Posted on 01/27/2005 8:47:16 AM PST by Graybeard58
It provided some of the foundations of America's laws and is referenced in literature from Dante to Dostoevsky. Bring it into the public schools, though, and the Bible can be problematic.
When parents in Frankenmuth, Mich., proposed a high school class about the Bible a year ago, the superintendent's first question was a natural one: Is it legal?
The group providing the curriculum said yes: The course was elective, treated the Bible as literature and history, and complied with a 1963 US Supreme Court ruling that said schools could teach about religion in a secular way.
The ACLU and People for the American Way said no: The curriculum in question promoted a specific Christian interpretation and looked at the Bible as a source of history, both things that crossed over a line into unacceptable territory.
"We talked to six different lawyers, and heard six different things," says Mike Murphy, superintendent of the Frankenmuth School District.
In the end - after a year of high interest and emotion on the part of some parents - Mr. Murphy recommended against the course and the school board seconded his decision earlier this month. His thinking, he says, was based not just on fear of a lawsuit, but on concerns that the class, as proposed, seemed simplistic. Besides, the school's social studies and English classes already taught religion's place in history and literature.
"It wasn't a vote against the Bible, it was a vote against this particular curriculum," says Murphy.
When it comes to religion, there's an odd patchwork of what's allowed and banned in schools around the country, and the questions raised in the Frankenmuth controversy are complex: Does separating church and state mean omitting religion from public schools entirely? If it is permissible to teach about religion, where is the line separating academics from indoctrination? Can young students understand the subtleties of faith versus intellectual inquiry in the same way adults or teenagers can? And even if a curriculum seems fine, what ensures that teachers won't proselytize?
"If we leave religion out completely, we cheat our students out of a good education, and we don't prepare them to live in a world in which religion is very important," says Charles Haynes, a senior scholar at the First Amendment Center at the Freedom Forum in Arlington, Va. "The question is, how do we do it properly?"
After periods in which religion was first a foundation of public schools, and then excluded entirely, the pendulum has started to swing to a middle ground, says Mr. Haynes.
He's worked to help craft guidelines acceptable to all. The key - whether the course is comparative religions or the Bible - is keeping scholarship at the heart of the curriculum, not favoring any one faith, and recognizing the difference between sacred history and actual history, he says.
"We have more consensus today than we've ever had on how to deal with religion in the public schools," says Haynes.
"The bad news is that carrying out that consensus is difficult given the long history [of controversy]."
Passionate views on both sides fuel disagreements, and the media often fan the flames. In one recent high-profile case, headlines proclaimed that the Cupertino Union School District in California had banned the Declaration of Independence because of religious references.
The fact that the Declaration of Independence hangs on a wall of the school library, is part of the curriculum, and is present in history textbooks hasn't stopped vitriolic e-mails and phone calls from pouring in.
"We were completely caught off-guard with that headline," says Jeremy Nishihara, a district spokesman.
The district is facing a lawsuit from fifth-grade teacher Stephen Williams that alleges he was discriminated against when his principal vetoed some of his supplementary history materials, including religious writings by former American leaders and three paragraphs of the Declaration.
The district won't comment on the lawsuit, but some parents had reportedly complained that their children felt uncomfortable in the class.
If the case shows that historical documents were chosen selectively by the teacher, it may be "an example of how these guidelines that say we can teach about religion can be used to push an agenda," says Haynes. "Not many teachers do have an agenda, but enough do that these fights can tear communities apart."
Courts often rely on the so-called "Lemon" test to decide matters of religion in the schools, says Perry Zirkel, a professor of education and law at Lehigh University. Named for a 1971 decision, Lemon v. Kurtzman, the test involves a three-pronged guideline: whether the activity has a religious purpose, whether it has an effect that promotes or inhibits religion, and whether it encourages "excessive entanglement" between public and religious institutions.
Later this spring, for instance, the Supreme Court will consider whether public schools can post the Ten Commandments - a decision that could hinge, in the end, on whether the effect of the display is deemed to be religious.
Still, even court rulings that use the Lemon test as a guide are frequently inconsistent, says Professor Zirkel. "Judges, like the rest of us when you take an emotional issue like religion, often decide based on their heart and then use things to justify it," he says. "The two toughest issues in school litigation are religion and race, and it's almost impossible to be truly rational about either one given how we're brought up in society."
When it comes to teaching about the Bible, there's less court guidance, although some approaches have been deemed too religious and struck down. The National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools, which created the class proposed in Frankenmuth, insists its approach complies with all the guidelines, and says it's being used in 290 school districts in 35 states.
"There's no indoctrination. We do not refer to it as the truth. We just refer to, 'this is what the Bible says,' and students draw their own conclusions," says Elizabeth Ridenour, president of the council.
Not everyone agrees with her assessment. The council's curriculum has been the subject of controversy, with some calling it a form of indirect proselytizing.
"They talk about [the Bible] as history," says Elliot Mincberg, legal director at People for the American Way. "It's a matter of religious faith whether you believe what's in the Bible or how literally you believe it."
