Do you think the Bible should be taught in public school?

[JesusFightClub]

I think it isn't so much "I couldn't understand this book at all" (mind you, you will struggle with a handful of authors if you don't know some Bible) but more placing things in a wider context. Off the top of my head, The Way Of All Flesh, Adam Bede, Confessions of a Justified Sinner and Pilgrim's Progress as well as anything by Dostoyevsky will be, not unreadable without Bible knowledge, but will make far more sense IMO if you have it.

Modern literature, not so much. So if you plan to focus on that, fair play. But the Bible was such a massive influence on English language literature in so many ways (theme, references, turns of phrase) you are, again IMO, missing out if you don't have some understanding of it.

[Eponine]

This came up because I was chatting with a friend and we both agreed that it would be really hard to understand most of English literature without the Bible. So much so, in fact, that we further agreed that some books of the Bible should be taught in the interests of having literate citizens.

This. In my public high school we actually did read small bits of the Bible, the Quran, some holy Hindu texts, and some Confucian stuff for historical reference and background. Religious books have had huge impacts on history and culture and I don't see any issue with acknowledging that. No one interested in Western art or literature can be truly informed about it without having some knowledge about the Bible (and probably Greek/Roman mythology).

[Eponine]

And maybe it's because I never read much of the assigned reading ( :oops: )but I don't think I've ever been assigned a book that you would need biblical background to understand. I honestly have no clue how it'd be helpful, can someone fill me in?

The list of literature that references the Bible is absolutely huge. For starters (and just trying to think of things that could maybe be assigned to high schoolers):

The Divine Comedy

Paradise Lost

Canterbury Tales

Jane Eyre

Moby Dick

Song of Solomon

Inherit the Wind

The Handmaid's Tale

All of Shakespeare's plays

Some authors that draw from or parallel Biblical stories:

Dostoyevsky

Steinbeck

Dickens

Victor Hugo

There are SO many more but that's just off the top of my head.

[fundiefan]

No, the bible should not be taught in public schools. Public schools are, by their very nature, public. All races and religions attend the public schools supported by the public.

Teaching the bible is the job of parents and religious leaders if a family chooses. It is not the job of a public school teacher who is teaching kids who may or may not believe in any god or any bible. The can of worms of determining which bible to teach would probably cause riots. Then fair time must be given to the koran and all other holy books.

Because that is the way PUBLIC education works. It is for everyone in the public.

And, I not only learned literature, I developed a great love for it, without reading or being 'taught' the bible, thankyouverymuch. Making reference to the bible does not mean the bible needs to be taught to understand that reference. It is discussed just as...an island one never heard of is discussed, a way of life in 19th century England is discussed. Whatever.

Who would 'teach' it and 'how' would they teach it? What would be taught from it? Who's interpretation? Which bible? Which brand of Christianity would be taught to the general public?

[Kitty]

In my public school,my AP teachers actually recommended we brush up on our Bible knowledge. A lot of classic lit makes references to the Bible that are really important plot-wise, so I can understand that.

Otherwise, it does not belong in public schools UNLESS other holy books are taught along with it in an elective Religious Studies class.

[ElphabaGalinda]

No. I don't think the Bible should be taught in public schools. I took a world religions course in grade 11, where we studied 5 religions in depth, and a variety of minor ones in passing. However, we never used the bible, or any other religious text. It would just take far too long, especially if we're giving equal time to all religions, which we were. I have also never encountered a book as part of assigned reading that required biblical knowledge. At least, I never had any biblical knowledge in highschool whatsoever, and I didn't have any problems in literature courses. I think, if such a book were assigned, it would be easy for the teacher to explain the biblical references pertinent to that book. I know i took a college course on classical cultures, and when it got to the parts with Rome and Christianity, the prof would say "for those of you who are not Christian, here's the biblical story related to this concept..." I think at my highschool, where Christianity wasn't an obvious majority, and I knew very few people who went to church, it'd be also hard to teach in a way that helps someone who has zero knowledge (like me, at the time), without boring the people who have a lot of knowledge (i'm sure there are some). Seriously, before my religions course i had only a very basic superficial understanding of Christianity, which is why I took the course in the first place. BUT i didn't find that lack of knowledge about Christianity damaging to my life, I was just curious.

[Dinorah]

I'm fine with is being taught in literature/history/ art history/world religion, from a secular neutral perspective.

[Mommy22alyns]

No, I don't think it should. Just too many ways for it to go completely wrong.

And I do teach the girls Bible at home too.

[JesusFightClub]

No, the bible should not be taught in public schools. Public schools are, by their very nature, public. All races and religions attend the public schools supported by the public.

Teaching the bible is the job of parents and religious leaders if a family chooses. It is not the job of a public school teacher who is teaching kids who may or may not believe in any god or any bible. The can of worms of determining which bible to teach would probably cause riots. Then fair time must be given to the koran and all other holy books.

Because that is the way PUBLIC education works. It is for everyone in the public.

And, I not only learned literature, I developed a great love for it, without reading or being 'taught' the bible, thankyouverymuch. Making reference to the bible does not mean the bible needs to be taught to understand that reference. It is discussed just as...an island one never heard of is discussed, a way of life in 19th century England is discussed. Whatever.

