No, this is a bad, bad, bad, idea. Once the Bible is introduced into schools in ANY form - as literature, as a background text to complement teaching about the Crusades in History classes, as a method of supporting the post-Renaissance suppression of the advancement of science, (which led to the Enlightenment) - no matter under what rubric the Bible is introduced, the battle about HOW it is used will commence.

Surely you understand the winger nutjob christofascists, Jo. They will never be satisfied until the Bible is the PRIMARY school textbook. And when they get that, they will start in on applying tests on PURITY of teaching the Bible.

Are you ready to see quasi-governmental examination boards investigating the doctrinal purity and backgrounds of all teachers?

Are you prepared for the time when a diploma from an Evangelist Bible College will be the mandated requirement for teacher certification?

When I went to high school in the late 1970s in North Carolina, we studied "Bible as Literature" in the honors "Humanities" class. It even included a discussion of why we were looking at the Bible this way and what was and wasn't kosher (so to speak) for the class to cover. Now, I credit this to one particular terrific teacher and not to the educational establishment in North Carolina, but it's a *great* idea.

wow your pretty resentful toward us christians arent you?

I think this is a good idea as well. And, being a Georgian, this makes my opinion exactly .000000000000000000001% more meaningful than anyone elses.

Eileen, most of my family and friends are christians.
We don't resent you at all. What we do resent, is the percentage of you that believe every single badly translated word in a book of squirrely provenance, whose entire first half was written by nomadic sheep-herders to be the 100% literal truth that absolutely must be enshrined in every aspect of American life. I resent the hell out of those people.

The changing demographics of New Orleans following Katrina do not work in Mary's favor in her upcoming re-election campaign.

The formula for success for a Democrat in Louisiana is to win by a large margin in N.O., do well enough in Baton Rouge and win in the Cajun Southwest. These results are enough to overcome the Republican advantages in the conservative suburban New Orleans parishes and the northern part of the state.

Kathleen Blanco squeeked past Bobby Jindal to win the governor's rce with this strategy. And Landrieu has used it in both of her Senate elections.

Likely, she is worried. Jindal may be up to a challenge ... following his loss to her, he successfully snagged the congressional seat of David Vitter, currently the first Republican senator from Louisiana since Reconstruction.

I agree that this is a bad idea. How come the Bible gets taught, even as literature, when the Koran and others are not? King James version? Will it really be taught neutrally? What will be the qualifications for the teacher? What guarantees that the course won't be bastardized by agendas? Will the myths (6 day creation, worldwide flood, will it be pointed out that there is NO evidence that the supposed miracles ever really took place) be identified as such... to skirt around the issues and not do so makes the class pretty much of a sham.

I don't agree with this at all. You have to think about others that either attend or work at the schools. You have Catholics, Jehovah Witnesses and others that don't go by the King James Version Bible. If religion is to be taught at school there would be no time for regular studies. Besides the LAUSD is already having trouble trying to teach spanish as a second language.

Even though I left my religion in a jungle 40 years ago, I have always supported teaching the King James Version as literature. So much of American and British literature is dependent on allusions to the KJV, that not having read it would be like not having read Shakespeare.

It has some great English poetry in it, even if it is a pretty pathetic translation of the Greek sources on which it is based, and those sources are corrupted by generations of copying errors.

People don't seem to understand that many copyists were drawing, not writing, as they weren't literate, they were artistic.

Right now it's their world and we just live in it; they don't separate church and state ("faith-based initiative"=tax money to churches, that "God talks to me" preznit, etc.), so this is not the time to let them "experiment" with bringing the Bible into the public school curriculum. A 'world religions' class will be a great addition to schools, but only when the US Constitution guides policy makers.

Eileen, the issue isn't about resentment of christians, although if you really want to discuss American "christianity, I'd be happy to oblige.

The issue is the Bible. It is not a scholarly text. It is not a historically accurate text. It is not phililogically accurate. In fact, the KJV is not even a good example of accurate translation from the seminal languages. American educatioj is flawed enough already.

And, as I noted above, as night follows day, once it is introduced as "literature" we will soon see it pushed forward as much more than literature.

All i can say is, there are good reasons why they seperated church and state. If we are going to teach the KJV in public schools, then lets teach some muslim, and some jewish religion, and hell, why not some Indian religious beliefs..

We support this. A friend of ours teaches English, and he says you would be surprised at how often he has to painstakingly explain Biblical allusions in literature to his classes. Even the ones from supposedly religious families don't seem to understand the primary sources (perhaps the conservative so-called Christians opposing this would be more comfortable with "Veggie Tales" and its Influence).

