End biblical illiteracy using public schools -LA Times commentary

[LiberalFighter]

End biblical illiteracy using public schools -LA Times 3/17/2007

Although the 110th Congress has brought to Capitol Hill 43 Jews, two Buddhists and a Muslim – Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minn., who took his oath of office on Thomas Jefferson’s Quran – Washington remains a disproportionately Christian town. More than 90 percent of federal legislators call themselves Christians, making Congress more Christian than the United States itself. The president is an evangelical Protestant. Catholics enjoy a majority on the Supreme Court. Biblical references – from the Jericho Road to the golden rule to the promised land – permeate political speech. Yet U.S. citizens know almost nothing about the Bible. Although most regard it as the word of God, few read it anymore. Even evangelicals from the Bible Belt seem more focused on loving Jesus than on learning what he had to say.

In a religious literacy quiz I have administered to undergraduates for the last two years, students tell me that Moses was blinded on the road to Damascus and that Paul led the Israelites on their exodus out of Egypt. Surveys that are more scientific have found that only one out of three U.S. citizens is able to name the four Gospels, and one out of 10 thinks that Joan of Arc was Noah’s wife. No wonder pollster George Gallup has concluded that the United States is “a nation of biblical illiterates.”

Biblical illiteracy is not just a religious problem. It is a civic problem with political consequences. How can citizens participate in biblically inflected debates on abortion, capital punishment or the environment without knowing something about the Bible? Because they lack biblical literacy, Americans are easily swayed by demagogues on the left or the right who claim – often incorrectly – that the Bible says this about war or that about homosexuality.

Yet U.S. citizens know almost nothing about the Bible? Is that the fault of public schools? Public schools did not teach about the Bible when I was in public school over 35 years ago. I was taught the Bible when I was in parochial school for 4 years. I was taught the Bible when I attended Confirmation classes. I was taught the Bible when I attended Bible Study. I was taught the Bible when I attended church. All places that are appropriate for teaching and practicing religion.

Whose fault is it that they don't know Moses, Paul/Saul, Noah's wife, or the four Gospels?

According to a study by the Bible Literacy Project, which publishes a Bible textbook for secondary schools, only 8 percent of U.S. high school students have access to an elective Bible course. As a result, an entire generation of Americans is growing up almost entirely ignorant of the most influential book in world history, unable to understand the 1,300 biblical allusions in Shakespeare, the scriptural oratory of President Lincoln and the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. or even the prominence of Ezekiel 25:17 (actually a mishmash of this verse and passages from Genesis, Psalms and other books) in the film “Pulp Fiction.”

It shouldn't even be 8 percent. It should be zip, nada. They want elective? Then parents should send their children to parochial school. If they can't afford that then send them to Sunday School, take them to church and teach them at home. If parents expect their children to become ministers, or other religious profession then send them to a parochial school.

What does it say when an entire generation of Americans is growing up almost entirely ignorant of the Bible, Shakespeare, speeches laced with biblical sayings? The churches AND the parents aren't doing their job where it should be done. Don't blame it on the public schools.

Would they ask the question which was first? The 10 Commandments or the Code of Hammurabi? Would they discuss the different "Christian" religions in the 1st Century? Would they lay out the decisions made in creating the New Testament? Would they debate on why it is called the Christian religion when 14 out 27 books of the New Testament are supposedly those of Paul? Would they discuss why Paul's writings are included in the New Testament when he was not one of the Disciples and had never met Jesus?

[shain from kane]

1. "...unable to understand the 1,300 biblical allusions in Shakespeare..." So they read Shakespeare,

but not The Bible?


Also, from the internets ---

Some have claimed that the playwright William Shakespeare was involved in the translation, pointing to Psalms 46 as proof, where, counting 46 words from the beginning, one comes upon the word "shake", and counting 46 words backwards from the end, one comes upon the word "spear". Additionally, Shakespeare was 46 years of age at the time of the translating. Most scholars dismiss claims of Shakespeare's involvement in translating the King James Version, and do not accept this example as evidence of his involvement. Notably, the Geneva Bible and several other earlier translations contained the same coincidence, despite several of them being published before or just shortly after Shakespeare's birth.



Edited to add reference from the internet

[no_hypocrisy]

2. Public schools have NO business teaching bible stories.

If parents are THAT upset about illiteracy then they can make their kids stay at home at night and read the Bible together (like the "olden days"), have them go to Sunday school (yeah, that six days out of seven for school), and/or they can have them read comic books, watch videos, do coloring books, and hope for the best.

