Do Bibles in Class Violate the Separation of Church and State?

Welcome to Sweet Home Alabama ... where God is in the classroom.

The Alabama Board of Education just voted to approve a specific textbook for the classroom. The book, The Bible and It's Influence, is published by the Bible Literacy Project, a non-profit organization whose mission is "to encourage and facilitate the academic study of the Bible in public schools."

The idea is that the book is intended to accompany a reading of the Bible as a companion guide. The publisher states that, "Our textbook is designed to be read in conjunction with the Bible, so that after students read a particular Bible passage, they learn about the great works of literature and art that were inspired by that passage."

What I find interesting about the project is the way in which they have attempted to position the text. On the one hand they are surely trying to pass constitutional muster. They tout the fact that the Baylor Law Review concluded that "the course 'clearly conforms to constitutional standards' and [they] recommended its adoption by public schools." A scholar at the First Amendment Center refers to it as "an outstanding resource for public schools." And the text is currently being taught in 163 schools in 35 states (which seems to say, "hey, don't worry about the legal consequences because plenty of people are already using it").

On the other hand, they want to make sure that they don't alienate their potential customers. In the "Correcting Misconceptions and Inaccurate Reports About Our Textbook" section of their website, they seem more concerned about scaring the right than about upsetting the left. For example, the very first question clarifies that the textbook is NOT endorsed by the ACLU, National Education Association, Council on Islamic Education, UNESCO or the Baptist Joint Committee for Legislative and Public Affairs. The second question states that their textbook "does not include any discussion of communism or communitarianism, or seek to promote these ideas." Another question assures people that the text does not "undermine the authority of the Bible [by presenting] the Bible as myth and stories rather than as truth and revelation."

The many endorsees on the site include the President of the National Association of Evangelicals, the general counsel of the American Jewish Congress, a board member of the Catholic Biblical Association, the executive director of the Christian Educators Association, numerous academics and people like Chuck Colson. What is noticeably absent is an endorsement by an individual from a non Jew or Christian. If the goal is to teach the non-secular aspects of the Bible why not get a broader following of people?

I haven't read the book, so I can't tell you whether it accomplishes what it intends to do; namely, successfully walk the line between the separation of church and state, while still appealing to the very people who would seem to want to use it as a way to teach the Bible as a religious text.

And this raises an interesting question: is it even possible to teach the Bible in a secular way?

The Supreme Court uses three tests to determine whether a law violates the First Amendment's prohibition against an establishment of religion. The most exacting standard has three prongs: it looks at the purpose of the law, the effect of the law and whether the law creates an excessive entanglement between religion and the state. Assume for the sake of discussion that the intention is not to teach religion (at least that is the stated intention), and that the entanglement by teaching the Bible wouldn't require a court or other body to continually monitor the situation (and, yes, I recognize that this is not a given). The question then becomes whether the effect of teaching the Bible is that the state is establishing a religion. (For an interesting opinion by Mike Newdow in a recent Supreme Court case that addresses how stating the Pledge of Allegiance establishes the belief in one God, click here.)

The answer to that issue lies in how the Bible is taught. And that brings us back to the textbook; an attempt to teach the Bible in a way that doesn't teach religion.

Hmmmm....

Malcolm Friedberg is the author of Why We'll Win, a book that explains the law behind hot-button issues to laypeople.

Comments

[Pdubya]

No. Freedom from religion and freedom of religion.


in public schools? choice.

private? whatever you want.

period.

[Josephus]

I'm a retired public H.S. teacher in Illinois after 34 years. At the beginning of my career, it would have been unheard of for the the Bible or its surrogates to have been used as textbooks in the public schools. With the rise of Christian fundamentalism, it is now commonplace. There is no doubt that this is an unconstitutional campaign to insert a narrow, fundamentalist, religious viewpoint into the public schools and thus the gov.

Seen in context it is even more apparent. In the H.S. in which I taught there was an afterschool Bible study class, a Bible as Literature class, a Bible as History class taught by a teacher working on a divinity degree, a Young Çhristian Athletes group that met during school hours, prayer circles composed of both students and faculty throughout school hallways in the mornings (blocking other students), a yearly "prayer before the flag" event composed of both faculty and students, free Gideon Bibles for all students. And amidst all of this and more was a law requiring a disingenuous "moment of silence" before each class in the morning. And it all came from an evangelical, fundamentalist point of view.

At the least, faculty participation in religious exercises is unconstitutional given that they are gov. representatives and as such should be neutral.

This is the slippery slope that our Founding Fathers warned us about. And it is happening nation wide not just in the Bible Belt. It is deliberate, by design and insideous. And the upshot is that it corrupts both religion and politics.

The students who are young and naive are taken in by the propaganda but most become cynical about religion when they realize the bill of goods they've been sold. Meanwhile the perpetrators comfort themselves with the knowledge that they've paved themselves a road to heaven with every student soul they've put on the righteous path.

