[Qingu]

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...te-cnn-partner

This Time magazine article discusses the possibility of secular Bible classes in public schools.

I'm envisioning a can full of those gigantic, planet-devouring worms from Dune. However, the article makes a number of interesting points:

• The Bible, historically speaking, is the most important book ever.
• Most Americans have absolutely no idea what the Bible says. Half can't name a single gospel.
• There is no legal reason why kids should not be able to take a secular class on the Bible.

I am worried that Christian teachers are going to use this class to push their agenda. At the very minimum, a Christian teacher is going to have a lot of trouble answering difficult questions, especially if those questions come from students with different beliefs. I think it would be hard to teach such a class without spinning some things, and I wonder about the huge swaths of the Bible that are going to be ignored or glossed over.

However, as an atheist, I also believe the Bible is its own worst enemy and if people actually read it they would never want to be Christians. So ultimately, I'm in favor.

Discuss?

[bobthecockroach]

I definitely think religion should be taught in school in an informative and comparative way. A lot of people are really naive about a lot of religions.

[switchyourfoot]

That would be cool. It should happen! I would do better on it than any other subject. LoL.

[Lightknight]

For nonbelievers and believers alike, the Bible is a piece of literature that has had a larger impact on the world than any other book. The only difference is that believers believe in it as true.

I personally find it ridiculous that we would consider and have banned the teaching of such a book from public schools. None of the authors I was forced to read in school were as poetic as the Old Testament or as influencial as the Bible.

And Qingu, let's face it, a Christian teacher espousing his or her beliefs would be no worse than an Athiest espousing his or her beliefs in school to children. It's a give or take, we shouldn't censor everything specific to teachers. If a teacher wants to talk about the Bible as a true book, let him or her. Just as long as they teach the curriculum.

How can a person come out of the school system well-rounded if they haven't studied such a book as this?

[bobthecockroach]

Teaching can't possibly be bias-free anyway.

[Lightknight]

And if it is going to be taught with a bias, it might as well be taught with the bias in the majority. Christianity is in the vast majority and Atheism is but a spec. I personally found it remarkable that the majority of Americans let the minority tell them what to do. I'm all for giving everyone a voice, but I'm also all for democracy. And that's where majority rules.

[Qingu]

Originally Posted by Lightknight

And if it is going to be taught with a bias, it might as well be taught with the bias in the majority. Christianity is in the vast majority and Atheism is but a spec. I personally found it remarkable that the majority of Americans let the minority tell them what to do. I'm all for giving everyone a voice, but I'm also all for democracy. And that's where majority rules.

What a naive statement. The minority are afforded constitutional protections against the will of majority. This is not mob rule, Gavin.

The Bible should be taught as a piece of historical literature. As a text, it should be read and interpreted the same way we read the philosophy of Plato or the Illiad. Its influence on the world should certainly be discussed—but so should the literary and cultural influences on the Bible, such as Mesopotamian mythology and Roman Judaism and mystery cults. This is how the Bible is taught at secular colleges.

[Qingu]

Originally Posted by Lightknight

I personally find it ridiculous that we would consider and have banned the teaching of such a book from public schools.

It was never banned.

Teaching it as the gospel truth is banned, per the constitution. Just as teaching Hinduism or even Plato's philosophy of forms as the truth is banned.

And Qingu, let's face it, a Christian teacher espousing his or her beliefs would be no worse than an Athiest espousing his or her beliefs in school to children.

Atheists are not allowed to espouse their beliefs to children in public schools.

My friend, a school teacher, was asked if he believes in God by one of his students. He said no, and when pressed, he told them he could not legally talk about it as his teacher.

As it should be.

It's a give or take, we shouldn't censor everything specific to teachers. If a teacher wants to talk about the Bible as a true book, let him or her. Just as long as they teach the curriculum.

Doing so would be unconstitutional, Gavin.

How can a person come out of the school system well-rounded if they haven't studied such a book as this?

I agree, people need to learn about the Bible.

They should not be proselytized to in public schools. That is illegal.

The model should be secular college classes on Biblical literature.

[Gsus_Rawks]

Some people say that people with other religions would be offended. I wouldn't be offended to learn about any other religion.

[Qingu]

Originally Posted by Gsus_Rawks

Some people say that people with other religions would be offended. I wouldn't be offended to learn about any other religion.

Exactly.

However, you would be offended if the person teaching that religion tried to subtly push it on you and taught it as if it were the literal god-given truth. Wouldn't you?

I'm just saying, they need to be careful how they teach this course.

[bobthecockroach]

Originally Posted by Qingu

Exactly.

However, you would be offended if the person teaching that religion tried to subtly push it on you and taught it as if it were the literal god-given truth. Wouldn't you?

No?

I feel that's what my Sociology class did, but I got over it and moved on with my life. I even referred back to the class for a later project.

In fact, I feel that you're suggesting precisely that (pushing something as literal God-given truth that isn't proven) in suggesting that the Bible be taught as if it was derived partially from other things. Since I believe it was God-given, I do not believe it was derived.

[Reedolo]

I actually did study the Bible in public school, in my Comparative Religions class. That was a fun class.

As long as it's taught as a piece of literature from an objective standpoint, I don't think there would be a problem with teaching it. In my class there was never a problem, and there were several non-Christians in that class.

[Qingu]

Originally Posted by bobthecockroach

No?

I feel that's what my Sociology class did, but I got over it and moved on with my life. I even referred back to the class for a later project.

What religious belief was preached as the truth in your sociology class?

I suspect this conversation is going to dovetail into what defines a "religion."

[bobthecockroach]

Originally Posted by Qingu

What religious belief was preached as the truth in your sociology class?

I suspect this conversation is going to dovetail into what defines a "religion."

No religious belief was preached. I'm not sure why religious belief should be so divorced from other categories of belief. My sociology class "preached" a view of humanity that lacked free will to a disturbing degree. I disagree with that view. I was being forced to study something as truth that I didn't believe. Why, if this is a problem, should it only be a problem in religion? If it's not a problem in sociology, why should it be a problem in religion?

[Qingu]

Originally Posted by bobthecockroach

No religious belief was preached. I'm not sure why religious belief should be so divorced from other categories of belief. My sociology class "preached" a view of humanity that lacked free will to a disturbing degree. I disagree with that view. I was being forced to study something as truth that I didn't believe. Why, if this is a problem, should it only be a problem in religion? If it's not a problem in sociology, why should it be a problem in religion?

Interesting, I've never thought about it like that.

I guess I would separate ideologies into measurable and unmeasurable. I don't think sociologists necessarily believe that humanity lacks free will—just that statistically its behavior exhibits certain patterns. You can believe that birds have free will but it would be foolish to get offended by a science class that studies their migration patterns, you know?

On the other hand, philosophy and religion make claims about the world that are not measurable or testable. So I feel that's where the line should, and historically has, been drawn by the courts. You shouldn't be able to preach Aristotelian philosophy (let alone Neitzchean philosphy) as "truth" anymore than you could teach the Bible or Quran as truth.

Edit: HOWEVER. The Bible and the Quran—as well as many philosophers—actually do make many testable claims about the world. Such as "the world was created in six days" and "semen comes from between the ribs and kidney" and "there are four elements, earth, wind water and fire."

And honestly, I'm not sure how a class on philosophy or religion should deal with these claims. The best way, I think, would be to discuss them within their cultural context and explain why the claims seemed convincing at the time.