The King James Bible has formed such a part of our cultural background and literary heritage that to ignore it as literature would be like ignoring Shakespeare.

How come the Bible gets taught, even as literature, when the Koran and others are not?

Because the Qur'an, Torah et al are not as influential in the development of the English language and its literature, to put it mildly.

Some notes on this:

*(from http://www.religioustolerance.org/ )

Many Christians -- particularly from the conservative wing of the religion, believe that God inspired the authors of the Bible to write text that was inerrant -- free of error. However, that belief extends only to the original hand-written text -- not necessarily to later copies.
Unfortunately, errors have crept in during subsequent copying of Bible texts. In various locations in the Bible:

Text was inserted that better reflected the evolving beliefs of the Christian movement.
Margin notes that someone had added to a copy of the Bible were incorporated into the text of subsequent copies.
Short passages were simply deleted because they were an embarrassment to the church.

As earlier manuscripts are discovered, some of these forgeries are being uncovered, and modern Bible translations corrected. However, some established versions of the Bible, like the King James Version, remain uncorrected.

Another problem is that Bibles have been traditionally translated by a team of theologians who hold very similar religious beliefs. For example, although Crossway Bibles claims that their English Standard Version â„¢ Publishing Team "includes more than 100 people from many denominations and countries," all of the people involved in the translation appear to be from Fundamentalist and other Evangelical denominations.

A third concern is that translators can be influenced by economic concerns. Certain passages have traditionally been translated to condemn all "Witches" and condemn all homosexual behavior as an "abomination." If these passages were accurately translated, many potential buyers would probably refuse to purchase the Bible.

So, what portions are missing that are 'embarrassing' to the christian right?

Inquiring minds wish to know. Especially we reformed, and recovered catholics. I see many, many issues with the KJV of the bible. I also see many issues with the manner in which the scripture is taught in churches in this country.

I think Jo has pegged this one right on the money.

Semper Fidelis

"Because the Qur'an, Torah et al are not as influential in the development of the English language and its literature, to put it mildly."

Uh, excuse me, but the Bible was translated into English, not written in English. And what influence it has had certainly wasn’t always to the good, to put it mildly. The religion of the early Europeans (British included) was NOT Christianity. Christianity was essentially pushed upon northern Europeans by the Holy Roman Empire. It was not adapted by force of reason but by reason of force. As for American democracy settlers to the New World could witness native peoples practicing rudimentary forms of self-government and certainly were, as individuals, freer than the average Europeans of that time. For example, in Northeast tribes of that time a tribal chief was not a dictator but had had limited power. Chiefs led through their abilities to persuade others to follow. Individual tribal members could choose to follow, or could argue against their chief’s proposals and their words were given respectful and serious consideration. An individual warrior, for example, could decide to follow, or not follow, a war chief as a member of a war party with little stigma attached. The war chief had to convince others to follow him, and it was never automatic for others to do so. Our form of government was certainly more modeled on the League of the Iroquois than any Bible-based European societies of that time. The Bible, on the other hand, had/has/is used to silence debate and to create a class society. The 1st Amendment pretty much separates government from religion. Personally I think the Bible is a great work of fiction (I mean that in the best term, not despairingly). I respect our ancestors and how they tried to figure out how the world works. Of course they weren't writing it as fiction but were recording stories they never personally were witnesses to. Genesis was an early attempt to explain origins, but modern science has since pressed on. But those who insist on re-introducing their superstitious beliefs in the inerrancy of Genesis as science and ancient Jewish customs as law, are the ones guilty of turning the Bible from a great work of WORLD literature (same as other religious text) into a very divisive issue. I would never want to ban the Bible any more than any other book. But I don't want to enter into another Dark Age because of religious zealots. I am a more than a little leery that its introduction into a public classroom won't be used to proselytize.

Ray said:

"But those who insist on re-introducing their superstitious beliefs in the inerrancy of Genesis as science and ancient Jewish customs as law, are the ones guilty of turning the Bible from a great work of WORLD literature (same as other religious text) into a very divisive issue."

Most notably - that exclusion of any female context contained in the bible. Also, it gives you a little insight to the male dominated world of religion. Taken in that context - it will give you the insight needed to see inside the typical far-right conservative male psyche.

Those happen to be some of the divisive issues - which were taken out of their 'version' of the bible.. by all male scholars. Funny, they were mostly all from the same theological school of thought.