In the end, though, Mr. Mincberg, like Haynes, believes that consensus is possible. "Any individual is free to practice [his religion], but the government shouldn't come down on anyone's side," he says. "I think if you keep in mind that vision, the conflicts can often be worked through."
Show me a single law that says the Bible is illegal in a classroom... can't be done because it doesn't exist. But I can show you something that says religious freedom may NOT be impeded. How so many people can ignore the obvious is beyond me.
Can they teach Islam, or Hindu or Buddhist or any religion? I don't think sex-ed is anywhere the same as religion.
If government is neutral about religion, then, in principle, no government agent is capable of distinguishing a book that is "religious" from one that is not "religious." Therefore, no government-school principal or teacher has the authority to determine that any book is "religious" and therefore may not be allowed or used on school grounds.
The REAL answer to all these contretemps is to abolish government school. Christians have wasted decades, sending their children to spend seven or more hours a day in socialist, atheist institutions, trying to dress up the curriculum with a little prayer and a little God. It's like bickering over whether to have a daily minute of prayer in a brothel.
". . .Elliot Mincberg, legal director at People for the American Way. "It's a matter of religious faith whether you believe what's in the Bible or how literally you believe it."
"In the end, though, Mr. Mincberg, like Haynes, believes that consensus is possible. "Any individual is free to practice [his religion], but the government shouldn't come down on anyone's side," he says. "I think if you keep in mind that vision, the conflicts can often be worked through."
"The government shouldn't come down on anyone's side." Isn't that the key to all this nonsense?
For almost 200 years, that's how it was. And, then, along come the folks who latched onto one Thomas Jefferson phrase in a letter to some Baptists and have, ever since, used that phrase to literally construct from thin air what they describe as a "constitutional" barring of religious expression from the public square.
Check out the history of the ACLU and Norman Lear's so-called "People for the American Way," and see if it's about the "government not coming down on anyone's side." Their agenda, along with the NEA, and various other groups with high-sounding titles, has been to secularize the public square, not to have competing opinions on matters religious and non-religious debated.
What are they afraid of?
Certainly, liberty is not their primary goal, inasmuch as it was deeply religious individuals, speaking out boldly in their public and private speeches and writings who created the great American experiment in liberty.
A free marketplace of ideas, even of ideas whose roots are in religious literature, is nothing to fear for persons who are devoted to the founding idea! Indeed, as the Founders believed, it is a great support.
[/SAD /SARCASM]
Want to learn about the bible?
Go to church.
Unless they were going to offer very single religion available to students I don't agree with it.
But I believe sex-ed should be left to parents as well.
UHhhhh.
...the title spelled N'ever' wrong!
As far as I am concerned, the Bible is always legal in class, as long as beliefs contained there in are not forced on the students.
Any instructor would have to be pretty careful while running the class to make sure that it doesn't stray over certain lines, but otherwise it would be fine.
As some of you might know, I'm strongly against mixing church and state. However, I think a couple of senior year comparative religion courses would benefit most high schoolers.
Personally I support it...but that wasn't the question...the question was "is it legal?" and the answer I gave was yes.
It would be hard for the teacher.. I'm sure there would be several bounds broken during the course of the class if the teacher were absoultely perfect on their instruction.
It wasn't a problem back in the day when Bible instruction was a part of every public school.... and they do it in England on a regular basis..at least they did as recently as the 1980's in the rural schools.. if they did it now it would be an elective of course..
However, her school does provide a "prayer" room for Muslim students during Ramadan. For use during school hours, no less.
What is wrong with this picture?
I am trying to figure out when that day was. I attended public school in southern Missouri from 1951 to 1963 and was never instructed in religion or the Bible in any way. I never heard so much as a teacher praying.
May I ask when and were you attended public school and was Bible instruction in your school?
My son came home yesterday and informed me that he was going to be studying Islam. Of course I freaked out and said no way. I sent the teacher a well written note explaining my objextions. Believe it or not, she called me this morning explaining that the kids would be learning about many religions pertaining to Africa and Asia. She also said that she refused to teach Islam, Buddhism and Hinduism without teaching Christianity as well. Us parents got together this afternoon and reviewed the material. Actually, the material isn't deep and only delves into the religions as it pertains to the histories of the cultures of these countries. But, because it is included in the curriculum, she said that she will balance the teaching giving the Christian faith equal time from the bible and other texts approved by us parents. She has the blessings of the parents and the principal in doing so. If Christianity was not going to be presented along with these religions, I would remove my son from her class. I do not mind his learning the history and basics of religions and how they impact cultures. Mind you, this is not an attempt to convert but just a teaching of how religions impact societies.
Mel
I wasn't talking about when I was a child...I was referring back in the 1800's..
That is the right time period to talk about, since that is when the First and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution were written and ratified (1791 and 1866-1868, actually), so that is the context for any honest interpretation of those Amendments.
The radical anti-Christian & anti-prayer rulings of the SCOTUS over the last 50-60 years would would not have passed the laugh test when the two Amendments were enacted upon which those rulings were supposedly based.
-Dave
There should not be a Bible class in public schools. Social studies can cover world religions in general, and a specific portion could even be taught as literature (we did the book of Job at my school in the early '90s).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.