News-Record.com

Of course it can be studied from a historical and otherwise secular viewpoint. Depends on the teacher...

If it depends on the teacher, then more stringent controls on presentation are needed. You can't hand over a subject like this and expect everyone to walk that thin line between secular presentation and proseltyzing.

But I expect that this is the main reason behind such courses. It's a back-door attempt to recruit for Christian churches in publicly-funded schools. As if churches weren't already able to recruit more effectively than any other group in the world.

You may be right. But there are renowned athiests who teach the Old and New Testaments in colleges. It can be done.

As a beleiver in Christ, I do think the Bible is the word of God. As a lover of history and literature I cannot imagine a more influential book through the ages.

Perhaps simply reading the Bible is dangerous for enemies of Christ. CS Lewis wrote, "A young man who wishes to remain a strong Athiest cannot be too carefulof his reading. There are traps everywhere- 'Bibles laid open, millions of surprises,' as Herbert says, 'fine nets and strategems.' God is, if I may say it, very unscrupulous."

Regarding the study of the Bible as literature Lewis pointed out that his generation coined the phrase, "the Bible as literature." The phrase implies "that those who have rejected its theological pretentions nevertheless continue to enjoy it as a treasure house of English prose..." He concludes with a general rule, "...those who read the Bible as literature, do not read the Bible."

Teaching "the Bible" in public schools, especially as evidenced in Greensboro, is fraught with potential pitfalls, the greatest of which may be teachers' own unfamiliarity with religions other than their own. When Kiser 7th grade teachers tried to teach about the world's "3 major religions" that stemmed from Israel, they included Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. The problem was (this was when my kids were there, a long while ago) that the teachers didn't know anything about 2 of the 3. They had no personal knowledge, no personal feelings. They certainly did have that knowledge and those feelings about Christianity.

So my kid comes home and asks me if Jews believe this or Muslims believe that? I was astounded; the "facts" given by the teacher were simply wrong.

A campaign of education was mounted and the religious leaders provided both instruction and materials for the teachers. That was a happy ending, but what about this on a national scale? Teachers who are taught personally all their lives that one religion is right (so that all others are wrong) and have no real factual knowledge of other religions -- how can they possibly keep their own persuasions out of instruction? Can they teach an antiseptic Bible course or course based on a Bible?

This isn't college with highly educated professors who have lots of multicultural experiences and know the teachings of several religions. These are towns in Texas and Oklahoma whose teachers, good-hearted as they are, don't have the information to teach a course ABOUT religion (with a small "r") without bending it the way they know and feel it.

This is doomed, from a First Amendment POV. When Christian groups demand or condone it, I start evaluating the curriculum, the agendas, the "facts," and the course of study. In the case being written about recently, they all fail.

Chip says:

Perhaps simply reading the Bible is dangerous for enemies of Christ. CS Lewis wrote, "A young man who wishes to remain a strong Athiest cannot be too careful of his reading. There are traps everywhere- 'Bibles laid open, millions of surprises,' as Herbert says, 'fine nets and strategems.' God is, if I may say it, very unscrupulous."

Hee hee! Dr. Lewis was quite the zealot, and hardly an objective judge of the book. I've read quite a lot more of the Bible than most folks, and I can assure you, it holds no "traps" for the intelligent reader.

Then again, here's what Isaac Asimov said about the subject:

"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived."

He's right, IMO. Reading the Bible helped confirm my disbelief.

Eric, I think you and I differ on something called respect. I respect your non-belief or disbelief. My post was about respecting everyone else's beliefs. Is there no room for many in the quirkily-named melting pot (or salad bowl, depending on your cultural age)?

Sue, I had just read the post above from Chip, that said that atheists need to avoid reading the Bible if they want to stay atheists... that it hold "traps" that I would need to avoid. I don't consider that a very respectful statement regarding religious differences.

I was only attempting to point out that such a belief is not realistic. If it sounded disrespectful to you... I have to admit there is some truth to that. I'm sorry if responding in kind to Chip's post offended you.

As previous responders have noted, the ability for a course such as this being accomplished without undue influence is not strong without the proper person facilitating the class.

