[Qingu]

Originally Posted by Gsus_Rawks

Im sure this question was rhetorical but -
While I think that a class on Hinduism from a Hindu may be more insightful, because you are Qingu, I'd rather take any class from you.

Ha! I'd be a terrible teacher. Not only because I hate children.

It seems to me that a Non-Christian student wouldn't believe Revelation - and because it isn't encouraging persecution now - and It wouldn't be a touchy subject.

I don't know. To put it in perspective: there are ancient Greek myths with distasteful moral practices (Agememnon sacrificing his daughter to Artemis, for example), but we can read them without controversy because nobody believes them anymore.

But when you read a religious text in a class and you know that most of the people in the class believe it's the true word of God, it becomes much more controversial. Even when I read the Quran privately, and skim the barrage of violent threats and accusations of stupidity towards unbelievers, I feel a offended that people actually believe this about me. Maybe "offended" isn't the right word, but I certainly feel on the defensive.

[Qingu]

Originally Posted by Chrysostom

Assuming there is such a thing as neutral, I responded by pointing out that if his model of neutrality is secular college classes then you're not exactly sitting pretty. I already mentioned the example of a fairly reputable professor of mine who was engaged in nothing but passionate, truth-spinning proselytization in his class. And, considering that my favorite professor was a gay man who got called names like "humanist" and "liberal" in his own class, I wouldn't say that my judgment of this particular professor is based on mere personal prejudice. (I also mentioned that this judgment of the professor was independently confirmed by his colleagues.)

The fact is that basically nobody who cares enough about the Bible to make the class worthwhile will be able to offer a "neutral" perspective. But this is the basic problem with America's system -- in order to maintain "neutrality," the view of the State must be called the "neutral" view. But certainly nobody with any degree of wisdom thinks that reinforcing American State doctrine is a particularly "neutral" way to go about things.

I will certainly grant that there is no such thing as a perfectly neutral, objective class, especially on a subject as divisive as the Bible.

However, would you agree that the best approach for such a class would be to treat the Bible the same way we treat other ancient, influential texts—like, for example, Plato's Republic?

A teacher who hates Plato's philosophy would probably teach the class differently than one who loved Plato's philosophy, but it seems like bias can be kept to a minimum by instituting some standards and a teaching approach that focuses on the historical context and literal meaning of the text. "Here is what Plato says," and "here is what people at the time of Plato widely believed"—rather than "Here is why Plato is right (or wrong)"

[JerryLove]

I just realized how ironic it is for atheists in a Christian forum (whose purpose seems to be to turn people away from Christianity) to argue that atheists are more likely to teach the Bible from a "neutral" perspective.

Poor form dude.

Originally Posted by Chrysostom

Assuming there is such a thing as neutral, I responded by pointing out that if his model of neutrality is secular college classes then you're not exactly sitting pretty.

I don't know how I would define "neutral", but I feel I know it when I see it.

I think that HBO's "Rome" has a pretty neutral depiction of Roman religious beliefs. It neither validates nor devalidates the beliefs themselves.

I already mentioned the example of a fairly reputable professor of mine who was engaged in nothing but passionate, truth-spinning proselytization in his class.

I think that an athiest science-teacher would tend to make a very non-neutral description of Creation; but I think that an anthiest literary teacher would (generally speaking) be better suited to the Bible as a literary source (or a historian, or a specialist in religion) than a theist who brings a great deal of personal bias.

But it is truely more about the individual than it is about their religigion (or lack thereof).

The fact is that basically nobody who cares enough about the Bible to make the class worthwhile will be able to offer a "neutral" perspective. But this is the basic problem with America's system -- in order to maintain "neutrality," the view of the State must be called the "neutral" view. But certainly nobody with any degree of wisdom thinks that reinforcing American State doctrine is a particularly "neutral" way to go about things.

To neither affirm nor deny the factual claim seems very neutral to me.