To answer the question posed at the beginning of the article, teaching the Bible in any form in the public schools is a clear violation of the separation of church and state.

[GloriaFeldt]

It is good for children to learn religious literacy, just as they need to become educated about forms of government and world literature. The problem here is that only the Bible--and only one version of it at that--is being presented. Similarly, the Bible has certainly influenced literature, but so have other religious works that should be inlcuded in such a course. There's hardly a question that the Alabama course in question is a ruse to infuse one church,one religious point of view, into public school education where it has no place.

[dsbsh]

The questions that need to be answered about this textbook, and use of the Bible in a public school classroom, are whether the focus of the class is exclusively or predominantly the Bible (as opposed to works of religion), and what is the subject of the class. There is nothing wrong with using the Bible in all sorts of classes-- literature, art, history, politics, philosophy, etc.-- but care must be taken that it is not presented by teachers (i.e., the government) as truth or as superior to the texts of other religions. The danger is that efforts such as the one in Alabama appear to be thinly veiled efforts to get the Christian Bible in front of as many kids in public schools as possible. As a judge I'd have a hard time upholding such efforts.

BTW, the Supreme Court has relied less and less on the Lemon (3-part) test in the past 20 years, particularly in cases involving religious content in public schools.

[amberglow]

This is not "bible as literature" -- this is establishment of Christianity and it's wrong. The Religious Right has been inserting this stuff into schools all over--and taking over school boards (see Kansas and evolution for just one instance out of many).Public schools are not for just people of one religion nor are to teach just one religion--they're for all of us, and we're all different.

[SamThornton]

The propriety of using the bible as a text in any school, public or private, is obviously a matter of setting an appropriate context. The devil is in the details, of course. Presented as a 17th-century English translation of a Latin translation of whatever source the Romans used would be one way to go.

As a contemporaneous historical record, it seems to have its strengths as well as weaknesses. These might be interesting to explore. CF, the History Channel.

As a cultural artifact, it would be interesting to trace its various interpretations over time in relation to social mores.

So long as rulers and knuckles aren't involved in explicating its details, what's the harm?

[OhgReaTone]

This is a difficult topic. The Bible can be very dangerous if misunderstood. We live in a culture where a secular study of the Bible would be useful in fighting the insanity of the religious right.
Ohg
http://thefireside.wordpress.com/2007/10/10/the-bible-faith-truth-knowledge/

[FlowerGirl]

While it is possible to teach the Bible as literature and not as truth, it is doubted here that that will be the result. Frankly, I think that if the Bible were explored honestly for content by people with open minds, it would turn people away from the religion. It does have some very bad parts. If we were not told that this is a "Holy" Book, we might think it a bit of bigotry, and worse. (I have read it through, and in three languages. It has some good literature, and is so fundamental to the understanding of Western culture that all European languages are full of idioms based on it.)

[Halsey]

Flower....I am going to put on rose-colored glasses here..and think that if kids ARE exposed to the actually "literature" of the Bible..they may actually question it being "literal'..

I think they may actually question it...as opposed to going to a hell-fire and brimstone sermon and being scared to death of going to hell.

Wait will they read about God supposedly killing a bunch of babies because their parents didn't put lamb's blood on their doors...do you REALLY think most will buy that ..I don't...or Job's wife turning into a pillar of salt?...now..MSG maybe!..

I say....make them read and discuss the bible..throw the Koran in as well..and the Talmud..what the hell..this KIDS DO have brains..and they are our future..

[coolmaiden]

I remember in my Honors sophomore English class, the book of Genesis (King James version) was required summer reading, along with Slaughterhouse-Five and A Separate Peace. If one objected to the language and sexual situations of Slaughterh­ouse-Five, Night was considered an appropriate substitute. Hello? What if one objected to reading the Bible in a public school English class? This wasn't addressed. That summer, I thoroughly enjoyed Slaughterh­ouse-Five, and found Genesis to be just as full of sex and violence, without the benefit of Vonnegut's amazing style of writing. The Bible is an incredibly difficult read, as it uses flowery, archaic language that even adults struggle to understand, let alone 15-and 16-year-olds. Looking back, I realize this was a ploy to allow religion in the classroom, and I should have listened to my very wise mother and objected.

[sorenmeetsdylan]

The fact that you were permitted into an honors program is in and of itself rather frightening. Vonnegut was an awful writer, unless you were prone to buy into his hysterics.

[coolmaiden]

I saw your profile and it looks like most of your posts involve insults and name-calling of other commenters. You may want to seek help for your unresolved anger.

[GeoNorth]

It is an obvious ploy to get the Bible in the classroom. That is not to say that the Bible can't be read for literary, cultural and historic reasons. An atheist should know the Bible if he is to debate the existence of a god with a christian just as one should know the Koran when debating a moslem. Reading a book does not mean that you accept it's teachings. It simply means you want to know its contents.

Unfortunately, in this instance, you know the atheist will get an F.

