Ooh, and I just saw that Morgan Spurlock (Super-Size Me) and Ben Stein are facing off on Larry King tonight!

I went to a private high school where we got to choose a majority of our courses. Sophomore year we could take a Bible class or a Sacred Traditions course on all the religions of the world. Neither were mandatory but I ended up taking the Sacred Traditions course which covered literally everything and was highly informative (although my teacher did have something against Christianity and despite being agnostic, I had to jump to its defense multiple times). My brother took the Bible course and said it was basically a class on analyzing the text. He said he loved it and he's not religious at all. I don't have a problem with courses teaching the Bible as long as it is not mandatory or propagandistic (no teachers who were former missionaries...) It is a very important historical text. But any teacher or school that goes ahead with a class like this needs to recognize and make sure their students recognize that it is one of many religious texts in the world not the be all and end all of them.

the bible is an important book relative to our world even if you do not believe in its' teachings. It is a very important historical text.
why would we not we study it?
I am christian and also studied many other religions- they are culturally and historically significant to our world, not to mention interesting.

if i wanted my children to study religious texts, i would send them to religious schools. however, in PUBLIC schools, religious texts should be studied not in the context of HISTORY but in the context of RELIGION. teaching the bible as history is the same thing as teaching creationism as science. if you were examining the literary devices, story structures and character analyses, however, in the context of the Bible as just a book, then I'm okay with that.

if my child wants to further explore any religion, far be it from me to stop them in their quest for knowledge. but i will send my children to public schools because i do not believe religious dogma equals a quality education.

there is nothing that offends me more than the constant blurring of the already fuzzy line separating church and state. it is an individual choice that should be left up to parents and their children and government funding has no business anywhere in between.

I was a lit major in college (a public university). I took Bible history classes. We also studied it in our lit classes b/c the Bible is the most referenced book in other literature. It's not just about the religious content, it's about the historical reference points.

it states that only people who want to take the class can
so you would still be within your rights if you did not want your child to take the class
obviously there is a want for it, since the classes do have students

Although teaching the Bible as an academic rather than religious document is constitutional, teaching it as "history" is problematic. Calling the Bible "history" assumes that its recounting of events is accurate, which would actually be a propagation of religions stemming from the Bible, as there is little evidence that its recounting of events is factual.

However, teaching is as "literature" seems appropriate.

It's tricky. As an elective I think it's okay, but it opens up a can of worms - what if this was Islam, not Christianity, would reactions be different? And what other privately funded programs can wind up in public schools?

The fact remains that parts of the Bible have been historically proven and there's documents other than the Bible to back that up. Then again, a lot of other religious figures were historical figures too.

the bible is a study in history, there are many historical documents, and writers from that time that cite the same instances and places that the bible does.

I took old and new testament in college and loved them both.

There is much of the bible that is history, you do not have to look at it as religious text.

"And what other privately funded programs can wind up in public schools?"

Well since public schools should not be federally funded, there are private funds and programs that contribute to schools. For a small example, students have bake sales and car washes all the time to fund different trips and dances. Really private funds and state taxes are how the Public school system is suppose to be run to begin with.

I would not care what religious texts my child wants to learn about. If it is elective, and that is something that interests them, then the more power to them. We should not prevent our children from learning, but encourage them to take more active interests in academia.

If it were religious studies or history of theology anything that covers the history in a plural sense which includes Western and Eastern theological philosophies than I would be all for it. But if it is solely focused on The Holy Bible than no I do not support it.

I think having religion classes as electives in public schools are fine, and actually think it's a great idea. Offer as many religions as possible (you'd really need people who really know about the religions not just people who think they know about it), and it may actually help some students to choose a religious path or not but at least this way they're informed.

and I fully agree with Cine's last paragraph.

Isn't teaching the Bible as history sort of like teaching Scrooge McDuck as economics?

Well since Scrooge is a cartoon character and Jesus actually existed, I would say the answer is no.