Who would 'teach' it and 'how' would they teach it? What would be taught from it? Who's interpretation? Which bible? Which brand of Christianity would be taught to the general public?

An important point. I would use NIV for younger pupils and after a while, a KJV because that's where the richer language comes from. Mileage may vary ;) but I would not swap out the KJV nor would I use one of the paraphrased Bibles like the Message. They are there to make people believe and I don't like 'em for many reasons.

I was also troubled by your island reference. Studying literature, you need to know why people do and believe things in the text, not just that they do. That is kind of weird.

[bananacat]

It should absolutely not be taught in science or history. It would be ok to teach it as one part of a world religions class, as long as that class were elective and the teacher was screened to give a fair view.

[Guest Anonymous]

It should be taught in a world religions class and as it relates to history (crusades, Inquisition - but that doesn't necessarily mean the bible should be referenced, but the way Christianity was practiced/used at the time). I think it's an important reference for any course in english/lit and students will need to be familiar with it although definitely not as "fact".

[browngrl]

I'll second this. Most literature has a great deal of Biblical allusion, so it would probably be a good idea to have students familiar at least with general Biblical stories and parables, and able to look up a reference if it's footnoted in a book.

Northrup Frye - a Canadian professor said much the same thing. When I was studying English lit. when ever a Biblical reference came up the teacher would explain the Biblical context. There was no need to study the Bible per se. I think that is the way to deal this this. The Bible itself should be taught only as part of a religion class (that is optional to people who are not interested).

edited to add "was"

[keeperrox]

It should absolutely not be taught in science or history. It would be ok to teach it as one part of a world religions class, as long as that class were elective and the teacher was screened to give a fair view.

How do you suppose you teach things like the Middle Ages, the Crusades, the Renaissance, the Reformation, Feudalism, the rise of the Ottoman Empire, the Enlightenment, the Great Awakenings and Colonialism, and countless other themes and topics that are in high school history curricula? In the four years that I taught World History, the Bible and biblical themes came up. I didn't teach it as fact, but my students needed to understand the motivation behind some very major events. Sometimes we would talk about general biblical or Christian philosophies, but other times we would reference specific stories or verses. These time periods certainly weren't going to make much sense to them without that context.

[TheBuddha]

well, there is no such thing as neutrality, when humans are involved

but I think its quite obvious that the Bible has effected world history- or at least western- more so than any particular book..

this doesn't mean that brother john from IFB needs to come preach in school,

but lets be honest, if you look at medieval religion and life, there were things that were taken from - rightly or wrongly- the bible.

as has been mentioned the allusions in a lot of literature (i think Shakespeare has a good bit?) morality plays, etc.

so honestly, yes- in a religion class look at all, but in western civ- i dont see where the vedas and eastern religion has contributed a whole lot.

there is the arabic, and Arabic numerals- but that is largely i think Arabic- the people- verses based off of the quran.

Frankly, there is a lot of historical merit to the Bible, and from a moral standpoint, it atleast is equal to aesop fables..

Idk, I as more "whatever does it for you" inclined type of person, dont really care if they do or not. I see more useful reasons to, but..

[SquirrelySquirrel]

Hm. I'm surprised to read that I should have been confused while reading great literature because I didn't have a huge grasp on the bible in high school. I must've either had great teachers who put it in context, or it went over my head. :lol:

I'm torn on this. I'm okay with an elective religious studies course, but I have a hard time seeing something like this stay fair and balanced in every public school across the country. There's quite a difference between being taught the actual bible and learning about, say, Puritans and their role in history class, which is what I think an above poster was getting at in saying the bible shouldn't be taught in history class. And I agree that it most certainly has no place in science class.

I just don't know. I'm an atheist who is fine with my child learning anything and everything about any religion, but I'd almost that rather come at college level.

[JesusFightClub]

I seem to have had to reiterate this a million times but NO ONE IS SAYING A PERSON CAN'T UNDERSTAND A BOOK IF THEY DON'T HAVE A KNOWLEDGE OF THE BIBLE. It helps. It is background information. As it is part of so much Western literature IMO it is a good thing if you have at least taken a keek at it.

As for being an atheist, so am I. It doesn't prevent me reading the Bible or the Qu'ran. We do not burst into flames.

[darareaksmey]

I don't have a problem with teaching about any kind of religion in public schools. The existence of varous religions/faiths/philosophies is part of the history of the world and some world events can't be understood without understanding the religious motivations behind or factors involved in them. And then, to best understand the religions it helps to get into their holy books and writings.

But the moment it turns the corner into proselytizing, I'm out.

[ADoyle90815]

I think it can be taught as part of a comparative religions class, alongside other religious texts as long as there's no preaching.

[FundiesInMyFamily]

I think a world culture and religion class is important to teach kids about other beliefs and cultures, as long as it is presented in a historical/cultural context, and includes all religions as well as athiesim and no religion at all.