This is, what I believe is Jo's central point. I haven't seen nor read how the states have proposed to utilize the bible in school yet.

Hopefully, the people behind this legislation have thought long and hard about it, before they brought it to the floor of their respective state house(s).

As a secondary thought, once I open the Qu'ran in my office here... I will attempt to debunk the (what I see as "myths") being broadcast on the MSM about the Muslim faith.
I have a couple muslim friends, who are going to help me work my way through it. It has been since I was on active duty that I turned the pages of a Qu'ran.

Back in those days, you were not hated by your fellow Americans for having one in your possession. Especially fellow Marines.

Semper Fidelis

Ray said:

"But those who insist on re-introducing their superstitious beliefs in the inerrancy of Genesis as science and ancient Jewish customs as law, are the ones guilty of turning the Bible from a great work of WORLD literature (same as other religious text) into a very divisive issue."

Most notably - that exclusion of any female context contained in the bible. Also, it gives you a little insight to the male dominated world of religion. Taken in that context - it will give you the insight needed to see inside the typical far-right conservative male psyche.

Those happen to be some of the divisive issues - which were taken out of their 'version' of the bible.. by all male scholars. Funny, they were mostly all from the same theological school of thought.

This is, what I believe is Jo's central point. I haven't seen nor read how the states have proposed to utilize the bible in school yet.

Hopefully, the people behind this legislation have thought long and hard about it, before they brought it to the floor of their respective state house(s).

As a secondary thought, once I open the Qu'ran in my office here... I will attempt to debunk the (what I see as "myths") being broadcast on the MSM about the Muslim faith.
I have a couple muslim friends, who are going to help me work my way through it. It has been since I was on active duty that I turned the pages of a Qu'ran.

Back in those days, you were not hated by your fellow Americans for having one in your possession. Especially fellow Marines.

Semper Fidelis

I took "Bible as Literature" as an elective class in High School way back in the Jurassic period - the 1970s, and at that time it was taught AS literature, surprisingly by the same instructor who taught the SciFi class. No attempt was made to convert anyone and as far as I remember we had a wide range of students attending. It certainly didn't do anything to convince ME it was anything other than a collection of fairy tales - and poorly written ones at that.

Uh, excuse me, but the Bible was translated into English, not written in English

Excuse me, we should have said "the King James version of the Bible."

We thought that was sort of clear from context, but apparently not.

SullyWatch… Read an earlier post of mine and you will see that I did not miss the King James version! Why not use the Catholic Bible? Sure, the Catholics used Latin BUT it was translated to English by the priest during sermons. Catholicism was the dominant religion in the English speaking world for a long time, up until the Protestant Reformation. Again, the Bible was TRANSLATED into English, and some of the original meaning was lost in the translation. (Also note that what did make it into each version of a particular Bible, King James included, was decided by committee.) The original documents that make up the books of the Bible were not written in English. True, as the dominant superstitious belief of the English-speaking world the Bible has influenced English literature. But as a religious text there is a real danger that it will be expected that the teacher treat the Bible with a reverence that places it above all other books, and that in turn places the Judeo-Christian belief system above all others. The Bible is already treated as a taboo subject for criticism, and it doesn't deserve it (nor does any other claim). The 1st Amendment prohibits that very reverence in a publically-funded setting. Any attempt at criticism could result in pressure to fire a teacher. I have to admit that the claim that American students don't know enough of the Bible, that there are common translation or contextual problems that an English teacher must explain by Biblical reference, and do so without tripping over church-state separation issues, is incredible. In fact, I think its stretching it. Sorry your English teacher friend has problems, but as a former science teacher I know that he hasn’t had anywhere near the problems that a science teacher experiences. Some churches even go so far as to teach students how to confront a science teacher in ways that undermines the lesson when the teacher presents a subject that contradicts the Bible (evolutionary biology, geologic time, Big Bang cosmology, etc.). Note too that history lessons that contradict the Bible are also under attempts at revision (for example, through close study of the archaeological record we now know that the pyramids were built by the Egyptians themselves, not slaves). I say again, there are teachers out there who are Bible-thumpers who will use this as a golden opportunity to try to teach their Bible as fact!

1. Timely
   
2. Strategery
   
3. Webb wins
   
4. Huh?
   
5. Bunnypants in Bagdad
   
6. Outage
   
7. Filthy Lucre Watch
   
8. Playing the numbers
   
9. My letter to Countdown
   
10. Jefferson's Nigerian Scams