The Bible In Literature Class

[Vincent Vega]

A Fair Tax book in the US.
Should be pretty simple.
Lower taxes, lower taxes, lower taxes...

 

[VertigoGal]

^not to derail the thread, but if you're interested it's actually proposing completely eliminating income tax.

Book Description
Wouldn't you love to abolish the IRS ...
Keep all the money in your paycheck ...
Pay taxes on what you spend, not what you earn ...
And eliminate all the fraud, hassle, and waste of our current system?

Then the FairTax is for you. In the face of the outlandish American tax burden, talk-radio firebrand Neal Boortz and Congressman John Linder are leading the charge to phase out our current, unfair system and enact the FairTax Plan, replacing the federal income tax and withholding system with a simple 23 percent retail sales tax on new goods and services. This dramatic revision of the current system, which would eliminate the reviled IRS, has already caught fire in the American heartland, with more than six hundred thousand taxpayers signing on in support of the plan.

http://www.amazon.com/FairTax-Book-Neal-Boortz/dp/0060875410


As far as the thread topic, it's a bad idea because it will be abused by people who cannot get over the fact that not everyone wants to be saved by them. If they provide a world religion class, it's perfect for it.

actually I would *personally* prefer it though, I'd be interested to read the whole thing and I'm getting a little sick of the Cautionary Tales Cirriculum (1984, brave new world, farenheit 451, every other book with the same basic plotline and cliche'd characters and Lesson to be Learned).

still, it would be abused, and even if it wasn't, someone would get offended and cause a controversy and it would generally distract from all the learning that's supposedly going on.


by the way, I think I spelt cirriculum wrong. I dunno

 

[AtomicBono]

you don't like dystopian novels? those are my favourite

also, the idea of abolishing the income tax is pretty ridiculous. that's actually required reading for your econ class? terrible. unless you also have to read a book that explains why we need the income tax.

 

[LemonMelon]

As a fundamentalist Christian myself, I am very, very happy to hear this. It'll introduce so many people to a truly life-changing book. I don't even care if they believe it or not; reading the actual text for yourself will cause a person to make up their own opinion, without the usual "OMG THE BIBLE IS PERFECT IN EVERY WAY AND YOU DIE IF YOU DOUBT EVEN A COMMA WITHIN IT" or "Eww...don't listen to those baby-eating Christians " bias you would normally receive from someone else who either grew up in the church or never actually read the book, respectively. I may believe the former, but it's sure not my job to force that thinking on someone else. To read the book objectively and with an open mind is the key.

 

[Vincent Vega]

Well, here in Germany we have a guy as well saying we should abandon the income tax and instead introduce a about 40 per cent retail sales tax.
But he hasn't such a strong followership.
Maybe it's because our tax system is so complicated, most people refuse to listen the second they hear or read the word tax

I think you meant curriculum

 

[BonosSaint]

not all that surprising.
fuck, at my high school the Fair Tax book is in the cirriculum for Economics (a required class).
objective analysis my ass, they're not reading the Communist Manifesto anytime soon.

by the way, I live outside of Atlanta.

Of course, the book by that noted and world-famous economist.

 

[BonoIsMyMuse]

Another thing I forgot to mention in my previous post is that the Bible is an archetype for so many works of literature. How many books are about characters cast out of a perfect home (Eden), or lured into temptation (Christ in the desert with the Devil), or persecuted for their beliefs, or trying to find their way back after making a terrible mistake (Saul-->Paul)? To me, ignoring the Bible is like ignoring Shakespeare, and doing so is giving kids a skewed version of literature.

I have a lot of beef with the way high school English is taught, but that's for another thread

 

[VertigoGal]

Of course, the book by that noted and world-famous economist.

the very same.


curriculum. thank you. something about that word. that, and intruiging. intriguing? i don't know. it's always the i's and u's that screw with me apparently.

 

[Ormus]

I find it interesting that people assume that "Bible as literature" classes would be taught from one side only. I had a New Testament class my freshman year of college that was taught by an atheist, whose primary aim was to contest the traditional understanding of the Bible. (At times using scholarship that even the Jesus Seminar people would find suspect.) I participated in a Great Books program in high school where the Bible was taught as literature by people keen to debunk it as both history and as literature. I'm not against such agenda-driven indoctrination -- it just goes to show that the knife does cut both ways and that "fundies" are not the only ones who approach the Bible with an agenda.

There's a huge difference between how a public university handles this subject versus public high schools and elementary schools. Universities, for instance, have long shown that they have the academic discipline for these kinds of subjects, and I have zero problem with religious studies departments at the collegiate level.

(And it might interest some to know that I used to work in one of those departments for a time as an undergrad.)

