How about following the law, not the Bible?

March 31, 2007

Guest Post by Morbo

Time magazine religion writer David van Biema has jumped aboard the “let’s-put-classes-about-the-Bible-in-public-schools” bandwagon.

To buttress his contention that we need this instruction more than, say, scientific or economic literacy, van Biema borrows this anecdote from Boston University religion professor Stephen Prothero, who wants to see mandatory classes about the Bible in public schools:

In 1995 a federal appeals court upheld the overturn of a death sentence in a Colorado kidnap-rape-murder case because jurors had inappropriately brought in extraneous material — Bibles — for an unsanctioned discussion of the Exodus verse “an eye for eye, tooth for tooth … whoever … kills a man shall be put to death.” The Christian group Focus on the Family complained, “It is a sad day when the Bible is banned from the jury room.” Who’s most at fault here? The jurors, who perhaps hadn’t noticed that in the Gospel of Matthew Jesus rejects the eye-for-an-eye rule, word for word, in favor of turning the other cheek? The Focus spokesman, who may well have known of Jesus’ repudiation of the old law but chose to ignore it? Or any liberal who didn’t know enough to bring it up?

I suppose the Prothero/van Biema argument is that this would not have happened if the jurors had, as teenagers, taken classes about the Bible in school. That seems like a bit of a reach. In any case, I have a better suggestion for keeping it from happening in the future: Educate people about the U.S. government and its civil code, neither of which is based on religious texts.

In addition, judges should make sure jurors understand the relevant state laws when they are deliberating the fate of someone on trial. Jurors should be told to base their decision solely on this law and be reminded that all other outside sources — be they the Bible, the musings of Deepak Chopra or “Green Eggs and Ham” — are irrelevant.

Rather than encourage the jurors to engage in a smack down about which religious sanction to apply — the vengeful God of the Old Testament or the hippie Jesus of the New Testament — we would do better to make it clear to jurors what the law of the state expects, what it allows and what it does not allow. It certainly does not allow for jurors to decide to send someone to the lethal injection chamber because of a passage written down in a holy book 2,000 years ago.

Objective classes in comparative religion in public schools could be a valuable addition to the curriculum. I am wary of Prothero’s approach, which focuses mainly on the Bible. I also oppose making such classes mandatory. But these classes, even if taught by a skilled teacher, aren’t going to keep people from arguing about what the Bible means and how it ought to be applied to contemporary life (if it should be applied at all).

Prothero and van Biema may have a case to make, but they’re going to need a better anecdote.

Haven’t you been paying attention? The bible now *is* the law of the land (all except the “thou shalt not steal” part). The bible says it, GW believes and interprets it, and that decides it. Get with the program, you heathens.

  • “Educate people about the U.S. government and its civil code…” –Morbo

    Yes. And if you want your kids to learn about religion, drive them to Sunday School or religion classes. Maybe even teach. Talk with them at the dinner table and maybe even go so far as to practice what you preach. Just leave my kids alone. I’m teaching them to watch out for folks like you.

  • For what it’s worth, I’m really glad I went to CCD (I guess they used to call them Catechism) classes growing up, and if I was raising kids I’d want them to be raised in the Church. The CCD classes were good for instilling values. I know there were a lot of lessons my parents probably would have wanted me to be taught, but never taught me themselves. That’s just human. There are a lot of things we take for granted and can just not think to teach, and I think that’s why the modern generation is worse than older generations in some respects. Without new social structures to replace the old social structures, individual people on their own can’t hope to reproduce what was good about all the old social structures, all the goo values. It’s just things like learning that the love in a relationship is a special kind of love, that love in a marriage is a special kind of love. Things that make you an adult. Without having someone ever say it to you, your outlook can turn out a lot different and it’s easy to not realize how much a difference this makes if you don’t think about it. I’m sure my whole area is better off for that so many of us went to CCD.

    That said, I don’t think the Bible should be taught in public school. I think parents should be aware of teaching their kids values and how to live life and not pass the buck or leave it all up to TV.

  • Re: my comment #3

    I know a lot of liberal law professors and law students I’ve known would probably be shocked, just shocked, to see I’d written something like this, but, I’m actually not an elite intellectual- I’m a middle class or lower middle class intellectual, if I’m any kind. I’ve found that I benefit from having my own ideas and opinions instead of unconditionally accepting the opinions liberals are supposed to have, from whichever intellectuals it is they come from.

    In retrospect, I may have been wrong when I advocated a few months ago for changing our position on laws regulating flag burning. But if that is the case, it wasn’t that I didn’t have strong reasons or an argument, it was that a new position would just be too new or our base wouldn’t have flexibility to adjust to it.

    have a nice weekend, everybody.

  • I love this quote:

    “Senator, when you took your oath of office, you placed your hand on the Bible and swore to uphold the Constitution. You didn’t place your hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the Bible.”

    – Jamie Raskin, testifying Wednesday, March 1, 2006 before the Maryland Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee in response to a question from Republican Senator Nancy Jacobs about whether marriage discrimination against gay people is required by “God’s Law.”

  • I’m actually not an elite intellectual-

    This is sarcasm, by the way. I don’t think anybody thinks I’m an elite intellectual, I’m just saying that it should be apparent that I haven’t sold out my common sense to some kind of overly academic orthodoxy.

  • Atheist that I am, I can see a reason for the study of the Bible in every school. It is simply impossible to undersatnd American literature without a good grasp of Bible stories and characters. The Bible is a powerful cultural artifact in the world, and it must be acknowledged as such, or large segments of culture are going to be utterly unintelligible to the viewer.

