I don't phrase it quite like that. But I sent the following letter to the Los Angeles Times. David Gelernter wrote a column suggesting that the Bible should be taught in schools because you need it to understand American history.
You know, if the Bible were to be taught only as literature, I wouldn't have a problem with this. But it would be a political football! A horror show, as middle and high school teachers have to deal with angry parents and their bullshit: "How dare you suggest there was a homosexual relationship between David and Jonathan!"
Nuh-uh! Anyway, Gelernter was just full of shit as usual. He's so bad, I start to think that he must be the worst commentator in the Times. Then I remember Max Boot, and Michal Ramirez, and the "Mallard Fillmore" guy, and Gelernter looks pretty good.
(More below the fold)
Here's the letter:
Dear Editor
As soon as Gelernter writes anything that halfway makes sense, I'll alert the media. In his latest aimless rant against modern America and its godless ways, he uses a lame pretext to push his right-wing nutjob agenda and disguises it with what seems like an almost-sensible suggestion. This tactic wouldn't fool a bright four-year-old, i.e., one raised by liberals.
Gelernter says we must teach the Bible in the public schools because you need it to understand American history. Gelernter may not have faith in the nation's parents and churches to teach the Bible, but I do. How can we let Gelernter get away for libeling America's parents and churches this way? Especially when he was recently bad-mouthing the public schools because they weren't teaching the way he wants them to teach? But nobody expects conservatives to be consistent. Ever.
Aside from that disturbing lack of faith in the role of the parents and the church, I must also say that it is utter hogwash to suggest that any detailed knowledge of the Bible is necessary for the study of American history. As a teaching assistant at CSUN, I have taught American history very well without taking off several days to explain the identities of Jesus, Moses and Jonah. I might spend a few minutes on the manner in which the story of Noah was used to justify slavery. I might also point to the role of the Southern churches in propping up the "peculiar institution," with many Southern pastors wildly misinterpreting the words of Jesus to support the bloody and brutal system of the slave-holders, in much the same way that current loudmouth TV evangelists mangle the words of the saviour to justify the ruinous and godless policies of the Bush Administration.
Such 19th-century dishonesty reminds me too much of Gelernter's lame tactics, as he tries to sneak something past reasonable, decent people, many of whom are just as religious as he is, but they are people who do not feel the need to wear their genuine piety on their sleeves, the place where Gelernter wears his bogus, opportunistuc piety. What would Jesus say about such intellectual dishonesty, all too typical of conservative religious nuts?
If Americans are so concerned about "Bibilical literacy," why can't they teach it in their homes, or perhaps pressure the churches to mention the Bible once in a while? Aren't we an overwhelmingly Christian nation? If so, as why are our leaders so ignorant of what's in the Bible, including the actual, undiluted words of Jesus? (I'm looking at you, George W. Bush, Pat Robertson, Bill O'Reilly, James Dobson, etc., etc. ad infinitum, ad nauseum.)
Please, Brother Gelernter, the public schools are already swamped because of self-righteous conservative meddling. Just because you think the churches are failing with your pet project of indoctrinating all Americans with fundamentalist poison, don't suggest that we use the schools to do the church's job.
Thanks!