Well, there is no physical evidence that a man named Jesus ever existed, so let's call it a tie.

Okay. That is a lame argument. There is lack of physical evidence for many historical figures.

Are you to say unless you see their bones, they never existed? Isn't that what historical records and documentation is for?

I have to disagree with that raciccarone. Now I will agree that it takes a leap of faith to believe that Jesus was born of a virgin and is the son of God. However, I believe there is plenty of evidence that the man named Jesus of Nazareth did exist.

how an it not looked at as history? the dead sea scrolls (parts of the BIBLE) are from the first century b.c.e
and are believed to be remains from the library of Essenes
they describe many events that took place and despite being the oldest evidence of the bible found they do not differ from much younger translations of the bible (a key part in proving historical significance)
we look at Egyptian, Mayan, and other archaeological documents as part of history
this is different because it is a religion you do not believe in?

I guess I'm talking about the Old Testament here. I think using that as an "historic text" is a little odd, considering they are more or less a patchwork of fables. As for the Jesus remark, yes there is Roman documentation claiming that a man named Jesus existed and was crucified for reasons of State security, so, I do cede to your point.

Okay. That is a lame argument.

Happy Friday!

You don't have to take the stories and say they ARE history, but can also take the stories from the Old Testament and put them in historical context, and see the relation to the stories and the influence they had on society in different periods of time.

You can also look at the "fables" and see the links to historical events. There is much you can do when studying Religious literature.

Sy, I am totally in TGIF mode!

Look, let's not get into this whole does the Bible exist or doesn't it argument. The point is, I have other stories to comment on and I just can't get bogged down in a philosophical conversation right now. I love reading your comments and I cherish our time together, but a story just came up on an 8 year old who divorced a 20 year old Yemeni husband and I've got precious little time!

Well the Bible does exist. Just depends on how you view the Bible, and its significance

actually a jewish historian named Josephus published works containing two passages in reference to Jesus.

Religion is based on faith and history is based on fact. If you believe that that a man was capable of parting the red sea and that a man was capable of turning water into wine then you are acting on faith not fact. Now the real question is are children mentally mature enough to realize that those events could have very well happened but they also very well could not have happened?

As a non-religion individual, when I went to private school for the education (my public school was at risk of loosing accreditation) I was surprised how much I enjoyed the theology courses for their value in providing historical context to people perceptions and for providing the opportunity to discuss what I believed. High school can be a time of amazing emotion and discovery and to have 1 hour of my life every day dedicated to thinking about how I felt about all of this really helped me define who I was in the long run. I think the key was to have a teacher who was willing to discuss a wide variety of theological theories and who knew a bit about teenagers. It's something that I missed when I graduated and went into a strictly science education. After that experience I believe we all should take a bit of everyday to think about- "what do I believe about this world? " I hope the proposed high school class takes this prospective.

I went to public school for k-12 and I took a Bible Lit class in 12th grade.

I'm glad students are being exposed to the Bible. Religion is not just about believing in something, it's having something to belive in. It's a source of comfort and strength. I wonder what our world would be like if there was more exposure to the Bible, and prayer in school.

UnDave35, please don't forget that not everyone is a Christian and the world would not be a better place if everyone was. How would you feel about children being exposed to the Koran or the Torah? I think it would be a good idea to educate young children about all religions not just Christianity.

I wonder what our world would be like if there was more exposure to the Bible, and prayer in school.

That's probably all well and good for a country with a national religion, but assuming you're talking about a country founded on the separation of church and state (example: the U.S.) I think it would create a pretty marginalizing space for anyone not adhering to the belief structure supported by the chosen scripture and style of worship you propose... which would in turn would be totally inappropriate in a public education system. I really couldn't disagree with you more.

Would you feel the same way if you were the minority living in a predominantly Islamic country? How - or who - would choose which Bible and belief to practice in a public school system in a multi-religious society? Could you with confidence leave the choice in the hands of a school board to speak for your tax dollars and select one "source of comfort and strength" to teach everyone in school?