Public school kids would do better to be more literate in other forms of mythology found in Greek, Roman, and Norse varieties as these classical allegories frequently show up in literature and poetry.

[mwb970]

7. Well, to be fair, Biblical references appear pretty often too.

I was recently shocked to find that my 13-year-old niece did not know even the most basic outline of the Noah's Ark story until I told it to her. (She asked, "What happened to all the other people back on the shore?") This means that if someone makes a point by alluding to this story (or by making any other Biblical reference), she'll miss it and will look dumb. For me, this is a Bad Thing.

As a big Dickens fan, I have taught her who Miss Havisham was and what "more gruel" refers to. Why should she not at least recognize and understand similar references to the Bible, as well as those to Greek, Roman, and Norse mythology?


edit: typo

[iamjoy]

10. Why Not?

I mean, why not study the bible? We study other mythology, don't we?

I sincerely apologize if this offends good Christians who consider the bible the word of God or a true account of events by people inspired by God. BUT, to some non-believers, the bible has no more "authority" on any divine being than some of the accounts we now read of the ancient Greeks that involved Zeus.

And, I do remember reading The Oddyssey in high school, so why not Exodus?

I guess the difference is this: The Oddyssey was presented as fictitious, as legend. We were in no way encouraged to believe that Poseiden really had anything to do with Ulysses's delay in getting home.

[Toots]

12. So you want the government to force all children to read the bible and report on it?

What exactly do you mean by "study" the Bible? Do you mean just pick out select passages and comment upon them? Why should my children be forced to read such a book? Schools are forbidden to even let children read certain books like say "Catcher in the Rye" but you seem to want to force children to read ":The Bible" which has violence, sex, murder, incest, contradiction, fantasy, etc...If children wish to read the Bible and report on it I see no harm but to make it a mandatory study I would find that quite unAmerican...

[iamjoy]

37. Did You Read All Of My Post?

not all schools ban great works of literature because of language and themes. And certainly some of the "cleaner" but still interesting parts of the bible could be selected for literary analysis.

The tale of the Exodus from Egypt is pretty good. It explores all the different types of conflict (man vs. self, man vs. man, etc). Job shows God as a sick, twisted and insecure diety who must torture a loyal servant to test the man's loyalty. But, it makes for a good read, no? Readers love it when characters suffer, books would be quite boring if everyone got along.

If the intent really is to approach "studying" the bible the same way kids are made to read other great literary works, than I have no problem with it. But, I find it hard to believe Christians would be content to have what they believe as the word of God given no more authority than that of Charles Dickens.

[LiberalFighter]

14. I would support teaching the bible as mythology

and maybe some history mixed in it.

[Warpy]

13. Agreed, since a lot of kiddies are in families that exist outside

the "bible is central" families. The bible needs to be taught in the churches, but most of them wobble between demanding money from the faithful and preaching politics.

The churches are the institutions that have caused this much ignorance of their holy text by their negligence.

Then again, it's easier to be a passionate believer if one is utterly ignorant of what one is supposed to believe in. It's far easier to be a biblical literalist if one hasn't troubled oneself to find out what it really says. Plus, it's marvelous to have a few verses cherrypicked and spoonfed, verses that allow one the freedom to hate.

A lot of people are desperate for certainty, to have all life's messy choices made for them. They just have no clue what they're really certain of.

(Yes, and Paul served Rome and Empire, which is why the powerful churchmen included so much of him. They nearly managed to erase Jesus by suppressing the Gnostic Gospels. Pity.)

[originalpckelly]

16. Actually, I think we should treat it like any other myth that's widely quoted.

People need to understand what the Bible really says, and maybe if they do they'll realize what a crock of bullshit it really is.

[no_hypocrisy]

22. Part II: Where to draw the proverbial line.

Once Bible as Literature becomes the norm, there will complaints about how it is taught as the Bible is open to interpretation and manipulation as it were by interested parties, represented by the taxpayers and parents of the students. And what if a story in the public school version of the Bible contradicts what the same story taught in a particular church. Talk about all hell breaking loose. And then how will the schools accommodate a freethinker/atheist/unitarian child who announces to the class that the story "never happened" and another child who jumps up, traumatized, that their "friend" just insulted him/her and indirectly called him/her a "liar". That should make for lifelong friendship in the cafeteria, gym class, and the playground.

