THE problem in Texas science education isn’t confined to the creationist-dominated Board of Education. There are frequent outbreaks of creationism in the legislature. See, for example: Texas Creationism Bills: 2009’s Last Roundup. Today, we’re writing about yet another theocratic spasm, one we haven’t mentioned before.
In the Houston Chronicle we read Bible classes slow to appear in Houston schools. Here are some excerpts, with bold added by us:
Two years ago state lawmakers made it OK for schools to provide elective Bible classes but, so far, few Houston-area school districts have taken them up on the offer.
The 2007 law requires schools, beginning this year, to include some Bible literacy in history and literature classes. Bible classes are optional but encouraged under the law. The thinking is that educated students must be familiar with biblical references and themes that pervade culture and society.
We weren’t blogging back when that law was passed, but we’re getting caught up now. Let’s read on:
State Rep. Warren Chisum, R-Pampa, authored the bill to return Bible classes to public schools in a way that would be compliant with a 1963 Supreme Court’s ruling that called devotional study of the Bible unconstitutional. Even though justices emphasized the importance of the Bible in studying history, literature and civilization, many schools quit offering Bible classes after the ruling in fear of violating the separation of church and state, he said.
We’re guessing, but we think that refers to Abington School District v. Schempp. Continuing:
A renewed interest in Bible classes seems to have struck the nation in the past few years. Many states have introduced Bible bills, and some states, such as Texas, Georgia and Tennessee, have passed laws mandating Bible classes or the inclusion of Bible literacy in core classes.
Is this “renewed interest” part of the creationism movement? We press on:
What’s prompting the trend is twofold, say religious education experts. There’s a legitimate interest in the liberal arts value of Bible literacy and there’s also an ideological agenda, they said. Some people are popularizing Bible classes as a way of promoting the point of view that America was founded strictly on Christian values, said Mark Chancey, head of the religious department at SMU. “It’s a reflection of the political times,” he said.
Aha! It is connected to creationism. And therefore theocracy. Here’s more:
Texas’ new law, some people say, is promising because it safeguards religious freedom and quells proselytizing. There’s concern, though, that a lack of resources and vague curriculum standards are undermining the law.
Legal authority and no guidelines — it’s a creationist’s paradise. Do we have any indication as to how it’s going so far? The Houston Chronicle says:
In 2006, Chancey reviewed curriculum used by Texas schools with Bible classes. He found that 22 of the 25 classes strayed from scholarly instruction and promoted fundamental Protestant beliefs. Many of the schools used a Bible curriculum developed by the National Council on Bible Curriculum for Public Schools, which has been challenged in court. The council, however, denies any legal problems.
We’re shocked — shocked!! We’d be similarly shocked if a university encouraged co-ed roommate arrangements in the dorms and then discovered that there was — gasp! — coitus going on.
We can imagine the reaction of the education officials. “How could such a thing happen?” they’d wail. “When we encouraged healthy young men and women to share the same sleeping facilities, we only intended … we never expected … that is, who could have foreseen …”
Okay, here’s one last excerpt:
State Board of Education Chairwoman Gail Lowe defended the standards adopted by the board, saying they are adequate and have been successfully used for the past decade by schools that offer Bible classes.
Ah. If Lowe defends the situation, then our understanding is complete.
Copyright © 2009. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
The Sensuous Curmudgeon 
Kids don’t get enough of this at Sunday school? Oh, but this is different, right? Well, OK, as long as they teach the strengths and weaknesses and offer alternate theories. Frankly though, I can’t see many kids electing these courses unless they are already pretty religious or have heard you can get an easy ‘A’ out if it.
The saddest part about this story from my point of view is that students today really do need to know the Bible, in order to have any kind of deep appreciation and knowledge of Western philosophy, literature, art, and music.
I find today that my students here in Texas generally don’t know the Bible well at all, and are afraid to even mention it in class because it’s been contaminated by the reactionary/evangelical attitude which predominates in Texas.
A course like this has a tremendous amount of positive potential that defenders of the Enlightenment ought to endorse. It’s a shame that it’s been perverted by anti-modernists. But perhaps that perversion was to be expected, given prevailing social conditions.
Carl Sachs says: “The saddest part about this story from my point of view is that students today really do need to know the Bible …”
They might consider Asimov’s Guide to the Bible.
