Cracker Squire has the goods from InsiderAdvantage.
Georgia’s public high schools would be allowed to offer an academic study of the Bible as an elective under legislation introduced Wednesday not [by] Republicans, whose base would seem to be most supportive of the idea, but by Democrats.
A trio of Democrats — Sens. Tim Golden of Valdosta, Doug Stoner of Smyrna and Kasim Reed of Atlanta — announced the legislation at a news conference, offering statements of approval of the proposal from some religious and education groups.
I could probably stand schools offering a broad religious studies class that included Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism, Worshippingnutsackism, and Whippingdefenselessanimalswithawetnoodleism, but not one that singles out Christianity. That’s some bullshit. I won’t vote for anyone who panders to that crowd. Are you listening Mark Taylor? Cathy Cox? Whomever my Rep. and Senator in Decatur is, whom I have yet to look up? I will not, under any circumstance, willingly vote for someone who wants to spend my tax dollars on a goddamn Bible Study class. Come out in favor of this legislation, and you’ve lost my vote. I’ll sit this one out or write myself in.
UPDATE: The AJC has its article (login). Bridget Gutierrex, the writer, should be fired. Check this sentence:
Policy and legal experts say educators long have been confused about whether teaching the Bible in public schools violates the so-called separation of church and state.
And…
Over at Blog for Democracy, political expedience apparently trumps ideology.
Can’t Georgia highschools offer these kinds of classes already? Sounds like pandering to me (big duh, right?)
I don’t see what the big deal is. So many “Christians” have no actual conception of what’s really in the Bible, what the context was when it was written, or even that the New Testament exists in many instances.
A well taught class (which admittedly is not guaranteed at this point) would probably make more true believers take a second look at what they’ve believed unflinchingly than convert non Christians to the cause.
Chris,
Is it possible the class would serve the purpose you describe? Perhaps. But it’s also possible it would turn into thinly-veiled proselytizing. If there’s even a small window of opportunity for that, it’s too much of a window for my tastes.
Georgia ranks, what, 47th or 48th in SAT scores among the states? And it’s more important to Stoner, et al, to use my tax dollars to teach a Bible study class than it is to hire more (and better) math and English instructors?
The whole thing comes off as pandering to the Christian Coalition and those of its ilk. I am not a strict partisan, and will not vote for anyone (whether they have a little D or a little R by their name) who votes for legislation to blur the line between church and state further.
That may be true, but is it the responsibility of public schools to ensure believers know enough about their religion? (And in this case - believers of one specific religion.) Georgia schools have enough problems with making sure students know basic reading, writing, and math skills as it is.
Like Rusty, I wouldn’t have a problem with schools offering a religious studies or comparative religion course. Such a course (if well-taught - but that’s a caveat with any course) would put religion in an historical context, expose students to more religions than just the one they follow, and demonstrate similarities among world religions. Not that I have an agenda, either - but it’s nice to think that a more inclusive view of religion might be a result. But then, I’m always for anything that exposes people to ideas, cultures, ways of thinking, etc. that are outside of the comfy little box of “normal” in which they’ve cloaked themselves.
It is a terrible idea and I am a conservative evangelical.
Ya know, I thought of this as an idea back in high school that I found particularly attractive. Perhaps it’s no surprise, then, that I went on to become a religious studies major in college.
That being said, the Senators certainly did not exclude the sort of class Amber and Rusty are talking about, and in fact encouraged it. All they’ve really done is authorize a textbook and a curriculum that passes constitutional muster–the textbook can be used as a historical class on the Bible (I took a class in college called “Jesus and the Gospels”–make no doubt, it was NOT proselytization…if anything, the exact opposite) or it could be used in the context of a comparative religions class.
Either way, and call me naive (I prefer ‘not cynical’), I find the premise that such a bill would automatically lead to proselytization to be extremely dubious, at best. Of all the religion classes I took at Emory (a technically Methodist school), not a single one of them was taught in a way that attempted to convince me to become a Christian.
Furthermore, why should we have a problem with this bill, but not a problem with religious studies courses at public universities in Georgia–indeed, courses on “The Bible” or “Jesus” or whatever else?
Finally, I don’t think one can doubt the impact the Bible has had on the history of western civilization–it is certainly difficult to fully understand a vast majority of the western canon without at least a basic understanding of the Bible. Kinda like how my freshman year in high school “Mythology” was required reading. So I think it DOES improve academic achievement on some level.
(consider this my non-lurking quote)
T, re:
Public high schools are funded mostly with property taxes, which are mandatory. Public universities in Georgia are funded mostly through tuition and lottery proceeds, which are not mandatory.
Dignan made a point on his blog that most teachers are not knowledgable enough about the Bible to teach about it (I agree with his conclusion, but not how he reached it), which means that new teachers would have to be hired specifically for the purpose of religious studies. Those would be salaries that could have gone to math and English teachers, who should be a higher priority in a state that ranks as low as Georgia in those basic subjects.
“That being said, the Senators certainly did not exclude the sort of class Amber and Rusty are talking about, and in fact encouraged it.”
That’s not true. The bill states that the curriculum shall “Not include teaching of religious doctrine or sectarian interpretation of the Bible or of texts from other religious or cultural traditions.”
Which means they can teach the Bible and only the Bible.
Rusty–I dunno, the FY07 budget still appropriates $1.9 billion. Perhaps not comparatively enormous, but still a decent sized chunk of change…And I read Dignan’s entry. I’m also not sure if I agree that you need a thorough understanding of ancient Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic in order to be able to teach a historical interpretation of the Bible. I still contend that a more thorough understanding of the historical role of the Bible is a boon to literary studies anyway.
Decaturguy-I don’t think that’s what your quote is saying. The curriculum shall not include teaching of religious doctrine or sectarian interpretation of…other religious or cultural traditions.
I think that line is trying to prevent the teaching of religious doctrine from the Bible or from other religious or cultural traditions. Which means they can’t take a sectarian approach to the Bible OR any of the other religious texts that they choose to incorporate. I was also at the press conference, and their words there seemed to be consistent with that sort of an interpretation.
I disagree. The stated purpose of the bill is to stody the Bible and its influence on literature, art, music, culture, and politics.
The Bible is the Bible. It is not the Koran or the Torah or even the Book of Morman.
I think this is a fantastic idea for schools to take the lead with. So many religious fanatics and kids that will grow up to be religious fanatics are completely unschooled in the bible until they are set upon by oppurtunistic Xtians looking to swell the ranks of their flock.
Not only would it give these kids and unbiased version of the good book, it would also teach them to read the bible without the agenda of so many modern Christian minority cults.
I’m not surpised your typical religious fundamentalist would be agains this, though. They tend to have a very narrow interpretation of scripture that has be communicated through “study” (read: Indoctrination) in an environment with two pages of commentary for every line of scripture.
Also, let’s be frank, knowledge of the bible is absolutely necessary in today’s Western Society. That’s not to say you have to believe or go about spreading the word, but it’s a matter of cultural literacy. You might as well not know any Shakespeare or Hawthorne or Poe.
[...] Rusty disagrees, which I understand, but I think is the wrong approach. [...]
Epon, I don’t disagree w/ you there, but I guess until “T” I tend toward the cynical side. I’m suspicious of the timing of this bill and how it would actually be carried out in schools. Look, I survived Georgia public schools as I know you did, and I don’t know about your experience, but in mine, the teachers ain’t all that bright. Let’s focus on making sure they know wtf they’re doing when it comes to teaching math, reading, etc. before we start hiring religion teachers who will probably be just as woefully untrained.
Does the state of Georgia currently prohibit this kind of class in schools? When I was in highschool, there was a “Bible as literature” class where the students would read only the Christian bible for a semester. It was an elective and sounded dull as dirt to me–so I didn’t take it. My highschool was in California, and I graduated in ‘93. I’m why I’m surprised that this is such a big deal in Georgia in 2006.
I don’t believe that a class on the bible should be mandatory for students, but neither do I have a big problem with it being offered. Honestly, I’d probably have a bigger problem with the class being offered if I were a Christian. I mean, do they really trust public schools to teach their children about their bible? Sounds like a dicey proposition to me. Especially coming from people who don’t even trust science teachers to teach their children science!
Anyway, like I said before, this issue is just political pandering and not even worthy of the attention it’s getting. I would be less likely to vote for anyone who introduced a bill like this into the legislature, but I can’t say it would necessarily be a make or break issue for me (depending on my choices).
Joseph,
As far as I know they cannot, since I never remember one being offered in Cobb County schools, of all places. But, I could be wrong.
A quick search finds this ad article from 2000:
I’m not sure how this opinion is any different than the “proposal” being made by the 3 Democrats.
I can’t imagine how or why a religious studies class that doesn’t endorse any particular relgion would be prohibited. Anyway, that’s neither here nor there - what concerns me about this bill is 1) the competency of the current crop of Georgia teachers to do a decent job of teaching it, and 2) why it needs to be a focus when there is such an obvious failure in the teaching of basic subjects.
Several people (here and in threads elsewhere) have mentioned the fact that colleges offer plenty of courses about Christianity, the Bible, etc. But anyone who is trying to seriously compare the run-of-the-mill Georgia public high school with a university is kidding themselves.
Ariel Hart, covering GDOT issues, has also used phrases like “so-called” and other phrases like that. Whoever said the media is liberal must have some serious condition of Mythomania.
Anyway, back to the subject of Bible study in public schools. I’ve heard rumblings about a textbook that was developed specifically for the purpose that Chris and eponymous talked about. I wish I could remember where I saw word about this textbook, but all the credentials I could find about it were perfectly legit.. or, at least impressive enough to give me some confidence it could work.
Of course, the credentials of every teacher for this course would also have to be scrutinized, but the textbook I heard about looked like a great start.
A class shouldn’t be offered because we’re worried about the quality of teachers to teach it? I’m sorry, but if an English or Social Studies teacher can’t teach “The Bible as Literature,” then Georgia is in deeper shit than I thought.
Alright, I am sorry but all I ever read about is “more money” for reading, writing and arithmatic. Which is funny that they are refferred to by these same people as the “3 R’s” and only 1 actually begins with a damn R.
I say teach the arts, teach religion, teach theoretical thought. Why you might ask. Because if we don’t, we soon won’t have anything to read or write about.
I have no problem “teaching” anything as long as you are not “preaching” anything. If the class is regulated as much as all the other classes are at the high school level then there is no problem that it will become preaching. Teachers are barely allowed to teach these days let alone preach at the public school level.
Now it is completely different at the collegiate level. I refuse to address the collegiate level. I am only reffering to public schools K-12.
I’ve got news for you: Georgia is in much deeper shit than you thought.
Amber: if it’s that bad, then we have bigger fish to fry than this stupid Bible class thing.
My point exactly!
Tell the truth. You would not object if your local school had a class in “the sacred texts of Hinudism.” Its christianity you can’t stand.
Actually, Lance, I would object to a strictly Hinduism class… or any class that singled out a single religion. But you’re right that I can’t stand Christianity.
And before anyone starts shouting, “They have [insert religion here]-only classes at universities!!” I would like to clarify that those classes adress the topic from a strictly academic perspective. If that’s what a class is doing, I have no problem with it, although I admit that I am highly suspicious of these classes in high school. High school and college are very different. Plus, in college you can study Judaism, or Christianity, or Hinduism, or Islam… There are just so many things to make me go “Hmmmm” with this bill.
So let’s consider the school district where the school board tried to mandate stickers on science texts declaring how ‘evolution is a theory, not a fact’. Does anyone really think that such a class would be taught without proselytizing in such a setting?
If teachers were reprimanded for teaching the class improperly, I daresay it would be more likely that it would be for being too agnostic than for being too evangelistic…
I was written up this year for teaching intellegent design…what bugged me is that I covered everything I could think of…Ranlielism(sp?), Flying Spagetti Monster, Intellegent Design(we looked at creation stories from many cultures, both eastern and western) but Big Bang is the only state tested standard so that is the only thing i’m supposed to teach. never mind that it was a great 3 days of debate and discussion and some of the best essays my kids have ever written.
God forbid I get them to think for themselves.
In what capacity?