No, the Bible is too divisive IMO, no matter how benign the packaging is going to be.

[LiberalFighter]

28. Is the bible too divisive or are the people?

How many religions base their teachings on the NT/OT bible?

The way I feel if the bible was truly the Bible. Meaning the Word of God then it could not be interpreted in more than one way. I would venture to say that even within the same denomination there are differences in interpretations.

The so called Word of God should be clear to understanding even to common man.

[WinkyDink]

24. I disagree, for this reason: MUCH of Western Lit has Biblical and

mythological allusions and motifs. E.g., right now I think "The Pardoner's Tale" is pretty apt. Shakespeare. Milton. Etc.

[LWolf]

29. It's commonplace to include the mythology of an era

when teaching history. Mythology except for the bible, of course, because of the radical segment of the population that will not stand for the "myth" label. To be honest, as a teacher it would not accomplish anything positive for me to try to present the bible as "myth" to my students; they've been programmed from birth to consider the bible the "word" of god, the ultimate, unadulterated truth, and no amount of history or reality will sway them. Their parents would be heard, though, and I'd lose my job.

Still, to try to interpret the history of western civilization without understanding or acknowledging the biblical references does students a disservice; the picture, and therefore the understanding, can never be as accurate.

I think that comparative religion courses are a great idea, starting in middle school. The study of the world's belief systems from a neutral standpoint can only help to deepen our understanding of world history, and some neutral information about the content of the bible, the timeline it was written in, the number of modifications, edits, and translations, and the disagreements and compromises involved in that process can only be helpful. Seeing a sacred text from bigger perspectives, in context, is a positive learning experience. I remember my son's best friend's bar mitzvah, about 17 years ago. While I'd never been in a jewish temple, had no real understanding of the ritual, I was there because I loved the boy. One thing the rabbi said has stood clearly in my memory, all these years. He told the boy to always question the teachings. That any truth is well able to stand up to examination, and that truth has nothing to fear. I'd like to think that xtian families would have the same confidence about their children questioning the bible, but I don't.

The question is really this: What is the purpose of public education? If the purpose is to produce, factory style, a new generation of workers and voters who will not question the status quo or challenge the elite class system, then we don't need to study the faiths that drive human culture. If the purpose is to produce independent thinkers who can examine information and come to independent conclusions, therefore making them informed voters who actually have some say in the running of their community, nation, and world, then comparative religion classes might be a good idea.

My content areas include pre-history, mesopotamia, india, china, greece, and rome. It's really hard to look at the mythology of those areas without noting the biblical connections. Like the many flood myths that appear in pre-and non-semite mythology, for example. The more you analyze myths, the more the biblical connections stand out. Since I'm not supposed to examine the bible in my public school classroom, I simply nod when students notice the parallels.

[nickinSTL]

3. what crap.

it's not the job of public schools to teach the bible. If parents want their kids to read it, they should send them to religious school or Sunday school.

Americans know MUCH less about the writings and stories of my religion, but you don't see me trying to get the public schools to include the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edda">Eddas as a part of the curriculum.

[SpiralHawk]

4. "End Systemic Freedom of Thought. Support MBI

Mandatory Belief Inculcation (TM)."

"There is a CORRECT way to think, Citizen Proles, and there are CORRECT concepts to believe.

"So shut up and sit down you noisy free-thinking American Citizens.

"We will now commence re-programing you for maximum fealty and efficiency."


- Sincerely, Your De-volutionary Moral Superior,
The Holy-Modal Eternally-Benevolent and Maximally-Profitable Republicon-Christofascist-Corporo Borg

[baldguy]

5. End Koranic illiteracy using public schools.

End Bhagavan illiteracy using public schools.

End Talmudic illiteracy using public schools.

End I Ching illiteracy using public schools.

End Secular Humanist illiteracy using public schools.

Why stop there?

[mwb970]

11. You're right!

The course you are describing is usually called Comparative Religion and is already offered in many schools. Knowledge of world religions is a necessary component of cultural literacy and a broad, might I even say "progressive" worldview.

We now know that at the time of the Iraq invasion, our president did not even realize that there were such things as Shiites and Sunnis, much less that he would undoubtedly cause a civil war between them if he took out Iraq's strongman. Had Mr. Bush taken one of the courses you appear to be scorning, he might (might) not have made this fundamental mistake.

