|
Post by amanda on Sept 28, 2005 21:37:28 GMT -5
The Bible and its Influence www.csmonitor.com/2005/0929/p12s03-legn.html"Without academic knowledge of the Bible and its influence, many teachers say, pupils can't understand their own literary, artistic, and cultural heritage. In a survey last spring, 90 percent of leading English teachers said biblical knowledge was crucial to a good education. Yet a Gallup poll found that only 8 percent of public-school teens said their school offered an elective course on the Bible."
|
|
|
Post by CaptAdam on Sept 29, 2005 13:11:20 GMT -5
My guess is because the school system has been force to move as far away from anything refering to religion (other than what you may find in your history books) as possible.
|
|
|
Post by Tyler on Sept 29, 2005 20:45:17 GMT -5
Rightly so.
|
|
|
Post by katie on Sept 29, 2005 21:25:26 GMT -5
In this same article, the director of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State says, "At this time in America, it's better to simply talk about religious influences when they come up during the study of literature, art, and history, and not take the text of one religious tradition and treat it with special deference."
Instead of teaching a course on the Bible, couldn't teachers discuss its influence on literature, art, etc. within already existing classes? There are lots of subjects that could be considered crucial to a good education that are not being taught. My high school didn't offer logic, philosophy, economics, world religion or sociology courses, all of which might be called "crucial". I don't know that the Bible deserves its own class more than these and other subjects.
That said, I think I would like to read this textbook. Sounds interesting.
|
|
|
Post by Jeff on Sept 29, 2005 22:03:33 GMT -5
Another problem is the paucity of folks that could teach such a course from a nonpartisan point of view. Right or wrong--and it's wrong--most folks have an agenda when they talk about religion. I can honestly say that I would prefer Maddie and Emily to learn nothing about Christianity than for them to learn the foolishness of a bible-thumper.
|
|
|
Post by Tyler on Sept 30, 2005 7:21:18 GMT -5
Jeff, you took the words right out of my mouth. I have no problem with the bible being taught in a historical perspective, as long as it's being done by a non-christian.
|
|
|
Post by CaptAdam on Oct 9, 2005 7:55:02 GMT -5
That's truly sad Jeff, I beleive you know the importance of the bible as I do and maybe the school system isn't the best place for it. As I've said in some past posts, the bible should be taught by one who believes in it (completly) other wise if a non-believer is going to teach it they should not be allowed to add their own personal opion about the book to incourage or discourage others. Just teach it as a book with no snide remarks about how mathmatically imposible it is for a virgin birth or creating food from nothingness. The same way Tyler feels about how christians seem to push their own agendas on to others. Leave that type of decision to the individual and if the person is truely inspire to learn more (gain a deeper understanding of God's word) then they should seek out several churches and listen to what their measage on the bible and Jesus is all about. As much as I would want all to believe as I do, it is still their free choice to believe or not and to what part of the bible they wish to believe in.
But it is important that they attend a church that believes as they do, so that they can get as much out of it as they can. The rest is up to God.
|
|
|
Post by Jeff on Oct 9, 2005 11:46:41 GMT -5
I believe that a course in religious literacy would be good to have in public schools. If you are a member of western culture you are alienated if you don't know basic bible history. For example, just think of all the movie titles that the completely non-religious don't get (East of Eden, Inherit the Wind, Raiders of the Lost Ark, Chariots of Fire, and on and on...) Like it or not our culture is permeated with religious imagery and references. I would like to see an elective level class in high school that the non-religious could take to enable them to understand their culture. (I'd also like to see an elective history of science class.)
I think those pot shots about the virgin birth and the like are good and bad. They are good inasmuch as they show that a literalist interpretation of the bible is unlikely to be true and bad inasmuch as they discourage the study of religion. But we've talked about all this before.
(I am looking forward to seeing how other members of the group respond to your two big posts on the main board. I will wait a few days to respond; I will await their response with you.)
|
|
|
Post by Tyler on Oct 9, 2005 13:58:31 GMT -5
The religious literacy course would need to cover Greek and Roman as much as Biblical myth. If things keep going as they are, there's a good chance that within the decade we'll need classes in Chinese language and culture more.
|
|
|
Post by Jeff on Oct 9, 2005 14:11:39 GMT -5
Well, Roman myth is a lot like Greek. And certainly as far as polytheisms go they are interesting. I would probably perfer to spend the time on Hinduism, though. Clearly you are correct: Christianity isn't the only religion that we would cover. But since it is the biggest religion in the world and the most popular in the US, it should get significant coverage.
|
|
|
Post by Tyler on Oct 9, 2005 18:49:24 GMT -5
It wasn't about religions at all. The reasoning that had been presented was that people can't function adequately in a western society without at least colloquial knowledge of the bible. I was just saying that you'd probably do better with a class on mythology or maybe a class on 'western trivia' or something like that to educate on other just as silly things.
|
|
|
Post by Jeff on Oct 9, 2005 21:42:14 GMT -5
Tyler,
If you don't understand the Bible in at least a cursory way, then you can't understand Shakespeare. And if you don't have some grasp of both of these, then you can't understand Western Literature. And an education that doesn't include some understanding of literature and the arts (for which much the same argument applies) doesn’t give you truly educated people--however much they may know about more practical studies.
In other words, you don’t just hurt religious loonies when you attack the Bible. You attack your own culture, yourself even. Which is fine, I suppose. Certainly I have done a lot of that during my lifetime. But you still have to float a boat across the sea. I would suggest that you confine your destruction to repairs, otherwise you’ll sink us.
Jeff
PS I am sorry that I misinterpreted you. I thought you had given up your Quixotic attack on generalized Christianity.
