Another interesting note is that the Bible curricula are only Time's cover story in the US; their Europe, Asia, and South Pacific editions lead instead with an article about how Islamic militants are more powerful than ever in Pakistan.

Oops. Guess I should've scrolled down before commenting...

It's sad to say, but a lot of the hard-core fundamentalists could really use a course in the Gospels. I sometimes get the feeling that they've forgotten what's in the Gospels.

I responded about the need for an intelligent introduction to the Bible on my blog, THE NEW AMERICAN SCHOLAR.

The bible should be taught in school only under the topic of literature, history, or mythology. Other than as an historical interest, the bible has absolutely nothing to teach us. It does NOT teach useful morals, unless you're particularly interested in stoning people to death.

It does NOT tell anything about the start of the universe; if you believe that the existence of the universe, as an effect, proves the existence of a prime cause, because cause and effect makes logical sense, turn off your computer and leave it that way. The semiconductors in your computer make use of quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics at its very core denies the existence of cause and effect.

Here's an interesting little seemingly unrelated bit of information that I will relate back at the end; I promise:

The U.N. Millennium Development Goals for sustainable development were supposed to include a statement on limiting population growth. Clearly, sustainability requires that we limit population as our planet does NOT have unlimited resources.

Three nations opposed the mention of limiting population growth. Which nations did so? Well, it just so happens that the three nations were Iran, The Vatican, and The United States.

If this does not say that the extreme right wingers, that small and morally reprehensible minority, are growing in power and that they do indeed wish to turn the United States into a theocracy, just like Iran, but Christian, I have no idea what does.

The idea of teaching the bible as anything other than literature, history, or mythology only reinforces the idea that indeed, these people do want a theocratic religious nation. I propose for this new nation a new name:

The Democratic Peoples Republic of the Christian States of America.

"It does NOT teach useful morals, unless you're particularly interested in stoning people to death."

I'd suggest you read the TIME article referenced in this post. One of the interesting arguments it makes in favor of allowing a Bible curriculum is that any debate involving Christianity would be more legitimate if we all knew exactly what the Bible says. In the New Testament Jesus rebukes some of the teachings of the Old Testament in favor of compassion and love for one's neighbors. The fault lies with Christians who ignore (or are unaware of) this fact AND the opposing side that is unaware of it and doesn't bring it up in debate.

They'd do better to teach the Koran, since almost no one in the U.S. who's not already a Muslim knows anything about it, but everyone seems to think they know all they need to know about it already. But I'm not going to hold my breath until that happens, because teaching people to think critically about religion is not what people who support "teaching" the Bible in school are really interested in.

"They'd do better to teach the Koran, since almost no one in the U.S. who's not already a Muslim knows anything about it, but everyone seems to think they know all they need to know about it already."

That's also true of the Bible. What's happening in our world today is so many people refer to the Bible as a validator of their own beliefs without ever investigating. For example, folks who use the Bible to claim the only real standard of marriage is one man and one woman. Paul and Jesus, no women. Peter, an absentee father. Abraham sent his surrogate son and his mother into the desert. Jacob(Israel) had two wives and two mistresses by the time he made it to the promised land. And Daniel was a single vegetarian living with three other single young men.

Personally, I think a real, honest discussion of "The Bible" we're all referring to is long overdue.

Honestly, I don't care much about what's in the bible. It has caused some of the bloodiest wars in history. But, the real issue is that it contains pure mythology. To teach it as anything else is silly.

Why not teach Greek, Roman, or Norse mythology? Why not the Hindu religion? Why not Budhism, Jainism, or Zaroastrianism?

These are all the same. They have the same basis in reality as the Great Pumpkin, Elves, The Flying Spaghetti Monster, and Fire Breathing Dragons. Let's enter an age of reason rather than another Dark Age.

SCOTT: Our culture was not created in a vacuum. In addition to Greco-Roman influences and (post-1500) modern science, the Judeo-Christian traditions greatly determine our present language, art, literature, ethics, philosophy, government, law, beliefs, customs, habits and techne. To ignore the Bible is to lack an understanding of our civilization. What's required is an intelligent introduction to the Bible, an objective and analytical approach the considers its history, its historical context and the various criticisms and findings that have emerged by Biblical scholars. I'd also say, teach those other mythologies. They all point to a common human experience and a comparative study fosters understanding. I responded in-depth at my website (click on my name to check it out).