Public high schools and elementary schools, on the other hand, have shown that they do not possess the maturity to handle these kinds of courses. Hell...we're still bickering about evolution and creationism in large parts of the country, so do you really believe that these school districts can teach the Bible from a scholarly POV?

The other problem is that the Supreme Court has already weighed on this issue in the past, and has determined that there is a large difference between collegiate-level religious studies courses and such courses in younger grades. Their reasoning is that colleges are populated by legal adults, and that adults are mature enough to draw their own conclusions about religion and are also mature enough to learn about a religion without feeling "indoctrinated."

Teaching religion in high schools and elementary schools are full of minors who do not possess this maturity. This also protects parental rights, because I'm sure that many devout Christian parents would not appreciate it if, one day, their rebellious child came home and decided that he was a Muslim after learning about Islam in public school religion classes. And, likewise, non-Christian parents also would not appreciate having their children adopt religious beliefs contrary to their own.

As such, I do not believe that it is wise to introduce religion into public high schools and elementary schools at all. If parents want their children to have religious education, feel free to see if your preferred church has Sunday school.

 

[nathan1977]

^ The struggle here naturally being that religion has had an incredible influence on history -- from the Egyptians down to the present time. So obviously we have to figure out how public schools should properly address/approach religion, because saying we're not going to discuss religion is like saying we're going to have a sex ed class without discussing sex.

 

[Vincent Vega]

We had some religious classes in the primaries and also in 5th to 7th grade.
But I don't think it influenced anyone.

But it was very basic stuff about religion, also some basics about Islam ,and such discussions as Creationism aren't taking place here.
The first time I heard about this creationism stuff was about two or three years ago, when I learned that there are some people in the US believing that.
Now even some Polish politicians are talking about creationism aain, but they get laughed at every time they even mention the word.
So that won't be any problem for a religious course.

 

[BVS]

^ The struggle here naturally being that religion has had an incredible influence on history -- from the Egyptians down to the present time. So obviously we have to figure out how public schools should properly address/approach religion, because saying we're not going to discuss religion is like saying we're going to have a sex ed class without discussing sex.

Well we can discuss which religion played what part in a historical context without opening a Bible or a Koran.

We don't have religion ed classes in public school, so your analogy falls short.

 

[nathan1977]

Well we can discuss which religion played what part in a historical context without opening a Bible or a Koran.

We don't have religion ed classes in public school, so your analogy falls short.

Not really. I'm not saying one has to understand the Bible to understand history. What I am saying is that to divorce religion from the classroom (as Ormus suggested) isn't entirely realistic. You wind up glossing over huge movements of history.

 

[Irvine511]

Not really. I'm not saying one has to understand the Bible to understand history. What I am saying is that to divorce religion from the classroom (as Ormus suggested) isn't entirely realistic. You wind up glossing over huge movements of history.

i took it not as wanting to divorce religion from the classroom, but to prevent the teaching of religion divorced from the teaching of history. religion-as-history is quite well and good and alive, and every Western kid should learn about Islam, for example. but where we dig our heels in is when we'd teach a class on Islam itself, and not a class on the history of Islam and Islamic societies.

 

[BVS]

Not really. I'm not saying one has to understand the Bible to understand history. What I am saying is that to divorce religion from the classroom (as Ormus suggested) isn't entirely realistic. You wind up glossing over huge movements of history.

But you're missing the point. A sex ed class would be nothing without learning sex. A history class will still be a history class without learning exactly how and what a Muslim worships.

 

[Irvine511]

i took it not as wanting to divorce religion from the classroom, but to prevent the teaching of religion divorced from the teaching of history. religion-as-history is quite well and good and alive, and every Western kid should learn about Islam, for example. but where we dig our heels in is when we'd teach a class on Islam itself, and not a class on the history of Islam and Islamic societies.

and now i'm re-thinking this -- i couuld see a great value of a class, perhaps we could call it "World Religions" where the history and thought systems of each of the world's great religions are explored, and perhaps moving into the idea of religion as a thought system. but that might be better left to college.

i think it's understandable the caution that we'd have to use when we talk about "reading" -- teaching? --- the Bible as "literature" -- infallible? inerrant? do we call any other book "the Good Book" or even "The Book" -- but i find great value in learning about religion. it's as good a tool of cultural study as any other i can think of.

 

[Vincent Vega]

I never knew it is referred to as the Good Book. Never heard anyone here in Germany say that.

A history class will still be a history class without learning exactly how and what a Muslim worships.

Right, I don't think you should mix those things in history classes.