Knowing the Bible is useful for some aspects of the humanities. Certainly, one may gain a richer understanding of literature or art that references or allegorizes the bible or one may better understand the (mostly negative) impact that religion has had on history, but knowing the bible does nothing for the physical or biological sciences, mathematics, economics, foreign languages, computer sciences, business administration, etc. etc. etc. and very little for the social sciences. So why does it need to be an integral part of the curriculum? As far as I can see, it could be useful as an elective (such as a Bible as Literature type of course) but other than that it is rather useless.
LRA says: “As far as I can see, it could be useful as an elective (such as a Bible as Literature type of course) but other than that it is rather useless.”
Like archaic expressions in Shakespeare, almost any obscure reference or allegory in a literary work can be readily explained in a footnote. That’s true for biblical expressions or allusions to Greek mythology. Nothing more is needed to understand almost any work of literature being studied. There are exceptions, of course. A book like Pilgrim’s Progress or Paradise Lost is almost impenetrable without the biblical background, but such works probably belong in a specialized course.
Carl Sachs is right and Curmie’s suggested text is most appropriate. Its amusing that an atheist such as myself knows more about the bible than most of my christian students. However one of my best students is a fundamentalist/biblical literalist and we had some excellent discussions. He said he respected the atheists he knew but we were still all going to hell.
Yeah, I totally agree, Curmie. Specialized course is the way to go.
One could make an excellent argument that given the surge of fundamentalist Islam, a knowledge of the Koran would be equally or more important for students in the United States. I assume no legislators will trip over themselves to add that to the curriculum.
An elective “Bible as Literature” class might actually be a good idea. It could examine the multiple author evidence, the frequent examples of re-writing with anachronisms and such, and other relevant things “literalists” like to ignore. Combine it with a known history of the region and of the Jews (such as no evidence they were ever in force in Egypt…) and you’d get a pretty good course in how not to take the Bible seriously. Of course, it would just lead to howls from the religious-right on how we’re now corrupting even their most holy of holies, but it’d be fun seeing them doing their mental gymnastics on something they are “experts” on.
Albanaeon says:
A course like that just cries out for trouble. I’d leave bible study out, but I can imagine an interesting elective course named something like: “The Bible in Literature.”
The only time I find knowledge of the bible useful is doing some crossword puzzles.
Agreed, Curdge. It would just be nice to have a debate with one of these “experts” where I am not the one that knows more about the Bible and its history than they do.
Somewhere (not science class) I’d love to see every student have to answer the following question: “Who said that reading the Bible as a science text was ‘silly,’ that the designer of life might be deceased, that humans share common ancestors with other species and that life on earth has existed for billions of years”?
Hint: those letters-to-the-editor raving about how “irreducible complexity” destroys “Darwinism” would disappear.
Up through the nineteenth century, the Bible was the one book that virtually everyone in the English-speaking world was familiar with. (Educated men and women would know Shakespeare, educated men could add Virgil and Homer.)
In consequence, it is very difficult to understand much of English literature before the twentieth century without at least a familiarity with the stories in the Bible.
Not just literature, but public discourse. Abraham Lincoln’s anti-slavery speech–“a house divided against itself”. Another occasion–Gladstone, I think, was talking about Samuel Johnson picking up a drunken prostitute in the street and taking her home. Some of the audience began to titter, and he said “I remind you of the parable of the Good Samaritan”. His audience was silenced, and shamed.
Let’s not throw out the baby with the bathwater. The Bible is a very large chunk of the Western literary canon.
“Let’s not throw out the baby with the bathwater. The Bible is a very large chunk of the Western literary canon.”
Baby? More like the 300-pound gorilla in the room. The main reason the bible is a “chunk” is because people didn’t have any other option for centuries. Other than a repository of ancient myths and legends, its importance has been blown way out of proportion to its significance.
Bible as literature really can be done well, though I doubt the ability of Texas to pull it off. It’s a standard part of the 12th grade English curriculum (at least in AP classes) in more secular states from California to Vermont, from anecdotal evidence.
My 12th grade AP English class read Bible as literature in between Candide and Oedipus Rex. It was definitely a very secular reading, and one of my favorite memories of that class was when, during a discussion of Job, a kid raised his hand and commented that “this doesn’t seem like one of God’s bright, shining moments.”
Without the bible, it’s difficult to understand history, particularly the history of governance in the western world. We would also be training an entire generation to miss entire layers of literary allusions throughout the canon. (I still miss them half the time, even knowing the Bible fairly well, because I was never schooled to look for them, except in the most glaringly obvious places.)