasons to teach the Bible. Van Biema points out that the Bible is “the most influential book ever written,” given its status as the best-selling book of the year every year and its role as centerpiece to the world’s largest religion (although, of course, Christian views on the Bible vary from absolute reverence to vague “respect”). Van Biema also cites the Bible’s importance in understanding literature and history (including references in famous speeches, such as Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I Have a Dream” speech).

Despite such good reasons, public school Bible education draws expected attacks from many. For example, lawyer Wendy Kaminer argues,“If you teach the Bible outside of close conjunction with other religions, then it becomes a kind of promotion of the majority faith. It becomes too hard for most folks to draw the line between teaching and preaching.” (One wonders if Ms. Kaminer would apply this logic to the teaching of theories on the origin of life as well—after all, the worldview of evolution is taught outside of “close conjunction” with other theories on life’s origin!) And Joe Conn and Rob Boston of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State are worried how schools will find teachers that can and will give the Bible “secular treatment.”

Van Biema concludes positively after considering the comments of Stephen Prothero, Boston University religion department chair. “Bad courses will be taught. People will teach it as a Sunday school class. And we’ll do what we always do when unconstitutional stuff happens in America. We’ll get a court to tell us what to do, and then we’ll fix it.”

What does AiG think?
Despite our enthusiasm for promoting biblical literacy, Bible education in public schools is a two-edged (at minimum) sword. On one hand, the Bible is clearly prominent enough in society to merit students’ study of its content; even atheists have a difficult time denying this argument. More Bible education will, at the very least, allow individuals to better understand apologetic arguments and be more familiar with the gospel message. And certainly, reading the first eleven chapters of Genesis puts one on better footing to understand the creation/evolution debate.

With all this going for it, what’s the downside? First, we wonder—similar to some people quoted in the article—how easy it will be for educators to fairly present biblical content without revealing (even unintentionally) their own worldviews. (It’s important to remember that everyone has some presupposed worldview.) Objective instruction could especially be a problem if class sessions descend into outright debate.

We also fear that pro-Bible and anti-Bible biases will be handled differently. For instance, the slightest teacher comment seen as favoring the Bible may be grounds for dismissal, whereas teachers may be given carte blanche to criticize the Bible without any repercussions or mere hand-slapping. While Christian students may see through a teacher’s ridiculing of the Bible, other students may, without realizing it, accept a teacher’s criticisms as objective fact.

This possibility highlights the fact that we cannot rely on public schools to in any way educate young people adequately about the Bible. Even if such Bible education becomes more widespread, the church and Christian parents retain responsibility for teaching the Bible and evangelizing society, and training up children to understand the Bible.

All that said, we do not want to exaggerate potential problems with Bible ed. programs; we believe that the Bible is fascinating enough (and God’s Spirit powerful enough, and the gospel wonderful enough!) to enrapture students who are exposed to the Word of God in these classes, and for that reason, and in spite of the potential hazards, public school Bible education could be an important element in reclaiming otherwise lost generations.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2007/0402time.asp

[john]

I will begin by saying that the pathetic administrivia (although costing us billions of $$) which somehow passes for education these days can only be described as "drinking the koolaid".

Assuming kids and young people were actually schooled in the exercise of thinking - and - godalmighty!, INDEPENDENT THINKING, you might have a point.

Any wellplanned religious curriculum might include the koran, the sutras, the medieval protestant split, the tao, buddhist texts..........perhaps even the nag hammadi gospels and cave paintings. And so on.

But, naah. That would be UNAMERICAN.

And, besides, because our present educational system is dedicated entirely to preserving its own budget, the rare student who learns to think learns that process from individuals and sources entirely outside the educational system.

So. Back to public eddication and the bible. At this point in the fray its simply whether we will allow indoctrination - the imposition of set viewpoints - into the educational system.

I think you already have a hunch where I stand on this.


john

[Minimalist]

I wouldn't trust much from a site called "Answers In Genesis." That's Arch-class nonsense.

I do not see how even Time's original idea could be done in practice.

[Minimalist]

BTW...

Want to borrow this?

[Forum Monk]

the pathetic administrivia ... which somehow passes for education these days can only be described as "drinking the koolaid".

schooled in the exercise of thinking - and - godalmighty!, INDEPENDENT THINKING, you might have a point.

our present educational system is dedicated entirely to preserving its own budget...

Back to public eddication and the bible. ... its simply whether we will allow indoctrination - the imposition of set viewpoints - into the educational system.

