Public high schools offering bible literature class?

[Kerouactivist]

thumbs down IMHO

Although the above is not necessarily requirement....what if the problem arose that this is the only class available to satisfy an english or literature requirement......
Anyway..
IMO...It would be more useful to have classes on african-american literature, southern literature (faulkner etc..), or heck just a lit class on Hemingway....the possibilities are limitless by why must this be the class offered if your going to add one.......
I think issues with the bible are better left to church....as to not open pandora's box so to speak....I don't know how evangelical christians (among others) would feel about a Joseph Smith discussion in that class......I can see it now "but, dad billy said jesus came down in upstate New York"...or an amish vision "Ezra says using electricity is a sin"


How would these things really sit?

 

[JustAnAverageGuy]

I don't have a problem with them offering the class as long as it isn't required to graduate.

Likewise, I wouldn't have a problem with a Koran\Quran, Torah, etc. class either.

 

[HombrePequeno]

There is nothing wrong with having a class that takes a look at the historical and literary aspects of the bible.

 

[Kerouactivist]

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno
There is nothing wrong with having a class that takes a look at the historical and literary aspects of the bible.

Logically wouldn't some problems come from this though?

 

[nageov3t]

thumbs up.

I took this exact class in college... English 400-somethingorother, The Bible as Literature. it was a totally non-religious class in which we looked at the bible the same way we'd look at any other text, discussing its merits and flaws as a work of literature, as well as its historical and sociological importance.

they dropped the class after I graduated because the professor who had taught it for 30 years retired, but I believe they moved to incorporate the bible in a 200-level Western Lit course. at least as an English major, it's important to be at least semi-versed in the bible, because so many writers (English Restoration Period poets especially) assume that the reader as a working knowledge of the bible. without it, there are tons of references and allusions that you'd skip right over.

btw: total dejavu. is this an old article or something?

 

[HombrePequeno]

Originally posted by: bthorny

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno
There is nothing wrong with having a class that takes a look at the historical and literary aspects of the bible.

Logically wouldn't some problems come from this though?

It's an elective. It's not like the kids are required to take it. I took a course on the Qur'an last year at UW and I thought it was well done. There were a couple of Muslims in the class that disagreed with some of the professors viewpoints but their views were expressed alongside the teachers so there weren't really any problems.

It's not like the teacher is getting up in front of the class to lead a prayer.

 

[Tab]

As long as it's an elective and doesn't teach it in a "it's 100% accurrate sense."

 

[Gigantopithecus]

Thumbs down. In theory, sure, it could work. In practice, I have grave misgivings about the intentions of the course's proponents. They do not want a secular class, they want public schools to promote the Bible.

Here are the relevant parts:

"Modica contacted National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools, a North Carolina-based organization that promotes a specific curriculum."

"The National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools...offers a copy of a promotional pamphlet that urges people to be wary of classes in "comparative religions," which is another legal approach schools use to introduce the Bible in schools.

That pamphlet says: "This second approach seeks to implement Bible Courses in the context of world religions; subjecting the Bible to interfaith criticism, judging it by group consensus, and molding it to fit politically correct standards. Such courses tend to promote faiths such as Islam, Hinduism and Taoism. While these courses are also legal, they teach comparable religions rather than a true Bible curriculum."

So, basically, she's seeking to implement a curriculum created by an organization that fears/does not want the Bible compared to its 'competitors'. The first and last bolded statements imply Christians have a monopoly on 'true Bible curriculum'. The Bible has affected the history and literature of plenty of non-Christians, do they have no input on its historical or literary significance?

The second bolded statement shows the organization clearly believes it is impossible to teach about the Koran or the Bhagavad Gita without promoting them - but believes it is possible to teach about the Bible without promoting Christianity. This hypocrisy is so clear a blind person could see it.

The public schools in America are secular. If you want your kids to learn about the Bible's literary and historical significance, teach them yourself or send them to Sunday School.

 

[Kerouactivist]

Gigantopithecus,

The portion you outlined really bothers me about it as well....


That orgs purpose is pretty...fvcked up IMHO

Check out their sample curriculum PDF

I would really like to see page 237... "the Hydrological Cycle of Weather & The Complexity of Weather Patterns"

 

[jackschmittusa]

Yeah! HS lit class so the kids can learn to say begat, thou, sayest, etc.. Should help Johnny gain command of the language.

 

[PatboyX]

was for it but the actual content of the class looks lame...i think they should do a biblical/classical literature class.
not really "bible in literature"
at the same time, i dont know if kids in high school would be prepared to attempt a class about the bible that approaches it as literature and not as historical doctrine.

 

[Red Dawn]

I would depend on how they'd present it. If it was taught in the same manner Greek Mythology was taught then I don't see a problem but if it was taught as possible truth then I think that it would be crossing the line.

 

[surreal1221]

No, not okay. If it were a comparative religions class where they focus on a number of religious, that would be a much much better course in my opinion.

