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

[amie]

..........

[Eponine]

I guess in my experience it's perfectly possible for the Bible (and other religious literature) to be read as just an important piece of literature. When I was in high school and read religious works they were just taught as either any other piece of literature or as context if in a history or culture class.

I wouldn't worry about a good teacher teaching the Bible and other texts being partial to Christianity any more than I would worry about a teacher being partial to Othello over Macbeth. I suppose that's a function of where I grew up and the school I went to, though; if I had kids and lived in the Bible Belt there is no way I would trust a school system to do that probably.

[Katiebug]

No, not unless it's part of a comparative religion elective or something similar.

In 11th grade I took a World Religion elective. It focused primarily on Judaism, Christianity, and Islam but also touched on Buddhism and Hinduism. We took class field trips to a Catholic church and a synagogue; at the time there was no mosque nearby or we would have visited one of those, too. We had in-class speakers who were local religious leaders. All students in the class were required to make three visits to different worship services (one's own place of worship, if applicable, didn't count) and write papers about those experiences. Part of the course included reading excerpts from major religious works including the Bible - with a healthy discussion on versions of the Bible and how they differed. That sort of coursework is not at all objectionable in a public school IMO.

[dawn9476]

Only as an education tool and it is taught along with the Torah, Quran, the Book of Mormon, etc. It shouldn't be used to indoctrinate children so they can embrace the Christian religion. That should be left to the parents.

[CanadianHippie]

In comparative religious, cultural studies, or historical literature then I have nothing against it.

As science, factual history, etc, then no since it doesn't fit the criteria of being historically accurate (or at least not proven historically accurate).

[Marserin]

I would have no problem with a Bible as lit course in a public school. Although, if it is done properly (meaning really focusing on the literary aspects of the Bible), it would probably piss off conservative Christians.

The other possibility would be to cover some of the KJV (which is certainly my least favorite translation from a religious studies perspective), as part of a Brit Lit survey course.

Richard Dawkins on The KJV (

)

[dawbs]

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, I agree strongly with.

I was trying to explain this to my husband (as I'm reading my not-yet-literate kiddo NKJV old-testament stories) that I want her to know her bible as literature. I'm not about what she believes but I am about what she knows.

Knowing about Bathsheba, and the story of Cain and Able and a few others are necessary to actually make it through one Thomas Hardy novel. The fact that I don't enjoy Thomas Hardy novels doesn't change the fact that the literary (and cultural) references are incredibly important to truly understanding the work.

That being said, I shudder to think of many teachers doing this--it would take a careful balance to not be dismissive of closely held and beloved beliefs without presenting it as 'truth' and shoving down throats.

[Angri-la]

I would be interested in seeing which Bible would be agreed upon. KJV?

I learned about all major world religions....at a Catholic school, in theology class junior year. We were taught that yes, God, started it all, but that evolution, etc. was part of His plan. We went further into religion in our Western Civilization class, which kicked the butt of classes of the same ilk I took on the university level.

I don't want my daughter to be taught religion at school. We teach her ourselves, and tolerance and love are the tenets we wish her to learn, not fire and brimstone and SAHD and Biblical submission, thank you very much.

[Marserin]

I would be interested in seeing which Bible would be agreed upon. KJV?

I think it would depend on the class. If it were a Brit Lit course KJV 1611, because the purpose would be to understand the effect of the KJV on British Literature.

A World Religions class, almost any translation would work, I would probably go with a pretty basic contemporary translation, and possibly, depending on the syllabus for the class, supplement with other translations.

[IReallyAmHopewell]

My kids have been taught in great depth about Native American beliefs. They sing songs about Kwanza and Hanaukah but nothing. Not a thing is said about any form of Christian belief. It's really strange. I'm all for my kids learning about other religions and cultures, and go to some length to expose them to such things in a positive way. So why is Christianity hidden? The Bible is crucial to understanding much of classical literature and history. That doesn't mean you have to believe or be "saved" (whatever that means to anyone). We've gone too far in excluding any mention of it. The poetry of the King James version Psalms are poetry for goodness sake. There are many, many literary and cultural references from the Bible. I think there is nothing wrong with adding it to the mix. I certainly don't want a public school that forces ANY religion down my kids' throats. It's so idiotic that we can't have Santa (might offend someone) can't do Halloween (might offend someone) can't do Silent Night (might offend someone) must do Kwanza (in case someone is offended if we don't) etc.....Good grief! Stop worry about it all and just teach kids something about them all. It doesn't need to become World War III. No one, no one should be evangelizing in a public school though.

