More Wingnuttery

NPR was playing in the car today, telling a story of a school district in Texas where they were adding the Bible to their Curriculum under Social Studies. It seems that some yahoo group has been pushing this, trying to build an agenda for teaching a public school course on the Bible that can somehow skirt constitution prohibitions against state sponsored religion. Hmmm....

This group has represented to the school board that their syllabus/outline whatever has withstood testing in other districts (it would be great to see all of the places that this is being done), so that the school board needn't worry about legal objections.

It does appear that the courts have made clear that the Bible may be a course of study if it is to study it as a literary and historic document - not to advocate a religion. To any lawyers out there: no attempt is being made to state this in a legally defensible manner - just to state the gist of the argument.

What all of this begs, however, is where does the bible fit in literacy needs of our children? Moreover, what makes it special that doesn't apply to the Koran and the I'Ching etceteras. The courts have found, by the way, that teaching these other documents is also protected in the same context.

When, however, the document being taught is at the spiritual center of the majority of a community, it seems likely that additional consideration and safeguards must be in place in order to avoid a conflict with the establishment clause of the Constitution.

What would constitute an unbiased and unambiguously academic study of the Bible? This really is the question that needs answering if we are to posit that a given course is not in violation of the establishment clause.

Clearly, if the literature related to a minority religion is offered in a course of study, and the course of study is clearly not oriented toward discrediting the beliefs of this religion, then there can be a presumption that the course in no way violates the establishment clause. Make no mistake, the course is studying more than the history and literature, it is studying the religion - even if this is done in a strictly objective and non-judgmental way.

Where would Judaism be today without the Koran and the collective history of the Jewish people? Where would Christianity be today without the Bible and the collective history of the Christian people? And so it goes with each of the documented religions. There is history, there is literature, but neither can be studied without studying the associated religion. The history and literature make no sense without the religion and vice versa.

However, the study of a religion is different from advocating a religion. And it is for this reason that a course related to a minority religion can generally begin with a presumption of not violating the establishment clause. Clearly there have been states where the political leadership comes from a group observant of a minority religion - and were that to happen within a political unit of the United States, and if this group was to require the teaching of their religious literature, then the establishment clause would be at risk. But no where in our political or educational landscape do I see this happening - and so again - courses related to minority religions can be presumed to not violate the establishment clause.

What of the Bible, however? Is it enough to merely refrain from vocally advocating in favor of Christianity as part of the class discussions? I think not. While it is difficult, I think we have to consider the intent of those forwarding a Bible curriculum. Why is it that they consider this a subject that requires public dollars and a place in the limited school day of certain public school students?

The most coherent answer that I've heard is that it is to assist students in understanding their parents' (and other elders') references to biblical passages. It seems to me, that this is an awfully small hole to plug in the overall intellect of our children.

In a time when math, reading, writing, science, and logical thinking are all below where need to be in most of our schools, it would seem that schools should focus on these areas, which aren't easily addressed at home. Meanwhile, for those students confused by a biblical reference, a simple query after the reference should provide them with all the learning that they need, without need to step foot in a school. Likely, if their parents often use Biblical references, the child attends church and Sunday school. Don't they learn about these references in this setting? If not, how on earth will school be able to accomplish what church and parents cannot?

It also seems, that if the Bible is being studied purely from the perspective of literature and history, then it is only appropriate that equal time be given to those who would argue against what it has to say, either for a specific case, or in toto. However, when the syllabus consists of the Bible and nothing else, this is an unlikely course of events. And, it seems that very often these courses that are presented as a pure academic study of literature and history do not go to secondary sources, or if they do, they go only to secondary sources which reinforce the Bible.

So, what we are talking about here is a study not of comparative religion, nor of a history of the middle east from before until shortly after the life of Jesus, nor a study of middle eastern literature, prose and poetry. Rather, we have a teaching of the stories of the bible.

Unless the course seriously attempts to investigate the accuracy of these stories, they may be literature, but they are not history. And no serious history of the region and time can be investigated without giving healthy consideration to the body of Judaic and Islamic literature of the time. So, calling a Bible class a study of history is merely cover to hide the true intent.

Similarly, if Bible study is a study of literature - it has be undertaken in a critical manner. There is the old adage: "Don't believe everything you read." And, this adage applies here. To accept the Bible literally requires an act of faith. There is nothing wrong with this. But, to present the Bible as anything but a very fallible and flawed story of history is to suggest that the Bible be accepted literally. It is hard to conceive of a school board pushing for a Bible course that teaches that the Bible is fallible and flawed.

So, we have a course which:
1) Is supposedly being taught to help inter-generational communications when a simpler solution is readily available, while there are more pressing subjects to be taught in school;
2) Where the concept of objectivity is an abstraction, for which the curriculum advocates have not provided substance;
3) Where alternative points of view are not given a good-faith presentation
4) Where history is defined as what is written in a unabashedly religious text;
5) And where the disection of literature ends with the acceptance that the Bible contains, and communicates with, words.

Given these factors, it is wholely unbelievable that this Bible study is not state sponsorship of religion. And simply put, state sponsorship of religion is a violation of the establishment clause of the constitution.

The Wingnuts are working hard again. They're lying again. They will do anything and stop at nothing to undermine our constitution, our country, and our rights, in order to overcome their insecurities. May they all fall in the ocean.