It hardly seems possible, that with California’s irreligious reputation, that a school district would choose to add the bible to its curriculum. But the Chino Valley School District has done so.
Beginning this fall, high school seniors of the Chino Valley School District will have the chance to enroll in a new course called “Bible as/in Literature and History.”
[The class] will offer a survey of the Bible, beginning with the historical context of the Old Testament, and then will focus on the New Testament later in the semester. It will also provide students with a historical knowledge of the Middle East.
I’m certainly not opposed to students learning that yes, Israel was a nation long before 1948, and that Jews have been a part of that region for thousands of years. Perhaps that will reduce the number of people who think they should go back to Germany and Poland. If high school seniors learn Jewish history, then maybe Jewish students will be safer on California college campuses where Israel is routinely de-legitimized.
If it really is taught in that way, it could be a valuable addition to the curriculum. But the article leads me to believe it’s a back door effort to proselytize. Fred Youngblood, president of the Board of Education, said, “It is my belief that better understanding the Bible will help all students with their decision-making process. …The Bible has been a part of my life ever since I could remember. It has had a very positive influence on me and my family. It is my hope that our students will have a better understanding of the impact the Bible has had on all that surrounds us.”
Social cons will celebrate this development. California schools have whitewashed Islam and allowed Islamic proselytism, they’ll argue, and this doesn’t even come close to counterbalancing that. But fiscal cons will groan, and rightfully so. California already has a budget shortfall of more than $25 billion. Chino Valley School District already must cut the budget by $30 million. Now is not the time to add an inevitable, expensive, legal battle. Social cons would do better to work at getting Islam (and other religions) out of the schools rather than getting their own in.
Government can only promote desirable behavior or discourage undesirable behavior; only the gospel can change hearts.
Up until less than a century ago, the Bible was part and parcel of pretty much all public school curriculum throughout the US I believe, as was prayer. And the founding fathers of this nation of ours often heavily promoted reading and learning the Bible and Christianity – even those not necessarily “Christian”. Denominationalism wasn’t their focus, but the Gospel and core Judeo-Christian ethics and teachings were.
If done properly, you don’t have to proselytize per se. You just lay it out, “this is what the Bible says.” And the prayer… from what I’ve come across it became something quite non-denominational and simple… other than that, students were allowed to pray however they wished.
Costs are certainly an issue in this economy – specifically for states such as California deep into nanny-statism – but I’m sure that with little effort, if the school board(s) tried, they could teach the Bible and Jewish/Christian history and ethics with little overall expense in material.
Logus recently posted..Nice kitty wanna cracker
You’re right about prayer in public schools being a pretty recent phenomenon. I remember all the Madalyn Murray O’Hair battles over it, what, thirty years ago? I was a kid, but I remember the adults arguing over it. We’re a good deal more ethnically varied than we used to be, though. And even within self-identified Christians there is a wide diversity. I’m a protestant, and I emphatically would not want my child learning Catholic doctrine. Or LDS. Or Jehovah’s Witnesses. Or even certain things supported by Baptists. Or – even politically liberal interpretations of bible verses. And I am so partisan, faith-wise, that I even oppose non-denominational things most of the time because I think they’re too watered down in the interest of not offending anyone. Basically I think parents, and parents only, should arrange for their children’s exposure to religion, including exposure to any faith’s sacred texts. I do think allowing students to pray however they wish, as you say, is something we should support.
Getting taught supposed Christianity from a bunch of atheistic instructors can be rather a waste of time. Instead of just “teaching” the Bible, and hearing all the “flaws” and such hilighted by leftists, the students could probably profit more from forcing the kids to read John Locke. Locke quoted extensively from the Bible, and he did it for practical and productive purposes. There wouldn’t be any easy way for the leftists to undermine that.
Alternatively, forcing the kids to learn Dave Ramsey’s methods would also be a good use of time. It’s another use of the Bible for practical purposes.
I’ve just had enough experience with liberal religion classes to know that this development probably isn’t worth getting excited about. When you go back to the original words of scripture as opposed to reading the words of mediators like Locke, it can certainly be an enlightening experience — but only if you do it with the right heart. Otherwise, it can be somewhat pointless, at best.