[kthomp38+]

I remember reading several passages from the Bible in my World Literature and British Literature classes. We also read a few passages from the Koran in World Literature. We discussed the Bible and biblical allusions in American literature. I remember in American literature that nearly everyone in our class was at least a Christmas and Easter Christian so we knew many of the allusions. We had one student in our class however, who was a Buddhist and didn't get the allusions the students more than the teacher filled her in. I specifically remember talking about Noah's Ark but, I don't know what book it came from. I was told about ten years before I was in high school a World Religions class had been offered as a social studies elective but, they got rid of it because of parent complaints. I always thought that a class like that would be really interesting.

[Kaylee]

I think it's a good idea as an elective, if it is taught as literature or culture, not as fact or in a way that promotes a certain belief. The problem in many schools would be ensuring that it was kept as a lit class or whatever, and didn't turn into religious instruction. It seems like that sort of class would be attractive to teachers who wanted to proselytize on the sly, and also for certain students to try to monopolize discussion and use it to push their church or belief system.

I took a "Bible as Literature" course during my year in public high school, and it was great. It was an elective and the teacher made clear at the beginning of the year that it wasn't going to be a class to debate the truth of any religion and he didn't want discussion to turn into preaching or religious debate. Overall, it actually worked out that way, partially because one of the atheist guys in the class was quick to call people on it when they started preaching, and was too good at debate for most people to go there. We did have one issue when the regular teacher was out and we had a whack-a-doodle sub who came in, started going on about how she didn't know what the teacher's notes meant, but the Bible was 100% true and everyone who didn't believe it was going to hell - she was banned from ever subbing that class again.

We used one of those parallel Bibles with the KJV on one side and the NIV on the other which was a good compromise between readability for people not used to the KJV & keeping the most commonly quoted version in English literature. For me, having just come out of close to 3 years in girls' homes that had required scripture reading and workbooks and preaching that really distorted the Bible's overall message, the class was great. It helped me to look at the text alone and in the context of history, and separate what the Bible actually said versus what certain religious leaders had told me it said. The problem is that that sort of class could easily turn into teaching doctrine & religious beliefs if there wasn't proper oversight or if the "oversight" also had a religious agenda. I would be ok with a Bible literature class from a neutral point of view but, even as a fundamentalist Christian, I wouldn't want my child taught religion or doctrine (ie, how to follow parts of the Bible or what it "means" in a religious context) in school because the teacher may be teaching beliefs that I disagree with and expecting the students to echo those beliefs.

[Terrie]

I think it's important to know the most common referenced stories so that you can grasp the references in art and literature. The same way I think it's important to know Greek and Roman mythology and Shakespeare, so that you can get those references. And I think the religious ideas that influenced history are also important and should be included when studying those parts (such as discussing how religion influenced manifest destiny). But I don't think there needs to a class just focused on the Bible.

[Deleted12]

As far as books that you can't understand without the Bible, Harry Potter would be near the top of the list. Ditto for Narnia and the Golden Compass. For adult literature, almost anything about the African-American experience or the Latino experience needs some Biblical understanding.

(Now I'm all looking at the books on my shelf. Poisonwood Bible? Check. Deliverance? Check. The Sabbathday River? Check. The Scarlet Letter? Check. To Kill a Mockingbird? Check. The Stand? Double check.)

I totally agree with Greek and Roman mythology and Shakespeare also being essential to the understanding of western literature.

If I were in charge of teaching 9th grade English class, I'd probably go get a kiddie Bible and assign Genesis, Exodus, the story of David, Job, John, and maybe Revelation. Am I forgetting anything major?

[ElphabaGalinda]

As far as books that you can't understand without the Bible, Harry Potter would be near the top of the list. Ditto for Narnia and the Golden Compass. For adult literature, almost anything about the African-American experience or the Latino experience needs some Biblical understanding.

(Now I'm all looking at the books on my shelf. Poisonwood Bible? Check. Deliverance? Check. The Sabbathday River? Check. The Scarlet Letter? Check. To Kill a Mockingbird? Check. The Stand? Double check.)

I totally agree with Greek and Roman mythology and Shakespeare also being essential to the understanding of western literature.

If I were in charge of teaching 9th grade English class, I'd probably go get a kiddie Bible and assign Genesis, Exodus, the story of David, Job, John, and maybe Revelation. Am I forgetting anything major?