Ignorance may be bliss, but it makes for bad policy.


edit: typo

[LiberalFighter]

15. The closest we had in our high school for comparative religion

was a 3 year class called Humanities. We learned a bit about the different religions of the world. We did not read from any "holy books".

[mwb970]

19. They taught about a religion with no quotes from its scripture?

That's like teaching about music without ever playing any for the students. Makes no sense to me.

[LiberalFighter]

27. Why would they?

It was how religion, language, people and other factors played a role in history.

[mwb970]

32. I understand now.

You said you had learned "a bit" about various religions, and I assumed that would involve reading the writings underlying their followers' beliefs, and thus their actions. But your course evidently did not teach about these religions, treating them instead as monolithic entities working in history. That's fine, but it's certainly not "comparative religion"!

[kiahzero]

17. I agree. Comparative Religion classes would be a good thing.

The only problem with teaching a Comparative Religion class, however, is finding qualified public school teachers to teach it. Its constitutionality would depend in large part on the ability of the teacher to separate their own religious biases from influencing their teaching.

[Clark2008]

18. I'm all for it.

Teach it all. Teach it all as historic and political, not as religious.

A more knowledgable society stops so-called religious wars. Period.

[Igel]

21. Just teach it as literature.

Not 20th century approaches to literature, but using 19th century approaches.

Why piss of Muslims with Qur'anic criticism? Why try to show the various edits and inconsistencies, and how it's obviously a secular work written for societal control--with passages so garbled by transmission that even grammarians say it's good Arabic only because the Qur'an is perfect.

Same for Hindus. Or Buddhists. Or Xians.

Teach it straight, as a text, looking at the culture and the relevant commentary--not commentary showing it's ridiculous, but the commentary that seeks to explain it.

It's precisely what we did with Classical mythology, and in a S. Asian history class, with part of the Bhagavad Gita.

I'd scrap the political part. Most of that's guesswork, of no use in cultural understanding.

On the other hand, I would spend maybe 30% of the time on Classical mythology, 60% of the time on Xian sources, and the other myth systems would get 10%. It's a question of relative usefulness, and therefore practical worth.

[Clark2008]

39. Agreed.

Teach is anyway you want, historically, as literature, as it effects politics, but not as a binding religious text.

[Zhade]

38. As long as you don't teach the unproven myths inside the "holy" books as history.

It's not.

[Clark2008]

40. Well, not to you, but that's not my point.

The point is to teach it from an historical point of view. Whether you believe it or not, certain societies have and do and it effects their historical background. Teach it from that perspective.

For example: Historically, people have believed these ideas: how did that effect or not effect their political, socio-economical viewpoint?

Did anyone here ever take a Western Civ. class?

[DerBeppo]

44. Because...

the cornerstones of wester lit aren't predicated on familiarity with any of those.

I teach 11th grade American Literature and I'll be damned if I commit weekly the ultimate sin of (shhhh, don't tell anyone) mentioning the Bible when Biblical allusions come up, as they very often do. I even once or twice--hold on, let me suit up for the stone throwing--had them actually read story of Job and other various selections from the OT/NT when they're necessary to understand characterization or motivation in novels and stories.

Hell, the preeminent textbook publisher Holt, Rinehart and Winston include various passages in their 9th and 12th grade books.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TheConstantGardener]

26. Wow; you see why many in the GOP are quick to write us off?

Can we control our own extremism?

[Red Zelda]

35. Not without guns

[dkofos]

8. It seems a bit strange that a country that claims to be 85%

christian knows so little about their own religion.

Do people say they are christian to fit in??

[Igel]

23. Sometimes.

My wife mentioned yesterday that the Druze consider themselves to be the followers/descendants (I forget what she said) of Jethro. She paused, waiting for me to ask, "Jethro?"

Instead I paused for a second, and then asked, "You mean Moses' father-in-law?" She has no Bible literacy skills, she's an atheist and always has been. "Does everybody know that?" she asked. I had to say no; the church I left in 1991 expected serious Bible reading at home, so 16 years later I still do well in Bible trivia.

Sometimes Xians are social Xians or cultural Xians: they have some secular rites, hang out after church, but do little more. Some are real believers, but stop at "Jesus is love, the OT is hate and Paul is a legalist ... and, well, Jesus' words are nice but he loves me like I am and forgives me." So much for "thirsting after righteousness".

