Bible courses in Georgia: Be careful what you wish for

March 21, 2006

I noticed that public high schools in Georgia will be offering an interesting new elective next year: objective study of the Bible.

A bill that allows public high schools to offer classes on the Bible sped through the Georgia House Monday, passing overwhelmingly with no debate.

The legislation, which passed 151-7, would allow high schools to form elective courses on the history and literature of the Old Testament and New Testament eras. The classes would focus on the law, morals, values and culture of the eras.

State Representative James Mills, the proposal’s House sponsor, said the legislation would withstand a court challenge because it treats the Bible as an educational supplement.

The measure easily passed the GOP-controlled Senate last month by a 50-1 vote.

I’m not necessarily opposed to the idea of objective study of religious materials in public schools, but I suspect a course like this will have to walk a fine line from which it will be easy to stray.

On the one hand, if the course isn’t neutral and objective, it could become a Sunday-school class, which would be legally impermissible. On the other hand, if the course is neutral and objective, it would inevitably lead to observations about the Bible’s inconsistencies and errors, which would likely undermine the goals of those who approved the elective in the first place.

Lawsuits from supporters of church-state separation, or complaints from Biblical literalists. Should be fun.

Hey, I’m all for it. The kids can read all about Abraham’s adultery with Hagar, or Joshua’s rather rapacious and barbaric conquest of Canaan. Not that anyone would call it an ethnic cleansing or anything.

Some of these kids would be shocked to learn just how many current evangelical concepts are not mentioned in the Bible at all, such as this Rapture business.

  • I took an Old Testament class at Michigan State University which was very academic and matter-of-fact. It had to do with the history of the books, scrolls, who wrote them, geography, etc.

    I suspect this class will be more geared towards evangelism, though, and I’m glad I’m not paying tax money in Georgia for this.

  • I’m SURE there’s also a full curriculum on the study of the “history and literature” of the Torah, the Koran, the writings of the Buddha, etc… Wait–you mean there isn’t? …Oh yeah, those are the religions of NON-WHITE people! Silly me. Those obviously don’t belong in an American classroom.

  • Can you imagine mirror-world Horowitz-style complaints in the news media? “In my Bible as literature course, I wrote an essay contrasting Genesis with a scientific account of the origin of the world, and the teacher failed me!” This situation is ripe for anti-liberal (anti-science, actually) bias.

  • I wish every school would do this, hopefully using the King James Bible which is an icon of English lit and language on a par with Shakespeare.

    It will need to be carefully monitored though. The red flag will be if the classes are run by religion teachers instead of English and history teachers.

  • One of the first questions they would have to deal with for that class is…

    which bible will we be studying?

    That fundamental question will open a can of worms. Catholics have their own version, Protestants another, but the Protestant version was handed down from the Catholics. And the more complex questions, such as who, exactly, wrote the bible and “how was the bible assembled” will open more cans of worms. If I was able, I would go to that class, just to ask questions and watch the Christians attack each other over such basic issues.

    I’m an atheist because I read the entire bible, and asked myself if it made any sense whatsoever for a God to do things like threatening to torture people for not believing in Him (even though he’s invisible, and doesn’t speak to anyone except crazy people). Can a “God of love” sit idly by while children are born with horrible deformities? No human could do something that horrible, yet we’re supposed to revere a God who does that, even though he could allow all kids to be born healthy. If a person did that, we would certainly not think they were moral.

    Most of the Christians I have met haven’t read more than 10% of the bible. And yet they profess that they believe the whole thing to be true.

    here’s a funny joke that summarizes what’s about to happen…

    http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/EmoPhillips.htm

  • In the cover story of the current Washington Monthly, Amy Sullivan writes about a similar push underway in Alabama. There, Democrats have sponsored the legislation–and Republicans are opposed, largely because they’re desperate to deny the Dems any association with the Good Book. But what I found really funny (and more relevant to this piece) is that the “Christian” allies of the Republicans denounced the measure because it would encourage “critical thinking” on the subject of religion.

    And we certainly can’t have that.

  • In high school I took a class titled “The Bible as/in Literature”. It was a great class. The class never even approached the bible as theology, but rather as a series of stories, stories that approached time and again in Western literature.

    If you want to understand western culture (even as a leftist athiestic buddhist) understanding the bible is essential.

  • It’s perfect. Teach creationism as science and the bible as literature. In no time at all, the South will be full of ignorant heathens. That would be really good for NASCAR and pro wrestling.

  • The question that always drives wingnut evangelists totally bonkers whenever the Bible is studied objectively is a simple one: “Who was Cain’s wife?”

    If one professes to take every word of the Bible as literal truth, then Adam and Eve were the only two people in the world, and they had two children, Cain and Abel. Cain slew Abel, so the story goes, leaving only three people in the world.