I wish you had HBO. Bill Maher was taking your position on this issue on Friday night’s Real Time.
PPS Did you read Amanda's original link? "Marie Wachlin, a professor at Concordia University in Portland, Ore., conducted the national study earlier this year of high school English teachers in which they said biblical knowledge was essential for a good education. Ninety-eight percent also said biblical literacy is a distinct educational advantage."
|
|
|
Post by Tyler on Oct 10, 2005 7:02:25 GMT -5
Did the professor account for the influence of Christianity among those surveyed? If you were to disqualify from the study those that believe that the Christian faith should be spread... The study is essentially asking Christians weither the bible should be taught. I don't think you should be allowed to teach in public school if you are 'religious', nor should you be able to receive funds from the government in any form unless you are an atheist. That's the separation of church and state that I'm talking about. The kinds where the church isn't allowed to touch ground claimed by the state. I'm not attacking your sphere of glass. I'm attacking the organization that tells us what's in the sphere.
|
|
|
Post by Jeff on Oct 10, 2005 8:34:32 GMT -5
"I don't think you should be allowed to teach in public school if you are 'religious'..."
What you write is offensive. Change "religious" to "English-speaking" and you will see the problem. You might object, "Unfair. You have to speak some language, but you don't have to be religious." I disagree. Everyone is religious, even if it is about their own non-religiousness. (We can discuss this if you like. My claim is that at the center of everyone's web of belief there are certain life-orienting beliefs that are unquestioned or impossible to really question, and the believer knows (or should know) this.) You might argue that language doesn't color thinking the way religion does. I would leave it to Justin to sort you out on that one if you did. You might also object that speaking English doesn't commit you to any obvious silliness. But then who or what is the It that rains and snows?
Again, your real problem is not with religiousness but the attitudes and practices of certain people who cliam the mantle of authority that religiousity sometimes offers. It is a more general problem with people that you have.
|
|
|
Post by Jeff on Oct 10, 2005 9:42:51 GMT -5
You know guys I keep coming back to this: Is there any legitimate source of authority? I keep thinking I can make some sense of responsibility, moral responsibility, but I just can't get any clear concept of authority. And the whole problem of election of the saints is much less troublesome if it is just a discussion of the latter and says nothing about authority.
What is authority? Does it exist? (I think it may be just another species of foolishness.)
|
|
|
Post by Tyler on Oct 10, 2005 11:04:23 GMT -5
Ok, drop the word religious and substitue one that means 'believes in something obviously untrue'. They're synonyms in my book. I understand and adhere to the idea you're expousing about language, but don't see how the bible garners special consideration over Athena.
Authority should be vested in those who can best serve the interests of those doing the vesting. We're kinda coming around to our earlier discussion about elitism. Are you speaking about authority as in "he's an authority on the titmouse" or "you don't have the authority to put that in there"?
|
|
|
Post by Jeff on Oct 10, 2005 11:42:11 GMT -5
1. Knowledge of YHWH and Jesus is more important than knowledge of Athena in navigating our culture. But I agree that Athena should get some attention in a world religion class.
2. You have the wrong idea about knowledge and propositions. We don't measure the value of propositions by their truth or falsity. We measure their value by how much they attract our attention. The primary purpose of any proposition is to serve as a lure for feeling. The proposition, "There is a human colony on the moon" is objectively false. But it is very interesting; that is what propositions are for. I am saying that even if the proposition "Jesus was the son of God," is objectively false, it still has a deep and abiding value. Further, the value it expresses is superior to that expressed by most propositions about Athena, even though she is the goddess of wisdom, and that is so very important. To understand the abiding value of religious propositions is your gateway (I think) to understanding what religious people could possibly be talking about.
3. I mean both kinds of authority. What does it confer on someone to call them an authority on the titmouse above and beyond the simple recognition that they know a lot about it? I can't think of anything. Of course the word derives from having written a book, being an author. But that doesn't seem very special to me, either. The internet has had the wonderful democratizing effect of making specialists of almost anyone with an interest in anything. (It is not very good at making generalists of people, which I think is what a good bachelor's degree should do, and what our society chiefly needs now.)
Jeff
|
|
|
Post by CaptAdam on Oct 11, 2005 7:42:40 GMT -5
Tyler your obvious problem is that you believe in something that is obviously not true. I think you should probably be mad not at religian, but at white people in general after all we whities have caused more troubles than any thing else on this earth.
Ooh Tyler I would apressiate you not referring to the bible and the miricles there in as silly or something that only the ignorant would cling to. I like you to much to stom your guts out. Now if I have offended you in your own beliefs or lack there of then I'm truely sorry and will do my best not to continue to repeat my short comings, I don't mind you sharing your thoughs or even your miss givings about christianity. But I do have a problem with what seems to me as if your looking to pick a fight. We can be stern in our comments and yet remain civil if we are just willing to try.
Take these words as you will and do as what seems right to you.
|
|
|
Post by Tyler on Oct 11, 2005 8:34:29 GMT -5
Guys, I say these things to incite you all to consider my arguments. To give me reason to believe in what you do. I respect all of you too much to not try as hard as I can to find out what you know. If I say something that offends somebody except Adam, then I'm sorry. Adam... you got about a bum knee and about 10 years on me. Plus, you're working yourself to death. I figure I just gotta get your good and riled a couple more times and your o' ticker's gonna give out.
|
|
|
Post by Jeff on Oct 11, 2005 9:55:15 GMT -5
Tyler,
I know that I do what you are doing, too, but I think you and I both need to be very careful about trying to provoke emotional responses from others. It's my problem, too, but when Adam is making physical threats, I think a line has been crossed. Am I wrong?
Jeff
|
|