The Tennessee legislature has passed and yesterday sent to Gov. Phil Bredesen for his signature HB 4089 that authorizes "the state board of education to develop and adopt a curriculum for a state funded elective course consisting of a nonsectarian, nonreligious academic study of the Bible and its influence on literature, art, music, culture, and politics." Attorney General Opinion 08-74 (April 1, 2008) concluded that the bill, with various protections in it, is consistent with the Establishment Clause. Attorney General Opinion 08-105 (May 7, 2008), warned that a then-pending amendment to remove certain guidelines for the course would make it more likely that a Bible course would be taught in an unconstitutional manner. The Paris (TN) Post-Intelligencer says that currently less than 20% of Tennessee's counties offer Bible courses in their schools. [Thanks to Scott Mange for the lead.]
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
.jpg)
Posts
10 comments:
"...state funded elective course consisting of a nonsectarian, nonreligious academic study of the Bible and its influence on literature, art, music, culture, and politics."
In high school? It's an absolutely fascinating study, and very absorbing, this peek into history, psychology, and development of the human spirit.
But does it belong in high school?
The actual agenda of those implementing these courses is never nonreligious, as far as I've seen.
This legislation actually allows for what Barb has rejected: it specifies that no religious test shall be made to determine who can teach the course. Including having any sort of faith at all, so atheists could presumably teach the course. At least, in theory they could.
If I were single and childless, it might be worth it to embark on a new career just to become an atheist teacher of Bible courses.
Which Bible? Protestant? Catholic? Orthodox?
They're all different to a certain degree (in terms of the numbers/types of "books" they contain).
Teach the books that the 3 branches of Christendom have in common.
I'm sure that an atheist teacher would not be allowed to make statements that undermine faith in the Bible as true history --or he should not teach it.
It's certainly a valuable course that could be SOOO FUN to teach --at no one's expense. STick to the who's what's when's and where's --not too much about why's and meanings -- more on stories than on the teachings about how to go to heaven, e.g. Although it would be hard for me to avoid a lesson on "the claims of Christ." "I am the Living Water, Living Bread, the Good Shepherd, the Way, the Truth and the Life," "and whoever believes in me will never die." "Because I live, you shall live also."
But I could teach around it, I guess.
AS for it being taught in high school --why not? Some Public Schools teach tons of things that are quite objectionable and controversial, undermining student morals and beliefs, as it is.
one little ol' bible course as an elective is just equal time. But it needs a good teacher.
Teach the books that the 3 branches of Christendom have in common.
The books that are not held in common are part of the reason we have 3 branches to begin with. So ... if we're truly assessing the "Bible and its influence", they should all be included. No?
Perhaps this would be a good time to point out that this is not a "bible study" course.
This is a course on the influence the bible had on a developing civilization.
The bible itself will not be taught. The development of civilization as a result of the interpretations of what was written (and in which versions) would be the focus of the course.
As I said, it's a fascinating study. But it's very complicated, and requires at least a cursory backgrounding in history, art, music, literature, politics...anything and everything that had influence in leading us to where we are today. Given that a lot of adults have trouble keeping track of everything involved in the evolution of society, are high school students ready for this kind of immersion?
chimera,
It is a Bible course. Quoting Amendment 4 of the bill:
"The state board of education is authorized to approve a curriculum for an elective state funded course consisting of a nonsectarian, nonreligious
academic study of the Bible. The course may include the impact of the Bible on literature, art, music, culture, and politics."
Barb,
Oh, I wouldn't make a single statement regarding my own ideas on the truth or falsity of the Bible as a teacher of the course. I'd just leave my personal copy of The God Delusion on my desk. That would be okay, right? ;)
You are ornery, CL and I'll have to monitor your course, evidently.
"Teach the books that the 3 branches of Christendom have in common."
Is it safe for me to assume you mean the Abrahamic monotheistic religions of Christianity, Islam and Judiasm?
If so I find it quite odd that you would consider Judiasm to be a branch of "Christendom" given the fact that Judiasm predates Christianity and was the foundation upon which Christian beliefs were developed.
"I'm sure that an atheist teacher would not be allowed to make statements that undermine faith in the Bible as true history --or he should not teach it."
By the same token a Christian teacher should not be allowed to make statements about the Bible that strengthen faith in the Bible as true history.
The teacher should leave his or her personal beliefs about the Bible in the parking lot. The teacher has no business allowing his or her personal beliefs to determine how and what is taught.
The public school classroom is for education, not indoctrination (be it atheistic or theistic.)
"Although it would be hard for me to avoid a lesson on "the claims of Christ."
"But I could teach around it, I guess."
"You are ornery, CL and I'll have to monitor your course, evidently."
Barb, I get the impression that it would be you that we have to keep an eye on.
Now, obviously I do not know you personally, but having read many of your postings here I can't help but feel that it is your hope that Bible courses, even if taught in an "objective" "neutral" manner, would have the effect of drawing people to Christ.
Am I wrong?
Is it really that you want students to understand Biblical references in arts and literature or are you hoping that students once exposed to the Bible will be touched by the Holy Spirit?
I can't help but feel that you view the public schools as an evangelization opportunity.
Regards,
Brian
P.S. Have you ever commented at Bruce Prescotts "Mainstream Baptists" blog? I feel as though we may have crossed paths there.
I erred twice there --Islam and Judaism are not branches of Christendom, of course --and I would guess that Islam would limit the study to the books up through Abraham and ishmael's story if we tried to teach only the shared history. I don't know what Islam says about the Ten C's of Moses. I used to think of Muslims as favoring those Ten C's with the orthodox Jews and Christians.
The Bible that is significant in art, music , lit, etc is the same book as shared by the Catholics and includes both testaments, of course. They have some extra books that a class wouldn't likely have time for anyway. Catholic, protestants and Jews DO share the Old Testament.
I have not heard of Prescott's Baptist blog --so it wasn't me.
I always hope people will want to seek Christ.
I'm not in the running to teach such courses --I'd have to brush up on my certification, etc. I think I could teach it objectively without proselytyzing. I surely wouldn't undermine anyone's faith. Most people who would take such a class would probably be believers.
I think I understand the issues of church and state reasonably well and the issues concerning such a class. I'd be most careful.
Post a Comment