[Qingu]

Originally Posted by tlj009

I just realized how ironic it is for atheists in a Christian forum (whose purpose seems to be to turn people away from Christianity) to argue that atheists are more likely to teach the Bible from a "neutral" perspective.

I would venture a guess that most atheists are more respectful and less disparaging of the Bible than I am. Not all atheists are evangelical. (Though that could be changing nowadays.)

John raises the point that professors with strongly-held beliefs about their subjects tend to teach more interesting and engaging classes. However, I think many atheists (like me) are intensely interested in religion and mythology and history and actively learn about religions, not to convert or deconvert people but because religions are interesting and important.

So I think someone with this sort of academic interest in Christianity would be a better teacher (for the purposes of a public school class) than someone who is interested in it because he believes it's the absolute word of God and anyone who doesn't believe the same is going to hell.

[Qingu]

You know what would be interesting. If we all made syllabi for this hypothetical class.

[bobthecockroach]

Originally Posted by Qingu

You know what would be interesting. If we all made syllabi for this hypothetical class.

Do it!

[tlj009]

I would venture a guess that most atheists are more respectful and less disparaging of the Bible than I am. Not all atheists are evangelical. (Though that could be changing nowadays.)

John raises the point that professors with strongly-held beliefs about their subjects tend to teach more interesting and engaging classes. However, I think many atheists (like me) are intensely interested in religion and mythology and history and actively learn about religions, not to convert or deconvert people but because religions are interesting and important.

So I think someone with this sort of academic interest in Christianity would be a better teacher (for the purposes of a public school class) than someone who is interested in it because he believes it's the absolute word of God and anyone who doesn't believe the same is going to hell.

Atheists are not the only ones who can put aside their personally beliefs, at least to a degree, and teach a class professionally. That said, I would like to repeat the point I made earlier. This discussion is really kinda pointless because hopefully the day will not come when a teacher is asked in an interview what religion they are before they can teach a class.

[Qingu]

Originally Posted by tlj009

Atheists are not the only ones who can put aside their personally beliefs, at least to a degree, and teach a class professionally. That said, I would like to repeat the point I made earlier. This discussion is really kinda pointless because hopefully the day will not come when a teacher is asked in an interview what religion they are before they can teach a class.

I agree. I've taken college classes by Christian and hard-core Jewish teachers and, well, these are the people who essentially taught me that ancient Judaism was an evolution of a Babylonian cult.

And I agree that teachers should never be discriminated against for their beliefs, only their performance.

[Lightknight]

Athiests have their own agendas just like any member of any religion. You cannot teach religious minded coursed from an unbiased perspective unless you are truly agnostic or if a preconstructed course is made which everyone agrees on as unbiased that the teacher has to follow.

Whatever the answer, who the heck cares? I've had sooo many professors and teachers with various biases in other areas, why should so many people whine specifically about religion lessons being biased? I don't believe everything my teachers have ever told me. All through highschool I spent a decent enough time correcting teachers mistakes as is and college has been no different. People need to be able to take information in and filter it or else they'll be stupid in life.

[bobthecockroach]

Originally Posted by Lightknight

You cannot teach religious minded coursed from an unbiased perspective unless you are truly agnostic or if a preconstructed course is made which everyone agrees on as unbiased that the teacher has to follow.

I would argue that agnostics are biased too.

[Lightknight]

Originally Posted by bobthecockroach

I would argue that agnostics are biased too.

It depends on the type, like if they are merely uncertain about what the truth actually is but are willing to believe anything that is adequately presented (according to their own requirements for convincing).

[j2_da_k]

I am glad that the Bible is at least being used. I'll take your bat Mr. Atheist man, sir. I think if the kids have to read the Bible, then they will be more likely to accept it's truth. The truth always has a way of working itself out.

[Sean]

Originally Posted by Qingu

I think atheists are in the best position to teach religion without bias, actually.

