The idea of having course in public schools about the Bible makes some sense. There is a lot of literature, art, philosophy, and history which requires some basic familiarity with the Bible - not just the stories in the Bible, but the ways the Bible has been used. Many, though, want to introduce Bible course in order to promote a theological agenda, not to simply educate.

The New York Times reports on the National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools, a group responsible for drawing up lessons for Bible courses all over the nation:

[A] growing chorus of critics says the course, taught by local teachers trained by the council, conceals a religious agenda. The critics say it ignores evolution in favor of creationism and gives credence to dubious assertions that the Constitution is based on the Scriptures, and that “documented research through NASA” backs the biblical account of the sun standing still.

In the latest salvo, the Texas Freedom Network, an advocacy group for religious freedom, has called a news conference for Monday to release a study that finds the national council’s course to be “an error-riddled Bible curriculum that attempts to persuade students and teachers to adopt views that are held primarily within conservative Protestant circles.”

Here’s an some example from the report, as cited by Ed Brayton at Panda’s Thumb:

The diagram “The Tabernacle,” reprinted from a Rose Publishing resource, includes “Fascinating Facts about the Tabernacle” (pp 102). Under “What is the Tabernacle?” it reads:

“The Tabernacle and its courtyard were constructed according to a pattern set by God, not by Moses. We study the Tabernacle to understand the steps that the Lord laid out for a sinful people to approach a holy God.”

“The tabernacle of the Old Testament was a ‘shadow of things in heaven.’ Hebrews 8: 1-5 tells us that the real Tabernacle is in heaven. This is where Jesus himself is our high priest (Heb. 8:2).”

[The first statement presents a theological view of the Tabernacle as a factual and historical statement. The second statement assumes that the reader is Christian and presents a theological claim of the New Testament book of Hebrews as a factual and historical statement; it also reflects a belief in Christian “replacement theology,” that through Jesus the Jewish tabernacle was replaced by a heavenly tabernacle.]

There isn’t a single Biblical scholar on either the Board of Directors or the Advisory Committee of the National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools — but that may be because scholarship isn’t the goal. Instead, it appears that the goal is to promote a particular, sectarian view of the Bible. There isn’t, for example, anything in the course about the Jewish arrangement and contents of what Christians call the Old Testament, nothing about the process by which certain books were included in the Christian canon an others excluded, or differences between the Catholic and Protestant Bibles.

The entire course is presented from a Protestant point of view where the King James Version is treated as authoritative:

A highly critical article in The Journal of Law and Education in 2003 said the course “suffers from a number of constitutional infirmities” and “fails to present the Bible in the objective manner required.”

The journal said that even supplementary materials were heavily slanted toward sectarian organizations; 83 percent of the books and articles recommended had strong ties to sectarian organizations, 60 percent had ties to Protestant organizations, and 53 percent had ties to conservative Protestant organizations, it said.

The course doesn’t simply describe what Christians believe (and a decent course would have to go farther, describing what Jews believe as well); instead, it acts as though what certain Protestant Christians believe about the Bible is Truth. The Bible is referred to as the “Word of God,” for example, biblical inerrancy is argued for, and the idea that America is a “Christian Nation” with laws based upon the Bible receives prominent attention.

A serious, objective, and scholarly course would treat many basic beliefs of fundamentalist and evangelical Christianity as dubious at best. Such a course would, for example, have to present information about the transmission and creation of the texts which would contradict teachings about the Bible being infallible and inerrant. This is why real courses on the Bible, Christianity, and religion generally do not appear in most schools and never will appear in most schools — despite the fact that students would probably benefit from them.

Knowledge, information, and research are essentially being suppressed in order to avoid offending certain Christians — exactly what some would like to see happen with evolution and, eventually, significant swaths of the rest of science. Ed Brayton calls the course “garbage” and after reviewing the widespread errors, distortions, and worse, I can’t come up with any reason to disagree.

Particularly pathetic in this case is the “defense” that is offered by the American Center for Law and Justice, the legal group founded by Pat Robertson. The ACLJ has endorsed the NCBCPS curriculum. Why? Because they believe that it is possible to construct a course about the Bible the would pass constitutional muster. The fact that this current one wouldn’t and is, in fact, utter garbage from the standpoint of scholarship and basic honesty doesn’t seem to matter. Do they endorse legal arguments that are complete garbage simply because some reasonable argument for the same conclusions might be possible?

No organization that endorses the teaching of falsehoods for such reasons can be trusted — such an endorsement violates the most basic standards of scholarship and ethics. The NCBCPS is worthless except as an example of the extremes to which some Christians will go in order to undermine the law and science in pursuit of their religious agenda.

You can differentiate the reasonable Christian groups from the unreasonable ones based upon their reaction to this sort of story. Reasonable ones will be horrified at the teaching of falsehoods, argue that it’s possible to do better, and insist that no schools continue with these programs until something better is developed. The unreasonable ones won’t consider it a problem if falsehoods and distortions are taught under the guise of teaching about the Bible because, in the end, they don’t think that these things really are false — or, if they do, they don’t consider is a problem to teach falsehoods if that brings people to convert to the Truth Faith.

School administrators who allow this course to be taught either haven’t reviewed it, or agree with the agenda of promoting narrow Protestant theology in the guise of academics. Whichever is the case, I can’t see how they merit such a position of responsibility and authority. If they acted in a similar manner to promote Islam, Buddhism, communism, or atheism in public schools, parents would be calling for their heads on pikes.

Read More:

• Separation of Church and State 101
• Church and State News
• Religion in Public Schools
• Secularism 101