Patrick William Horn,

Most importantly, keep it out of any discussion of science. And, don't present it as truth. And while you're at it, I'd suggest some discussion of biological evolution and cosmology in Sunday school. I mean, if we're going to be fair, you want religion in public school? How about science in Church (and temple and mosque, of course)?

Personally, I do not see how bible study is part of a rounded education. If someone wants to major in it in college, sure. But, it is not basic curriculum for public school. If someone has an interest in it, they can learn it elsewhere. But, teaching it in public school is very strongly against everything the founding fathers had in mind when they created this once-great nation.

The founding fathers, especially Jefferson, hated Christianity. Madison was loosely Christian and adamantly for a very strong separation between church and state. When you teach the bible, will you put it next to Jefferson's writings? His writings rip it to shreds. Will you point out the many points where it is violent and misogynistic, not to mention self-contradictory?

Will you allow the teaching of the story of Lot, who tried to sell his daughters into sexual slavery to the entire male population of the city for a few moments peace and quiet? Will you tell about how the daughters later got their father drunk and got impregnated by him?

Show this stuff in a movie you’ll get a well-earned NC-17 rating. Print it in the bible and it’s OK for small children.

Will you point out the Genocides, most notably Joshua at Jericho, where no one of any species was left alive? There is some really nasty stuff in the bible. If I had kids, I wouldn’t let them near it until they were at least at the age of consent, if not drinking age. I know whenever I read any portion of the bible, I need a good stiff drink.

Yes, religion should be presented in public school--as an uncensored, objective and analytical academic study that places the text (and its subsequent practices) within its historical context (it wasn't created in a vacuum either) and discusses biblical criticism (meaning, scholarship), accuracy, literary forms, translation, the text in history, etc. A person could rip it to shreds, pointing out its inconsistencies and how it reflects a culture with some values different from our own, but that's as polemic and agenda-oriented as an extremist religious fanatic. It's more important to discuss how it shaped our views and the redaction process--and to tell children the truth and not create an isolated childhood which eventually creates disillusioned adults--the notion of an extended "pure" childhood, btw, happens to be a 19th century idea influenced in part by religion, as most things are. Perhaps knowledge of what is truly in the Bible can give people a better perspective, for sure much better than their current ignorant superstition or flat-out banishment b/c of how some have used it as manipulation throughout history (perhaps even now!). Certainly any study of literature until the late 19th century will be poorly informed because of how often the Bible is referenced. It is not science and should not be presented as such (though in its time, many of its rules for social behavior are liNked to what we know now through science--like avoiding botulism--a guide to health and safety for a culture that lacked science). To say the "founding fathers" wouldn't want religions taught is school is speculation and likely factually incorrect. That's a contemporary view projected onto the past. I've read only a small selection of Thomas Jefferson's writing, so I can't comment on him, but I've read Benjamin Franklin extensively and he strives to be Jesus and reads the Bible daily! If I recall correctly, Jefferson may have tried his hand at translating the Bible. Can't be sure of that without checking my research. Anyway, these are men who were mostly diests--the christianity of the age of reason--who lived in a time when most people went to church *all day* on Sunday. The first "Pilgrims" were Puritan religious extremists kicked out of their own country for their radical views. They didn't even read the same Bible that is most commonly available to us (a comparative study of different transslations is most certainly in order!) All the Constitution says is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" which has been misinterpreted to mean there must be a separation of church and state but what experts know it means Congress will not endorse or favor one religion or another. Establishment is a concept that refers explicitly to Henry VIII and his divorce from the Roman Catholic Church, which provoked a century of violence, and the framers believed religion should not mix with governing but that it has a meaningful place in people's lives. Look, I'm no Christian. I am a true American patriot (quite vocal in my dissent!) and a scholar, and I think that lack of awareness of the Bible--presented in a scholarly fashion--is a dangerous disregard of the most influential book in history. I know from ym own experience that the Bible can be taught without teaching "Sunday School." I would love to teach the subject myself (and a comparative religions class), and I wrote a lesson overview on my website (www.patrickhorn.com/blog). Go read it and maybe the next time you read the Bible, you can still have a drink but it'll be to complement a fascinating reading experience vs. to numb all your preconceived ideas and subsequent responses that are obstacles for a true understanding and appreciation of this unique and controversial treasure. Peace (and apologies for bad spelling and lack of formatting).