In my opinion, you don't need that much biblical knowledge to understand Harry Potter. From what I understand, all the Christian references are pretty basic, and the major themes, while they can be considered Christian, are a bit more universal.

The other ones you mentioned, I haven't read them all, but the ones you have I definately agree that there needs to be a little bit of Biblical understanding to understand those books, but most of that can be discussed with all the other non-Biblical parts of the books. I don't think there needs to be seperate specific instruction on the Bible for that. It's just been my experience that I didn't have that, and I didn't have trouble. And I know that if it didn't have specific relevance to whatever book we were studying, I would have been uncomfortable being told to read a Bible in highschool. I mean, if it's not specifically relevant, what's the purpose? And if it is specifically relevant, it would seem to be something easy for the teacher to explain.

There are specific courses in college/university if you are interested in that sort of thing, but in my experience it's not the thing that comes up often enough in highschool for it to be necessary. I didn't mind it in world religions because it is a religion. I don't know if I conveyed what I think well enough but that is why although there is no problem making reference to the Bible, I don't think it should be a seperate unit in a literature course.

[keen23]

At my public high school, in the very liberal state of Massachusetts, the Bible was referenced to in History class when we were talking about Ancient Civilizations and in English class as part of a poetry module.

[Eponine]

My kids have been taught in great depth about Native American beliefs. They sing songs about Kwanza and Hanaukah but nothing. Not a thing is said about any form of Christian belief. It's really strange. I'm all for my kids learning about other religions and cultures, and go to some length to expose them to such things in a positive way. So why is Christianity hidden?

It's not that Christianity is hidden. 1) People will inevitably get very angry in a lot of areas of the US if public schools try to "teach" the Bible - either upset that they won't do it "right" or upset that it's present at all, or they feel - as many people in this thread do - that it's something that should be dealt with at home. In general schools don't want to deal with the backlash that will come from doing something like that. 2) Christianity pervades American culture and it's hard to be raised in the US without a very basic understanding of it. To an extent the schools, I think, try to teach the cultural stuff that kids aren't exposed to just by living there.

[JesusFightClub]

I am probably biased because I got taught the Bible as fact at school and found the knowledge of it a huge help in reading and understanding books in my later life. However I could have still had that knowledge without being told "the stuff in this book really happened".

[Terrie]

If I were in charge of teaching 9th grade English class, I'd probably go get a kiddie Bible and assign Genesis, Exodus, the story of David, Job, John, and maybe Revelation. Am I forgetting anything major?

Ones I would probably want them to know for basic literature reference:

Ecclesiastes, chapter 3. The "To everything there is a season" passage.

Psalm 23 (The Lord is my Shepard/Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death)

Some of the stories of Genesis: Garden of Eden and the Fall, Cain and Abel, Noah's Ark, Tower of Babel, I'd probably skip Sodom and Lot, keep the story of Joseph

Some of Exodus: Moses, through the 10 Commandments and the Golden Calf, but I'd probably cut a lot as well.

Also, David and Goliath (I don't think David's whole story is needed) and Daniel and the lion's den.

Job, for me, is a maybe.

Rather than a single Gospel, I'd probably mix and match. Luke for the Christmas story, the Beatitudes (Sermon on the Mount) from Matthew, the parable of the Good Samaritan and the Prodigal Son from Luke, and finally, I'd go to Mark for the death and resurrection story.

The second big maybe for me would be the conversion of Saul from the book of Acts.

Honestly, I'd probably leave out Revelations, since it reads like a really bad acid trip.

ETA: I would not do these as a unit, unless it was paired with a unit on major Greek/Roman myths. Rather, I'd scatter these through all of high school as the references came up or in different units. Like, put Psalm 23 in a poetry unit, or use on of the parables as a supplementary reading when the book references it.

[Confused_by_religion]

Yes, it should be taught as part of the literary canon. And the history of the bible should definitely be taught, too: that there are a lot of authors, that it was compiled by a body of men and didn't just turn up in a burning bush or written on stone tablets by the invisible hand of god or something. Oh, and examples of different translations should be discussed, too.

[CanadianHippie]

In my opinion, you don't need that much biblical knowledge to understand Harry Potter. From what I understand, all the Christian references are pretty basic, and the major themes, while they can be considered Christian, are a bit more universal.

I agree with that. Personally, in regards to Harry Potter, I think a background knowledge of the Holocaust would be more effective than knowledge of the bible.

