Teaching The Bible In Kentucky Public Schools – 2011 Edition
The Louisville Courier-Journal ran an article on 21 Feb 2011, originally by William Croyle from the Kentucky Enquirer discussing Senate Bill 56, which specifically allows the teaching of the Bible as an elective course in social studies.
Legislators tried to get a similar bill, SB 142, passed last year - I wrote about that one here and here.
The summary of this year's bill follows:
AN ACT relating to Bible literacy courses in the public schools.
Create a new section of KRS Chapter 156 to require the Kentucky Board of Education to promulgate administrative regulations to establish an elective social studies course on the Hebrew Scriptures, Old Testament of the Bible, the New Testament, or a combination of the Hebrew Scriptures and the New Testament of the Bible; require that the course provide students knowledge of biblical content, characters, poetry, and narratives that are prerequisites to understanding contemporary society and culture, including literature, art, music, mores, oratory, and public policy; permit students to use various translations of the Bible for the course; amend KRS 158.197 to permit a school council to offer an elective social studies course on the Hebrew Scriptures, Old Testament of the Bible, the New Testament, or a combination of the Hebrew Scriptures and the New Testament of the Bible.
Compare this to the summary description of SB 142 from 2010:
AN ACT relating to Bible literacy courses in the public schools.
Create a new section of KRS Chapter 156 to require the Kentucky Board of Education to promulgate administrative regulations to establish an elective social studies course on the Hebrew Scriptures, Old Testament of the Bible, the New Testament, or a combination of the Hebrew Scriptures and the New Testament of the Bible; require that the course provide students knowledge of biblical content, characters, poetry, and narratives that are prerequisites to understanding contemporary society and culture, including literature, art, music, mores, oratory, and public policy; permit students to use various translations of the Bible for the course; amend KRS 158.197 to permit a school council to offer an elective social studies course on the Hebrew Scriptures, Old Testament of the Bible, the New Testament, or a combination of the Hebrew Scriptures and the New Testament of the Bible.
Jenkies! It's exactly the same!
Jenkies!
What happens when we get into the bills themselves? (SB 56, 2011 is here, SB 142, 2010 is here.)
If you compare them side by side, they're identical, apart from the date, bill number, and sponsors.
Consequently, the concerns I had last year about this time still stand. I'll include them here, and elaborate on some of them (elaborations denoted by bracketed italics).
- Right out of the gate, there's a problem with defining what we're talking about when we say "The Bible". Not only are there many different translations (e.g. NRSV, KJV, NIV, The Message), but there are multiple canons - Catholic Bibles have books that Protestant Bibles don't, Eastern Orthodox Bibles have yet a different canon, and the Tanakh has a different structure than the Christian Old Testament. Additionally, English translation of the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts necessarily introduce subtle changes in meaning which can affect interpretation. And then there are the issues with textual transmission in general. [Discussions of the Bible need to acknowledge that there has been a considerable amount of tinkering with the text down through the centuries. Some of this tinkering was likely by well-meaning individuals who sought to clarify points in the transmitted text. On the other hand, some of this tinkering was very likely with the intent to advance agendas or favor one orthodoxy over another. A truly objective course on the Bible would need to acknowledge these issues and not ignore them or gloss over them.]
- Students of different backgrounds would necessarily bring different assumptions, presuppositions, and theologies to the class. Teaching around those differences would be difficult, particularly if the teacher isn't knowledgeable about them and skilled at recognizing his or her own biases. [ A teacher who cannot disengage from his or her own biases and preconceptions will have a very difficult time engaging with opinions and scholarship that disagree with their beliefs. Do the sponsors of the bill really expect the people teaching these classes to compare the Genesis creation myths with the other creation myths, or to compare the stories of Noah's flood with the Epic of Gilgamesh?]
- While the bill states that courses must maintain religious neutrality, it's difficult to understand how a course on the Bible can be religiously neutral. Will there be a section on the Qu'ran? The Book of Mormon? The Śruti? Dianetics? [It also occurs to me that in order to truly maintain religious neutrality, we have to revisit point 1, above. Because the proposed legislation does not require a specific version of the Bible to be used in class, there will be different versions in play. The Biblical influence on some issues is different depending on which translation one uses. For example, translating a word as "kill" vice "murder" is significant.]