[Craftergrl]

9. No problem

I have no problem with the Bible being taught as literature. There's some good stuff in there. I wouldn't want some southern baptist teaching my kids doctrine or how to pray. /shudder

Personally I'd love to see the general public learning that it's ok to forgive people for their mistakes. If you can find anything wrong with Jesus' sermon on the mount then please post it.

The story of Job is a great lesson on how to over come adversity.

As long as the evangelicals keep their paws off the curriculum I think it would be a good thing.

[kestrel91316]

20. Somebody please explain to me what is stopping anyone who

WANTS to from studying the bible on their own as much or as little as they wish?

If you are going to "teach" the bible in school then you have a DUTY to teach all other major (and probably minor) sacred texts right there along with it. Or STFU.

[ComerPerro]

25. that's idiotic. shouldn't we teach about ALL religious texts, therefore?

[Unvanguard]

30. Basic biblical literacy is part of basic cultural literacy

and, in principle anyway, I don't see any reason not to teach the Bible if you teach Shakespeare and other classics.

That said, the practical implementation would be highly problematic, and would probably not be worth the trouble. (Do you teach it literally? Do you teach it as fiction? Do you somehow try to fit in all perspectives?)

[realisticphish]

31. Ok, so there's some cultural context

But who cares if I know fuck all about the Bible?

[Initech]

33. No. Bad idea. Horrible idea.

Schools shouldn't require mandatory religious classes. If they teach religious clases as an elective, that would be fine with me, but they would have to teach about every religion in the book. Whoever wrote this was clearly a member of the Talibornagains.

[Jonathan50]

34. Depending on the teacher......

Having a Bible class in public school could be quite subversive.


Lead us not into temptation.....

"And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham." (Gen 22:1)

"Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God; for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man." (James 1:13)



Sermon on the Mount or.....

Matt.5:1,2: "And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain: and when he was set, his disciples came unto him: And he opened his mouth, and taught them, saying...."

Luke6:17,20: "And he came down with them, and stood in the plain, and the company of his disciples, and a great multitude of people...came to hear him.. And he lifted up his eyes on his disciples and said..."


http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html

[JNelson6563]

36. As long as it's well rounded

Be sure to include the passages about genocide, rape, murder, theft and all the other good stuff. No fair just putting in the parts that sound nice. There are two sides to bible-god, it's only fair both sides are taught.

Julie--fan of full disclosure

[NMMNG]

41. What about Koranic illiteracy? Dharmic illiteracy?

Bhagavad Ghita illiteracy? Upanishads illiteracy?

Are they going to have kids read every "holy book" in school?

If not they should reserve the reading of holy books to place of worship and/or home.

[ellisonz]

42. End sutra illiteracy!

:nopity:

[gollygee]

43. I am Biblically Illiterate

and I'm OK with that.

I remember as a teen doing a crossword puzzle and having to ask my mom how many apostles there were. I still like crossword puzzles and I still get tripped up by the bible questions. Otherwise, it hasn't hurt me one bit.

It isn't the job of the public schools to teach people Bible stories. For familes for whom that is important, there is Sunday School.

[Pushed To The Left]

45. This is NOT a problem! Debates on those issues should be influenced by the Constitution,

not religion! The Bible, Quran, etc. should not determine public policy in a country such as ours that is supposed to have "no estabishment of religion". I realize that the far right wants to pretend that part of the 1st Amendment doesn't exist, but it is there and it is important.

[SemperEadem]

46. If parents want their children to be taught the bible and to be

bible literate, then they should pay to send them to religious schools so that they can learn the bible. The public school system, as long as it's being funded by everyone's tax dollars, should not be teaching any religion to any student.

Because if they teach the bible, then they have to teach the Koran and every other relgion's text, also. Christianity should not get a solo, preferred ride if we're talking about tax dollars paying for it.

[karlrschneider]

47. If it's done right (taught as literary history) it can be fine.

When I started college, they required 6 credit hours of religion courses. (Tulsa University which was then endowed by
the Presbyterian church...and me with an engineering major, to boot)

I found them very interesting and perhaps ironically, pushed me from agnosticism to atheism. The 2 courses I picked were Origins and Principles of Christianity and Bible History. I discovered that the more one learns about the subject, the more absurd it all really is.