In my confirmation class in our Lutheran Church (Boulder, CO - very liberal), we talked about and even visited a mosque, a temple, a catholic cathederal, and a buddist temple. I thought it was great because I had never been exposed to most of it before. Somthing like this to expose high school kids to other beliefs and cultures/religions would be great.

[FakePigtails]

Hm. I'm surprised to read that I should have been confused while reading great literature because I didn't have a huge grasp on the bible in high school. I must've either had great teachers who put it in context, or it went over my head. :lol:

I'm torn on this. I'm okay with an elective religious studies course, but I have a hard time seeing something like this stay fair and balanced in every public school across the country. There's quite a difference between being taught the actual bible and learning about, say, Puritans and their role in history class, which is what I think an above poster was getting at in saying the bible shouldn't be taught in history class. And I agree that it most certainly has no place in science class.

I just don't know. I'm an atheist who is fine with my child learning anything and everything about any religion, but I'd almost that rather come at college level.

It's too bad, isn't it? If there was a way to ensure an objective teaching of the subject I would honestly be for making it a required thing. I think it's so important in today's connected world to have a literacy in what major religions do and don't believe, where they're practiced, different forms of it, etc. For example, I spent a few months in a majority Muslim country, one of the most stable ones, and on returning someone asked me about if I'd had to wear a burqa. I was insulted! A few years later after seeing a discussion about hijabs online I realized that a LOT of people had no idea that a burqa is not a headscarf is not a niqab or chador. What if the person had made that comment to someone who was actually Muslim?

I was lucky enough that despite the problems with the religion classes at my Catholic high school, the world religions class was excellent and our teacher brought in friends from all different religions to explain their beliefs and answer questions. We were in a large city though, and when I think of my husband's rural high school, that would just be impossible. It's really too bad that even if there was a set curriculum schools could order (or however that type of thing works) there would probably be unofficial commentary in too many classes :-(

[Jencendiary]

This is a sore spot at my house, as my sister was just informed she can't use Joseph Campbell's Hero With A Thousand Faces in her classroom because it treated the Bible - specifically Christ's story - with no more import than the rest of the myths and legends in the book. Apparently her school district's literacy coach (who never taught English or High Schoolers) doesn't get the concept of teaching the Bible as literature and not incontravertable fact.

[SquirrelySquirrel]

I seem to have had to reiterate this a million times but NO ONE IS SAYING A PERSON CAN'T UNDERSTAND A BOOK IF THEY DON'T HAVE A KNOWLEDGE OF THE BIBLE. It helps. It is background information. As it is part of so much Western literature IMO it is a good thing if you have at least taken a keek at it.

As for being an atheist, so am I. It doesn't prevent me reading the Bible or the Qu'ran. We do not burst into flames.

Um, was that directed at me? If so, no need to shout. I'm not thick. My point was really that I had good teachers who put it in context with no need to dust off the bibles and devote a bunch of time to it.

I don't recall anyone saying as atheists we shouldn't read bibles. You're picking a fight that isn't here.

[SquirrelySquirrel]

It's too bad, isn't it? If there was a way to ensure an objective teaching of the subject I would honestly be for making it a required thing. I think it's so important in today's connected world to have a literacy in what major religions do and don't believe, where they're practiced, different forms of it, etc. For example, I spent a few months in a majority Muslim country, one of the most stable ones, and on returning someone asked me about if I'd had to wear a burqa. I was insulted! A few years later after seeing a discussion about hijabs online I realized that a LOT of people had no idea that a burqa is not a headscarf is not a niqab or chador. What if the person had made that comment to someone who was actually Muslim?

I was lucky enough that despite the problems with the religion classes at my Catholic high school, the world religions class was excellent and our teacher brought in friends from all different religions to explain their beliefs and answer questions. We were in a large city though, and when I think of my husband's rural high school, that would just be impossible. It's really too bad that even if there was a set curriculum schools could order (or however that type of thing works) there would probably be unofficial commentary in too many classes :-(

Yes, it is too bad. I think that one's area of the country, and experiences in areas of the country will shape their opinion on this one. I live in a conservative area in the Midwest that may as well be part of the Bible Belt. My daughter is going to an excellent rural public school, but I have a difficult time seeing a religious studies class be anything but partial to Christianity. I'm fine with a somewhat conservative Christian teaching my kid algebra, but I'm not willing to trust it when it comes to her learning about different religions of the world. That's why I'd rather it happen on the college level.

[latraviata]

Why or why not?

If so, which parts should be taught?

What classes (history, government, English, science, or other subject) should the Bible be taught in?

What do you think the rationale for teaching the Bible in public school is?

This is my answer:

http://www.godvoordommen.nl/2011/08/20/ ... -campagne/

[JesusFightClub]

Um, was that directed at me? If so, no need to shout. I'm not thick. My point was really that I had good teachers who put it in context with no need to dust off the bibles and devote a bunch of time to it.

I don't recall anyone saying as atheists we shouldn't read bibles. You're picking a fight that isn't here.

Sorry about that! I am a bit on edge at the moment and I haven't worked out how to make my phone do emphasis.

I have a question though, we are all talking about doing lit at school or college, what about self study? Should one not have some Biblical knowledge learnt at school perhaps to help with that?