Mandrake and Ripper
You remember New Hampshire Representative Jerry Bergevin, who pre-filed HOUSE BILL 1148. We posted about it here: New Hampshire Creationism Update (29 Dec ’11). That bill would add this new paragraph to the statutory duties of the State Board of Education:
Theory of Evolution. Require evolution to be taught in the public schools of this state as a theory, including the theorists’ political and ideological viewpoints and their position on the concept of atheism. [Bold added for emphasis.]
We also reported that the Concord Monitor of Concord, New Hampshire, quoted Bergevin as saying a number of goofy things, including this:
“As a general court we should be concerned with criminal ideas like this and how we are teaching it. . . . Columbine, remember that? They were believers in evolution. That’s evidence right there,” he said.
Since then, Bergevin has been in the news for sponsoring a new bill that, as reported by the Boston Globe in NH bill would allow service refusal to gay couples, would:
allow providers of wedding-related goods or services to withhold those services if they believe doing business with gay couples would violate their conscience or religious faith. The bill also would bar lawsuits against business owners in such situations.
We didn’t post about that because the subject, although a hot one, is usually of no concern to this blog. Now, however, Bergevin is back in the news, and this time his legislative activity interests us. Today the Concord Monitor reports: Bill would mandate Bible study. It’s sub-titled: “All public schools would offer elective.” Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us:
[Many of the] founding fathers of America were profoundly influenced by the Christian Bible, and in order to understand United States history, students need to read and study it, according to a bill before the House Education Committee yesterday.
“The Holy Bible is the bedrock of Western civilization. Love it or hate it, it’s in every aspect of humanity,” said sponsor Rep. Jerry Bergevin of Manchester.
For our thoughts on that, see Is America a “Christian Nation”? Back to the news story:
Bergevin’s bill would require all schools to offer an elective social studies course in Bible studies, where students would examine the Old Testament, the New Testament or both, and learn “biblical content, characters, poetry and narratives that are the prerequisites to understanding contemporary society and culture, including literature, art, music, morals, oratory and public poetry.”
The bill is HB1712 , and you can follow its status right here. At the moment, it’s sitting in the House’s Education Committee.
But that’s not all! Bergevin has sponsored some other interesting bills. For example, there’s HB1147, proclaiming March 31 of each year as a day to remember Terri Schiavo (see Terri Schiavo case). And there’s also HB1416, an act relative to the introduction of substances into the New Hampshire public water supply. Yes, it mentions fluoride. Bergevin wants to preserve the purity of our precious bodily fluids. For our insight on that, see Creationism: Purity of Essence.
Let’s get back to the news about Bergevin’s bible bill:
When asked whether his goal would be fulfilled by courses in comparative religions, Bergevin emphatically and repeatedly said no. “It’s the foundation of our republic. The Bible. It’s as simple as that,” he said.
So there you are, dear reader. New Hampshire has a fine new creationist legislator, and he’s showing us the way to the future.
Copyright © 2012. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
The Sensuous Curmudgeon 
So, his districts will now be required to hire a teacher who is accredited to teach this course. Pay them. And when 2 kids take the class, the same Bergevin will complain about the waste in the education system.
AFAIK, many districts will create electives if a group like the PTA can demonstrate there is sufficient interest for it – i.e., that 20-30 kids would sign up for it, for several years running. That is why many districts now offer Mandarin, when 20 years ago it was nonexistent. IOW, under the current system districts would offer his bible course – if they thought students would take it. The fact that it takes a law to require them to offer it probably gives some clue to how popular it would be.
The bible has way too much kinky sex and extreme violence to be suitable for school age children. The parts that aren’t about sex or violence are either boring genealogies, or long lists of rules that no one follows anymore. Oh, and there is some poetry, and we all know how much kids like to study poetry.
I don’t see any chance in hell (oops, a bible reference) of this passing.