Quick followup--my research confirm Jefferson was a Christian by his own account and did his own redaction of the Bible--creating a a version that included text in Greek, Latin, French and the King James English version--that eliminated what he saw as the religious dogma and focused on the ethical teachings of Jesus. His own words: "To the corruptions of Christianity I am indeed opposed, but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian, in the only sense in which he wished anyone to be: sincerely attached to his doctrines in preference to all others, ascribing to himself every human excellence, and believing he never claimed any other."

Here are some Jefferson quotes that show that he was not likely a Christian by any current standards. Deism is a belief that god set things in motion and went away. It is very definitely NOT a belief that there is a personal god to whom one can pray for the laws of physics to be temporarily suspended. Deism is certainly not any form of Christianity. It does not acknowledge any religion beyond the belief in a prime mover. Had Jefferson had access to the teachings of Darwin, Einstein, and Hubble, I am confident he would have been an atheist.

http://tinyurl.com/lfu4

And, here is a particular quote that should tell you quite clearly that Jefferson thought the bible had no place in school at all.

"No religious reading, instruction or exercise, shall be prescribed or practiced [in the elementary schools] inconsistent with the tenets of any religious sect or denomination." --Thomas Jefferson: Elementary School Act, 1817. ME 17:425

Note the first phrase "NO RELIGIOUS READING". This was in the middle of this much longer page.

http://tinyurl.com/rkwvo

And, you said "Perhaps knowledge of what is truly in the Bible can give people a better perspective, for sure much better than their current ignorant superstition"

The bible is ignorant superstition. How could it not be? It was written when people were, quite literally, ignorant of all that we have learned in the past 1500+ years.

I'm with Scott - I can't imagine our founding fathers making so many efforts to keep religion out of government and yet condoning the Christian marketing sceme to put the Bible into the public school system. It is a furtherance of their agenda and I'm sure Time's editors got sucked off royally by James Dobson to print this article. It is a complete conflict of interest for tax payers - why should a Muslim or a Buddist family see part of their personal revenue gathered up to be spent paying a teacher to conduct a class meant to promote Christianity? And before the little cries of protest erupt, yes, this is most certainly a promotional for that religion.
If this additional attack on democracy succeeds, I can only hope that these classes would be an elective and not required. Personally, while I have many friends who are public school teachers and I value the profession greatly, I don't trust a public school or its personnel to teach a fair and objective class to youngsters on any religion. I'm thankfully an agnostic [on my naive and poetic days], but I know many religious people who have expressed their desire to keep religious teaching in their homes and churches. I think this is the only sound way.

Thanks Paul.

One more point Patrick, with the vast majority of people in this country actually believing the drivel in the bible, even if you set up a curriculum designed to keep it related to history or literature, how will you ensure that the teacher will not include side-bar comments about how it is the only Truth? S/he will be unlikely to be monitored carefully, unless it's by an equally unprincipled principal.

Right now, there is a ridiculously high percentage, though not yet a majority, of the American public that honestly believes that the Earth and humans were personally created by god less than 10,000 years ago, sometime after our domestication of the dog and the start of agriculture. I’m betting that statistically, teachers are only slightly better about that than the general population.

The Bible is more than religious superstition--it's amazing literature and the most influential text in Western civilization. That should be taught. There's a difference between inculcating a religion and a scholarly investigation of a text and a tradition that has been an enormous influence in our culture, for good and bad. I am not talking about teaching a religion. I am talking about objective, analytical scholarship of the sort that has been deeply disturbing to religious fanatics since the 19th century, which treats the Bible as any other text--simply one in a more prominent place than any text and one that has shaped the evolution of civilization more than most anything. I do not agree at all with what I reviewed from the TIME magazine ad, including their horrific "intro" book (look for Fant's intro to the Bible for a good accompanying text). But I do believe there should be a place in public schools for students to explore the Bible and learn of academic scholarship, a topic sadly missing in public school for the better part of the last fifty years--and without access and proper framing, the consequence is the manipulation of the ignorant by those with perverse agendas. Having studied religion in the academic environment, I know from experience that personal beliefs can be omitted from instruction. For now, I refer you to my website if you'd like to know what I think would be an appropriate introduction for the purpose of understanding a text and its place in our culture. Cheers!

