I am not surprised.
My point is that the Bible as Literature is indeed a valuable class, one many can learn from, and it *can *be taught properly. Actually, IMHO it would be better taught in College.
I dont doubt that it wont always be so, especially in the Deep South.
Developed may gave been the wrong word, but look at the list and see if you see a pattern of the countries above and below the United States.
Well, yes. I thought we were limiting ourselves to religions? 
How do we feel about Jedi, Church of the Great Old Ones, Church of the Sub-Genius, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster? (The latter at least has celebrants in NZ.) 
Well, Cthulhu has made some contributions to Literature, culture, etc, but lets be honest- the rest really havent made anywhere near as a significant contribution.
Everyone, even those atheist and who have never touched a Bible understands what is meant by “A Good Samaritan”. It’s part of our culture.
“May the Force be with you.”
OK, on those grounds we’ll include the Jedi. 
Seriously though, I tend to agree with you. Regardless of faith / belief the enduring cultural impact of biblical writings shouldn’t be underestimated. I do think however, with regards to the OP, that teaching such a course from a perspective of modern scholarship and neutral examination of story origins and authorship would in turn result in a weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth from many of the true believers.
True, and a course on Film culture would be fascinating.
That’s true. Teach it with Asimovs Guide to the Bible for instance.
But I dont think you need “a neutral examination of story origins and authorship” in order to understand the bible’s effect on literature and culture.
If there was a Cthulhu literature class in high school, I would have ROCKED it.
The old “Atheists are ignorant” bit again? Touched it, read it from cover to cover more than once-it is one of the primary reasons I remain an atheist.
What would they be praying for? It seems to me that if you wanted a daily prayer for Family Values, for instance, wouldn’t that be better performed at home at the students’ breakfast table with both parents leading the prayer with all their family?
Maybe you’re a bit oversensitive. I interpreted the “and” as meaning “those atheist” and “who have never touched a Bible” are two separate categories.
As to DrDeth’s point, I’m not at all sure that everyone gets the irony in the phrase “Good Samaritan.”
He is certainly saying that even Atheists aren’t so ignorant that they never heard the phrase “Good Samaritan”.
Yep.
Few do, and Asimov makes a great point there.
I admire your fortitude. I having a reasonable knowledge of the highlights and key legends, but I could never slog through the whole thing because of the hugely tedious nature of the project. I suspect that’s why most Christians have never read the whole thing either.
In case anyone doubted that the Kentucky act was created to circumvent the SCOTUS decision against displaying the Ten Commandments, consider this:
Significantly, the Court did not invalidate all uses of the Ten Commandments in the public schools.
Inclusion of the Decalogue in “an appropriate study of history, civilization, ethics, comparative religion,” or other legitimate integration into curriculum may well withstand scrutiny. The challenged postings, however, served no educational function, and the use of private funding to support postings was insufficient to erase the implication of state legislative support for the postings.8
Kentucky, Iowaand West Virginia have introduced bills similar in scope and wording.
“So, the good news, I talked Him down from fifteen to ten. Bad news, adultery is still one of them.”
I didn’t say you couldn’t learn about the Bible in class. I said there is no pedagogical reason to prioritize it over other works. There is no argument that you need a class that only teaches the Bible, rather than a course on influential works in the Western canon, a religion class, something. There’s no reason to have only one text influence everything.
A unit is not a class. It’s just taking out a chunk of an existing class to discuss a certain topic. Generally, what you describe would be in a Literature class. I had that unit, which lasted a good half a semester. I also remember a unit on Shakespeare.
What I object to is a class about the Christian Bible, even if purportedly taught as literature. If it’s literature, teach it in a literature class. This is something else.
Other posters have already explained why this is incorrect. A curriculum cannot include every work. And there are pedagogical reasons for prioritizing some over others.
No, they haven’t. Not in the slightest.
You are arguing something I never said–an easily debunked strawman. At no point do I say that they can include every single work. At no point do I say that they can’t prioritize some works. In fact, both posts from me specifically give reasons that some works might be prioritized.
What I said is that there is no pedagogical reason to prioritize the Bible over other works. And in case you thought this meant not teaching the Bible at all, I included several situations where the Bible might be prioritized along with other works, pointing out how it could be part of a list of books that are important to the Western literary canon, part of a religious studies course, etc.
What you accused me of saying is so absurd that I’m not sure I shouldn’t feel insulted. Do you really think I’m so clueless that I think that every literary work ever conceived, in its nigh infinite capacity, could even begin to be covered in 13 years, let alone 1 hour a day part of the year? Of course not.
Obviously there have to be priorities, works that are more important. However, there is no reason for the Bible to be prioritized above all the others. You can maybe include it in religious works, or something about the important parts of the canon of Western Literature. But there is no reason to put it on a pedestal above the rest, giving it its own class.
And rather than people contradicting me, everyone seems to agree that this is just about putting Christianity above the others. In fact, they have said it appears to be an attempt to be allowed to have the Ten Commandments displayed in the school again. While they are in Jewish and Islamic scripture, only one religion has made them more important than the rest: Christianity.
This is not about teaching the Bible as literature. That would be done in a literature class. This is about trying to find a loophole in the separation of Church and State that elevates Christianity above the rest. I stand by everything I have said in this thread.
Having a class specifically about the Bible is not necessarily “putting it on a pedestal above the rest.” It’s the kind of thing that happens all the time at the college level, where there are whole classes on the Bible, classes on Shakespeare, classes devoted to one particular writer or text or group of texts.
In theory, there’s no reason this couldn’t be done at the high school level too. Whether this could be done appropriately, and whether it would be done appropriately, are two different questions.
AFAICT the bill means you don’t need the Code of Hammurabi, Magna Carta and so forth anymore: you can just only display christian symbology as long as the school offers a Bible class.