is there a case for Bible study in secular education?
This week, Time's senior religion writer David Van Biema looks at whether or not there is a case to be made for secular education of the Bible and whether or not there is a place for Biblical literacy, especially in our high schools.
Van Biema interviewed Boston University's Stephen Prothero, who gives one of the more convincing reasons why it actually would be a good idea to have this secular edudcation:
In the late '70s, [students] knew nothing about religion, and it didn't matter. But then religion rushed into the public square. What purpose could it possibly serve for citizens to be ignorant of all that?
The ignorance - ignorance that Van Biema notes is as problematic with self-described evangelicals as it is with anyone else - leads us to a place where people are unable to critically examine public policy platforms for their hidden religious agenda. This has been on my mind lately, given that a lobbyist for a large and influential religious group freely admitted to me and the students we were talking to that part of her job is to remove the religion from the policy she lobbies for - that is, she (and many people with the same job across this country) is specifically trying to advance her religious group's beliefs via secular language.
It's a hidden agenda, one that favours secrecy to get what one wants, couched in language that tries to mask religious belief for social concern and looking out for the best interest in society. And we need to give people the critical skills to examine platforms for these hidden agendas - and without a familiarity in the religious texts that are driving the agenda, the goal seems lost.
-Kelly Hills
Labels: evangelism, religious texts
contribute a comment
Comments have been closed for this post.
comments
There's no hidden agenda - if you want to pass a law, you have to follow the much-touted "separation of church and state." If you don't like what you suspect are the results, fight the bill or the agenda on the merits of each rather than discriminate against the religious background or identified social group of the authors.
Every lobbying group has an ideology strong enough to influence donors. And smart lobbyists - effective lobbyists - know their audience (the legislaors who have to raise their own funds for re-election every 2 to 6 years).
I've been at several meetings where alternate terms for cloning and embryonic stem cell research were discussed, with the stated purpose of making the terms more acceptable to the public. I've seen changes in proposed bills that went from blatantly advancing a given social agenda to working around to the desired results, without making the original lobby identifiable.
I'm not sure how teaching religion in the schools would change anything. Perhaps there's room for history and literature of religions, but not for religious teaching or comparative religion. However, even if you stick to the history of religion, how are you going to handle the history of Jerusalem without offending a large part of the community?
As to actual teaching about the creeds, practices and texts of the major religions in public schools, I sure can't see Baptists being too happy in Utah or Muslims being happy about how the Catholic school teacher influences their children.
- by Beverly Nuckols on Mar 25, 2007 at 9:53 AM | link
I would say, too, that it makes sense from a literary and historical perspective. Many of the secular beliefs and practices we currently hold are at least loosely based in both testaments of the Bible.
- by irisira on Mar 25, 2007 at 12:02 PM | link
Why would people want to remove their religion from the policy they are promoting, unless they are afraid of people's automatic rejection of anything associated with religion? Is that happening?
The movement to end slavery in this country was heavily religious. Look at the words of "The Battle Hymn of the Republic" - "As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free." I suppose nowadays that would never fly.
- by Laura(southernxyl) on Mar 25, 2007 at 5:56 PM | link
Some of my favorite courses in college were those that focused on the history of religion or on the Bible as a literary text. Certainly these courses gave me a more sophisticated view of modern culture, politics and geography. I suspect the real issue here is the suspicion among atheists, agnostics and members of minority religions (e.g. Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism etc) that in some regions of the country, teachers will simply be incapable of teaching these courses without injecting a fair amount of prosyletizing or, at least, personal critiques of the doctrinal bases of religions not their own.
- by alta charo on Mar 25, 2007 at 6:39 PM | link
I applaud your idea!! You can call the class Comparitive Religions or Religious Literacy. Include all the religions, Catholicism, Protestant, Baptist,Judaism, Buddism and so on. The only exposure to religion I had as a kid was the weekly CCD classes required by the Catholic Church to make your communion and conformation. I now struggle to carry on any type of intelligent conversation about religion. Most conflict in this world has a religious undertone. Through education we may be able to eliminate some of the prejudice.
- by gigirl on Mar 26, 2007 at 10:58 PM | link
Laura, the movement to end slavery was heavily opposed on a religious basis. The Bible gives significant instruction as to how slaves should be treated and who could be slaves. The movement to end slavery in this country was championed by those that felt that no matter what the Bible said . . . slavery was wrong.
- by Bob on Mar 28, 2007 at 12:16 AM | link
Hidden agenda:
Defining morality as a set standard of human behavior versus morality as a utilitarian consensus.
The former is easier with monotheism but absolutes can be formulated without religious reference.
Secular morality defines the limits of society. Religious morality defines the righteousness of divinity, which includes divine judgment in the absence of granting of divine forgiveness.
- by robert b on Mar 28, 2007 at 8:05 PM | link
Was my comment immoderate?
- by Laura(southernxyl) on Mar 30, 2007 at 5:18 PM | link
I didn't realize it until the local paper's coverage today, but that's my hometown (for the last 14 years) in the Times article.
I do remember a bit of discussion last year about whether the class was appropriate, who would teach, and from what angle.
- by Beverly Nuckols on Apr 1, 2007 at 8:36 AM | link
Why would people want to remove their religion from the policy they are promoting, unless they are afraid of people's automatic rejection of anything associated with religion? Is that happening?
Laura, in the case I am thinking of, the concern was that people who don't share the religious beliefs would find the policies to be non-applicable to them. ie "I am not X religion, I do not share their belief about Y, therefore I do not disagree with their policy Z." The idea seems to be, if X religion is removed, people won't attach the reasons for policy Z to belief Y, and thus support the policy.
An easy example of this would be stem cell research - many people feel that the religious reasons for opposing human embryonic stem cell research are non-applicable if they don't share that religion, and so they don't share the policy goals of bans. I think many religious groups hope that if they can ground their case for the policy in secular language that supports the religious goal, those not sharing their religion will still support the policy. And as I understand it, this is precisely how John Rawls would argue that multiple religious beliefs should interact with one another in a secular society - justify the reasons for the policy you support on a secular level, even if the reasons are actually religious.
- by Kelly on Apr 3, 2007 at 4:44 AM | link
It does seem like the separation of church and state went too far when it comes to the Bible. The historical knowledge that it contains leaves huge hole in education. Also, in this current world climate, acceptance of cultural diversity is more important than ever. True acceptance will only come with understanding and abandonment of stereotypes, and this can only come with knowledge. I do have to say that I would hate to see what educators would go through trying to teach a "Bible" class - the phone calls from parents with varying beliefs would be endless.
- by Holly James on Apr 8, 2007 at 11:11 PM | link