Patrick, this last post of yours still does not address my last post. How do you propose to enforce that teachers do not put their religious spin on things?

You also never answered one of my earlier posts: to what age group do you propose to teach this sort of pornography?

And Patrick, I went to your website. The description you have on your blog is ABSOLULTELY preaching religion. If you assert otherwise, then you are missing the obvious ways in which your text MOST DEFINITELY IS RELIGIOUS in nature. For example:

“Jewish belief is monotheistic (belief in one God) but retained the dualism of the Mesopotamians and Egyptians. Egyptian religion stipulated punishments that perhaps inspired the "eye-for-an-eye" revenge of the Jews, who were enslaved by the Egyptians until God commanded Moses to free the people in the Passover story of Exodus”

In case you are unaware, it was NOT god who freed the Hebrews from their enslavement to the Egyptians; It was a Persian king. I can’t remember the name, but this is why the enormous influence of Zoroastrianism exists in the Judeo-Christian-Islamic religion (deliberately singular).

Your blog repeatedly states as fact that which is clearly superstition. For example, you refer to the life of Jesus as if it is known that he actually existed. I assure you that is far less than definite. Writers of the time from both the Romans and the Jews wrote a huge amount of history as it happened and made no mention of anyone remotely matching the description of Jesus or of the events leading to his supposed death. There are many more reasons to question whether the man existed. Feel free to check out this lengthy report:

http://tinyurl.com/34amgh

That said, the really important bit is that you cannot teach the bible without teaching religion in public school. There is simply NO WAY TO ENSURE THAT THE TEACHER WILL NOT TEACH IT AS (dare I say it) GOSPEL!!

I can't say someone won't put their spin on teaching religion anymore than I can say a political science teacher won't espouse his particular political view. My experience has been that people who are well-trained in the subject do not espouse their personal views and those people should be influencing the cirriculum, which will in some ways limit what can be taught. I recognize there is a group who have an agenda for conversion in placing the Bible in the cirriculum. I'm not among them. I'm not preaching religion to discuss what a particular group believes--and there is tremendous good to come from exploring where ideas originate and how they develop and who believes what, especially when so much of our contemporary world is an outgrowth of earlier beliefs and ideas. It's fair to know what a group believes in its context and to see the world within their paradigm, rather than imposing one's own paradigm upon it and judging from one's own paradigm. The Jews believe God liberated them from slavery, and while we can debate whether that's true, that is what they believe and that is what has been a defining factor in history and our culture. There's a place for debate, but first one must understand the beliefs, regardless of our contemporary concern of whether it is absolutely true. Yes, there is a debate whether Christ actually lived, for example. But the text and the character have been the biggest influence in our culture for two thousand years. So, whether or not he existed is irrelevant--he exists and figures in history. That must be known, then our contemporary concerns may be addressed. As for age group--well, I have strong views that our education system is totally dysfunctional and exists only to serve the needs of a small few, and there is plenty of evidence to support this...fifth-graders were reading Jefferson and Emerson a hundred and fifty years ago, now college students are at a loss for those texts. Here we are debating whether the Bible should be taught when a 1/3 of the population cannot find the United States on a map and literacy is at an all-time low. So, perhaps the better question for the whole discussion would be "what's worth knowing" and "how should it be known." I'd love to continue chatting, but I do have some academic obligations of my own for the coming week--so, thank you very much for an enjoyable, intelligent and lively discussion & perhaps we may continue after I finish, among other things, discussing the so-called "clash of civilizations" between Islam and the West.

Also, please reread what I wrote. I didn't say "God freed the Hebrews." I said "Jewish belief...enslaved by the Egyptians until God commanded Moses to free the people in the Passover story of Exodus" What I said is true. Another way to say it would be, "In the Passover story of Exodus, which is what the Jews believe, God commanded Moses to free the Hebrews from slavery." That's literally what happens in the story regardless of the truth of the story, and the story is what has been influential for thousands of years, not the facts which are only recently known. The facts are useful, yes, like knowing that quails migrate across the desert of Sinai seasonally and a certain type of bug when poked produces manna, but that is secondary to the influence of the story throughout history and in our culture.

Sorry you have to go, Patrick. I do think that the fact that you're having so much trouble keeping the distinction means that a teacher would have even more trouble. I remain unconvinced by your arguments. We'll have to agree to disagree on the whole topic.