Editorial: If Missouri public schools teach Bible classes, whose version of religion rules?
2023/05/25
The Missouri State Capitol in Jefferson City, Missouri. - Wayne Mckown/Dreamstime/TNS
Missouri legislators have adopted yet another solution in search of a problem. They’ve passed a bill — and sent it to Gov. Mike Parson to sign (he shouldn’t) — that would allow public schools to offer elective courses on the Bible.
This isn’t the first time lawmakers have attempted this, even though there seems to be no prohibition against teaching about scripture in public schools. In fact, there can be value in that. What is — and should be — prohibited is teaching that promotes a particular religion. People are right to be suspicious that backers of this Missouri legislation are simply trying to slide the Christian camel’s nose under the public school tent as an initial way of advancing that faith tradition.
Sponsors of the bill may not realize it, but for almost two decades, educators have had available quality, constitutionally appropriate material to use when teaching students about the Bible and its influence. Those resources have come from the 501(c)(3) nonprofit Bible Literacy Project and have been used in hundreds of public schools in dozens of states. Why not just suggest parents and schools investigate this respected resource — recognizing, however, that even it doesn’t deal with other sacred texts that helped shape America, such as the Book of Mormon?
The Missouri bill at least pays lip service to the idea of not proselytizing in public classrooms. As the online summary of the bill notes: “This act requires that any course offered shall follow applicable laws maintaining religious neutrality, and shall not endorse, favor, promote, or show hostility to any particular religion, nonreligious faith, or religious perspective.”
That summary also says that any elective social studies course need not be limited to using the Bible — either the Jewish or Christian versions. But that’s far from encouraging students to explore the influence on society of Islamic, Hindu, Buddhist or other sacred writings.
There are many good reasons for students to be familiar with the Bible, given that it’s been so influential in U.S. history. Beyond that, of course, our language and literature are full of biblical references (“go the second mile,” “Good Samaritan laws,” “the patience of Job” and more) that will mean nothing to students without at least an introductory look at the book’s influence.
In a nation in which the religious landscape has been changing rather dramatically over the last 50-plus years, basic religious literacy is important. It’s exactly what such groups as the Greater Kansas City Interfaith Council promote as a way of living in peace in a society that’s becoming more religiously diverse, including a fast-growing number of religiously unaffiliated people.
But focusing on just one sacred text — even if a rapidly-shrinking majority of Americans still identify as Christian — is an incomplete answer. In fact, public school teaching that uses only the Bible can be problematic in various ways.
Which translation should be used? (There are dozens, and sometimes they offer conflicting English versions of the original Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic.) Whose interpretation of those texts should be given priority? Will the Bible be seen through the eyes of people who say it’s “inerrant” in all ways, including the idea that the world was created in six literal 24-hour days? Or should more metaphorical and allegorical interpretations be offered? Should students get a Mainline Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox, Pentecostal or evangelical approach, or one from a branch of Judaism?
Rabbi Doug Alpert of Congregation Kol Ami of Kansas City is on target when he suggests that it’s not the legislature’s place to say it’s legal to teach about the Bible: “It sounds like they’re doing the courts’ job.” Exactly.
Public school families who want their children taught about the many ways the Bible has influenced our nation and its citizens should be careful how they go about making that happen. Letting Missouri lawmakers set the boundaries is far from the best idea.
___
© The Kansas City Star
Missouri legislators have adopted yet another solution in search of a problem. They’ve passed a bill — and sent it to Gov. Mike Parson to sign (he shouldn’t) — that would allow public schools to offer elective courses on the Bible.
This isn’t the first time lawmakers have attempted this, even though there seems to be no prohibition against teaching about scripture in public schools. In fact, there can be value in that. What is — and should be — prohibited is teaching that promotes a particular religion. People are right to be suspicious that backers of this Missouri legislation are simply trying to slide the Christian camel’s nose under the public school tent as an initial way of advancing that faith tradition.
Sponsors of the bill may not realize it, but for almost two decades, educators have had available quality, constitutionally appropriate material to use when teaching students about the Bible and its influence. Those resources have come from the 501(c)(3) nonprofit Bible Literacy Project and have been used in hundreds of public schools in dozens of states. Why not just suggest parents and schools investigate this respected resource — recognizing, however, that even it doesn’t deal with other sacred texts that helped shape America, such as the Book of Mormon?
The Missouri bill at least pays lip service to the idea of not proselytizing in public classrooms. As the online summary of the bill notes: “This act requires that any course offered shall follow applicable laws maintaining religious neutrality, and shall not endorse, favor, promote, or show hostility to any particular religion, nonreligious faith, or religious perspective.”
That summary also says that any elective social studies course need not be limited to using the Bible — either the Jewish or Christian versions. But that’s far from encouraging students to explore the influence on society of Islamic, Hindu, Buddhist or other sacred writings.
There are many good reasons for students to be familiar with the Bible, given that it’s been so influential in U.S. history. Beyond that, of course, our language and literature are full of biblical references (“go the second mile,” “Good Samaritan laws,” “the patience of Job” and more) that will mean nothing to students without at least an introductory look at the book’s influence.
In a nation in which the religious landscape has been changing rather dramatically over the last 50-plus years, basic religious literacy is important. It’s exactly what such groups as the Greater Kansas City Interfaith Council promote as a way of living in peace in a society that’s becoming more religiously diverse, including a fast-growing number of religiously unaffiliated people.
But focusing on just one sacred text — even if a rapidly-shrinking majority of Americans still identify as Christian — is an incomplete answer. In fact, public school teaching that uses only the Bible can be problematic in various ways.
Which translation should be used? (There are dozens, and sometimes they offer conflicting English versions of the original Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic.) Whose interpretation of those texts should be given priority? Will the Bible be seen through the eyes of people who say it’s “inerrant” in all ways, including the idea that the world was created in six literal 24-hour days? Or should more metaphorical and allegorical interpretations be offered? Should students get a Mainline Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox, Pentecostal or evangelical approach, or one from a branch of Judaism?
Rabbi Doug Alpert of Congregation Kol Ami of Kansas City is on target when he suggests that it’s not the legislature’s place to say it’s legal to teach about the Bible: “It sounds like they’re doing the courts’ job.” Exactly.
Public school families who want their children taught about the many ways the Bible has influenced our nation and its citizens should be careful how they go about making that happen. Letting Missouri lawmakers set the boundaries is far from the best idea.
___
© The Kansas City Star
No comments:
Post a Comment