Mar 17, 2011 -- 10:25AM, TPaine wrote:

Mar 16, 2011 -- 1:55PM, davelaw40 wrote:

you are missing the point; this class is taught in the literature department-its a cultural literacy class

I don't think it should be limited to the literature department. The course would include the effects of the Bible on history and politics as it should if it was correctly taught. However, in a high school class the subject could not be covered as it would be in a college course.

Why, Not? a HS AP class is the equivalent of a college freshman course

Mar 17, 2011 -- 11:16AM, davelaw40 wrote:

Mar 17, 2011 -- 10:25AM, TPaine wrote:

. What perspective should it be taught from; literary-historical, thematic, comparative, redactional, or socio-historical?

None of the above-the Bible's influence on Literature, History and Politics and culture is exactly that-

Why the Bible and not the Tanakh, Qur'an, Tripitaka, or Bhagavad-Gita? All have been translated into English, as the Bible was, and all have an effect on Literature, History, and Politics. I'm sorry, Dave, but I see this as an attempt to get Bible Study back in the public school system as it was before Abington Township School District v. Schempp. It's interesting that the states that are trying to establish such a course are the same states that are severely cutting public school funding. 

Mar 17, 2011 -- 5:10PM, davelaw40 wrote:

none of those have the relation to American/ Anglo History and culture that the Bible has-and the Tanahk is included

and you are trying to our future generations of our cultural heritage in the name of seperation of church and state

the best model is the modern State of Israel a secular state with most of its residents being non practicing but they all have mandatory kniowledge of their scriptures

Dr. Mark A. Chancey who teaches biblical studies in the Department of Religious Studies in Dedman College of Humanities and Sciences at Southern Methodist University in Dallas, has written a report on the curriculum that states in part:

In my professional judgment as a biblical scholar, however, this curriculum on the whole is a sectarian document, and I cannot recommend it for usage in a public school setting. It attempts to persuade students to adopt views that are held primarily within certain conservative Protestant circles but not within the scholarly community, and it presents Christian faith claims as history:

The Bible is explicitly characterized as inspired by God.

Discussions of science are based on the claims of biblical creationists.

Jesus is presented as fulfilling “Old Testament” prophecy.

Archaeological findings are cited as support for claims of the Bible’s complete historical accuracy.

Furthermore, much of the course appears designed to persuade students and teachers that America is a distinctively Christian nation — an agenda publicly embraced by many of the members of NCBCPS’s Board of Advisors and endorsers.

The entire report can be found HERE. What would James Madison say about such a program? Given his successfully get Jefferson's Virginia Statute For Religious Freedom and his own Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments, I think he would be infuriated. He would be opposed to the concept of non-Christians tax money being used to support any type of Christian education.

Mar 18, 2011 -- 2:12PM, davelaw40 wrote:

So, improve the course

That is not what the authors of such legislation want, Dave. They are almost all evangelical/fundamentalist Christians who want to indoctrinate students in their believes. Here in Hamilton County, Tennessee where I live there are elective Bible courses in the public schools that are funded by contributions from churches and individuals. On their web site they have a list of historical documents. The choices are Before 1776, The War for Independence, The Constitution and Related Documents, 1783 - 1860, War Between the States, 1865 - Present, and Wallbuilders. Since when did Wallbuilders belong in historical documents other than bogus ones? They also have a link to Separation of Church and State: A Misleading Metaphor that quotes freely from David Barton promoting the canard that Jefferson's wall was a one way wall. They also have a link on their main page to the National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools. Link Religion should be taught at home or in churches, not public schools.

Mar 19, 2011 -- 1:16PM, davelaw40 wrote:

In other words, you are losing the battle- teaching historical and cultural impact of religion is NOT teaching religion.

Are we supposed to teach history or historical revisionism in our schools? Here is a link to a series of articles about some of the pseudo-history from David Barton has been adopted by the National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools program. Link