And yet, the Christian bible can be read for its literature and historical benefit. There are wonderful examples of both contained therein.

Again, it would take the hiring of someone with the background needed to properly teach such an elective course. With the difficulty in finding qualified teachers today, I feel that would be a waste of money at the current time.

Eric, you said,

"I've read quite a lot more of the Bible than most folks, and I can assure you, it holds no "traps" for the intelligent reader."

You seem to be suggesting that the Bible and Christianity is only for those that aren't intelligent enough to know better. What is your opinion on world renowned Bible scholars such as Dr. C.K. Barret, Dr. J.D.G. Dunn, Dr.Ben Witherington, etc...who I'm sure have more knowlege of the Bible than yourself and also do their studying of the Scriptures in the original Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek languages. These are Ph.D's who certainly are intelligent and find the Bible to be very truthful after a lifetime of study in the original languages. What would you say to them?

Do you feel a beleiver in Christ is ignorant? You used the phrase "intelligent reader." Asismov's quote correctly assumes the role of the reader's subjectivity when reading the Bible.

Lewis, one of the great minds and influential writers of the 20th century, was equally famous for his candor and humility. He writes about why he was an athiest and why he became a beleiver.

"You seem to be suggesting that the Bible and Christianity is only for those that aren't intelligent enough to know better."

I apologize that my verbal shorthand went astray. I'll try to be more clear. A non-believer who reads the Bible in an intelligent manner -- ie with common comprehension skills -- has no need to worry about any of these so-called "traps" that were talked about.

I honestly do not think that the difference between believer and non-believer has anything to do with intelligence. This is why I eschew the current movement to use the word "Bright" to describe us. I see it as doing more harm than good.

Eric-Do you see any harm done by teaching the Bible in HS? That is where I have to say there is none.

I think back to the course I took on the bible when I was in high school. Our teacher used the Socratic Method of teaching, which got all us True Believers quite worked up, I can tell you. But much of what I was exposed to made an impact on me. It had some part in helping end my faith. But I doubt it would have done that if it hadn't been for the teacher we had, who insisted on asking us disturbing, hard questions.

I think the thread got a little off-track on a comment Lewis surely intended as a harmless little aside with the typical dry English wit.

Intelligent people can disagree about the impact of what they read in determining their faith. I know some people whose experience mimics Eric's; on the other hand, I know at least one Episcopal priest whose study of history turned her toward the church.

Ultimately, it's about faith, which has little to do with mental capacity. Intelligent people who think they can convince others to change their faiths through reason alone should wonder if they're really all that intelligent. (Granted, Descartes made a noble effort.)

Eric,

Interestingly enough, every atheist I know came from a fundamentalist background and know the Bible better than most Christians. For example, see any of the numerious websites developed by former fundamentalists such as:

http://www.infidels.org

Not a judgement call on anyone...fundamentalists, atheists, etc. Just an observation.

It is an odd thing, isn't it? However, I'm the exception to the rule... I was never a fundamentalist. Though I might have come close, back when I was a teenager, I never quite stepped over that particular threshhold.

I don't want to get in between those here wanting to impugn each other's integrity, but as for the Greensboro-based attempts to get the Bible taught in public schools:

The group's curriculum I read online seemed innocuous enough; full of the sort of glazed-eye-making academia most college students where I teach end up ignoring. Trouble is, I teach at a nominally Christian-affiliated school, where such important exposure to the history of competing versions, interpretations and sheer muddles of reason are part and parcel of a liberal arts tradition. I fear the high school teachers, bless their heart, are unlikely to be "up on it" to the extent professors of theology and religion who know Greek and Hebrew would be (as a previous post described the sorry attempts to teach comparative monotheistic traditions).

This leaves the inevitable void: where knowledge of the secularly-understood divigations of texts and accompanying doctrinal emendations (editing and additions) is lacking, high school teachers are bound to fill up the time and offer answers directly from their own faith experience. That is not objective scholarship nor is it Constitutional.

Democracy , prosperity, and justice will only prevail in countries where the Bible is taught.