The Bible as Literature

The Statesman is once again stirring up some ill-informed controversy:

NAMPA — In a former carpet and lighting store turned church, the founders of a new charter school sit before a row of pews and outline the curriculum they’ll introduce to more than 550 students in August.

The first sixth-graders to enroll at Nampa Classical Academy will begin learning Latin. The ninth-graders will delve into the history of Western civilization, with the Bible included as a primary source of teaching material.

The Bible will be taught for its literary and historic qualities, as part of a secular education program, headmaster Val Bush said.

“Some people are rather bigoted; they say you can use everything but that,” Bush said. “We say, ‘Why?’ “

The Statesman is writing the story as if it’s some big controversy. Ooh, they’re meeting in the church (and if that freaks out take a look at a list of polling places, there are dozens of churches from every denomination that host voting.) 

The Bible is taught in schools across this country in 38 states under these exact conditions. And there’s a very legitimate reason to teach the Bible as literature, when you’re talking about Western Civilization. The History of the Bible and Western Civilization are interwoven. It’d be very odd to provide a classical education without any understanding of the Bible as the text of the Bible permeates the classic and the writings of the Founders.

Over at Fort Boise, Tom takes issue with the curriculum in part:

Literary or cultural, ok, but historic?

Indeed, what knuckledragging theocrats said the Bible could be taught for historic purposes? How about the Warren Court that removed the Bible for devotional purposes, which also said in its ruling:

It certainly may be said that the Bible is worthy of study for its literacy and historic qualities. Nothing we have said here indicates that such study of the Bible or of religion, when presented objectively as part of a secular program of education, may not be effected consistently with the First Amendment.

Meanwhile, some genius in the comments over at the Idaho Statesman comments section wrote:

Well then, its time to get the Koran and the Toe Te Ching in there too I suppose. Lets do it. I agree with this if we get everyones book in there. If not, NO WAY!!!

Let’s ponder for a moment the idea of the role that the Koran and Toe Te Ching played in the development Western Civilization…And then lets realize that these are more religions of the east rather than the religion of the West. If one is teaching about Western Civilization, one needs to teach about the faith at the core of Western Civilization and its history.  What is being proposed is to deny people the right to understand the past because some people in the present find that past offensive.

Rounding out our comments is my state Rep. Braden Durst (D-18), who, while it has nothing to do with his job as a state legislator, felt compelled to comment anyway:

Ultimately, I don’t believe that there is a problem using the Bible in addition to other texts for the study of literature or history. I for one read the Bible (the Book of Genesis specifically) in my senior year English course at Boise High School. Surely there is a lot to be learned by understanding the belief systems that have had a significant impact on the development of western thought. In fact, I would argue not understanding these belief systems puts any scholar, student, or citizen at a strategic disadvantage. That said, I don’t think that the Bible, by itself, should be the subject of an entire class in the public education system, whether it be at a traditional or charter school. The debate will continue and hopefully everyone will be quick to listen and slow to speak.

The statement is interesting. So, the Bible is okay, but only in the dose that Rep. Durst got it in public schools. This is remarkable that Rep. Durst is making a judgment about  the teaching of the Bible in schools with an arbitrary statement that they should not have a class solely dedicated to the Bible. Durst gives no explanation for why not, but it seems to be a misunderstanding of charter schools or a vociferous disagreement with what charters are about. Charters are about independence and the freedom to experiment, not having a legislator dictate terms based on an inflammatory newspaper article.

I also have to question on what basis Rep. Durst make this judgment. When I was in college, we spent two whole Semesters on Shakespeare. All told, we read 9 plays over those two semesters. Given the breadth and scope of the Bible, there is more than enough material to cover a semester and to give it less than that, really doesn’t fulfill that purpose.