    But then you turn a page and hey, presto! Cain is married and starting to have children of his own.

    So where did the wife come from? Who were her parents, and their parents? Where were they from? Is Adam missing a second rib or what?

    The Bible is full of logical inconsistencies like that. Have fun out there, Georgia.

  • Racerx’s concerns are far more appropriate than Delia’s.

    There is significant reason to study the Christian Bible instead of other religious texts that has nothing to do with evangelizing. Tocqueville himself commented on the role of religion in American life; it was one of the things that set us apart from Europeans. And like it or not, the overwhelming majority of Americans throughout history have been Christians. Moreover, the founding of several colonies was motivated very specifically by a desire for a certain religiosity, all of which came from some form or another of Christianity.

    Yet again moreover, some epic historical works are built on an understanding of the Bible. Music lyrics reference the Bible constantly. There is a reason the Bible is known as the Greatest Story Ever Told; it was the first great Western epic.

    Also, you can’t use the Torah as an objection since, apart from its being in English instead of Hebrew, it’s included in the Christian Bible. The other books, though they are important to a great many people, and the Qu’ran is growing in importance to Americans, just don’t have the necessary critical mass to be considered essential to American literature and history. If we can study John Winthrop’s City upon a Hill, why shouldn’t we study the book that underlay the sermon?

    Racerx, on the other hand, raises the extremely legitimate question of which version will be used. There are substantial differences between them, as there have been between versions for centuries, which actually say a lot about what the writers of that version were after.

    You can go all the way back. There were more than twenty gospels written; they only used four, and the four were used (in the order they were used) for a reason. The same has been true as the Bible changes over the centuries. We adopt certain pieces or wordings for certain reasons, some more political, some less so.

    What is of most concern to me is the changes made by the House, which removed a requirement that New Testament courses must deal with the “parables of Jesus and the travels of Paul.” These seem more literary. If someone skips over these portions and focuses simply on the crucifixion and Revelations, we could end up with a far more fire-and-brimstone than literature course.

  • Our Taliban hates of their Taliban because of their freedom (to oppress).
    Oppressing in America is still hard work cuz not enough faith based judges have been installed yet.

  • In Georgia too, it was Democrats that proposed this legislation. Republicans were upset that Dems stole their program. It was hilarious.

    I also have some concerns about implementation of this law but at least the GOP has had to shut up about “Godless Democrats”. For that alone, the legislation is priceless.

  • “On the other hand, if the course is neutral and objective, it would inevitably lead to observations about the Bible’s inconsistencies and errors, which would likely undermine the goals of those who approved the elective in the first place.”

    The very idea that there are inconsistencies and errors in the Bible is just atheistic propaganda, and therefore any course that taught such heresies would be in violation of the First Amendment. The neutral, objective view holds that the Bible is inerrant and completely accurate down to the last syllable.

    Or such would be the argument in fundie-land, at least.

  • …aaaand here’s (part of the reason) why we keep losing elections in the South:

    It’s perfect. Teach creationism as science and the bible as literature. In no time at all, the South will be full of ignorant heathens. That would be really good for NASCAR and pro wrestling.

    If the class devolves into proselytizing, then you might have a point. But school districts are generally pretty on the ball about the church/state issue; let’s see what happens. And let’s leave the egregrious regional stereotyping to the bad guys, huh?

  • Future Georgia student questions (hopefully):

    “Why do we fight wars, if Jesus tells us not to?”

    “Why do we cut programs for the poor, if Jesus tells us to help those in need?”

    “Why can’t I find the words ‘abortion’ and ‘homosexual’ in the Bible?”

  • I’m with LeftistBoddhisatva on this. My public high school ninth-grade English class in suburban Philadelphia, late 1960s, featured three full months of Bible study.

    The Bible (primarily the Old Testament) was approached as a work of literature with a series of narratives. We explored the genealogies and histories that form so much of the Old Testament. We also examined the way in which this version of the Bible (King James) was written, and how the words could be interpreted in different ways.

    Of course, studying the Bible in northern suburbia in the secular 60s is a far cry from government-sanctioned Bible study in a Georgia classroom in the revivalist 00’s. But one would hope that, whatever emphasis teachers end up projecting, the students would receive a fresh perspective on a subject they may think they’re already very familiar with.

  • Oh I love it! How I would love to be a fly on the wall when the class is ginning along just fine and all of a sudden a student raises his hand and says, “that’s not what my preacher says….”

    Too bad it’s an elective instead of a required class.

  • Bible study in the Georgia public schools. Should mean fewer snakes running free, I suppose. I’m not sure even the school districts can control what a curious kid can pick up these days from the internet. Here are a few topics they might want to assign for advanced study.

  • Epigraph for the syllabus:
    Deuteronomy 10:16 “Circumcise therefore the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiff-necked.”

    • Comments are closed.