This diary is a response and rebuttal to the one currently on the rec list, for two reasons:
- that diary misrepresents the Time article it criticizes, and
- the Time article makes a series of points - some more valid than others - that deserve greater discussion.
Update: I appreciate the support this diary has gotten, and the coversations it's sparked (even those I disagree with). But I'd love even more for diaries like this to be getting more attention, so I'd appreciate it even more if people went and rec'd that, instead. Thanks!
First, some background. I'm an atheist, and I have taught the Bible to college freshmen. I would never agree to take it out of my own classes, because it would decimate our ability to discuss the other material we cover. There is no book (actually, collection of books) that has had a greater impact on the intellectual history of the West, and of this country, for better or worse.
You find the Bible in letters, publications, and writings of all the Founding Fathers, even when it's laced with skepticism. You find it in the speeches of nearly every politician who's crossed the national stage. You find it flowing through the literature of every major American writer, believer and nonbeliever alike. It's engraved in our national monuments, and has given names to cities and towns across the country. Even your children know a slew of Biblical expressions without realizing it.
There's a simple reason we need to teach the Bible: we cannot understand ourselves [edit]as Americans[/edit] without it.
Now: we can agree or disagree with this, but what I don't think we can do is ascribe it to Christian Nationalism alone. There's no doubt that the fundamentalist movement is trying to poision our public schools as well, but this is a prime case of throwing the baby - and a helluva important baby - out with the sludge-colored bathwater.
A few questions that came up in the comments to that diary:
- Which version of the Bible? There are so many!
Doesn't matter. If we were teaching it as religion, it would matter more; but for basic cultural literacy, any translation will do. The differences between the King James and the Revised Standard Version, etc., are minor on the issues that are important for this level of education. We're not bringing this into the classrooms to quibble over dogma. Apocryphal books have had minimal impact, so that's a moot point, as well.
- But why don't we teach the Qur'an? Or the Upanishads? Or Zoroastrianism, for that matter?
Simple: because none of these have had even a tiny percentage of the immediate impact [edit]on our country's intellectual history[/edit] that the Bible has. With the passage of time, it's become more important to know the Qur'an for reasons of international literacy, but when picking and choosing what is most necessary for citizens of this country to know, the simply do not have the historical and literary importance that the Bible has had.
- But so many things influenced the development of this country. Why not teach deism?
Again, because no other work has had as consistent influence across our country's 200+ year history. Deism was a vital element for the founding fathers, but how many post-founding deists can you name, without looking it up?
- I don't see us teaching Greek philosophy, which influenced the New Testament. Or Enlightenment writers, who influenced America's use of the Bible during its founding.
Partially because a lot of people are unaware of how much Greek philosophy influenced the New Testament - thanks, again, to a lack of cultural literacy. Somehow I don't see the solution to this being less rather than more material for study. As for the Englightment thinkers - if your school isn't teaching them on a basic level already, then there's something wrong with your school.
The fact is, you know a million things about the Bible already, whether you like it or not. It's encoded deeply in the language you speak, just like Shakespeare (another writer we teach in high school, for the very same reason). If Shakespeare's growingly obscure English and distance from our culture isn't reason to discontinue teaching him, I see no reason why these are valid arguments vis the Bible.
Are there dangers to teaching the Bible in public school? Of course there are: not all teachers are willing to detach themselves from the material enough to teach it objectively. But the way to counter that isn't to deprive them of one of many resources, whose uses are so much broader than that.
I want to end with a compliment to the dkos writer whom I criticized in the first paragraph. 99% of the time, I love this diarist's work, and I agree that we cannot be too vigilant when it comes to the increasingly ballsy power-grabs by the Religious Right, as toxic a posion as has ever spread in our country.
But this is the wrong fight. The article isn't advocating for Christian nationalism, and there's no reason to send off furious LTEs to the people at Time.
Read the article yourself. You may not agree with everything the writer says (which is fine), but you'll at least see what he's not saying. (The juxtaposition of the two covers is a much more damning commentary, in my opinion).