[jeskiley]

I wish someone had taught me about the Bible when I was in school, so I'd at least be culturally literate. Instead, I held prejudice against anyone who held Bible-based belief, a gut reaction to anything my own superiors hadn't taught me to see as relevant. It will be an interesting experiment, as curious (and intelligent) kids will be able to sense where each teacher stands on the issue of the Christian religion. And these authoritative figures will surely have their influence, like it or not, their rhythms will be absorbed. It would be difficult to teach the Bible secularly, without celebrating the right not to believe by its side. After a semester of such balancing, something's got to give. Like believing in the colors red, yellow, and green...as opposed to darkness, it's not in our natures to reject time-honored belief, unless told specifically to do so. Score ten million for the evangelicals! Their applause is echoing in the silence.

[sorenmeetsdylan]

There are courses taught in Newton, Massachusetts on the Bible as literature, which is perfectly reasonable since the Bible is no doubt alluded to more than any other work in lireature that came in its wake.

[sorenmeetsdylan]

literature

[NABNYC]

The Bible does not belong in the classroom. People are supposed to go to school to receive an education, not religious training. And as a taxpayer, I should not be required to fund religious instruction.

If we put together a national group of educators to come up with a curricula for 1st - 12th grade, we would have agreement on quite a few subjects: reading, arithmetic, history, science. Some schools have the children plant their own garden. Field trips. But "Bible Studies" is up to the parents, not the school.

The fact is that most of these people who push the religious studies are amazingly ignorant people and would be completely at home in the madressas. All they want to do is to raise the children to be mindless little Republican Nazi robots. They will object to Mark Twain or Shakespeare, object to any scientific teaching, lie to the children about history and about sex, teach them ignorance, racism, and hatred. The fact that they cloak the whole thing in a big "Christian" tent should not fool anyone. That's exactly what the Nazis did.

Further, if anyone is confused, ask yourself this. If you moved into a neighborhood that had a majority Muslim families, and your second grader came home with the homework of reading chapter 1 of the Koran, would that be objectionable to you? Of course it would if you are not Muslim.

Keep religion out of the schools.

[sorenmeetsdylan]

Teaching the bible as literatrure is not religious studies, but apparently your mind is too small to understand this. Of course, based on your criteria, we ought to exclude the study of Milton, Dante, Kierkegaard, Rabelais, Pascal, Martin Luther, Flannery O'Coonor, Walker Percy, even Thomas Mann, who all allude to the Bible, some more than others. Oh yes, and Eliot, Joyce, Yeats, Blake. Shall I continue? No, your object has nothing to do with the literary value of the Bible, instead, you'd rather just impose your will and teach Derrida or Foucault instead. How obnoxiously ignorant. As for teaching other religions, that is rampant, which it ought to be, if they are taught as histories of thought, but no, you only want to exclude Judeo-Christian teaching. How open-mined of you.

[RadicalRepublican]

Answer the question that NABNYC posed. Would you object to your child being forced to read the Koran? If the answer is no, then your objections may be taken as potentially rational. If you would object, your writing is merely rationalization.

[Unsui]

I don't think the problem lies in whether or not the Bible is taught in public schools. What is important is in what class it is taught.
I think it has a place in a critical thinking, or introductory philosophy, class along with the other influential world-views that are present in Western thought. If it is taught to age appropriate students, it can easily be taught in a way that doesn't violate the separation of church and state and does not promote a state religion.

[AristophanesJones]

It is certainly quite possible to study the Bible in the secular way... this way: "undermine the authority of the Bible [by presenting] the Bible as myth and stories rather than as truth and revelation."

[AceInTheHole]

WHETHER OR NOT THE BIBLE IS TAUGHT IN A SECULAR WAY IS ALMOST IRRELIVENT BECAUSE SO MANY PEOPLE SEEM TO LEARN IT IN A SECULAR WAY REGARDLESS OF HOW AND WHERE IT IS TAUGHT. THAT'S ONE REASON THERE ARE SO MANY ATHEIST AND AGNOGSTICS POPULATING THE WORLD.
YOU'RE EITHER GOING TO GET IT OR YOU WON'T. AND IT HAS VERY LITTLE TO DO WITH HOW IT IS TAUGHT , IT'S WHAT'S IN YOUR HEART AND NOT IN YOUR HEAD. THAT MAKES ONE A BELIEVER.
MY GRANDFATHER READ THE BIBLE COVER TO COVER AT LEAST FOUR OR FIVE TIMES A YEAR. IT WAS THE ONLY BOOK THAT I EVER SAW HIM READ AND HE DIED THE BIGGEST ATHIEST YOU'D EVER WANT TO SEE. AND THEN THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO CAN'T EVEN READ AND ONLY LOOK AT THE PICTURES IN A BIBLE AND BECOME BELIEVERS. EXPLAIN OR NUANCE THAT!
THE ONLY WAY THAT I CAN, IS TO SAY THAT IT IS A SPIRITUAL THING, THAT IS WAY ABOVE MAN'S UNDERSTANDING.