<p>It’s great when people respond sarcastically to something no one has said.</p>
<p>“my dear”</p>
<p>Dorothy_ParkerX: are you the same girl from Hanover? Your writing style is amazingly similar to hers. She also enjoyed tangling with adults. (I just don’t remember her name)</p>
<p>simba:</p>
<p>DON’T GO THERE!!! Believe me, you WILL get a message from an administrator.</p>
<p>Leave it.</p>
<p>well, IF they are going to teach it, I hope they discuss the editing by men, the rewrites, the political changes to suit leaders, the translations done by scribes, the missing parts, the parts that were omitted on purpose, the way that people pick and choose what to practice, the sexism, the inconsistencies, the problems with the translations of various languages</p>
<p>which version of the Bible are they using?</p>
<p>Unless they teach the SOURCE of the writings and how scribes added parts, deleted parts, etc. it is just a bible class, not a real leason in literature</p>
<p>What is interesting is I have been looking to find a course description or a typical class lesson for this particular program and haven’t found one</p>
<p>any one have a link</p>
<p>and simba, nooooooo, they are Not 
the same person…my dear</p>
<p>Many schools just read parts of the Bible. My high school English class at a private school read Genesis, as did the local public school AP English class. We also read Genesis in the first quarter of my humanities class at the University of Chicago.</p>
<p>cgm-</p>
<p>You are so witty… my dear… and we parents are so clever.</p>
<p>The Bible has been read by many and understood by few. You could go 1,000 different ways in making a cirriculum out of it.</p>
<p>Which version of the Bible?</p>
<p>Adam Nicolson, God’s Secretaries: The Making of King James’ Bible.</p>
<p>We seem to be focusing on issues that have no tangible benefits. Shouldn’t we concentrate more on strengthening skills that would be core for our abilities to compete (math and science)? Why such a hot button diversion?</p>
<p>smba:</p>
<p>Well, first of all, I have to disagree that every area that isn’t math and science-related is of no value. But let’s assume you’re right for a moment.</p>
<p>An old professor of mine is a guy named ED Hirsch. He was among the least skilled teachers I ever had, but his scholarship on the Romantic poets was quite impressive. </p>
<p>But I digress.</p>
<p>Hirsch, apparently, did some sort of study in which he found that reading comprehension was closely tied to the ability to interpret cultural symbols in the literature. Why he did this study when he was duplicating about 100 studies before him, I don’t know, but because of this epiphany, he became a pop educator and the leader of the “Core Knowledge” movement in education.</p>
<p>His idea is pretty a pretty good one. It’s not possible to read for meaning if one is struggling through allusions one has never seen. As a personal example, I tried to read Bellow’s “Mr. Sammler’s Planet” when I was 16 or so. I was from a small, rural, Southern community and had never met a Jew. The book was full of both literary allusions from books I hadn’t read and Yiddish words and concepts I’d never heard of. I could read well, but I couldn’t read that book and get anything out of it.</p>
<p>Where I’m going with this is that, for many kids from verbally/intellectually impoverished households, allusions we would consider rather simple are beyond the grasp of many children. My wife works with kids who can’t read simple books containing the words “mast” and “hull” because they have never been around boats or read about boats before.</p>
<p>OK, so here’s the point. There’s a clear, clear and very strong relationship between two factors and reading comprehension: how much one reads and how well one understands what one reads. When understanding drops below 85%, the value of doing a lot of reading diminishes sharply. In other words, if you read a lot but fail to comprehend at least 85% of what you’re reading, you will not increase your reading level very quickly. In fact, you’ll probably fall behind.</p>
<p>Being able to read well has a defined impact on grades in math and science, for obvious reasons. It is hard to read science text books, and math is simply a different kind of language one must read.</p>
<p>SO (whew, I know you’re saying), cultural understanding is very, very important to basic reading skiils, which are very important to just about every other intellectual skill I can think of.</p>
<p>I agree with tarhunt.</p>
<p>My 17-year old niece brought a copy of the Bible when she came from Paris to spend time with us. Knowing what her parents felt about religion (very anti), I was surprised. I was very impressed with her answer: that the Bible was so full of cultural references that she felt impoverished by never having read it. How very true!
I remember explain Biblical and Greco-Roman allusions to my kids as they grew up, from the Garden of Eden to the flight of Icarus and many more such.