Personally, I think accepting private grants to be used to further specific agendas or courses of study in public schools is a really slippery slope.

I used to respect Ben Stein as an intellectual and all around nice guy, but I'm certainly looking at him differently the more I read about his "Expelled" project.

Since I didn't refer to any religion specific, I wouldn't have a problem with it, as long as prayer to all dieties is allowed (Freedom of religion, not from religion). The point is the vast majority who have a belief system are not violent people, and prayer or meditation help people cope with troubles.

"Personally, I think accepting private grants to be used to further specific agendas or courses of study in public schools is a really slippery slope."

I agree, and it's not just religion. I was looking into the geology program at one of the colleges close by- only to discover that it was largely funded by an oil company, that there was a strong petrochemical bent to the curriculum, and that something like 85% of all graduates of the geography program went on to work for the oil company who funded the classes. That, to me, was completely disappointing, since I was looking at geography as a way to help the planet and not plunder it for its resources. Unfortunately, it's the only geography program around.

I think that to an extent, when you are accepting the money of an outside organization, you are taking on that organization's agenda as well.

"I think that to an extent, when you are accepting the money of an outside organization, you are taking on that organization's agenda as well."

I absolutely agree, Bookish. Even if the class as an elective, by allowing it on the curriculum it's being presented with some degree of endorsement or validation when it's listed along with to the rest of the approved curriculum. I think it's asking a lot of kids to have to think through the motivations behind "purchased" electives - just my $0.02.

So that calls another question then, can you accept large donations from organizations and not get hooked into that organization's agenda?

I think it's fine for the bible to be taught as it relates to literature and history, especially if it's an elective.

I'm not christian, but I still recognize how much the christian bible impacts history, literature, politics and thus having a knowledge of the text is invaluable. I also think other religions should be taught as well. It would do a lot to further our understanding of the world in general.

Also, I think the problem with teaching the Bible comes in when those teaching it try and push moral values, which I wouldn't at all agree with, mainly because I don't think anyone, Christian or other, wants a stranger in the public school system teaching their kids their morals.

That's not the job of the school system, but of parents and the religious community the student belongs to.

You bring a good point Lula. It's the parent's and the religious community's job to teach morals. What happens when the parents don't teach morals, either through education or by example? The problem with society (or at least my neck of the woods) is that parents are too concerned about being their children's friend. Morality is for the church, but then they don't bring their kids to church.

I really don't see the big deal. It's a choice, right?

I don't think that there should be any private funding for religious education in schools - that sounds like a slippery slope.

BUT. I do concede that reading/analyzing the Bible, whether or not one is Christian, is key for understanding historical events and works of literature right through the present day. However, such a class should also cover ancient mythologies, the Torah/Talmud, the Qu'ran, the Vedas, and other major religious/philosophical texts - because that's really what it's about. It's all philosophy in one way or another, and it all had a good deal of influence on the shaping of society, culture, and history generally...

Actually, Ben Stein's movie had nothing to do with having biblical teaching or any kind of religion in classrooms or scientific institutions. The whole point of the movie was the educational and scientific communities' complete and utter exclusion of any possibility but evolution from a single cell organism, conceived with a bolt of lightning and incubated on the backs of diamonds until it came crawling out of the muck. Expelled was an intelligent look at the suppression of intelligent thought. Scientists and historians from a variety of backgrounds, including various institutions and even other countries, were allowed to state their beliefs and participate in the discourse. Stein asked them open ended questions that allowed ample opportunity to clarify their viewpoints. Never once did Stein advocate for religious indoctrination - he simply condemned the restriction of examining other possibilities IN ADDITION TO Darwinism.
And the article that you linked to, Things Ben Stein Doesn't Want You to Know, contains several misrepresentations. Read it with a grain of salt if you haven't seen the movie and are not familiar with Ben Stein himself.