- Specifically, what "knowledge of biblical content, characters, poetry, and narratives" are prerequisites "to understanding contemporary society and culture, including literature, art, music, mores, oratory, and public policy"? This looks suspiciously like code for a broad conservative Christian agenda, and not a non-sectarian discussion of the Bible's influence on modern society. There are other, arguably more fundamental, "prerequisites" to understanding modern arts, culture, and policy besides the Bible, including ancient Greek literature, politics and mythology, the works of Shakespeare, and human sexuality. [Further, the Bible (particularly - but not exclusively - the Old Testament) is rife with stories of genocide, incest, sexual manipulation, revenge, and feeding children to bears, all done by, directly or indirectly at the command of, or in the name of God. Somehow I don't see this course covering material like the story in Genesis where Lot's daughters get him drunk, sleep with him, and become pregnant by him...]
- Biblical "literacy" and "history" imply more than simply knowledge of the content of the Bible, which is what is called out in the summary. While the text of the law itself specifies that students shall be familiarized with "(t)he history of the Hebrew Scriptures or New Testament" and "(t)he literary style and structure of the Hebrew Scriptures or New Testament", I seriously doubt that these concepts can be properly addressed within the context of a one or two semester elective. [I cynically wonder if the "history of the Hebrew Scriptures or New Testament" actually means "history as viewed through the lens of the Hebrew Scriptures or New Testament" rather than the history of how and why the material came to be written...]
- Conspicuously absent from the bill are any specific references to the socio-political context during the periods of authorship of the various Biblical books, which have tremendous bearing on their content. I do not think it is possible to adequately discuss the influence of the Bible on modern socio-political topics without discussing the contexts in which the Biblical books were written. [Consider, for example, the Book of Revelation. It was written to and for people in a very specific set of circumstances, but it's significance has been horribly overemphasized by modern interpretations. While it's true that Revelation has influenced the modern world, much of that influence has more to do with what more modern readers assume it means than what the original author intended his contemporaries to learn from it.]
In the end, I suspect what would likely happen is that courses offered under this law would end up being taught by and filled by people jumping at the chance to turn them into state-sanctioned Bible "study" sessions which are long on Bible and short on anything resembling actual study, and that would probably be more about the people in the class affirming their own beliefs rather than trying to learn anything new.
I've said before that I'm completely in favor of people learning about the Bible and its history and background, but if all you do in a Bible study is look at the material in terms of what the leader thinks God was trying to say and ignore what the humans who actually wrote it were trying to say to their contemporaries, you've missed the point.
-Jay
TSA – Security Theater Gone Haywire
(NOTE: This is a difficult topic to write about. I've not experienced the new security screening procedures. I've linked to people who have, and I think it's best to let their stories speak for themselves. I'm trying to maintain a distinction between the body scans (which I think do have a place in airport security, but not as a step that everyone should have to pass through) and the "enhanced" pat-downs (which I, like many, regard as government-sanctioned sexual assault).)
Unless you live in a cave, you're aware of the TSA's new airport security screening procedures.
In a nutshell, depending on what airport you're going through, you might be subjected to a full-body scan and/o an "enhanced" pat-down.
The scans are of two types - Backscatter X-ray and Millimeter Wave scans. Both of these techniques work because the energy in the scan passes through fabric and reflects off of skin. The resulting images are rather like this:
y TSA-Released Sample of a Backscatter X-Ray Image
Images from millimeter-wave scans are somewhat less distinct, but even so, I can understand why folks are upset about this. (Personally, while I'm not thrilled about the scans, if the image above is as detailed as it gets, and if there are reasonable controls on the images, and if they weren't being used as a first layer of security on adults only, then I could probably live with them.)
Refusing the scan triggers the enhanced pat-down, which is gut-wrenchingly described here (women, when you read this, put yourself in the author's position. Men, imagine this being told to you by a woman you're close to, and remember that you, too, will likely have to go through a similar experience.):
Erin's Story. (Link via Amy)
One of the aspects to this that doesn't seem to get enough attention is that kids will be put through this as well. Consider that we've spent decades telling our children not to let strangers touch them, but now they may not be able to avoid that:
Advice from Sarina Behar Natkin about how to prepare your kids for a possible security pat-down. (Also via Amy)
And for survivors of rape or other sexual abuse, the experience may simply be unendurable:
Bug_girl at Skepchick has some thoughts, and Jezebel's Irin Carmon has some additional words on the matter.