    I’m not recommending that the Bible be used as some lifetime self-help book, or a guide to creating laws, but it is a necessary area of study to understand history and literature.

  • How about mandatory classes covering the Inquisition and witch burning? or mandatory introduction to Shakespeare’s history plays? or mandatory coverage of stochastic partial differential equations? synthesizing suflanilamide from benzene? conjugating irregular ancient Greek verbs (i.e., all of them)? how to mix a perfect martini? the early history of Paso Robles CA? the relevance of Red Skelton to today’s teenagers? how to infuriate Republicans?

  • “For what it’s worth, I’m really glad I went to CCD…” — Swan

    I absolutely agree that exposure to religion can instill attitudes and outlooks that are positive and valuable. Despite the way my earlier comment may have sounded, we sent our daughter to Episcopal elementary and secondary schools for that very reason and at considerable sacrifice. But was our choice, and we were careful to choose schools that combined religion with tolerance and service and other values that we feel are important. Somehow, I don’t think that’s what people have in mind who think the Bible is a legal reference.

  • Well, just because we are entering an age of increasing technolgical and ecological complexity and our school children are not being taught to use the tools of science or even understand enough basic math to talk about what’s happening, that’s no reason to keep such mandatory classes out of our public schools. After all, it’s important to our secular industrial democracy that our children acquire all the core cultural values inherent in ‘Green Eggs And Ham’.

  • I’d take Antonius’ suggestion a step further and offer a class on either world religions or religious texts of the world. I’d like future generations to know not just what the Bible says and its context, but also have a basic understanding of the Qur’an, the Torah, Confucian writings, Hindu texts and even Zoroastrianism.

    This will never happen, of course, because religious zealots want indoctrination and not rational analysis. We’d have a better class of Americans, however, if we all better understood the other religions instead of villifying what we don’t comprehend.

  • Jurors should be told to base their decision solely on this law and be reminded that all other outside sources — be they the Bible, the musings of Deepak Chopra or “Green Eggs and Ham” — are irrelevant.

    I’m not sure I totally agree with you here – and it’s not just because I read Green Eggs and Ham to my son last night (still a great book). But it’s really only a matter of degrees. Jurors are told to listen to the judge as he will tell them what the law is. But each juror must take into the Jury Room their own individual values, mores and beliefs – whether they’re based on the Bible, Deepak Chopra, or Green Eggs and Ham. I don’t think they should be allowed to go get the Bible or some other book to see what it says – that I agree is taking it too far – but they can, do and must take with them all the things that make up who they are.

  • I’d take Antonius’ suggestion a step further and offer a class on either world religions or religious texts of the world. I’d like future generations to know not just what the Bible says and its context, but also have a basic understanding of the Qur’an, the Torah, Confucian writings, Hindu texts and even Zoroastrianism.

    This will never happen, of course, because religious zealots want indoctrination and not rational analysis. We’d have a better class of Americans, however, if we all better understood the other religions instead of villifying what we don’t comprehend.

    Comment by petorado — 3/31/2007 @ 1:26 pm
    #

    i already know enough about christianity to vilify it. i don’t wish to learn enough about the others so i can vilify them, too.

    your pal,
    blake

  • When I read about David van Biema jumping aboard the “let’s-put-classes-about-the-Bible-in-public-schools” bandwagon, it occurred to me that the God Squad must have planted David with the Times as part of its long range strategy of converting America from a secular nation to a Christian nation. But then I am not a fan of conspiracy theories so I said what the hell, he must have freaked out.

    I have two young children and hope they never read the Bible. It simply has too many falsehoods that I don’t want them to be exposed to. For that matter, I think that I would be better off if I hadn’t been exposed to it during my 50 plus years. For that matter, I have no doubt that the world would be substantially better off if it wasn’t exposed to religious materials.

    My suggestion is that in stead of treating the Bible as literature, examine its content scientifically and see if its teachings hold up. I wouldn’t be surprised if what holds up are secular truths and what doesn’t stand up — well, you be the judge.

  • I like Bob Ritter’s idea. Also, Texas currently did an examination on 37 school districts that were teaching the bible as literature. 4 of the 37 were teaching it as the curriculum suggested and the others were teaching with Protestant leanings or worse. This examination was done by Dr. Marc Chancey of SMU. He’s the head of religion department so I can only imagine if an atheist professor of philosophy would have done the examination what the results would be.

    Please be aware of the bias in such a class is my point.

  • Good post. You make some great points that most people do not fully understand.

    “Objective classes in comparative religion in public schools could be a valuable addition to the curriculum. I am wary of Prothero’s approach, which focuses mainly on the Bible. I also oppose making such classes mandatory. But these classes, even if taught by a skilled teacher, aren’t going to keep people from arguing about what the Bible means and how it ought to be applied to contemporary life (if it should be applied at all).”

    I like how you explained that. Very helpful. Thanks.

  • I do not undestand. beep52 you say that you want people to take their children to sunday school if they want to learn the things of the bible; because you dont want your children to have to learn about things in the bible in school. Your children are suposed to watch out for people like the one who posted this article. You dont want your children you make their own desicions about what they believe for themselves? What if you where the parent of the child that believed in the bible? They dont have a choice about what their children hear in school, even though they are being taught about things like the theory of evalution and the “big bang”. My children will be looking out for people like you. Remember someday every knee shall bow and every tounge confess that Jesus Christ is lord. I hope for your sake you are bowing on your own and not being forced. Thats not my oppinion thats the truth.

    • Comments are closed.