Bible teaching in public school? Opening Pandora's Box.The Georgia Legislature has now made it optional for public schools to teach the Bible. It remains to be seen how many local school districts will take up this option; or how many students will choose such an "elective" course. What is clear is that Georgia's action is highly problemmatic, and opens pandora's box again. On the one hand, there is nothing to prohibit teaching about the Bible's history and literature, for instance, just as long as this does not involve evangelization or the promotion of a sectarian interpretation. Former Supreme Court Justice Tom Clark spoke of this in the 1960's: "It might well be said that one's education is not complete without a study of comparative religion or the history of religion and its relationship to the advancement of civilization....Nothing we have said here (in the Schempp ruling) 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." On the other hand, for many generations the Bible was taught in our nation's schools, and was very often the direct cause of community division and discord. We learned how difficult it is for the Bible to be presented objectively: how difficult it is for teachers to shed their own perspectives, whether religious or secular. Justice Clark made reference to this problem also: " The place of religion in our society is an exalted one, achieved through a long tradition of reliance on the home, the church and the inviolable citadel of the individual heart and mind. We have come to recognize through bitter experience that it is not within the power of government to invade that citadel, whether its purpose or effect be to aid or oppose, to advance or retard. In the relationship between man and religion, the State is firmly committed to a position of neutrality." My question is this: why move away from our long reliance on the home, the church, and the individual heart and mind in matters concerning Bible interpretation; and why return again to the bitter controversies that open up when we turn to government agencies to teach religion? What the Georgia Legislature has done may be quite legal, but it is also quite foolish, and does a great disservice to the State.
Related: church-state's blog | login or register to post comments | printer friendly version | Tags: bible | religion
Submitted by lilyslore on Sun, 03/11/2007 - 11:42am.
And proofreading, Rich. But I think your first statement is the best one. An elective course in comparative religions, not matter how nutty, is a good idea. If one leans toward condemning one religion over another, at least know what and why. Nobody likes an ignorant bigot. If one chooses to be a bigot, he should be an educated bigot. (Tongue firmly implanted in cheek.) Lily's lore Submitted by RichK on Sun, 03/11/2007 - 4:35pm.
Point well taken. This is the first time I've ever been on a blog. I usually write on WORD, go through the necessary drafts and proof read as I go along. Slowly, I'm learning to transfer those skills to writing blogs. But then the capitol city of the Italian peninsula was not built within a 24 hour framework. The challenge keeps me sharp. Thanx. People are talking about ...Here are the recent blog postings with the most comments. |
Who's online
There are currently 0 users and 140 guests online.
Recent comments |
I, for one, can't find any logical reason against teaching compariative religion courses as an ELECTIVE. But I find fault in the fact that these teachings would center on the Christian Bible. At last count, there were found to be over 4,200 recognised religions on earth. Whether they have only a few hundred, a few thousand or a billion adherents, they all have one thing in common. They are all based on faith, not facts ro evidence, and are therefore equally valid on that basis.
A second fault I find is that it would much too easy to descend that slippery slope into proselytization. We have already had an excess of problems with that particular phenomena.
The third fault I find is the fact that nationally and especially internationally, our students consistently have been found lacking in basic literature, math, science, history, geography, reading comprehision and writing skills. I would rather see more time effort and money spent improving these basic skills.