How the different religions worship and all that should be taught in religious classes, and in history they should rather teach how the church influenced the life in the middle ages, what impact it had on society, and also how e.g. the world religions such as Christianity, Islam and Judaism spread.
I don't know what get taught in other countries, but here history is quite stuffed and tries to cover as much as possible. So to teach how other religions worship isn't really the right place in history if you already have some religious classes in school.

Generally I think it would be very good if there is some courses in religion that doesn't only cover Christian religions, but also other world religions. That would help getting rid of all these prejudices and misconceptions of other religions, and help children to tolerate other religions more.
I don't think it has such an influence so that suddenly a child of age 13 decides to convert.

 

[nathan1977]

But you're missing the point. A sex ed class would be nothing without learning sex. A history class will still be a history class without learning exactly how and what a Muslim worships.

With all graciousness, I think you're missing mine. Religion plays a huge role in defining or forming worldviews in many cultures, and understanding opposing worldviews is critical to understanding history. Studying the nuances of religions may be better suited to the "World Religions" class Irvine suggested, but ignoring religion's role in historical events is to ignore a huge aspect of said history. (And, to bring the thread back on topic, to ignore the significant influence the Bible has had in culture, art, literature etc.)

 

[BVS]

With all graciousness, I think you're missing mine. Religion plays a huge role in defining or forming worldviews in many cultures, and understanding opposing worldviews is critical to understanding history. Studying the nuances of religions may be better suited to the "World Religions" class Irvine suggested, but ignoring religion's role in historical events is to ignore a huge aspect of said history. (And, to bring the thread back on topic, to ignore the significant influence the Bible has had in culture, art, literature etc.)

Believe me, I understand what you are saying, just that the analogy doesn't work.

Yes religion does impact culture, art, literature, etc...

I took several art history classes in high school and college, and yes we spoke about how certain religions influenced certain periods and pieces of art, but not once did my professor have to say this is a painting of Christ, the son of God.

We could discuss a painting of Christ, even the symbolism of the painting without once going into the religion of it.

You could not do that with a sex ed class.

 

[Vincent Vega]

Well, speaking of history as a whole, not just one area such as arts, you can't do so without taking into consideration religion.

I don't think you would understand European history if you tried to ignore the religious background.
That doesn't work.
And that's not only for Europe, but also for the middle east and probably for every other part of the world as well.

And the first settlers left England among others because of their religious beliefs.

 

[meegannie]

and now i'm re-thinking this -- i couuld see a great value of a class, perhaps we could call it "World Religions" where the history and thought systems of each of the world's great religions are explored, and perhaps moving into the idea of religion as a thought system. but that might be better left to college.

I took a course involving that during my second year of high school (I think it was just called "World Civilization and Humanities" and was a two-part course....I think it was a college prep course, but not AP). We just talked about major world religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism are the ones I remember, but there may have been more and I think we briefly touched on Greek and Roman mythology and animistic views, but in less depth) and philosophy.

Religion is taught in schools here (obviously it's a bit different since there's a Church of England!), and I think it has very little impact. I'm not sure to what depth it's discussed as I've only come across a bit of the primary school religious education material at work.

 

[Ormus]

With all graciousness, I think you're missing mine. Religion plays a huge role in defining or forming worldviews in many cultures, and understanding opposing worldviews is critical to understanding history. Studying the nuances of religions may be better suited to the "World Religions" class Irvine suggested, but ignoring religion's role in historical events is to ignore a huge aspect of said history. (And, to bring the thread back on topic, to ignore the significant influence the Bible has had in culture, art, literature etc.)

But are people prepared for the kind of studies that such a course might entail? Religion has had a rather large effect on society, yes, but that has been both positive and negative. Did you know that modern capital punishment owes itself not to a government, but to Christianity? The Inquisition devised so many torture and execution techniques that it had a profound effect on how governments execute people. We could also have an entire lesson on apocalypticism and list all the people over the last millennium who have claimed that Jesus was going to return "in our lifetime," and you could probably reasonably determine that such beliefs are nothing short of a psychosis in Christianity.

I think what I fear--and what many fear--is that such courses are going to be soaked in romanticism, where Christianity will always be determined in the most positive light and be given credit for things that they don't even deserve (i.e., the "Christian Founding Fathers" romanticism that started in the 1830s and is still widely cited today as "truth").

We can say that religious studies are important--and they have certainly been an invaluable tool in my rhetorical arsenal--but if our public school systems have so much trouble teaching the core curriculum of math, science, English, etc., how can we possibly think that they will have the maturity to teach such a delicate, difficult, and passion-filled subject as religion? There's still too many unresolved core issues in public schools that I believe it would be inviting disaster to try and teach subjects like this now.

 

[INDY500]

Good luck understanding any societies culture, history, art or architecture without some knowledge of their religion.

It would be like trying to understand rock n roll without listening to Chuck Berry.