[Stickers]

I have a question, what do you consider understanding western literature? I thought understanding a book meant you understood the plot, the characters and could point out a few themes in it. Unless the writer is being intentionally vague, and using references as a substitute for real development, I don't see how lack of biblical knowledge would prevent any of that :think: I get that there could be hidden references, but to use Family Guy as an example, even if you've never seen Little Shop of Horrors, Herbert the pervert acting out and singing 'Somewhere That's Green' is funny. :lol: Because the lyrics and him acting it out with Chris in his head is relevant to Family Guy's plot (if you don't know Herbert, is a 70 year old pervert, who has a 'crush' on 13 year old Chris), even without the background (most people don't know LSH) everyone should still understand the episode.

Once again, I'll admit I'm an awful English student. I rarely read what's assigned, I zone out whenever a class covers poetry, I'm sometimes dismissive of trying to analyze things to find a deeper meaning (Why does Jamie wear a red shit? What does that represent? - That it was the only clean one he had? Why are you making me answer this, this is stupid.). I read a lot, but it's mostly nonfiction. And when I do read fiction it's usually fantastical fantasy or realistic fiction that has been published with in the last 80 or so years. So, maybe I would have a better understanding if I was a less stubborn student, but I'm not really connecting the dots here.

[dawbs]

I have a question, what do you consider understanding western literature? I thought understanding a book meant you understood the plot, the characters and could point out a few themes in it. Unless the writer is being intentionally vague, and using references as a substitute for real development, I don't see how lack of biblical knowledge would prevent any of that :think: I get that there could be hidden references, but to use Family Guy as an example, even if you've never seen Little Shop of Horrors, Herbert the pervert acting out and singing 'Somewhere That's Green' is funny. :lol: Because the lyrics and him acting it out with Chris in his head is relevant to Family Guy's plot (if you don't know Herbert, is a 70 year old pervert, who has a 'crush' on 13 year old Chris), even without the background (most people don't know LSH) everyone should still understand the episode.

Once again, I'll admit I'm an awful English student. I rarely read what's assigned, I zone out whenever a class covers poetry, I'm sometimes dismissive of trying to analyze things to find a deeper meaning (Why does Jamie wear a red shit? What does that represent? - That it was the only clean one he had? Why are you making me answer this, this is stupid.). I read a lot, but it's mostly nonfiction. And when I do read fiction it's usually fantastical fantasy or realistic fiction that has been published with in the last 80 or so years. So, maybe I would have a better understanding if I was a less stubborn student, but I'm not really connecting the dots here.

Well, if it's just for comprehension, it's not really studying English, I guess.

I comprehended the basic plot of George Orwell's _Animal Farm_ when I read it as a kid but I didn't have the background knowledge about history and politics to 'get' beyond that. If You're reading _Animal Farm_ as a book about intelligent farm animals, you don't need any other background...but there's no literary merit or real value to the book if that's how it's read.

[VodouDoll]

I'm not really sure how you'd go about teaching literature or art without ever mentioning the Bible or religion:

Harry Potter [or Aslan, if you'd prefer] sacrifices himself to save the lives of everyone else and then comes back to life to defeat evil. This is a common trope in literature, but I can't tell you why or where it comes from.

Dante journeys through Hell with his guide, Virgil, but I can't tell you what hell is or where the rules are that Dante's characters broke to get there.

Michelangelo painted the Sistine Chapel with scenes from a book, but I can't tell you which one or what stories they illustrate. He also sculpted the Pieta of a woman named Mary and her dead son, Jesus, but that's all I can really tell you about them. Just trust me that they were interesting to people in Michelangelo's time.

Hester Prynne has to wear a scarlet A as because she broke a commandment, but I can't tell you what a commandment is or where they're written down.

And forget Milton. It would have to be as though he never existed. So, yeah, I think to have a full and well-rounded education in literature and art (and history and politics and and and) it's important for teachers to be able to talk to their students about the Bible, the stories in it, and how it's been read and used at various points in history.

[Stacie]

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?

I think as an elective, or as a world history/religion class, why not? Not getting into cults or scientology (which is a lifestyle, not a religion in my opinion) but mainstream Christianity, Judaism, Buddism, Islam. A little of each not taught by fundamentalist (hmmmmm, mental, how ironic) or extremists. The facts & only the facts.

In high school Sunday School classes (Greek Orthodox) we learned about other religions and even went on field trips to other churches services. We were never taught that they were going to hell or anything because they believed differently from us. Same thing with the Catholic school I went to.

For some kids that may be the only exposure to religion they'll ever get, so as long as it's basic facts, why not.