Newton South officials give in to student's refusal to study Bible as literature

[proud2BlibKansan]

Newton —

Newton South High School officials dropped a requirement to read excerpts from the Bible for one student last month, after he refused to read the Biblical passages as a literature assignment because he is an atheist.

Jack Summers, a 15-year-old sophomore, said he objected to reading the religious text as part of an honors English class that also includes writings by William Shakespeare and Charles Dickens, among others.

“This is the word of God. People take this literally ... I don’t want to read about what they believe to be true,” said Summers, who described himself as an atheist.

South Principal Joel Stembridge wouldn’t comment on Summers’ case, but said the school uses the Bible to introduce students to the cultural traditions and allusions found in much of Western literature.

more . . . http://www.wickedlocal.com/newton/news/x1145288200/Newton-South-officials-cave-in-to-students-refusal-to-study-Bible-as-literature

[Ozymanithrax]

1. But the bible is literature.

As a source for spiritual enlightenment, I find it lacking. But the bible is one of the major underpinnings of English Literature. The only question I have is whether that was what Newton South was really doing with the bible.

[alp227]

7. I agree with you totally.

Reality is reality, and yes the Bible has influenced English literature, rhetoric, and prose greatly. This is bordering "PC run amok". Summers is right that people who take the Bible literally are dumb, but isn't he himself being dumb by choosing bury his head in the sand?

[no_hypocrisy]

2. I see a contraction in purposes.

If you teach the Bible as literature, you're making it a piece of fiction, e.g, fables, myths, etc. or poetry, e.g, Song of Songs. You can't make it both nonfiction and fiction no more than you can make "Grapes of Wrath" a biography.

I don't know if this student would have opted out if the course purpose had been more clearly defined as the Bible as fiction.

[Speck Tater]

3. That's just stupid. We can read Tolkien even if we don't believe in Hobbits.

As an atheist myself, I can believe that the Bible is a work of fiction, but still recognize it as a part of my cultural heritage. References to it are found in other literature and in commonly used allusions like "the patience of Job", "Daniel in the lion's den", or "render unto Caesar". Knowing something about the Bible, even for an atheist, is part of knowing something about the culture you live in.

There is nothing praiseworthy about deliberate ignorance.

[proud2BlibKansan]

5. +1

"There is nothing praiseworthy about deliberate ignorance."

[MineralMan]

4. I don't believe that public schools should be allowed to force

anyone to read the Bible. That said, the Bible won't convert many atheists. Personally, I've read the entire thing, cover to cover, in the King James Version, six times in my life. I've read it once in the New American Version, just to see what the differences were. I've read parts of it many more times than that.

If anything, it always restores my disbelief in the existence of deities and other supernatural entities.

Still, public schools should not be requiring the reading of any religious scriptures. That's pretty much laid out in the First Amendment. Reading it as literature is fine, but there are too many "Thou shalts" in there that have only a religious meaning. It's pretty much impossible to avoid seeing the Bible as a prescriptive text in a religious sense.

[LWolf]

6. I'm sorry to hear that.

I think the Bible *should* be included in the body of literature we study.

I use the stories and myths from other cultures to teach the beliefs and perspectives of different historical cultures. Why not the Bible?