 

[Genx87]

It is an elective thus ok in my book.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: Genx87
It is an elective thus ok in my book.

Nothing wrong with exploring alternate ideas.

The Bible itself can be treated as a book of historical fiction. There are plenty of literature classes that "interpret" novelists and their output. Wy should not the bible be treated in the same vein.?

People are already complain about the Quran not being treated/analyzed.

 

[PatboyX]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: Genx87
It is an elective thus ok in my book.

Nothing wrong with exploring alternate ideas.

The Bible itself can be treated as a book of historical fiction. There are plenty of literature classes that "interpret" novelists and their output. Wy should not the bible be treated in the same vein.?

People are already complain about the Quran not being treated/analyzed.

i agree that it should be explored in that way (i always enjoyed classes that did that) but even in college, we - as a class- would have to deal with people who were too stubborn to recognize that was the purpose of the class. always bringing up god as, well, a god and things like that. the lack of ability to seperate the intellectual exploration from the spiritual. personally, i think that is a trait of immaturity. a high school class may be a bit young...but as i stated above, the article doesnt appear to want to teach a class like that, so im not as for it as i originally thought.

 

[ExpertNovice]

Tough call, so I didn't vote.

I took a Bible as History course in High School and it was the only history course that I enjoyed. Of course, in my case it was a required course becuase I was at a military Baptist boarding school where foreign students came to get an American education and US students often came to get straightened out because of behavioral problems. I was a US student.

Even though it was a Baptist school so you might expect the course to be indoctrinating students toward Christianity; it was not. In fact, the instructor taught that the Bible was frequently anecdotal and poetic rather than absolute. It was also pointed out that the Bible was written by man.

From that perspective I would have no problems with having a Bible as history or literature class in a government run school, if it were an elective.

My problem would be how many other classes would now have to be offered? Would we have to have Wicken, Satanic, Atheist, Muslim, etc. classes?

From that perspective I would have a problem because the government run schools are already spending money on issues other than education.

Newsweek actually did LIE! :| People DIED!
CBS actually did LIE! :| People would have DIED!

 

[ValuedCustomer]

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
Yeah! HS lit class so the kids can learn to say begat, thou, sayest, etc.. Should help Johnny gain command of the language.

Oh yes! great point! as a matter of fact let's just sh1t-can all that non-sensical British Literature as well! I mean what possible good could come from reading garbage like Chaucer, Milton, Beowulf, Shakespeare and all those other hacks.. heck, if I'm too dum to understand it, it must crap! ain't that right, ya'll??

/complete idiot

 

[0marTheZealot]

meh

 

[OutHouse]

I took a Bible lit class in my last semester of high school. I neede one more elective and i was done so i picked bible lit because it was cake (from what i heard) and i was interested in learing something about the bible.

it was not a preaching class at all. We only went through a few books but Mr Caffey (i cant belive i still remember that dudes name) broke it down for us on who the main people were, what they were doing, showed us the other laws besides the 10 commandments, stuff like that. we did not have to write any papers or give speaches it was just "ok turn to Luke and lets talk about who Luke was and why he wrote this book and what it means"

at no time did he ever preach to us, we looked at the bible as a work of litature nothing more. just like i did when i took the English lit class. i still hate shakesphere from that class.

so i dont have a problem with it being a ELECTIVE class in a public school.

 

[imported_yetti]

as long as it's not a required course, then i wouldn't care. if you don't want to be in the class, don't take it.

 

[Kadarin]

Originally posted by: Gigantopithecus
Thumbs down. In theory, sure, it could work. In practice, I have grave misgivings about the intentions of the course's proponents. They do not want a secular class, they want public schools to promote the Bible.

Here are the relevant parts:

"Modica contacted National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools, a North Carolina-based organization that promotes a specific curriculum."

"The National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools...offers a copy of a promotional pamphlet that urges people to be wary of classes in "comparative religions," which is another legal approach schools use to introduce the Bible in schools.

That pamphlet says: "This second approach seeks to implement Bible Courses in the context of world religions; subjecting the Bible to interfaith criticism, judging it by group consensus, and molding it to fit politically correct standards. Such courses tend to promote faiths such as Islam, Hinduism and Taoism. While these courses are also legal, they teach comparable religions rather than a true Bible curriculum."

So, basically, she's seeking to implement a curriculum created by an organization that fears/does not want the Bible compared to its 'competitors'. The first and last bolded statements imply Christians have a monopoly on 'true Bible curriculum'. The Bible has affected the history and literature of plenty of non-Christians, do they have no input on its historical or literary significance?

The second bolded statement shows the organization clearly believes it is impossible to teach about the Koran or the Bhagavad Gita without promoting them - but believes it is possible to teach about the Bible without promoting Christianity. This hypocrisy is so clear a blind person could see it.

The public schools in America are secular. If you want your kids to learn about the Bible's literary and historical significance, teach them yourself or send them to Sunday School.

This is why I voted no. I do not believe this can be taught at the high school level without its becoming someone's political agenda.