(2) The purpose of a course under this section is to:
(a) Teach students knowledge of biblical content, characters, poetry, and
narratives that are prerequisites to understanding contemporary society and
culture, including literature, art, music, mores, oratory, and public policy;
and
(b) Familiarize students with, as applicable:
The contents of the Hebrew Scriptures or New Testament;
The history of the Hebrew Scriptures or New Testament;
The literary style and structure of the Hebrew Scriptures or New
Testament;
and
The influence of the Hebrew Scriptures or New Testament on law,
history, government, literature, art, music, customs, morals, values,
and culture.
Is it possible for a teacher to instruct students on the above subjects without:
Offending most of the religious community?
or
Simply teaching current biblical mythology in place of history?
Is it possible to teach these subjects without engaging in constant debate with the students?
When you consider the motivation for bills like this, it’s doubtful if “religion” can be kept out of the classroom.
And when you consider how unknown or doubtful most biblical “facts” are (did Moses or Jesus exist?), most “history” will have to be tempered with “we don’t know; all we know is some anonymous person wrote it down.” How will the religious community react to that?
That’s up to the religious community. But I’m doubtful that it’s possible to do anything related to the Bible or religion without somebody taking offense.
Is it possible to teach such a course, without favoring or promoting any particular religious viewpoint, or running afoul of what’s appropriate for public school? Yes, if the teacher has the right attitude and skillset.
Will everyone who teaches the class have such an attitude and skillset? I am very doubtful.
As I interpret the description given in the OP, you wouldn’t have to get into that, any more than a class on Shakespeare would have to delve into the historical truth behind the characters and events depicted in the plays.
I interpret “The history of the Hebrew Scriptures or New Testament” to mean the history of the texts themselves, not the historicity of the events they depict.
It sounds pretty - and its worded to avoid sound like a ‘bible study’ course - but we don’t need a law to have elective classes that study the ‘Bible as Literature’. There simply is no reason to have any required class on the bible. Do they intend to also study the Koran, etc in this class?
It’s trying to do a run around - much like “Intelligent Design” is intended to make a run around in science.
Of course not. That would be an admission that it is about religion, and not about “The influence of the Hebrew Scriptures or New Testament on law, history, government, literature, art, music, customs, morals, values, and culture.”
A class in Shakespeare is likely to be about literature or theater, not history. And there is very little doubt that Will’s subjects or locations, i.e., Caesar, Hamlet, Venice, existed. And while there are many theories about who Shakespeare really was, and whether he was an impostor, it’s unlikely that a forum on that subject would invoke a supernatural explanation. I don’t think this is a relevant analogy.
True, but it may be difficult to separate the fact from the fiction. As a “graduate” of Sunday School in my youth, I can assure you that tellers of the Exodus story never mentioned the possibility of it being nothing but a tall tale; it was presented as unquestionably historic fact.
“Here are the facts, maybe” is how all science should be presented. All science facts are subject to verification and revision.
The problem here is that it’s hard for religious proponents to look at religious concepts in a scientific manner, subject to verification and revision.
The bible says the Exodus from Egypt happened. Archaeology says otherwise. If such a position were taught truthfully (the evidence for both), I would support such a class. This concept has echoes in the “teach the controversy” movement, but sometimes the controversy is 50% fantasy, 50% science.
The OP presents three questions and I believe the answer is “yes” to all three. While I think we need to be vigilant to fundies trying to sneak around the establishment clause, and this will probably result in fundies trying to sneak around the establishment clause, the law, as written, largely reflects the IMO appropriate and objective inclusion of the bible in my higschool curriculum.
I believe that, considering which groups are pushing for these classes, these programs will be specifically designed to get around the establishment clause-no sneaking necessary.
I checked and the class (es) is/are electives, and as such I have no issues.
Certainly the Bible is full of quotes and teachings that are part of todays world, even if you aren’t a believer. Knowing where quotes like “The beam from your own eye”* and tales like the “Good Samaritan”** originate are important.
How many quotes do you run into on a daily basis from the Koran? Offhand I can’t think of any, at least not in English literature.
Read Asimov’s Guide to the Bible someday- Asimov was a noted atheist, but he still found the Bible to be full of quotes and such that are used in everyday reading.
Exactly. Motivation plays a huge part. Hey I’m the first one to shoot down the ridiculous argument “The Bible isn’t worth lining a bird cage with.” It’s a frigging cornerstone of cultural reference probably surpassing Shakespeare. But like Intelligent Design, another cornerstone of several Sci-Fi works* It can’t get any purchase without motivation being brought up.
*Yes, I know…SCI-FI…but it’s also the basis of simulation theory, and we argue that all the time in good …errr faith.
One of the things that brought me here, to lurk, then join was a “Quote war” between Danielinthelionsden (?) and some other poster, with Daniel using just the Bible and the other poster getting the entire works of Shakespeare. it was fascinating and the Shakespeare poster actually conceded after numerous pages. I cant find it anymore however, likely I am getting the name wrong.
You are probably correct. The OP asks “is it possible” – maybe not the most interesting questions about this topic. Yes, it is possible. Although that doesn’t mean it will go down that way.
It will be interesting to see what happens when a teacher teaches the generally accepted history of the Bible, in that Moses did not write the Torah and the named disciples did not write the Gospels and that many of the letters of Paul are forgeries.
The fundies would get their panties in a twist for sure.
Any school council organized pursuant to KRS 160.345 or, if none exists, the
principal[school’s governing body], may authorize the display of historic artifacts,
monuments, symbols, and texts, including but not limited to religious materials, in
conjunction with a course of study that includes an elective course in history,
civilization, ethics, comparative religion, literature, or other subject area that uses
such artifacts, monuments, symbols, and texts as instructional material if the display
is:
(a)[(1)] Appropriate to the overall educational purpose of the course; and
(b)[(2)] Consistent with the requirements of KRS 42.705.
I suspect part of the hidden agenda here is to display the Bible, Ten Commandments, and the like in the school and justify them as relevant to courses taught there, much as science projects might be displayed. You may recall that the SCOTUS decision in McCreary County vs. The ACLU (2005) forced Kentucky to stop displaying the Ten Commandments in courthouses and public schools for religious purposes. This Act neatly bypasses that.