Finally, MSNBC reports that a U.S. Airways flight attendant and cancer survivor was forced to show her breast prosthesis to a TSA agent during a security screening.
Incredibly, a number of news outlets are reporting the results of a CBS survey as showing that 81% of survey respondents support the enhanced security measures.
Only, they don't.
The 81% number from CBS Survey is in response to the following question: "Should Airports Use Full-Body X-Ray Machines?"
I suspect the survey numbers would have reflected a much lower level of approval to the following proposition: "Should TSA Agents Touch Travelers' (Including Minors) Genitalia As Part Of Security Pat-Downs?"
A big problem is that TSA appears to function primarily in a reactive mode - Richard Reid tries to light his shoes so everyone has to send their shoes through the scanner. Someone loads their underwear up with explosives, so TSA has to perform panty-checks. I'd wager that nobody will be carrying toner cartridges onto planes for a while. I shudder to think about what happens when someone gets taken off a plane with explosives hidden internally, since at that point you're basically up to full body-cavity searches.
The fact of the matter is that there are only a limited number of things you can do with a plane. The most relevant are:
- You can try to hijack it and crash it into something, but after 9/11, I think that's fairly unlikely to happen. I believe that locked cockpits and a generation of passengers who watched the Towers fall have cut that option out.
- You can blow it up. Preventing this is, at the heart, an explosives detection problem and not an identify-the-bad-guys problem. Better cargo screening (including carry-on cargo) is a huge part of the solution. Better techniques to detect explosive signatures on clothing and hands is another.
Pawing up under the skirts of female travelers and groping their breasts isn't going to improve security. Nor is juggling the testicles of male travelers. Nor will traumatizing children, cancer survivors, and rape victims. Those will, however, push the Bad Guys to figure out better ways to hide things.
Brilliant.
-Jay
Vanity Fair Goes Barracuda Fishing
Vanity Fair has an article up containing a fairly unflattering profile of my favorite Alaska Governor turned failed Vice-Presidential candidate turned ex-Alaska Governor turned talking head/public speaker.
Yes, none other than Sarah Palin.
Two years after she first achieved national recognition as John McCain's perplexing choice of running-mate, Palin still manages to keep her name in the news.
I remain puzzled.
PalinWorld is just weird.
On one hand, there is the whole circus side-show vibe that follows Sarah's ex-future(x2) son-in-law, Levi Johnston.
What a Tool...
It's not enough that he did the whole Playgirl thing, but now he's running for mayor of Wasilla, Alaska. Wasilla, of course, is where Sarah started out her illustrious political career. Yeah, OK, Levi. Hope that works out for ya.
On the other hand, you've got daughter Bristol landing a spot on Dancing With the Stars, which I guess is OK, but it's kind of surreal. I have a hard time deciding what I think of Bristol. At one point, I thought she might be the only person in the whole Palin-palooza circus that had any sense about her, but her brief re-engagement to Johnston, discussions of a reality TV show, and apparent desire to remain in the public eye have me questioning that.
And finally, on the other other hand, you've got Sarah, the matriarch of the clan, and the subject of the article I linked to above.
The Vanity Fair piece is sourced from a lot of people who didn't want to be identified for fear of reprisal, and it's got something of a hit-piece feel to it, but nevertheless it has an internal consistency that lends it some credibility.
The thrust of the article is that the well-maintained public image of Palin that we saw in the '08 campaign and that we see now is little more than a distorted reflection of the reality. According to the sources of the article, most of what we think we know about Sarah Palin, from her family relationships to her public piety is fabricated.
I wasn't particularly surprised to read that she's got a vindictive streak to her, or that she and her husband fight a lot, but I was surprised to read that she may have accepted the VP nomination without much (if any) discussion with her family.
There's also some discussion that suggests that she may not be as religiously conservative as she seems, although I'm not really convinced of that - she speaks the language of ultra-conservative Christianity far too fluently to be putting on a facade.