Bergevin is quoted: “It’s the foundation of our republic. The Bible. It’s as simple as that,” he said. [emphasis added]
No way I’m going to support his bill. Not until Bergevin specifies The Bible means exclusively the KJV version, with Morocco leather binding and gilt edged pages. And I don’t mean that wimpy old Scofield KJV version that allowed for an old earth.
Don’t even mention all those other translations held up by papists, blasphemers, and the non-elect who are pre-consigned to Hell. If I’m going to go to all the trouble of being seen walking around in public as an idolator worshiping a book, I want to to be the real thing.
‘When asked whether his goal would be fulfilled by courses in comparative religions, Bergevin emphatically and repeatedly said no. “It’s the foundation of our republic. The Bible. It’s as simple as that,” he said.’
Bergevin could not have given a clearer demonstration of the intent behind, and the absolute necessity for, church-state demonstration if he’d tried. “It’s as simple as that” is the kind of thing said by people who just can’t conceive of any disagreemeent with their views; and dogmatic assertions like that have no place in an area (politics) that is, after all, based on the idea of recognizing and reconciling disagreement. It’s ok to have dogma in religion; that’s what it’s based on. Not so much in politics. This is why the two things are kept separate. Why is that so hard to understand?
aturingtest mentions: (1):“It’s as simple as that” is the kind of thing said by people who just can’t conceive of any disagreement with their views; and dogmatic assertions like that have no place in an area (politics) that is, after all, based on the idea of recognizing and reconciling disagreement.”” followed by (2):“It’s ok to have dogma in religion; that’s what it’s based on. Not so much in politics. This is why the two things are kept separate. Why is that so hard to understand?”
Both sentences are true, and President Obama could have used both of them in a presidential speech almost anytime. But yesterday Obama was busy with the “National Prayer Breakfast”, where the only thing the politicians do seem able to agree on is the desire to promote theocracy as a form of government, regardless of party affiliation.
Now, re-reading my comment, I have to wonder- how close to saying “it’s as simple as that” did I myself come by asking what was so hard to understand about a basic idea?
He’s certifiable.
None of his inanity will get through the legislative process, IMHO.
As a point of reference, the General Court in NH has 400 members; it should be no surprise that a few wackos get elected from time to time. About a decade ago, there was a kook elected to the NH legislature who had a long internet history of advocating cop-killing (among his several other weird ideas) — it wasn’t discovered until after he was elected, and there was a media frenzy when the story broke. Under immense and unanticipated scrutiny and pressure, he resigned his seat.
He still runs for high office, including the nomination for US Senate in the last election.
Longie says: “None of his inanity will get through the legislative process, IMHO.”
Again, I understand your desire to defend your state. All I can do is report on what your legislature is doing. For all I know, Bergevin is typical. Let’s see how his agenda plays out.
A practical reason why this bill won’t go anywhere: it’s an unfunded mandate, and the NH constitution forbids the legislature from foisting unfunded mandates on local government. For this bill to pass NH constitutional muster, the legislature would have to fund the elective Bible classes so local school districts aren’t stuck with the bill.
The legislature just managed to enact an 11% cut in state spending (that’s a real 11% cut, as in a decrease from the previous year’s spending by 11%, not an 11% cut in the planned increase.) There’s no way they are going to tun around and increase state spending for elective bible study classes in public schools.
Longie says: “There’s no way they are going to tun around and increase state spending for elective bible study classes in public schools.”
Ah, but what of his bill to preserve the purity of our precious bodily fluids? That looks like a winner.
Yikes!
I KNOW one of the co-sponsors of this idiocy.
He used to send me all manner of unsolicited obsessive crackpot material by mail. Harmless, but kooky, weird stuff.
The mere fact he is a co-sponsor should be enough to assure this bill’s quick demise. I see from the status link that SC has provided for our convenience shows an executive session on the 21st of February, and a reporting out date of the 23rd. I’m betting they vote this one “inexpedient to legislate” at that time.
The school district in Odessa, Texas ratified a proposal (2005) to have an elective course “The Bible as Literature” along the lines described above. However, the district, to the best of my recollection, was unable to find a syllabus or course materials that actually discussed the topic. Everything they found was “Bible Study” which is basically an opening prayer, readings, concluding that God is great and a closing prayer. No references to literature or art.