Would you rather take a public school class about Hinduism from a devout Hindu, or from me? (Edit: would you rather want your impressionable young child to take a class from a Hindu or from me?)

Hindu

[Chrysostom]

Originally Posted by Qingu

I will certainly grant that there is no such thing as a perfectly neutral, objective class, especially on a subject as divisive as the Bible.

However, would you agree that the best approach for such a class would be to treat the Bible the same way we treat other ancient, influential texts—like, for example, Plato's Republic?

It depends on who "we" is, of course... I took several courses in college which involved The Republic and came away with a different "Republic" in each. Admittedly, I would never teach a class like this because I think if you're going to teach a class you should have the balls to really teach it.

Originally Posted by Qingu

A teacher who hates Plato's philosophy would probably teach the class differently than one who loved Plato's philosophy, but it seems like bias can be kept to a minimum by instituting some standards and a teaching approach that focuses on the historical context and literal meaning of the text. "Here is what Plato says," and "here is what people at the time of Plato widely believed"—rather than "Here is why Plato is right (or wrong)"

What Plato says, how it is significant historically, and how it comes to us today are all going to be at dispute in any course involving Plato -- and Plato is one of those philosophers on whom there is little disagreement!

Originally Posted by JerryLove

I don't know how I would define "neutral", but I feel I know it when I see it.

The structure of the course and the materials incorporated will of necessity not be neutral because they will involve making interpretations, selecting material, and in fact discourse about the subject. And the language of your discourse will always carry millions of presumed contours of thought and the world that are being communicated to the students.

The most popular choices for these classes will be either worthless right-wing stuff or "Jesus Seminar" stuff. Presumably you already know enough about the former to know that nobody's going to learn anything of value about the Bible from it, so I'll talk about the latter. The Jesus Seminar-types will use words like 'objective' and 'rational' and even 'history' that literary theorists understand to have no actual meaning, but instead push a certain unrecognized set of assumptions about the world. Here's the key: The conclusions of the course are not the "content" as such. The actual point of the course is to teach students a certain way of thinking about and speaking about the subject which will guarantee the views of the teacher.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

I think that HBO's "Rome" has a pretty neutral depiction of Roman religious beliefs. It neither validates nor devalidates the beliefs themselves.

I've never seen a documentary on cable TV that didn't have post-Enlightenment Western bias written all over it. There's this assumption that it you don't explicitly "take a position" then you're really being neutral -- but this denies the inter-connectedness of the world and of truth. Judgments you make will always come from your perspective.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

I think that an athiest science-teacher would tend to make a very non-neutral description of Creation; but I think that an anthiest literary teacher would (generally speaking) be better suited to the Bible as a literary source (or a historian, or a specialist in religion) than a theist who brings a great deal of personal bias.

I think you've got to consider what kind of people teach in public schools. Who's going to teach Bible? Coaches? People with undergraduate religious studies degrees, at best? We're playing with fire if we think we can trust these people. And that doesn't even bring into play all the structural assumptions built into the class.

[Qingu]

Originally Posted by j2_da_k

I am glad that the Bible is at least being used. I'll take your bat Mr. Atheist man, sir. I think if the kids have to read the Bible, then they will be more likely to accept it's truth. The truth always has a way of working itself out.

This seems a-historical, since as soon as the Bible widely printed and readily translated into languages people could understand, people stopped taking it literally and soon thereafter the secular enlightenment happened.

I realize that there is this Christian tradition of the whole "tole lege" conversion story. However, I don't think anyone who just picks up a Bible and reads it is going to be convinced of its truth. That doesn't happen unless your reading of the Bible is guided by a dedicated cult community of priests and fellow believers. Taking your small children to church and having them perform repetitive rituals associated with the Bible every week (often before they can understand English) is also a good way to ensure that they'll "accept it's truth."

And this is why it is important to make sure such classes are not podiums for priests. The state should not sanction religious coersion.