Anyway, it's an article worth reading whether you think that Sarah Palin is a genius or a vapid twit. Check it out.
-Jay
Keeping Abreast of Terrorism
A story showed up last week at FOXNews about the use of explosive breast implants in terrorist acts. Apparently, British intelligence has picked up on chatter discussing the use of explosive-filled plastic shapes that can be implanted under the skin, which then become very difficult to detect by typical airport scanners. (The article focuses on breasts, but also mentions that the shapes could be implanted in the buttocks - so presumably anywhere with a significant fatty layer would be workable.)
That this actually surprises anyone is interesting - drug traffickers have been using variations on the theme for quite a while - but what really piques my curiosity is how anyone would even begin to develop a workable policy to counter threats like this that doesn't involve groping every female passenger that goes through a security line. (And make no mistake - it would be the women getting groped, and it would somehow be justified that the amount of explosives that could get implanted undetectably in a man's buttocks wouldn't be enough to take down a plane, but imagine the carnage if the Pussycat Dolls all blew up on a flight...)
The Pussycat Dolls: Musical Act or Weapons of Mass Destruction?
Perhaps some new X-ray scanner can determine the difference between normal implants and explosive ones without requiring the groping step, or perhaps the way to screen for this sort of thing is to look for detonation devices and not the explosives themselves.
The bigger problem here, I think, is that if the terrorists are determined enough, they'll find ways to blow things up regardless of how many additional steps get added to passenger screening processes. An associated issue is that (at least publicly) we seem to be constantly reacting to threats - Richard Reid tried to light explosives in his shoes, so now we have our shoes screened at the airport - rather than anticipating new threats or addressing broader categories (such as better detection of explosives in general rather than explosives hidden in specific ways.)1
It's a tough problem to tackle.
-Jay
----------
1This is, in some ways, an artifact of the way news gets reported. There is work being done to improve explosive detection, but it doesn't seem to get as much press as the latest restrictions that travellers see in security lines.
Running For Office on the Tinfoil Hat Platform
The Mayor
The local political scene isn't normally very exciting to me. Louisville has had the same mayor since 1986 (with the exception of a stretch from 1999-2003 during which the local government reorganized), and he's been popular enough that he's been effectively unchallenged whenever he's come up for reelection.
Last year he decided not to run for what would be his sixth term overall (his third under the reorganized government), and instead take a shot at the Lieutenant Governor's office.
This has thrown the field wide open, and as of this writing, there are approximately eleventy thousand people considering running for the soon-to-be-available Mayor's office.
Contact Me
Recent Comments
- Steviepinhead on Mini Book Review: The Millennium Trilogy by Stieg Larsson, Translated by Reg Keeland
- Clever Badger on Mini Book Review: The Millennium Trilogy by Stieg Larsson, Translated by Reg Keeland
- sirhcton on Mini Book Review: The Millennium Trilogy by Stieg Larsson, Translated by Reg Keeland
- Steviepinhead on Mini Book Review: The Millennium Trilogy by Stieg Larsson, Translated by Reg Keeland
- Steviepinhead on Montreal Police Finally Investigating David Mabus (UPDATE)
Recent Posts
- Mini Book Review: The Millennium Trilogy by Stieg Larsson, Translated by Reg Keeland
- Montreal Police Finally Investigating David Mabus (UPDATE)
- Biblical Inerrancy
- That’s Offensive!
- Movie Review – Speed Racer (2008)
Meta
Archives
Shelfari
Critical Thinking
- The Skeptic's Dictionary
- Stop Sylvia Browne
- Skepchick
- The Accidental Historian
- The Lippard Blog
- The Skeptic's Guide to the Universe
- Chaoskeptic
- Respectful Insolence
- The Adventures of Skippy the Skeptic
Film
Friends and Acquaintances
Science
- National Center for Science Education
- Scienceblogs
- The TalkOrigins Archive
- The Public Library of Science
- Ptak Science Books
- The Austringer
Religion
- The Oremus Bible Browser
- New English Translation of the Septuagint
- Encylopedia Mythica
- Berea College - Science and Faith home page
- Exploring Our Matrix
- Talk 2 Action
- Religion, Sets, and Politics
- Atimetorend