An editorial in this morning's USA Today by William Mattox argues that President Obama needs to hold a summit encouraging the country to address a growing educational calamity: not enough Bible-based education in school.
Hopefully, Texas and other states can strike the right balance — and raise our nation's biblical literacy levels without engaging in religious indoctrination of one kind or another. For while people on different sides will object to the Bible being misused in the classroom, all of us on all sides ought to object to the Bible being ignored in the classroom.
"Students who want to do serious study of Western civilization need to know the Bible," says Barbara Newman, Northwestern University professor of English, Religion and Classics. "They need to know the Bible, even if they do not believe the Bible."
Proponents of biblical literacy requirements always sound very reasonable. We want students to understand Western culture and history; religion played a significant role in their development; therefore, the contents of the Bible should be taught to help explain them. Makes sense, doesn't it? And sounds urgent as well: college professors cited in this editorial bemoaning the lack of preparedness certainly do paint a dire picture of religious understanding. You would think the only thing standing in between today's children and the mastery of Western Civilization is their inability to recount the parables of Jesus and name the sons of Abraham.
What those proponents do not explain so well, though, are the many difficulties and constitutional pitfalls that schools must address to ensure that such a class remains only about religion and not a promotion of religious viewpoints. I appreciate that Mr. Mattox emphasizes the need to refrain from indoctrination, but he hardly suggests that might pose the slightest problem, even in a class about the sacred text of America's dominant faith.
Advocates also give short shrift, as this piece does, to the clear Education Department guidelines that already allow the educational process they value.
Teaching about religion: Public schools may not provide religious instruction, but they may teach about religion, including the Bible or other scripture: the history of religion, comparative religion, the Bible (or other scripture)-as-literature, and the role of religion in the history of the United States and other countries all are permissible public school subjects. Similarly, it is permissible to consider religious influences on art, music, literature, and social studies.
Literature, history or art teachers don't need nudging from the President, or permission from state legislatures, to introduce and explain, in an academic fashion, religious context that gives their material meaning. But we should be wary of an entire class that makes the Bible the starting point in understanding all of Western history and culture – rather than just one of many important contextual circles.
I am not trying to argue that a Bible literacy class is necessarily unconstitutional. In fact many advocates who are serious about the separation of church and state are quite high on certain approaches to religious literacy in public schools. I would say though that doing it correctly (read: legally) requires rigorous safeguards (offered as an elective class, supported by texts that do not proselytize, led by teachers who are trained in church-state concerns, to name a few). More importantly, a school district that chooses against a class like this is not ignoring the importance of the Bible. There are other ways to introduce biblical contexts in the classroom – methods the Department of Education guidelines already heartily endorse.