Of course, the sole purpose of these phony Bible/lit courses is to enable proselytizing in public school.
Here’s an article about the Odessa incident. The organization that provided the materials for the course is sponsored in part by that great academic and renown Biblical scholar Chuck Norris. Yes, that one.
Apparently Bergevin was first elected in 2010 and is up for re-election this year. In 2010 he received a whopping 2697 votes. His base salary is $200/yr.
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Jerry_Bergevin
NH must have some weird way of electing state Reps. It appears he is one of eight state Reps from Hillsborough 17. It only took at 2465 votes or more to become one of the chosen eight.
Jack,
As noted above, there are 400 reps in the General Court in NH, spread over the population of NH, that works out to something like 3300 constituents per legislator. If you calculate it based on registered voters, it is something like 2250 voters per rep.
The legislative salary is $200 per session, not per year. A session lasts 2 years.
Yet ANOTHER reason why his bills are likely doomed — he’s a rookie legislator, and bills offered by rookies usually get clobbered, often because rookies have no idea what they are doing. That’s clearly true of Bergevin.
For all the fundies’ talk about America being a Christian nation, I saw very little knowledge of Christian scriptures among my college literature and composition students. They would have enjoyed much of the literature we read more thoroughly if they had been familiar with biblical stories and ideas, expounded in the orotund style of the King James Version.
I used to assign students in some advanced classes to do a statistical stylistic comparison of KJV and several other late 16th/early 17th century documents. They were always amazed at how much more “modern” the Bible proved to be than the others. Nobody can credibly claim that our governmental and legal structure is based on the Bible, but it’s clear that writing styles since that time owe much to the Jacobean translators’ attempts to make scripture understandable to common people.
A “Bible as literature” course, even taught from a secular perspective, shouldn’t be required in the high school curriculum. However, it would certainly offer benefits as an AP elective to those bound for college in literature, linguistics, history, or sociology/anthropology.
Retired Prof: “A “Bible as literature” course, even taught from a secular perspective, shouldn’t be required in the high school curriculum. However, it would certainly offer benefits as an AP elective to those bound for college in literature, linguistics, history, or sociology/anthropology.”
While you’re right about that, the big concern would be that none of these proposed courses would be used in a secular way. The students who would benefit as you mention are few and far between. Most of the course takers would end up being those who are alreadly hopelessly enamored with their bibles or the poor kids forced into taking the “elective” by their parents or their school boards.
Actually, the ‘Bible as Literature,’ as an elective course has been around in high schools for some time. There is no constitutional reason, per se, to reject them. As such I have no major problem with the idea, since Bible references are mentioned throughout much of Western literature and history. The problem of course is how such courses are taught. If taught by a highly religious teacher without carefully avoiding that teacher’s faith, then it could be harmful. Careful accreditation of teachers must be required. Thus, I am mostly against such courses, fearing that some teachers are not properly trained and may well proselytize
Oklahoma passed a bill fairly recently allowing the courses, although they have been taught for some years. The bill was appropriately worded and received no real opposition. A good friend of mine taught such a course (properly) for many years in a poublic high school in Oklahoma City. I understand that other states have these courses available in their school districts.
vhutchison says: “I have no major problem with the idea, since Bible references are mentioned throughout much of Western literature and history.”
Yes, that may be fine in college, but in high school — where attendance is compulsory and state financed — the problem is that a teacher who wants to teach such a course may be attracted to it for the wrong reasons. I have no problem with a literature text that footnotes some expressions that may require a knowledge of scripture to properly understand the author’s meaning. Such footnotes should do little more than say “This is a reference to” and then (briefly) give the scripture text. That would help the student understand what would otherwise be obscure parts of the assigned text. Nothing more should be necessary, or required.
I’ve been looking all through the Bible for some good pubic poetry, but so far I haven’t found…
Oh, never mind. *Public* poetry, whatever that is.