Anyone reading Wilfred Owen’s war poems has to be able to recall biblical themes (the “sons of Abaham”); the same goes for Faulkner (Absalom, Absalom) and many many other authors.</p>
<p>Tarhunt is exactly right. It’s all about the idioms. Public school Bible study may go against the grain for some, but as the legislation is expected to pass the 30 day public comment period, the fat’s in the fire. The ACLU is loaded for bear & will keep the school districts behind the eight ball as they leave no stone unturned in their attempt to take the wind out of this proposal’s sails. The teachers will have to be like Caesar’s wife or their critics will raise Cain. The legislators believe they are on terra firma, but may soon be in a pretty kettle of fish with a bitter pill to swallow.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So I guess they don’t know the ropes.</p>
<p>
I love this quote. As good an argument as any for reading the Bible and studying Greek and Roman history and mythology.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I love this quote, too. What a mixture of metaphors! I have visions of sailors getting off the boat onto terra firm, then boiling fish in a kettle until it’s reduced to the size of a pill…:)</p>
<p>When I was growing up, we read the Bible has “history”, pulling out maps, looking at where they claimed things happened etc, and looked at what was written in the bible and how that was relevant today, ie Israel, etc</p>
<p>I dont have a huge issue with teaching the bible as LITERATURE, and HISTORY, so long as it is put in the correct context, the allusion to other works etc </p>
<p>However, I am not very trusting of this particular advocacy group that is pushing this curriculum</p>
<p>I am not naive enough to think they don’t have an agenda, sneaking in religion through a side door</p>
<p>If I was a parent in that school, I would want to see the curriculum, sit in on the classes, make sure the teachers weren’t crossing the line, and gee, that never happens with the Faithful</p>
<p>If for instance, they took the Torah and Islamic teaching and showed their relationshipsm that would be good</p>
<p>If they showed the old myths and fables and how they were incorporated into the “Good Book” if they showed how the science of the bible is wrong, well, that might make for a fair class</p>
<p>But as I stated before, you really need to look at the source of the curriculum and the people pushing for the course</p>
<p>And anyone have a sample of the lesson plans?</p>
<p>My fear is that they may just show the “good” sides of the tome, whie ignoring the ugly</p>
<p>As well, if they treat the book as the Words of God, while it was in reality written by men, etc…that would be a very bad thing</p>
<p>tarhunt: I agree with your point of view 1,000%. However, do you think that Georgia or any other state would be able to design a curriculm that is divorced for ‘retail’ religion? I am pretty anti-retail religion (of any belief).</p>
<p>I just believe that all this energy that is being spent will not produce the outcome many desire and will become a hot button issue like Scientic Creationism.</p>
<p>I think citygirlsmom expressed it quite well.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>if it does, it will be because the secularists and, of course, those that consider religion a plague will have abandoned the field–as they have done for the last 50 years.</p>
<p>Too often the fundamentalists are the only game in town. </p>
<p>If, due to such a stubborn boycott as has been waged against religion and sacred texts, the plurality of opinion becomes a singular and undivided opinion the only team that shows up wins the game due to forfieture.</p>
<p>I adamantly oppose the fundamentalist view of sacred text; but I aim to do so without ridiculing either the text or those who simplistically (as they are inclined and capable) adhere to them as if they were no more than boorish facts…like science, math and politics: like scientists, mathmaticians and politicians.</p>
<p>Either stop trying to leave the game, whilst trying to take the ball with you, or bow to the wishes of the victors who will by necessity win the game you peevishly abandoned.</p>
<p>.</p>
<p>“if it does, it will be because the secularists and, of course, those that consider religion a plague will have abandoned the field–as they have done for the last 50 years.”</p>
<p>Not necessarily. Not many consider religion a plague. You can be religious, but not fundamentalist.</p>
<p>What has often happened, is that many have taken the sacred text, and that in itself if a telling phrase, sacred, and have indeed taken it to the “preaching” place</p>
<p>DPX, have you seen the curriculum, I have not, and have tried to find it, so my view are what I would want to see in such a curriculam</p>
<p>As well, what if a student did raise the very questions, and historical facts that I did, how would the teacher react to that</p>
<p>For instance, if a student says, how do we really know who wrote the texts and who do we know what was inserted at the whim of a translator?</p>
<p>Would the teacher need to acknowledge that truth, that we don’t really know much?</p>
<p>Or is it a class that says, here is a story about Cain and Abel, and here are some other works of literature, speechs, etc that allude to that story</p>
<p>Or how about the old myths of other faiths that were taken and placed in the Good Book</p>
<p>Or how about Christmas being placed where it was to work with the Celts etc to match THEIR holidays</p>
<p>If the lesson plans showed ALL parts of the history of this historic text, or as some like to refer to it Sacred, then it would be a worthwhile class</p>
<p>But I don’t think that is the case, being aware of the creates of the program</p>
<p>But time will tell, and my gut tells me it will probably land more on the side of not to be questioned as opposed to, yes, we can question the origins of such and such</p>
<p>And what DPX calls ridicule, others see as research, truth, and fact, and indepth criticism</p>
<p>Just because some say the text is the word of God, others don’t need to believe that, and that is not ridicule</p>
<p>And just because some see it as sacred and infallible, does that mean others don’t have the right to look at it and see how it was created, changed, rewritten and used for various purpose</p>
<p>To NOT do that does a diservice to the educational commnity</p>
<p>Interesting that research and doubt is called ridicule</p>