« Child Support, Shaming and Scofflaws | Main | Evangelical Leaders Reveal Their Partisanship »

March 26, 2007

Bible Instruction in High School Classrooms

Now this is the sort of religious education I think belongs in the classroom: at New Braunfels High School in Texas, students are being offered the option of taking a Bible literacy class. Considering the influence of the Bible on American culture and history, I think this is a fabulous idea.

One of the primary reasons I like it is because little annoys me more than having a debate with someone over religion when they know absolutely nothing about it - but act as if they do. As one of the students in the class (an atheist) said, "If somebody is going to carry on a sophisticated conversation with me, I would rather know what they're talking about than look like a moron or fight my way through it." I tend to agree with the point of view of those who argue thus:

[T]eaching the Bible in schools--as an object of study, not God's received word--is eminently constitutional. The Bible so pervades Western culture … that it's hard to call anyone educated who hasn't at least given thought to its key passages.

Time magazine looks at the question of whether such instruction is constitutional:

[T]he 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.

Those who have studied literature know the Bible has had a great influence on it, but the Bible's influence on history is often less recognized. Many speeches and references by historical leaders are understood on a much deeper level if one is familiar with the biblical bases for them. For instance:

"The shining city on the hill"? That's Puritan leader John Winthrop quoting Matthew to describe his settlement's convenantal standing with God. In his Second Inaugural Address, Abraham Lincoln noted sadly that both sides in the Civil War "read the same Bible" to bolster their opposing claims. When Martin Luther King Jr. talked of "Justice rolling down like waters" in his "I Have a Dream" speech, he was consciously enlisting the Old Testament prophet Amos, who first spoke those words. The Bible provided the argot--and theological underpinnings--of women's suffrage and prison-reform movements.

It even matters in current politics. Several have noticed the frequent use of biblical "code" words, phrases and concepts throughout George W. Bush's speeches, sending a special message to Christians to engender their trust. Others rely on biblical references to make points about his presidency. Would it not be useful to be able to recognize and understand those rhetorical devices? Heck, Bible-inspired rhetoric is even spread lavishly throughout rock music. Take, for instance, Frank Zappa's "the meek shall inherit the earth." This guy wrote an entire thesis on the biblical references in Bob Dylan songs. Recognizing and understanding them adds layers of meaning.

I'm certainly not opposed to teaching about other world religions, too, particularly Islam in the current times, but Christianity and Judaism have been most influential on American history, literature, art, music, language, and politics. I'm not saying this course can always be taught without conflict or difficulty, but with the right curriculum and a teacher who is committed to the focus of the course, I think it would be a great addition to a well-rounded education.

"Bad courses will be taught," predicts Prothero… "People will teach it as a Sunday-school class. And we'll do what we always do when unconstitutional stuff happens in America. We'll get a court to tell us what to do, and then we'll fix it."

Some parents may be concerned about the subject altogether. Heck, some parents are concerned about sex ed, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't teach it. In this case, I think the best option is to make it an elective, so that only kids who obtain their parents' permission may take the course. And teachers should be well-versed in their constitutional obligations.

Posted by Becky at March 26, 2007 06:23 PM