No comments. I have quoted you because I think you are a wordsmith.
Even when I disagree, I still love the way you say it.

[Minimalist]

With what passes for public education in this country I must agree with John.

[john]

the pathetic administrivia ... which somehow passes for education these days can only be described as "drinking the koolaid".

schooled in the exercise of thinking - and - godalmighty!, INDEPENDENT THINKING, you might have a point.

our present educational system is dedicated entirely to preserving its own budget...

Back to public eddication and the bible. ... its simply whether we will allow indoctrination - the imposition of set viewpoints - into the educational system.

No comments. I have quoted you because I think you are a wordsmith.
Even when I disagree, I still love the way you say it.

You prevaricate.


The issues are plain real & ugly.

Either you enforce an "intellectual" lockstep as a subsitute for real thinking.................or

you think.


Note to the side:

Hunting/gathering societies displayed a phenomenal ability for adaptive thinking.

Industrial society displays a habitual ability for repetitive thinking. Cultural lock.

If you haven't already, read the bicameral mind ........... my point is post industrial society has lost the ability for adaptive thinking and is locked into reactive response to an assumed socio/economic order which is presumed to be dominant.

Nothiing could be further from the truth.



john

[Tech]

A little sense on this side of the pond:

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, has stepped into the controversy between religious fundamentalists and scientists by saying that he does not believe that creationism - the Bible-based account of the origins of the world - should be taught in schools.
Giving his first, wide-ranging, interview at Lambeth Palace, the archbishop was emphatic in his criticism of creationism being taught in the classroom, as is happening in two city academies founded by the evangelical Christian businessman Sir Peter Vardy and several other schools.
The debate over creationism or its slightly more sophisticated offshoot, so-called "intelligent design" (ID) which argues that creation is so complex that an intelligent - religious - force must have directed it, has provoked divisions in Britain but nothing like the vehemence or politicisation of the debate in the US. There, under pressure from the religious right, some states are considering giving ID equal prominence to Darwinism, the generally scientifically accepted account of the evolution of species. Most scientists believe that ID is little more than an attempt to smuggle fundamentalist Christianity into science teaching.

States from Ohio to California are considering placing ID it on the curriculum, with President George Bush telling reporters last August that "both sides ought to be properly taught ... so people can understand what the debate is about." The archbishop's remarks place him firmly on the side of science.

[Charlie Hatchett]

BTW...

Want to borrow this?

I love that emoticon.

Well, the way I look at the issue, if the classes are elective, then no harm is done. Almost every major university in the U.S. has at least Old Testament and New Testament elective classes.

[Digit]

Yes Tech, but Williams is a right pillock any way!
The trouble with removing religious education from schools is that the geniuses have failed to find any sort of standards to teach in place of it.
I could be utterly wrong, but to me there seems to be a direct correlation between loss of religion and the rise in all forms of anti social behaviour in the UK

[Forum Monk]

In my opinion, Biblical creationism and ID fails to present any science suitable for class room instruction (in a science class). Since, at present, there is no viable alternative, the word theory is rarely used in regard to evolutionism. This is what is disturbing to Christians: evolution has become a defacto law. The same can be said of the 'big bang' theory and plate tectonics is rapidly achieving the same status.

As for moral instruction, I can't help but think Digit's comments are exactly right. Most youth do not receive any moral instruction outside of school. When Judeo-Christian principles were removed from the curriculum, nothing was substituted. I am of the opinin, that children should be taught right from wrong by their parents but we now have a generation of parents who, themselves, never had the benefit of moral instruction in school or home. Lord help us.

[Minimalist]

A lot of people have trouble differentiating the concept of a scientific "theory" from a "wild-ass guess."

Most scientists believe that ID is little more than an attempt to smuggle fundamentalist Christianity into science teaching.

They would be correct.

[Forum Monk]

Either you enforce an "intellectual" lockstep as a subsitute for real thinking.................or

you think.
...
john

John: you, I and most on this board fall into the latter group and we rarely agree. Think what a mess it would be if everyone were "thinkers".

[Minimalist]

When Judeo-Christian principles were removed from the curriculum, nothing was substituted.

What principles are those, I wonder?

The ones about how to own and beat slaves, or, killing people for working on the sabbath, etc....etc.

Seems to me we could do with a lot less judgmentalism as a society...not more.

[Digit]

Thou shalt not kill,
Thou shalt not steal,
Thou shalt not bear false witness,
etc etc etc.