7.19.2008
The Trouble of Teaching Biblical Content
Ah Texas, outside of South Carolina, it is hard to think of a state with more percolating church-state issues. Their judges sanction religiously-motivated torture of teenage girls, they pass laws that their own research tells them will privilege Christian expression, and they aren't too keen on the religious freedom of non-Christian faiths. So is it any wonder that they passed a controversial law mandating a Bible-study elective in their public schools, or that schools taking advantage of this new freedom are abusing it?
"Mark Chancey, associate professor in religious studies at Southern Methodist University, has studied Bible classes already offered in about 25 districts for the Texas Freedom Network. The study found most of the courses were explicitly devotional with almost exclusively Christian, usually Protestant, perspectives. It also found that most were taught by teachers with no academic training in biblical, religious or theological studies and who were not familiar with the issues of separation of church and state. 'Some classes promote creation science. Some classes denigrate Judaism. Some classes explicitly encourage students to convert to Christianity or to adopt Christian devotional practices,' Chancey said. 'This is all well documented, and the board knows it.'"
You can read Mark Chancey's full report, here. The Texas Freedom Network, far from being an atheist organization, actually supported the legislation that allowed for Bible-based electives. Their problem is that the Texas State Board of Education passed implementation guidelines that they claim throws school districts and teachers "under the bus" due to vague language that will put schools on a collision course for multiple lawsuits.
"The board majority then rammed through a set of vague standards that fail to offer a shred of guidance about the specific content that should be in these courses. Based on extensive research, we know for a fact that classes already based on these general standards in Texas school districts fail to meet even minimal standards for academic rigor. Even worse, those public school districts — sometimes unknowingly — create courses that promote the religious beliefs of the teacher and outside religious groups over those of the students, their families and other taxpayers."
Texas State Attorney General Greg Abbott seems rather unconcerned about these implementation guidelines, saying they "pass constitutional muster". Though it is hard to see how he could know that, since classes developed under the new guidelines haven't been submitted, or tested in a court of law.
The real problem with this law, these guidelines, and "elective Bible study" is that they weren't created in good faith. They were simply another salvo in the ongoing "culture war" between the forces of "godless secularism" and those batting for team Jesus. A real alternative to this conflict would have been to replace "Bible study" with a general religious education course. Spanning history, and including texts as varied as the Iliad & Odyssey, the Bhagavad Gita, the Talmud, the Qur'an, the Tripi?aka, and the Bible. Favoring none, and exploring how these different texts have shaped history, art, and culture.
Instead of a true learning experience concerning religion, we have instead a powder keg of potential lawsuits, sectarian Christian teachers using already existing classes as a cudgel, and students having to pick between no exploration of religion at all, or thinly veiled Christian indoctrination. Religious minorities, as per the usual, are all but silenced in this debate. This is a clear example of why exclusively Bible-oriented classes need to be opposed. Not because we fear the Bible, or hate Christianity, be because such policies almost always lead to abuses, and allow the Christian majority to run roughshod over the freedoms of non-Christians.
Labels: Bible, Christianity, law, litigation, Religion, schools, Texas
Comments:
Once again, you've posted a great editorial, but I can't provide a specific link to it on my blogsite. If there is a way to reference individual articles, I'd like to know how.
Thanks for your great insights and lucid style.
-Morning Angel
The Perma-link for this page is:
http://www.wildhunt.org/2008/07/trouble-of-teaching-biblical-content.html
In the future, all perma-links for my posts can be found at the bottom of the post where the time of posting is. So for this post, if you clicked on "9:22 AM", it would take you to the specific page link.
Cheers,
- Jason
I personally think kids should be taught Christianity 24/7 - it's the best way to make 'em atheists (especially "penal substitution" theology) :D
I think all beliefs should be treated the same and persons should be given equal time to worship or not worship as they please even in schools. a person has a right to believe as they please and should not be told they cant worship whether it be christian or Pagan.
Having done quite a bit of research on this very subject recently, I can say that while the guidelines go a long way toward establishing what is acceptable and what is not, I would agree that it's not specific enough. What must be included are examples of what would be permissible and what would not be. (The one I've used most often is: "Jesus Christ died for your sins" versus "Christians believe that Jesus Christ died for your sins." One is proselytizing, the other is simply statement of fact.)
The problem here stems not just from what guidelines have been established, but in actual implementation. While teaching about religion is Constitutional (see Abington Township vs Schempp), what generally happens is a lack of oversight and concern on the state and schoolboard level, particularly when there is definitely more of an agenda and less of a concern for the students' welfare and education. (Really, more of these educators and community leaders need to keep abreast of the news and literature surrounding the teaching of religion before seriously sitting down to decide and develop any plans for implementation. The lawsuits stemming from the National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools's offered curriculum alone should have been warning enough to step carefully. Even if not, there is such a wealth of material out there that there is no excuse for them not to do some research first.)
I personally would much prefer to have all religions taught; horizons are significantly broadened this way, and lend quite a depth to education. Unfortunately, it would appear that before that step can be taken, classes on the Bible will be taught first. It only makes sense, then, that they be offered in the way they're supposed to be: without prejudice, either for or against.
Post a Comment
Once again, you've posted a great editorial, but I can't provide a specific link to it on my blogsite. If there is a way to reference individual articles, I'd like to know how.
Thanks for your great insights and lucid style.
-Morning Angel
The Perma-link for this page is:
http://www.wildhunt.org/2008/07/trouble-of-teaching-biblical-content.html
In the future, all perma-links for my posts can be found at the bottom of the post where the time of posting is. So for this post, if you clicked on "9:22 AM", it would take you to the specific page link.
Cheers,
- Jason
I personally think kids should be taught Christianity 24/7 - it's the best way to make 'em atheists (especially "penal substitution" theology) :D
I think all beliefs should be treated the same and persons should be given equal time to worship or not worship as they please even in schools. a person has a right to believe as they please and should not be told they cant worship whether it be christian or Pagan.
Having done quite a bit of research on this very subject recently, I can say that while the guidelines go a long way toward establishing what is acceptable and what is not, I would agree that it's not specific enough. What must be included are examples of what would be permissible and what would not be. (The one I've used most often is: "Jesus Christ died for your sins" versus "Christians believe that Jesus Christ died for your sins." One is proselytizing, the other is simply statement of fact.)
The problem here stems not just from what guidelines have been established, but in actual implementation. While teaching about religion is Constitutional (see Abington Township vs Schempp), what generally happens is a lack of oversight and concern on the state and schoolboard level, particularly when there is definitely more of an agenda and less of a concern for the students' welfare and education. (Really, more of these educators and community leaders need to keep abreast of the news and literature surrounding the teaching of religion before seriously sitting down to decide and develop any plans for implementation. The lawsuits stemming from the National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools's offered curriculum alone should have been warning enough to step carefully. Even if not, there is such a wealth of material out there that there is no excuse for them not to do some research first.)
I personally would much prefer to have all religions taught; horizons are significantly broadened this way, and lend quite a depth to education. Unfortunately, it would appear that before that step can be taken, classes on the Bible will be taught first. It only makes sense, then, that they be offered in the way they're supposed to be: without prejudice, either for or against.
Links to this post:
