Bible In School?

[Crocolyle]

Because the evolution debate thread has proved to be disappointing, what are everyone's thoughts on Bibles in English classes? Since so much of literature draws from the Bible and the archetypes established in it and the Bible has many interesting stories referenced throughout Western Culture, does the Bible belong in the English classes in elementary schools based on cultural, historical, and literary significance? Or is this just another attempt to bring religion into schools?

[Midnight_Moon]

I don't think bring your religion into school would be bad. I mean no one gets in trouble for wearing crosses or saying the word "God". If you think that bring a Bible in would be best for your English class, I would probably ask the teacher first then decide after that.

[Shaun]

Because the evolution debate thread has proved to be disappointing, what are everyone's thoughts on Bibles in English classes? Since so much of literature draws from the Bible and the archetypes established in it and the Bible has many interesting stories referenced throughout Western Culture, does the Bible belong in the English classes in elementary schools based on cultural, historical, and literary significance? Or is this just another attempt to bring religion into schools?

Any and all inclusion of religion into a public school environment, whether elementary school or high school, should never be allowed. You can do whatever you want in a private school (as long as it follows the law), but you cannot subject people to ONE religion unless you are willing to give equal time and treatment to other religions, including the Pantheon, Hinduism, Islam, Scientology (since it is technically a registered religion), Jedi (the same reason as Scientology), and a myriad of others. By equal treatment that means you have to give each its space and treat it just as credibly as you would the others. You can't show a bias towards one or you're basically pushing a religious ideology.
The fact is that religion doesn't belong in public school systems. What you do personally is fine. You can bring a cross to school, you can be religious, you can say you believe in God, but teachers and schools cannot support the inclusion of religion by fostering programs that spread religious belief in an academic environment that is not, as a standard, set in a religious field. Separation of church and state applies here because public schools are managed by the state and therefore are a state institution.
I can see entirely what you mean by asking this question, Croc. I understand that the Bible is extremely influential, but I think the problem with putting the Bible into public schools in any fashion is that you have to grant the same access to other religious texts. The Koran has been influential as well, and other documents too. I think if you want to study the Bible as a literary form you should do so at college level. People can learn about the Bible at home or at Church.

[Rafael Domination]

Education at school, Religion at church. That's that way it should be.

[Shaun]

See? Religious people do have some sense left :P. Just fooling, Raf :P

[Rafael Domination]

Still, there are professors at school and college who will not hesitate to confront a Christian about their beliefs even if it's out of context with what the class is learning. They're going to have to watch out for Azrael if they try that on me ^^

[Nyx]

Education at school, Religion at church. That's that way it should be.

I love how you said that, I couldn't agree more.

[Shaun]

Still, there are professors at school and college who will not hesitate to confront a Christian about their beliefs even if it's out of context with what the class is learning. They're going to have to watch out for Azrael if they try that on me ^^

Well, that might very well happen when you go to college and you're going to have to be prepared to defend yourself, particularly if you're going into the sciences. The burden of proof lies on you to prove that God exists. Good luck with that.

[Rafael Domination]

Thanks...but I think I'd rather not debate with fools. :P

[Shaun]

They're not fools, they just simply don't see whatever it is that you see. For them, there's just no proof.
By the way, most evolutionists do believe in God...it's a small, loud-mouthed group that don't. I think there's a common misconception that evolutionists are atheists. Quite the opposite actually. I'm an evolutionist and I'm an agnostic :P, then again that's not the same as believing in God I guess.

[Rafael Domination]

Quite right...and then again there are a bunch of perfectly sane people who know how to back their faith and science up without trying to please the masses. Being a teen, I'm not quite on that level yet, but am quite capable of calling upon such council when it really matters.

[Crocolyle]

Though stories in the Bible can be taught in the school, religion shouldn't be taught--if that makes sense. In order to understand Western Literature--Paradise Lost, Melville, Hawthorne, Puritan writings, Shakespeare, and other stories that follow the great archetypes established in it--an understanding of the Bible and certain Bible stories is absolutely necessary.

The difference between the Koran and the Bible is that the Koran has only minimally influenced early Western Literature. Maybe there's a place in history class where part of the Koran could be implemented, but we should not be trying to insert religious text into the schools; but the importance of knowing the ancient scripture that has virtually shaped and defined the culture of the western world is a vital part of the education process. No, the Bible should not be taught in schools as truth, should not be taught as an answer, should not be taught as religion--it should be taught as what I think it really is, good literature that has remained the one constant influence on Western fiction.

Reading Rappaccini's Daughter by Hawthorne is great. So what if the parallels with the tale of Adam and Eve can't be mentioned in an English class as the story Hawthorne is parodying. Milton's Paradise Lost? Does the class really need to understand Satan's fall from Grace and its significance? What of the Purtian's providential history? Should we just ignore the "providential" part? To ignore the impact of the Bible on western thought and to examine it as a secular text is to deprive our children of the education vital to have in the Western World.

We can teach Greco-Roman myths. Can't we also teach the Christian ones?

[Shaun]

Though stories in the Bible can be taught in the school, religion shouldn't be taught--if that makes sense. In order to understand Western Literature--Paradise Lost, Melville, Hawthorne, Puritan writings, Shakespeare, and other stories that follow the great archetypes established in it--an understanding of the Bible and certain Bible stories is absolutely necessary.

The difference between the Koran and the Bible is that the Koran has only minimally influenced early Western Literature. Maybe there's a place in history class where part of the Koran could be implemented, but we should not be trying to insert religious text into the schools; but the importance of knowing the ancient scripture that has virtually shaped and defined the culture of the western world is a vital part of the education process. No, the Bible should not be taught in schools as truth, should not be taught as an answer, should not be taught as religion--it should be taught as what I think it really is, good literature that has remained the one constant influence on Western fiction.

Reading Rappaccini's Daughter by Hawthorne is great. So what if the parallels with the tale of Adam and Eve can't be mentioned in an English class as the story Hawthorne is parodying. Milton's Paradise Lost? Does the class really need to understand Satan's fall from Grace and its significance? What of the Purtian's providential history? Should we just ignore the "providential" part? To ignore the impact of the Bible on western thought and to examine it as a secular text is to deprive our children of the education vital to have in the Western World.

We can teach Greco-Roman myths. Can't we also teach the Christian ones?

The answer to all this is: no.
We teach Greco-Roman myths because they are...myths. Everyone thinks they are and nobody believes in it. Myths are myths.
Leave the discussion of Biblical things to church or to later stages of education. You don't need to teach Paradise Lost in High School. There's a lot of things you don't need to teach. Leave it out.

[Crocolyle]

Deprive Western children of their own culture, and what has shaped it for nearly two-thousand years, even if it's taught in a non-religious context? You have to throw out much of British literature, most of American Puritan literature (Anne Bradstreet, Winthrop, Bradford, Samuel Seward, "Day of Doom," the Primer, etc), Moby Dick (Who's Ahab? Who's Ishmael? Who's Elijah?), the Scarlet Letter, Dessa Rose (Adam Nehemiah), Emily Dickinson (She was borderline atheist, but her poetry is filled with critique of the Bible and the religious), and much, much, much more. It's impossible to understand literature without understanding the culture and context in which it was written.

Just because religion is taboo, does not mean you should to bowdlerize Literature and History to fit your politically correct agenda. This is not a question of the separation of church and state, or of implementing an ideology into the school system, because you cannot doubt the effect religious tales and parables have had on world cultures. The politically correct can pretend that religion does not exist and can pretend knowledge of religion can be removed, despite the vital necessity of knowing its secular value and profound effect on culture and thought.

[Shaun]

Deprive Western children of their own culture, and what has shaped it for nearly two-thousand years, even if it's taught in a non-religious context? You have to throw out much of British literature, most of American Puritan literature (Anne Bradstreet, Winthrop, Bradford, Samuel Seward, "Day of Doom," the Primer, etc), Moby Dick (Who's Ahab? Who's Ishmael? Who's Elijah?), the Scarlet Letter, Dessa Rose (Adam Nehemiah), Emily Dickinson (She was borderline atheist, but her poetry is filled with critique of the Bible and the religious), and much, much, much more. It's impossible to understand literature without understanding the culture and context in which it was written.

Just because religion is taboo, does not mean you should to bowdlerize Literature and History to fit your politically correct agenda. This is not a question of the separation of church and state, or of implementing an ideology into the school system, because you cannot doubt the effect religious tales and parables have had on world cultures. The politically correct can pretend that religion does not exist and can pretend knowledge of religion can be removed, despite the vital necessity of knowing its secular value and profound effect on culture and thought.

Depriving them of such culture would be implementing laws that don't allow them to learn about religion in their home or at Church, etc. This is entirely the opposite. Separation of Church and State is the entire question and should be upheld. It has nothing to do with political agenda. You are asking me to accept the implementation of religious doctrine into public schools just because the Bible was influential. If kids want to learn about that stuff, they can do it on their own time, or they can go to college for it. You learn a lot about the Bible in literature courses at the college level. I've read Genesis at least 7 times now in lit courses at the uni level.
It's not pretending religion doesn't exist, it's maintaining that religion doesn't belong in schools in any form or capacity. It's not vital to read the Bible in class. There's no need for it. All you need to know is that there are Christians and Hindus and what not and where they come from and what they did in the past (colonization, etc.). You don't need to examine religious doctrine. Leave that to those who want to go to the next stage.

Besides, I know for a fact that you don't need to read the damned Bible to get the social context in literature. It's not that hard for children to grasp what "atheist" means, or "Christian" for that matter. There's no reason the Bible needs to get mixed into all of that. There's also the fact that these kids are not going to be doing the indepth analysis of literature that you think they are going to be doing. From a university level standpoint it is necessary to have read the Bible since issues in the Bible lie in the background of a lot of literature, but kids aren't looking at stuff like that. They're looking at the surface and the first few layers of the literary form. That's the same for High School. You go to entirely different levels of analysis in university level literature work. I know, I'm doing it now, and it's a lot more complex than what I did in High School and I'm glad I didn't do it in High School or I wouldn't be interested in literature at all.

[Lykaios]

I have never heard of the Bible in English classes, but in RE, sure.

I think we should be taught about religions at school and then taught to think about your own morals and ideas, that doesn't have to be a belief in God, just what you believe in yourself about the world and how to treat people and situation. Having values and morals is a good thing but sadly, not many people (where I live anyway) have them.

I used to go to a school where in RE, the above was taught and the kids knew what they believed, whether or not in a religion. They knew to respect other's opinions and beliefs. But where I live now, RE is ust the ground facts about religions and most of the people I know have no idea about their values or anything.

I told a friend I was a Christian and she just said "I hate Christians" (funilly enough not rudely) I asked her why and she said she didn't know why.

I think that because places and countries are now becomming more mult-cultural then we should be taught about them and their beliefs as well as ourselves.

[Crocolyle]

Depriving them of such culture would be implementing laws that don't allow them to learn about religion in their home or at Church, etc. This is entirely the opposite. Separation of Church and State is the entire question and should be upheld. It has nothing to do with political agenda. You are asking me to accept the implementation of religious doctrine into public schools just because the Bible was influential. If kids want to learn about that stuff, they can do it on their own time, or they can go to college for it. You learn a lot about the Bible in literature courses at the college level. I've read Genesis at least 7 times now in lit courses at the uni level.
It is not the implementation of religion--it is the reading of religious texts to understand allusions in Literature, without which students would not be able to get without some rudimentary biblical knowledge. I never said doctrine or dogma--something that's completely different from religious texts. As an English major at the college level, I have also had to consult the Bible several times in my history and literature courses. I also had to in high school (for the record, I'm an atheist and it did not affect my disbelief).

It's not pretending religion doesn't exist, it's maintaining that religion doesn't belong in schools in any form or capacity. It's not vital to read the Bible in class. There's no need for it. All you need to know is that there are Christians and Hindus and what not and where they come from and what they did in the past (colonization, etc.). You don't need to examine religious doctrine. Leave that to those who want to go to the next stage.
Once again--not the examination of doctrine. I'm talking about... like for example, after reading Rappaccini's Daughter, the students read the story of "Adam and Eve" AS IF IT WERE A SECULAR STORY and then comparing and contrasting the two stories.

Besides, I know for a fact that you don't need to read the damned Bible to get the social context in literature. It's not that hard for children to grasp what "atheist" means, or "Christian" for that matter. There's no reason the Bible needs to get mixed into all of that. There's also the fact that these kids are not going to be doing the indepth analysis of literature that you think they are going to be doing. From a university level standpoint it is necessary to have read the Bible since issues in the Bible lie in the background of a lot of literature, but kids aren't looking at stuff like that. They're looking at the surface and the first few layers of the literary form. That's the same for High School. You go to entirely different levels of analysis in university level literature work. I know, I'm doing it now, and it's a lot more complex than what I did in High School and I'm glad I didn't do it in High School or I wouldn't be interested in literature at all.
When I was in High School, it was not nearly as in depth as what I'm doing now, but it was close. I don't know about your high school experience. Maybe this is the difference between private and public schools?

[Shaun]

It is not the implementation of religion--it is the reading of religious texts to understand allusions in Literature, without which students would not be able to get without some rudimentary biblical knowledge. I never said doctrine or dogma--something that's completely different from religious texts. As an English major at the college level, I have also had to consult the Bible several times in my history and literature courses. I also had to in high school (for the record, I'm an atheist and it did not affect my disbelief).

Then you don't need to read the texts that require an understanding of the Bible. The Bible doesn't need to be taught and shouldn't. End of story.

Once again--not the examination of doctrine. I'm talking about... like for example, after reading Rappaccini's Daughter, the students read the story of "Adam and Eve" AS IF IT WERE A SECULAR STORY and then comparing and contrasting the two stories.

You can't expect students or teachers to make that distinction. "We're reading this as if it were nothing more than a story and you have to do that". That's expecting far too much from teachers and students and it's an open doorway to further discussion of religious doctrine. If you have to read Adam and Eve from the Bible to understand that text, then that text isn't for pre-college students.

When I was in High School, it was not nearly as in depth as what I'm doing now, but it was close. I don't know about your high school experience. Maybe this is the difference between private and public schools?

Yes, there is a difference. I'm talking about public school systems. Private schools can do whatever they want. That's why there are Catholic Private Schools, etc.
In public school, keep the religion out of it. We didn't discuss it and we didn't need it for our examination of texts that had religious tinges to them. Students are smart enough to figure things out for themselves without cramming the Bible down their throats.

[Crocolyle]

Then you don't need to read the texts that require an understanding of the Bible. The Bible doesn't need to be taught and shouldn't. End of story.
Christianity should not be taught, nor should Paganism, Islam, Buddhism, or Judaism. But stories that happen to be in the canon of sacred texts, I think should be examined as if they were any secular text. And unfortunately, though you may deny it, most texts require an understanding of the Bible to fully understand at least until the mid-1800s and many still require it afterward. If students don't know who Lazarus is, how can they understand the lines in the Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock, one of the major poems of T. S. Eliot and the Modernist movement, "I am Lazarus/Come From the Dead/Come Back to Tell You all/I shall Tell you all." Also, students would not be able to understand the foundation of the ideals of the country without reading puritan writing, and nearly all puritan writing makes biblical allusion or has a religious slant. Religion and its influence of texts, as any aspect of culture, is unavoidable, so it should not be neglected.


You can't expect students or teachers to make that distinction. "We're reading this as if it were nothing more than a story and you have to do that". That's expecting far too much from teachers and students and it's an open doorway to further discussion of religious doctrine. If you have to read Adam and Eve from the Bible to understand that text, then that text isn't for pre-college students.
If you read it as a secular story--like as if it were a myth, not discussing its spiritual truth--there should be no problem. I think high school students are smart enough to understand that they are looking at the story from the Bible as any other story, not to extract spiritual truth. As a work of fiction (assuming it is fiction), the Bible is of exceptional merit and established many archetypes that are still in use today. Like did you ever realize the canonical gospels follow the Jungian monomyth?

The Biblical =/= religious doctrine/dogma per se. Like the actual definitions of doctrine and dogma, as I learned them are: Doctrine is a belief held by a body of believers that is subject to debate and change (i. e. priests are not allowed to marry, the pope is infallible, priests may only be male), and dogma is a belief held by a body of believers that is not subject to debate and change (i. e. Mary was a virgin, the trinity, Jesus was fully human and fully divine). While it may originate from the Bible, discussion of doctrine, at least as I understand it, is something completely different.


Yes, there is a difference. I'm talking about public school systems. Private schools can do whatever they want. That's why there are Catholic Private Schools, etc.
In public school, keep the religion out of it. We didn't discuss it and we didn't need it for our examination of texts that had religious tinges to them. Students are smart enough to figure things out for themselves without cramming the Bible down their throats.
You misunderstood what I was saying or did not carefully read what I was talking about. In private schools, texts are examined close to the college level--in that students discuss symbolism, theme, allusion, and what choices the author made in terms of language, style, diction, and syntax to contribute to a greater meaning.

Because of the influence of religious texts particularly the Bible on nearly all Western Literature until the Civil War, with some exceptions, certain stories of the Bible, because of their constant reference in popular and mainstream culture need to be known to be culturally literate, one of the foundations of liberal, humanistic education. In no way should prayer be allowed in school, nor should any religious text be examined as something to be believed, but rather, to better understand literature, certain stories of the Bible should be examined because of their significance to contemporary and past literature, otherwise schools fail in that they are unable to give students a full understanding of the literature or time period of literature they are studying.

[Shaun]

Christianity should not be taught, nor should Paganism, Islam, Buddhism, or Judaism. But stories that happen to be in the canon of sacred texts, I think should be examined as if they were any secular text. And unfortunately, though you may deny it, most texts require an understanding of the Bible to fully understand at least until the mid-1800s and many still require it afterward. If students don't know who Lazarus is, how can they understand the lines in the Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock, one of the major poems of T. S. Eliot and the Modernist movement, "I am Lazarus/Come From the Dead/Come Back to Tell You all/I shall Tell you all." Also, students would not be able to understand the foundation of the ideals of the country without reading puritan writing, and nearly all puritan writing makes biblical allusion or has a religious slant. Religion and its influence of texts, as any aspect of culture, is unavoidable, so it should not be neglected.

I read plenty of works that had biblical allusion and never had to read a line of the Bible to understand it. You don't have to teach the Bible to have students understand what Christianity is. We're a Christian nation and if you don't have an understanding as to what the Bible is or what it's about, you've been in a hole your entire life.
The Bible itself never needs to be addressed. It's unnecessary and any text that necessitates the use of the Bible as a foundational text, as a required reading, doesn't belong in public school systems. It belongs elsewhere.

If you read it as a secular story--like as if it were a myth, not discussing its spiritual truth--there should be no problem. I think high school students are smart enough to understand that they are looking at the story from the Bible as any other story, not to extract spiritual truth. As a work of fiction (assuming it is fiction), the Bible is of exceptional merit and established many archetypes that are still in use today. Like did you ever realize the canonical gospels follow the Jungian monomyth?

But there is a problem. That's just it. You can't expect Christians to look at their own work as just a story, because to them, it is real. You open a doorway that should be remained closed. Public school is not for discussing religion, and by allowing the Bible to be taught, you're openeing that door for discussion. Those same archetypes found in the Bible are found in texts from before too, by the way. It'd be more useful to examine those texts, than to examine the Bible, since they are the foundation of literature anyway.
What you're asking is impossible. You can no more expect people who believe in the Bible to treat it as fiction than I can expect my next door neighbor to grow an extra limb out of his forehead. How do you propose we teach the Bible from a secular viewpoint without spitting on the very religion it founded? "This is just fiction and that's how we have to look at it". But for those folks that study because they believe, it's not fiction.

The Biblical =/= religious doctrine/dogma per se. Like the actual definitions of doctrine and dogma, as I learned them are: Doctrine is a belief held by a body of believers that is subject to debate and change (i. e. priests are not allowed to marry, the pope is infallible, priests may only be male), and dogma is a belief held by a body of believers that is not subject to debate and change (i. e. Mary was a virgin, the trinity, Jesus was fully human and fully divine). While it may originate from the Bible, discussion of doctrine, at least as I understand it, is something completely different.


Ah, well then we're talking about dogma :P, since the Bible "technically" doesn't change, unless the people who release new editions change it, but then people think it never was changed in the first place. It's a wicked circle.

You misunderstood what I was saying or did not carefully read what I was talking about. In private schools, texts are examined close to the college level--in that students discuss symbolism, theme, allusion, and what choices the author made in terms of language, style, diction, and syntax to contribute to a greater meaning.


Yeah, that's private school. Public school is an entirely different beast because it is funded by the state and anyone can go there. So exposing them to religious "dogma" is basically a violation of the separation of church and state.

Because of the influence of religious texts particularly the Bible on nearly all Western Literature until the Civil War, with some exceptions, certain stories of the Bible, because of their constant reference in popular and mainstream culture need to be known to be culturally literate, one of the foundations of liberal, humanistic education. In no way should prayer be allowed in school, nor should any religious text be examined as something to be believed, but rather, to better understand literature, certain stories of the Bible should be examined because of their significance to contemporary and past literature, otherwise schools fail in that they are unable to give students a full understanding of the literature or time period of literature they are studying.

As has been said already, you don't have to read the Bible to address other literature. It's unnecessary. You can give an understanding of a period of literature without subjecting students to the Bible. Anything that absolutely requires the use of the Bible for a better understanding should be left to schools where biblical examination is perfectly acceptable. In public schools no examination of religion in any capacity is acceptable, because it does one of two things:
1. Fosters a tolerance for the teaching and acceptance of religious practice in schools.
2. Opens the debate on how we should teach the Bible in school. "It's not fiction to us, so you can't teach it that way because I won't have my children subjected to it. This is public school, not private school."

You find the way to fix those problems and we'll talk, but because there is no way to fix them short of getting people to stop believing in Bible, it's just not possible to introduce it into public schools. Private schools, fine, whatever, parents have a choice to send their kids there. College, certainly, because at the college level children are mature enough to look at literature in the way you are suggesting. But not at the public school level. It's too complex an issue to simply say "well it influenced literature, let it in". There are a lot of things that influenced literature that we don't teach in schools for very good reasons. Some are too sexually explicit, too violent, extremist, or the work of someone extremely controversial (such as say, Hitler, which has considerable impact on the foundations of German literature, which in turn affected modern English literature, film, etc. as well). This is too complex an issue for such a simple statement to work.

[ScottyMcGee]

Why not have Biblical Studies as an elective instead of something you NEED to know? If public schools are so public, why not try a wider spectrum for certain people. Of course they need to take polls and make sure there is some interest in it for a class to be made out of it. Then again, in my school, there's only four people in Latin AP.

Being in a Catholic school, learning about this stuff was mandatory. But junior year religion was amazing. It was technically called "Biblical Studies." We critiqued the works, discovered archetypes, found flaws, debated on what was myth and what could be explained logically, and the different views on Jesus' "historical" life. All of it was done without necessarily saying you have to "obey" it or "believe" in it. It was all objective. Having as an elective would be more reasonable, because there IS a LOT of heavy stuff in there. There's an entire area of study dedicated to the Bible alone. People who are only interested in it should be able to learn about it.

[Shaun]

Why not have Biblical Studies as an elective instead of something you NEED to know? If public schools are so public, why not try electives for more people. Of course they need to take polls and make sure there is some interest in it for a class to be made out of it. Then again, in my school, there's only four people in Latin AP.

Being in a Catholic school, learning about this stuff was mandatory. But Junior year religion was amazing. It was technically called "Biblical Studies." We critiqued the works, discovered archetypes, found flaws, debated on what was myth and what could be explained logically, and the different views on Jesus' "historical" life. All of it was done without necessarily saying you have to "obey" it or "believe" in it. Having as an elective would be more reasonable, because there IS a LOT of heavy stuff in there. There's an entire area of study dedicated to the Bible alone. People who are only interested in it should be able to learn about it.



Because you can't do that at the public school level. Separation of church and state.

[Crocolyle]

I read plenty of works that had biblical allusion and never had to read a line of the Bible to understand it. You don't have to teach the Bible to have students understand what Christianity is. We're a Christian nation and if you don't have an understanding as to what the Bible is or what it's about, you've been in a hole your entire life.
The Bible itself never needs to be addressed. It's unnecessary and any text that necessitates the use of the Bible as a foundational text, as a required reading, doesn't belong in public school systems. It belongs elsewhere.
Not everyone has as much biblical knowledge as you do, and might need to consult the Bible in order to understand exactly why the work is alluding to a specific passage. And I am not talking about teaching the whole Bible, but sometimes passages need to be examined in order to understand the other work. The Bible sometimes in necessary to facilitate a better understanding of the piece.



But there is a problem. That's just it. You can't expect Christians to look at their own work as just a story, because to them, it is real. You open a doorway that should be remained closed. Public school is not for discussing religion, and by allowing the Bible to be taught, you're openeing that door for discussion. Those same archetypes found in the Bible are found in texts from before too, by the way. It'd be more useful to examine those texts, than to examine the Bible, since they are the foundation of literature anyway.
What you're asking is impossible. You can no more expect people who believe in the Bible to treat it as fiction than I can expect my next door neighbor to grow an extra limb out of his forehead. How do you propose we teach the Bible from a secular viewpoint without spitting on the very religion it founded? "This is just fiction and that's how we have to look at it". But for those folks that study because they believe, it's not fiction.

Yeah you can. Having grown up surrounded by devout Catholics (several of whom were English teachers), I know religious people can interpret the Bible from a secular standpoint, as hard as it may be for you to believe with your prejudices and biases toward religious people.

Discussion of religion should be allowed, otherwise it's infringement on the free speech of students. When religions are mentioned in history class--since aren't they kind of a big point in history?--isn't that religious discussion? I mean, discussion of one religion versus another or why one religion is true and another isn't shouldn't be allowed in a classroom setting, because the teacher typically guides such a discussion. The Bible should not be used to teach religion, but to give better context and greater significance to the story.

They are not to say it's fiction, but to examine it is as they do any narrative.

Your choice in analogy by the way is pathetic and untrue. Sorry to be rude. :P



Ah, well then we're talking about dogma :P, since the Bible "technically" doesn't change, unless the people who release new editions change it, but then people think it never was changed in the first place. It's a wicked circle.
Wrong. While the foundation for "dogma" and "doctrine" can be found in the Bible, but the Bible is not dogma itself. And the Bible technically has changed. 313 AD Council of Nicea determined which books to include in the new testament and threw out gospels (like those of Mary, St. Thomas, and Judas, etc. along with books like the sayings of Jesus) it deemed heretical or redundant or too different from the ones selected. Also certain denominations consider certain books Apocryphal. So, no, the Bible is not dogma.


Yeah, that's private school. Public school is an entirely different beast because it is funded by the state and anyone can go there. So exposing them to religious "dogma" is basically a violation of the separation of church and state.
Read what I write or don't. I was not talking about religion at that point of the argument. I was saying that in private high schools, literature (even without any religious significance) is interpreted close to (but not quite up to) that of the college level, in that there is discussion of symbolism, allusion (not necessarily Biblical), theme, etc. Are you saying that literature in public high schools is not interpreted anywhere near that, and therefore public schools provide an inadequate examination of literature? Is that what you are saying?




As has been said already, you don't have to read the Bible to address other literature. It's unnecessary. You can give an understanding of a period of literature without subjecting students to the Bible. Anything that absolutely requires the use of the Bible for a better understanding should be left to schools where biblical examination is perfectly acceptable. In public schools no examination of religion in any capacity is acceptable, because it does one of two things:
1. Fosters a tolerance for the teaching and acceptance of religious practice in schools.
2. Opens the debate on how we should teach the Bible in school. "It's not fiction to us, so you can't teach it that way because I won't have my children subjected to it. This is public school, not private school."

You find the way to fix those problems and we'll talk, but because there is no way to fix them short of getting people to stop believing in Bible, it's just not possible to introduce it into public schools. Private schools, fine, whatever, parents have a choice to send their kids there. College, certainly, because at the college level children are mature enough to look at literature in the way you are suggesting. But not at the public school level. It's too complex an issue to simply say "well it influenced literature, let it in". There are a lot of things that influenced literature that we don't teach in schools for very good reasons. Some are too sexually explicit, too violent, extremist, or the work of someone extremely controversial (such as say, Hitler, which has considerable impact on the foundations of German literature, which in turn affected modern English literature, film, etc. as well). This is too complex an issue for such a simple statement to work.

1 is unnecessary, because the Bible has had a more profound affect on the English language than any other religious text, besides the Greek, Roman, and Anglo-Saxon/Norse myths (which are studied in schools and are believed by certain neo-pagan groups)

2 saying it should be taught as if it were fiction was poor choice in words. I guess I mean, interpreting it as all narratives are interpreted in schools. Because the Bible is composed of stories, they can be looked at as stories--which is not something most people would disagree with.

The impact of the Bible is so strong on some works, i. e. the works of the Puritans which are required reading in all American Literature high school classes, that to understand it without a biblical background is a very superficial understanding. (What do they mean by "city on a hill"? etc)

---

If I may jump into your and Scotty's contention, you're actually wrong. Some public schools actually do offer an elective in Bible study. It is considered constitutional. I'll see if I can find the article in TIME magazine about it.

EDIT:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1601845-1,00.html

:P

I recommend reading all 4 pages. It brings up some of the points you brought up, but most people cited in article actually make an argument similar to mine.

EDIT2:

apparently the link doesn't work. Type "Time magazine Bible English class" into Google and it should be the first link that comes up. The link will start on the second page, so you might want to go back to the first to start reading it.

[ScottyMcGee]

Because you can't do that at the public school level. Separation of church and state.

Oh really?

Wow, I suck at this. I was pwned in like two seconds.

[Crocolyle]

No you weren't. Shaun was wrong :P

According to the Time Magazine article I cited:

TOWARD THE BEGINNING OF THE COURT'S string of school-secularization cases, the most eloquent language preserving the neutral study of religion was probably Justice Robert Jackson's concurring opinion in the 1948 case McCollum v. Board of Education: "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," Jackson wrote, and warned that putting all references to God off limits would leave public education "in shreds." In the 1963 Schempp decision, the exemption for secular study of Scripture was explicit and in the majority opinion: "Nothing we have said here indicates that such study of the Bible or of religion, when presented objectively as part of a secular program of education, may not be effected consistently with the First Amendment," wrote Justice Tom C. Clark. Justice Arthur Goldberg contributed a helpful distinction between "the teaching of religion" (bad) and "teaching about religion" (good). Citing these and subsequent cases, Marc Stern, general counsel for the American Jewish Congress, says, "It is beyond question that it is possible to teach a course about the Bible that is constitutional." For over a decade, he says, any legal challenges to school Bible courses have focused not on the general principle but on whether the course in question was sufficiently neutral in its approach.

SECULAR STUDY OF THE BIBLE IS CONSTITUTIONAL

[ScottyMcGee]

Whoohoo!

:D:D:D:D:D

[Crocolyle]

Why not have Biblical Studies as an elective instead of something you NEED to know? If public schools are so public, why not try a wider spectrum for certain people. Of course they need to take polls and make sure there is some interest in it for a class to be made out of it. Then again, in my school, there's only four people in Latin AP.

Being in a Catholic school, learning about this stuff was mandatory. But junior year religion was amazing. It was technically called "Biblical Studies." We critiqued the works, discovered archetypes, found flaws, debated on what was myth and what could be explained logically, and the different views on Jesus' "historical" life. All of it was done without necessarily saying you have to "obey" it or "believe" in it. It was all objective. Having as an elective would be more reasonable, because there IS a LOT of heavy stuff in there. There's an entire area of study dedicated to the Bible alone. People who are only interested in it should be able to learn about it.


I'm also a Catholic school survivor. We had "Scripture" sophomore year, but it sounds pretty much the same. My favorite one was junior year "Church History/Morality" like the first semester was Church History and second semester was Morality. We gad an excellent teacher.

[Shaun]

No you weren't. Shaun was wrong :P

According to the Time Magazine article I cited:



SECULAR STUDY OF THE BIBLE IS CONSTITUTIONAL



Actually I wasn't wrong. They defended my position perfectly well in that quote alone. "Neutral position". Sums it up. It's not possible to present a neutral position on religion. Either you believe or you don't. There are no in-betweens.

[Shaun]

Not everyone has as much biblical knowledge as you do, and might need to consult the Bible in order to understand exactly why the work is alluding to a specific passage. And I am not talking about teaching the whole Bible, but sometimes passages need to be examined in order to understand the other work. The Bible sometimes in necessary to facilitate a better understanding of the piece.

It doesn't belong, end of story. The Times article you gave me has people FROM RELIGIOUS POSITIONS ringing in on the subject. Goodness, it's not possible that they would be entirely FOR this idea now is it. Of course they'd want the Bible in school. This is bias, this is logic. There is no way to address the Bible from a purely secular level. You went to a CATHOLIC school as you said. Already the presentation of the Bible in your class WAS NOT SECULAR because it was already taught within an environment that is wholly religious. It's CATHOLIC school, not SECULAR school. Big difference.

Discussion of religion should be allowed, otherwise it's infringement on the free speech of students. When religions are mentioned in history class--since aren't they kind of a big point in history?--isn't that religious discussion? I mean, discussion of one religion versus another or why one religion is true and another isn't shouldn't be allowed in a classroom setting, because the teacher typically guides such a discussion. The Bible should not be used to teach religion, but to give better context and greater significance to the story.

No it's not. Technically minors don't have the same rights as adults, so if we want to go that road, they don't have "freedom of speech" in the same manner as 18 years olds. If we want to take it from another point, you are free to discuss your religion in school, but the school can't teach you about religion. If you and your friends want to talk about God during recess, go for it. That's your choice. But the teacher doesn't have to start the conversation for you. That's a violation of the separation of church and state since you've already brought into the front of the class a religious document or a religious discussion. Some people might not want to discuss religion in any capacity, and they have every right to go to a public school where they are not forced to discuss religion. But since you want to impose discussion of the Bible, even if you claim it from a secular view, you are therefore shoving religious text down the throats of people who want to go to school to learn something useful. You don't need the Bible for literature class and you have yet to provide me any case where you'd absolutely have to have it. Not one. You've given me relatively obscure texts. If you were to argue to me that you needed to have a thorough understanding of the Bible to read A Midsummer Night's Dream or A Tale of Two Cities or Lord of the Flies or something else that is a staple within high school literature, then we could talk, but you're giving me works that the majority of kids are not going to be exposed to anyway. Hell, you don't even need to read the Bible to understand Twain, and he uses religious stuff all the time.

Wrong. While the foundation for "dogma" and "doctrine" can be found in the Bible, but the Bible is not dogma itself. And the Bible technically has changed. 313 AD Council of Nicea determined which books to include in the new testament and threw out gospels (like those of Mary, St. Thomas, and Judas, etc. along with books like the sayings of Jesus) it deemed heretical or redundant or too different from the ones selected. Also certain denominations consider certain books Apocryphal. So, no, the Bible is not dogma.

Because the Bible couldn't have become dogma after almost 1700 years of relatively no change right? One major change in the beginnings of such a powerful religion doesn't exclude it from becoming dogma.

Read what I write or don't. I was not talking about religion at that point of the argument. I was saying that in private high schools, literature (even without any religious significance) is interpreted close to (but not quite up to) that of the college level, in that there is discussion of symbolism, allusion (not necessarily Biblical), theme, etc. Are you saying that literature in public high schools is not interpreted anywhere near that, and therefore public schools provide an inadequate examination of literature? Is that what you are saying?

Nope, but you'd like to read it that way. Public schools simply move away from examining religious texts and still get the same level of interpretation, but have never NEEDED the Bible for any of it. You went to a private school and they can basically teach just about anything they want there. Public school is different because the people there don't really have a choice to be there. It's a requirement by law that all children go to school and if the parents don't want to pay for private school, or can't, the kids go to public school. Public school is subject to the law.

And yes, you were talking about religion. The Bible is religion, whether you want to accept that or not. It is a religious document that is still believed in by hundreds of millions of people. It is the foundation of an entire religious practice. It is religion.

2 saying it should be taught as if it were fiction was poor choice in words. I guess I mean, interpreting it as all narratives are interpreted in schools. Because the Bible is composed of stories, they can be looked at as stories--which is not something most people would disagree with.

Right, but to look at something as a "story" is to say you're looking at it as "fiction". Unless you mean non-fiction stories. If that's the case, then I'm even more right since you're placing it within the realm of truth.

The impact of the Bible is so strong on some works, i. e. the works of the Puritans which are required reading in all American Literature high school classes, that to understand it without a biblical background is a very superficial understanding. (What do they mean by "city on a hill"? etc)

Not required in all American lit. classes, just some, and especially in areas where religion is quite prominent. I never read any puritan work. I saved that for college. And I didn't need to read the Bible to understand any of it. And no, I didn't read the Bible before, I didn't read about it, or watch Bible movies or whatever. My exposure was nothing more than living in a Christian society, which is what this country is.

If I may jump into your and Scotty's contention, you're actually wrong. Some public schools actually do offer an elective in Bible study. It is considered constitutional. I'll see if I can find the article in TIME magazine about it.

Because Texas is the most progressive state when it comes to separation of church and state. If you're going to give me something to defend this position, give it to me from a state that strictly protects what I think is one of the most important rules this country has.
This is exactly what happens when religion begins to take control. Are we now going to have a class about Atheism? Why not Koran study? or other religious texts? This is a violation of the very separation that was set down for us to follow. And yet what we have is not a full inclusion of all religious ideas, as they stand in believed forms, but the inclusion of CHRISTIAN religious ideas. That's it. It's only Christian.
Sorry, my point still stands as valid. Violation.

I recommend reading all 4 pages. It brings up some of the points you brought up, but most people cited in article actually make an argument similar to mine.

A lot of the people in the article are either a) Already religion or b) quote supposed studies but don't tell me how to find the studies so I can figure things out on my own. This is the problem with reading these sorts of things. I read an article some time back from The New Yorker, a very reputable magazine, that claimed that readership in the U.S. has been declining extremely (as in really really scary), but when you do the actual numbers? It's the exact opposite based on the information they gave.
Articles like this that don't quote their sources, that don't give me the actual statistical data beyond just percentages should be taken with a grain of salt. Statistics are easy to skew. It happens all the time.

It really scares me that this is being taken so seriously when proponents of this move are so blatantly religious. But I guess this is what I get for living in a country that is more and more becoming a land of religious nuttery rather than a world where some sense of logic can exist. Because Creationism is really the most brilliant bit of science ever made, right? Religious folks are wrong about a lot of things and a lot of the time (the Earth isn't flat, after all), and this is one of those wrong times. Bible belongs in church or private school or college, not in public schools where ONLY the Christian form is being shown, and nothing else. Disturbing.

[Crocolyle]

Actually I wasn't wrong. They defended my position perfectly well in that quote alone. "Neutral position". Sums it up. It's not possible to present a neutral position on religion. Either you believe or you don't. There are no in-betweens.

O rly?

Anything that absolutely requires the use of the Bible for a better understanding should be left to schools where biblical examination is perfectly acceptable. In public schools no examination of religion in any capacity is acceptable


:P

[Crocolyle]

It doesn't belong, end of story. The Times article you gave me has people FROM RELIGIOUS POSITIONS ringing in on the subject. Goodness, it's not possible that they would be entirely FOR this idea now is it. Of course they'd want the Bible in school. This is bias, this is logic. There is no way to address the Bible from a purely secular level. You went to a CATHOLIC school as you said. Already the presentation of the Bible in your class WAS NOT SECULAR because it was already taught within an environment that is wholly religious. It's CATHOLIC school, not SECULAR school. Big difference.

Yes, but within my English class they were examined in a secular context, though it was a Catholic school.

No it's not. Technically minors don't have the same rights as adults, so if we want to go that road, they don't have "freedom of speech" in the same manner as 18 years olds. If we want to take it from another point, you are free to discuss your religion in school, but the school can't teach you about religion.

Wrong. From the TIME article: "Justice Arthur Goldberg contributed a helpful distinction between "the teaching of religion" (bad) and "teaching about religion" (good)."


If you and your friends want to talk about God during recess, go for it. That's your choice. But the teacher doesn't have to start the conversation for you. That's a violation of the separation of church and state since you've already brought into the front of the class a religious document or a religious discussion. Some people might not want to discuss religion in any capacity, and they have every right to go to a public school where they are not forced to discuss religion. But since you want to impose discussion of the Bible, even if you claim it from a secular view, you are therefore shoving religious text down the throats of people who want to go to school to learn something useful. You don't need the Bible for literature class and you have yet to provide me any case where you'd absolutely have to have it. Not one. You've given me relatively obscure texts. If you were to argue to me that you needed to have a thorough understanding of the Bible to read A Midsummer Night's Dream or A Tale of Two Cities or Lord of the Flies or something else that is a staple within high school literature, then we could talk, but you're giving me works that the majority of kids are not going to be exposed to anyway. Hell, you don't even need to read the Bible to understand Twain, and he uses religious stuff all the time.

I have not given many obscure texts--Bradford's and Winthrop's histories of their colony I had to read both in American Literature in high school and in college. Virtually all Puritan writing makes so many Biblical allusion knowledge of the Bible is vital. And Puritan writings are typical in an American Literature classroom. Unless the course also covers American Indian folktales, then it starts out with this kind of stuff.



Because the Bible couldn't have become dogma after almost 1700 years of relatively no change right? One major change in the beginnings of such a powerful religion doesn't exclude it from becoming dogma.

The Bible is a book. Dogma are beliefs. I don't think a book is a belief, though a book can have the foundation of beliefs. And it has changed within the 1700 thousand years, as I stated. Some books, such as Tobit, were rejected as being Apocryphal.

You're stubbornness, despite its resilience, cannot transform a tangible, concrete collection of writings into an intangible, abstract idea like a belief.



Nope, but you'd like to read it that way. Public schools simply move away from examining religious texts and still get the same level of interpretation, but have never NEEDED the Bible for any of it. You went to a private school and they can basically teach just about anything they want there. Public school is different because the people there don't really have a choice to be there. It's a requirement by law that all children go to school and if the parents don't want to pay for private school, or can't, the kids go to public school. Public school is subject to the law.

Make up your mind. Does public school study literature as closely as private school? Yes or no? And explain this without contradicting yourself.

And yes, you were talking about religion. The Bible is religion, whether you want to accept that or not. It is a religious document that is still believed in by hundreds of millions of people. It is the foundation of an entire religious practice. It is religion.

For the final time, actually read what I was saying. I said at that point of the argument, "When I was in High School, it was not nearly as in depth as what I'm doing now, but it was close. I don't know about your high school experience. Maybe this is the difference between private and public schools?" and I was talking about coursework in general. To clarify this, I then stated, "You misunderstood what I was saying or did not carefully read what I was talking about. In private schools, texts are examined close to the college level--in that students discuss symbolism, theme, allusion, and what choices the author made in terms of language, style, diction, and syntax to contribute to a greater meaning." And yet you still refused to read, so to clarify even further I wrote, "Read what I write or don't. I was not talking about religion at that point of the argument. I was saying that in private high schools, literature (even without any religious significance) is interpreted close to (but not quite up to) that of the college level, in that there is discussion of symbolism, allusion (not necessarily Biblical), theme, etc. Are you saying that literature in public high schools is not interpreted anywhere near that, and therefore public schools provide an inadequate examination of literature? Is that what you are saying?" And you still refuse to read what I wrote and assume I was talking about religion at that point in my argument. Read.

And yes, the Bible is religious, but you said, despite your contradiction is saying this, if it is examined neutrally it is acceptable. And that is what I'm arguing. While you say that a neutral position is impossible to attain most people quoted in the article, including members of the Supreme Court, disagree with you and believe that a neutral position is possible.

Right, but to look at something as a "story" is to say you're looking at it as "fiction". Unless you mean non-fiction stories. If that's the case, then I'm even more right since you're placing it within the realm of truth.

You're misinterpreting my words for the sake of doing it. I personally believe the Bible to be mostly fiction based on some fact. Most stories regardless of whether or not they're true can be examined and interpreted using similar means and techniques without having to be divided into fiction or nonfiction. Does that clarify it?



Not required in all American lit. classes, just some, and especially in areas where religion is quite prominent. I never read any puritan work. I saved that for college. And I didn't need to read the Bible to understand any of it. And no, I didn't read the Bible before, I didn't read about it, or watch Bible movies or whatever. My exposure was nothing more than living in a Christian society, which is what this country is.

Everyone I know--regardless of the school they go to--read Puritan writings in American Literature since Puritan writings are considered crucial in the foundation of American Literature. You need some understanding of the Bible to understand some aspects of those writings.



Because Texas is the most progressive state when it comes to separation of church and state. If you're going to give me something to defend this position, give it to me from a state that strictly protects what I think is one of the most important rules this country has.
This is exactly what happens when religion begins to take control. Are we now going to have a class about Atheism? Why not Koran study? or other religious texts? This is a violation of the very separation that was set down for us to follow. And yet what we have is not a full inclusion of all religious ideas, as they stand in believed forms, but the inclusion of CHRISTIAN religious ideas. That's it. It's only Christian.
Sorry, my point still stands as valid. Violation.

The Supreme Court (Therefore the federal government) says it does not violate the constitution. And why not Koran Study? Or Atheistic Philosophy? I wouldn't mind those as electives. They won't come around for a while because they haven't been as influential on Western culture (yet at least), but I see nothing wrong with either of those.



A lot of the people in the article are either a) Already religion or b) quote supposed studies but don't tell me how to find the studies so I can figure things out on my own. This is the problem with reading these sorts of things. I read an article some time back from The New Yorker, a very reputable magazine, that claimed that readership in the U.S. has been declining extremely (as in really really scary), but when you do the actual numbers? It's the exact opposite based on the information they gave.
Articles like this that don't quote their sources, that don't give me the actual statistical data beyond just percentages should be taken with a grain of salt. Statistics are easy to skew. It happens all the time. [/quotes]

Then look up the court cases it cites in the paragraph I showed you and read the opinions of the justices, if you can find them, which prove that religion can be taught about in schools.

[quote] It really scares me that this is being taken so seriously when proponents of this move are so blatantly religious. But I guess this is what I get for living in a country that is more and more becoming a land of religious nuttery rather than a world where some sense of logic can exist. Because Creationism is really the most brilliant bit of science ever made, right? Religious folks are wrong about a lot of things and a lot of the time (the Earth isn't flat, after all), and this is one of those wrong times. Bible belongs in church or private school or college, not in public schools where ONLY the Christian form is being shown, and nothing else. Disturbing.

The Bible is a work of literature like any other. It just happens to be believed. To live in the Western World, an understanding of the book is required for both the religious and atheistic. I'm an atheist and I read the Bible because I think it's necessary for me to understand the religious. And some of the stories are awesome.

[Shaun]

Yes, but within my English class they were examined in a secular context, though it was a Catholic school.

Exactly, it was a Catholic school, not a public school. That's the whole point.

Wrong. From the TIME article: "Justice Arthur Goldberg contributed a helpful distinction between "the teaching of religion" (bad) and "teaching about religion" (good)."

One justice makes a distinction and suddenly he's the word of God. There are several Justices you know...And I'm not wrong because the Time article is wrong and heavily biased.

I have not given many obscure texts--Bradford's and Winthrop's histories of their colony I had to read both in American Literature in high school and in college. Virtually all Puritan writing makes so many Biblical allusion knowledge of the Bible is vital. And Puritan writings are typical in an American Literature classroom. Unless the course also covers American Indian folktales, then it starts out with this kind of stuff.

Umm, no, they aren't required. I read no Puritan writings when I was in High school. Not a single one. We read other stuff, because it was a public school. And my education did not suffer one little bit.
Bradford and Winthrop are obscure in comparison to Dickens, Twain, etc. Most people could recognize Dickens, if I threw Winthrop out it would be a different story.

The Bible is a book. Dogma are beliefs. I don't think a book is a belief, though a book can have the foundation of beliefs. And it has changed within the 1700 thousand years, as I stated. Some books, such as Tobit, were rejected as being Apocryphal.

Technically, it is dogma, since the very foundations of what is believed within that book are still, gasp, believed.

You're stubbornness, despite its resilience, cannot transform a tangible, concrete collection of writings into an intangible, abstract idea like a belief.

Your inability to realize that without the Bible there would be no Christianity is the exact reason why you can't see how obvious it is that the Bible is a belief. For anything to be true within the Bible, you have to believe it, and if you want to be Christian you have to believe in the Bible. Belief.

Make up your mind. Does public school study literature as closely as private school? Yes or no? And explain this without contradicting yourself.

I didn't contradict myself. By saying nope I was telling you that public schools are no different that private schools in the level of interpretation they get. Sorry if that was confusing. That's what I meant.

For the final time, actually read what I was saying. I said at that point of the argument, "When I was in High School, it was not nearly as in depth as what I'm doing now, but it was close. I don't know about your high school experience. Maybe this is the difference between private and public schools?" and I was talking about coursework in general. To clarify this, I then stated, "You misunderstood what I was saying or did not carefully read what I was talking about. In private schools, texts are examined close to the college level--in that students discuss symbolism, theme, allusion, and what choices the author made in terms of language, style, diction, and syntax to contribute to a greater meaning." And yet you still refused to read, so to clarify even further I wrote, "Read what I write or don't. I was not talking about religion at that point of the argument. I was saying that in private high schools, literature (even without any religious significance) is interpreted close to (but not quite up to) that of the college level, in that there is discussion of symbolism, allusion (not necessarily Biblical), theme, etc. Are you saying that literature in public high schools is not interpreted anywhere near that, and therefore public schools provide an inadequate examination of literature? Is that what you are saying?" And you still refuse to read what I wrote and assume I was talking about religion at that point in my argument. Read.

I did read. Take your own advice. And I already addressed all of this. Your doing exactly what you are accusing me of doing.

And yes, the Bible is religious, but you said, despite your contradiction is saying this, if it is examined neutrally it is acceptable. And that is what I'm arguing. While you say that a neutral position is impossible to attain most people quoted in the article, including members of the Supreme Court, disagree with you and believe that a neutral position is possible.

I didn't say examining it from a neutral position was acceptable. I said that that was the crux of the matte. You can't examine it neutrally.
Those people are RELIGIOUS people, which is the entire point. Of course they would like to include Bible in a secular environment. Why wouldn't they? Spread the faith.
The Supreme Court doesn't control state governments by the way. That's an illusion. Technically the state and federal governments are supposed to work separately, but come together on certain terms.


You're misinterpreting my words for the sake of doing it. I personally believe the Bible to be mostly fiction based on some fact. Most stories regardless of whether or not they're true can be examined and interpreted using similar means and techniques without having to be divided into fiction or nonfiction. Does that clarify it?

I didn't misinterpret anything. You just want me to because for some reason it makes you feel better to attack me, which you do on a consistent basis.
No, it doesn't clarify it because there is a very clear distinction between what is fiction and what isn't. Fiction isn't about something that is true or tangible. I can't talk to Huck Finn because he doesn't exist. Non-fiction is about things that are true, even when they are exaggerate. There is always truth there.
So you have to treat the Bible as one or the other. There is no middle ground.

Everyone I know--regardless of the school they go to--read Puritan writings in American Literature since Puritan writings are considered crucial in the foundation of American Literature. You need some understanding of the Bible to understand some aspects of those writings.

No you don't. You keep saying that but you have no proof and just because everyone you know in your one part of world read that stuff doesn't suddenly mean that everyone else read it. There are different schools in different systems in different states.


The Supreme Court (Therefore the federal government) says it does not violate the constitution. And why not Koran Study? Or Atheistic Philosophy? I wouldn't mind those as electives. They won't come around for a while because they haven't been as influential on Western culture (yet at least), but I see nothing wrong with either of those.

Supreme Court rulings can be overturned and very well should be since this violates that very important rule. Fortunately there are more school systems with some sense of decency that aren't biting on this.
Religion is rampant in this country and this is a clear example of that. Religious people are pretty good at getting what they want, for a time. Hopefully the atheists will turn up and bash this idea to the ground, since they're pretty good at that too.

Then look up the court cases it cites in the paragraph I showed you and read the opinions of the justices, if you can find them, which prove that religion can be taught about in schools.

See, now you just proved my point. The tail end of that last line. I thought we weren't teaching religion in schools?

On the subject of looking stuff up: I don't care enough to waste my time to look for information they should have provided me. If you want me to read that stuff, which come from RELIGIOUS people who are entirely incapable of seeing things from a fully secular view anyway, then you can go find them for me. Otherwise I really don't care that much. I won't read the article again. Smart journalism provides sources. That's not smart journalism, that's an attempt to skew the facts and it's obviously very effective.

The Bible is a work of literature like any other. It just happens to be believed. To live in the Western World, an understanding of the book is required for both the religious and atheistic. I'm an atheist and I read the Bible because I think it's necessary for me to understand the religious. And some of the stories are awesome.

It doesn't just happen to be believed. That's like saying I wrote a fantasy book and 200 years later someone found it and believed in it. This is entirely different.
And again, you keep saying that to live in the Western World I have to understand the Bible. Why? Why do I need to know the Bible and understand it to live here?

[Imelda]

The Bible is a work of literature like any other. It just happens to be believed.

The Bible is supposedly 'non-fiction', and any Christian believes it's non-fiction. Therefore, it's not literature. And if by 'happening to believe' 'literature', you can make it a religion, then I officially declare myself of the Harry Potterites. There is really a world of witches and wizards with wands and broomsticks living under our noses.

WHO WILL JOIN ME IN SEEKING THEM OUT? They're mankind's salvation!


To live in the Western World, an understanding of the book is required for both the religious and atheistic.

No. It really isn't. If you read the Bible and thought it formed the basis of Western culture, then you'd be horribly surprised at the beliefs we have today. Like the fact that it's ok to be gay. That we don't stone adulterers.

I have read parts of the Bible (about half the new testament, and Genesis, and whatever's the book after Genesis ... then someone threw my Bible away) for my own entertainment. In no way did it make any difference to my relationship with the Western world.


I'm an atheist and I read the Bible because I think it's necessary for me to understand the religious. And some of the stories are awesome.

Yeah, I particularly like the one where the daughter gets pregnant by her father on purpose, and it's ok. YAY FOR MORALLY ACCEPTABLE INCEST!!!!!

Yeah, I just came in this thread to mock ...

[Shaun]

By the way, Happy B-day Croc.

[Crocolyle]

Exactly, it was a Catholic school, not a public school. That's the whole point.

Even though it was a Catholic school, people with a religious persuasion were able to secularly analyze texts. That was the whole point.


[/quote]One justice makes a distinction and suddenly he's the word of God. There are several Justices you know...And I'm not wrong because the Time article is wrong and heavily biased.

Not just one justice--it was the opinion of the court. Articles can be innaccurate, but look up the court case and prove to me that the court did not decide what the article says it decided. You can say an article is inaccurate or biased, but unfortunately that does not change the court's opinion. Look up the opinions--majority, concurring, and dissenting--and prove them to be misrepresented or wrong, as you say they are. Otherwise, let the records hold, you are wrong.

He's not the voice of God, but he's the voice of the decision the government made. And this argument is partially about what the constitution allows, and this is what the court created to interpret the constitution decided.


Umm, no, they aren't required. I read no Puritan writings when I was in High school. Not a single one. We read other stuff, because it was a public school. And my education did not suffer one little bit.
Bradford and Winthrop are obscure in comparison to Dickens, Twain, etc. Most people could recognize Dickens, if I threw Winthrop out it would be a different story.

Then I'm sorry for your lack of education.

Moby Dick, most of Hawthorne, writers from the Great Awakening, T. S. Eliot, and Dickinson, are also better understood within a Biblical context.

Technically, it is dogma, since the very foundations of what is believed within that book are still, gasp, believed.
Dogma is a statement, not a collection of such statements. A book can be dogmatic or can contain dogma, but not be dogma itself. Like a cookie jar can hold cookies but usually is not a cookie itself. It's not exactly the Bible that is believed--that statement shows a flaw in the English language. It would be more precise to say that the dogmatic statements in the Bible are believed. As I've said, the Bible contains dogma, but is not dogma itself.


Your inability to realize that without the Bible there would be no Christianity is the exact reason why you can't see how obvious it is that the Bible is a belief. For anything to be true within the Bible, you have to believe it, and if you want to be Christian you have to believe in the Bible. Belief.
Yes. Fine, you win.
Here's a list of dogmatic statements:
1) There are three persons in one God
2) Mary was immaculately conceived
3) Jesus was begotten, not made
4) Jesus was both fully divine and fully human
5) Jesus suffered on the cross
6) Bible.

Dogma and doctrine are derived from the Bible in edition to several other sources, but are not the texts themselves. Dogma and doctrine can be contained within the Bible, as I've already stated. You're just arguing because you are so stubborn you are never able to admit that you're wrong, when you are.


I didn't contradict myself. By saying nope I was telling you that public schools are no different that private schools in the level of interpretation they get. Sorry if that was confusing. That's what I meant.
Yes, so public schools don't delve into texts as deeply, according to you.


I didn't say examining it from a neutral position was acceptable. I said that that was the crux of the matte. You can't examine it neutrally.
Those people are RELIGIOUS people, which is the entire point. Of course they would like to include Bible in a secular environment. Why wouldn't they? Spread the faith.
My mistake. I thought that's what you were implying. A lot of atheists and non-Christians don't mind the inclusion of the bible. It's not to implement religion, it's just one of the bases of Western Literature, so its influence on Western literature should be understood.

I didn't misinterpret anything. You just want me to because for some reason it makes you feel better to attack me, which you do on a consistent basis.
You've attacked me in your arguments also.

No, it doesn't clarify it because there is a very clear distinction between what is fiction and what isn't. Fiction isn't about something that is true or tangible. I can't talk to Huck Finn because he doesn't exist. Non-fiction is about things that are true, even when they are exaggerate. There is always truth there.
So you have to treat the Bible as one or the other. There is no middle ground.

When you interpret fiction and non fiction, you follow many of the same techniques--what point was the author trying to make, how does the author use language to make their point, what themes does the text have, etc. So its truth or untruth does not really matter.



No you don't. You keep saying that but you have no proof and just because everyone you know in your one part of world read that stuff doesn't suddenly mean that everyone else read it. There are different schools in different systems in different states.[/quote]

It's considered the foundation of American Literature and important works in the canon of American literature... I don't really see how it could not be read in an introductory American Literature text book.



[/quote]See, now you just proved my point. The tail end of that last line. I thought we weren't teaching religion in schools?[/quote]

teaching about religion =/= teaching religion.

On the subject of looking stuff up: I don't care enough to waste my time to look for information they should have provided me. If you want me to read that stuff, which come from RELIGIOUS people who are entirely incapable of seeing things from a fully secular view anyway, then you can go find them for me. Otherwise I really don't care that much. I won't read the article again. Smart journalism provides sources. That's not smart journalism, that's an attempt to skew the facts and it's obviously very effective.
Unless you provide actual information to disprove it (since I provided it from a well-known, generally accepted source), it's not disproved.



It doesn't just happen to be believed. That's like saying I wrote a fantasy book and 200 years later someone found it and believed in it. This is entirely different.
And again, you keep saying that to live in the Western World I have to understand the Bible. Why? Why do I need to know the Bible and understand it to live here?

--Constant cultural reference (this really is a big one)
--Basis for much of Western culture
--established archetypes
--you know what the religious nut-jobs are arguing
--you know why you don't believe it
--One of the foundations of the last 1,500 years of Western History.

Without knowing at least some of the Bible, you are culturally ignorant--something modern Western education (the idea behind Western education since the renaissance has been to make people well-rounded) is supposed to prevent.

If you wrote a fantasy novel and if it had created a profound influence on future literature and was of merit, I'd say it can be studied, even if it is believed.

[Shaun]

Alright, so as this stands, we're not only not going to agree, but it's clear that the debate has gone one step too far. Calling me uneducated is pretty much the end of it for me. So I'm closing this thread. If you want to debate about this, go elsewhere for it. I think it is pointless to continue. Once personal attacks come into the mix, no matter who is making them, and those attacks continue out of no real necessity, then the debate ceases to have any value.

Have a good day.