The Clever Badger I'm not dead yet!

26Feb/104

In a Move That Shouldn’t Surprise Anyone…

The Louisville Courier-Journal reported this morning that the previously discussed Bible Literacy Bill cleared the State Senate with a 37-1 vote.

The lone nay vote came from Kathy Stein (D-Lexington), who was quoted as saying “public schools in Kentucky can and already do teach comparative religion.”

She also astutely pointed out the absurdity of the claims of religious neutrality in the bill.

Quite honestly, the neutrality claims are absolutely,  stunningly ridiculous.  It's amazing to me that anyone actually has the gumption to claim that a course teaching the Bible doesn't stake out a position of favor for Christianity.  (Depending on how the Hebrew Scriptures are taught, they might be able to squeeze in Judaism, too, barely.)

Do the Kentucky elected officials not realize that there are many different religions out there besides the various flavors of Christianity and Judaism?

-Jay

Filed under: Church/State separation, critical thinking, Current Events, politics 4 Comments
19Feb/108

Bible Literacy Bill Advances Out Of Kentucky Senate Education Committee

The Kentucky Senate Education Committee passed SB 142 on February 18, 2010, according to this article in the Louisville Courier-Journal. 

SB 142 would require the Kentucky Board of Education to set up regulations to establish an elective course on Biblical literacy.  The full text of the bill may be found here, but most1 of it is summarized thus (from the Kentucky Legislative Research Commission):

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.

In principle, a non-sectarian Biblical Literacy/Biblical History class might not be a bad idea as a high school elective.2

As a practical matter, though, I think it would prove very challenging to do this well, for a number of reasons, including:

  1. 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...
  2. 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 knowledgable about them and skilled at recognizing his or her own biases.
  3. 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?
  4. 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.3
  5. 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.
  6. 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. 

The bottom line is that I'm not at all certain that a proper, non-sectarian curriculum could be put together for a class like this, and even if one could be, I'm not sure that's even the real intent.

To see why, we need to look at some of the comments of Senators quoted in the Courier-Journal article:

“The Bible is the most widely read book, and it’s also the most best-selling book of all time,”  (bill sponsor Sen. David) Boswell (D- Owensboro) said. “There are so many aspects of the Scriptures relevant to the subjects we are already teaching.”

He said the course would be constitutional “as long as we teach it and not preach it.”

Or:

Sen. Elizabeth Tori, R-Radcliff, told co-sponsors Boswell and Sen. Julian Carroll, D-Frankfort, that “an angel was sent down on your shoulders” prompting “you to put this bill together.”

“I‘ve said for many years that until we put God back into our households, things in society will not change for the better,” Tori said. “Your bill is the first step to that change.”

Or:

Carroll said that as long as the course is taught pursuant to the law as a “historical document” and not a “faith-based document,” the bill would be legal. But he then spoke about “taking the Bible out of the school” and “putting nothing back in.”

“When we took the Bible out the school, we also unfortunately took out that portion of Bible which relates to life skills and value systems,” Carroll said. “Our students these days do not have the full opportunity, in my judgment, to be taught those life skills that keep them out of our penitentiaries and make them a productive citizen.”

We should consider comments like these along with the part of the bill that the C-J didn't report on (and that isn't listed in the LRC summary):

(5) Any school council organized pursuant to KRS 160.345 or, if none exists, the principal, may authorize the display of historic artifacts, monuments, symbols, and texts, including but not limited to religious materials, in conjunction with a course of study that includes an elective course in history, civilization, ethics, comparative religion, literature, or other subject area that uses such artifacts, monuments, symbols, and texts as instructional material if the display is:

(a)    Appropriate to the overall educational purpose of the course; and

(b)    Consistent with the requirements of KRS 42.705.4

All in all, this leads me to suspect that the whole enterprise is a not-very-well-disguised ploy to make an end-run around the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.  It doesn't take much to envision a course being put in place in a school and then being used as an umbrella to justify a display of the Ten Commandments. 

Now, I'm all for people learning more about the history and content of the Bible.  Far too many people who claim to hold it in high regard have a very poor understanding of what it contains and how it came to be what it is.5 

I just don't think this bill is going to get us there.

-Jay

----------

1The part that isn't in the summary is interesting. I'll get to that later.

2Personally, I'd make some sort of world history/civilization class a prerequisite to it.

3The word "prerequisite" implies a necessary dependency.  The fact that there are contemporary societies and cultures that are not Christian or Jewish that produce literature, art, music, oratory, and public policy and have their own social mores strongly argues against the proposition that knowledge of biblical content is a prerequisite to understanding these topics in general.  Further, one could argue that trying to interpret such cultures through a Biblical lens actually distorts the understanding of them. 

4The relevant sections KRS 42.705 are sections (12) and (13):

(12) Historic artifacts, monuments, symbols, and texts, including but not limited to religious materials, may be displayed in Kentucky's public schools, within the framework of applicable legal precedents, if they are displayed in connection with a course of study that is academic, balanced, objective, and not devotional in nature, and that neither favors nor disfavors religion generally or any particular religious belief; and
(13) Historic artifacts, monuments, symbols, and texts, including but not limited to religious materials, may be displayed in Kentucky's public buildings and on Kentucky's public properties if they are displayed in a:
(a) Balanced, objective, and not solely religious manner;
(b) Manner that neither favors nor disfavors religion generally;
(c) Manner that neither favors nor disfavors any religious belief; and
(d) Manner which promotes the display of Kentucky's historic, cultural, political, and general heritage and achievements.

5My Sunday School class was very surprised when I mentioned the story of Elisha and the bears (2 Kings 2:23).  They didn't expect a story about bears mauling kids to be in the Bible.

Filed under: Church/State separation, critical thinking, Current Events, politics 8 Comments
10Sep/090

Of Presidential Speeches, Kooks, and Opinions (Updated)

A couple of days ago, schoolchildren around the country had an opportunity to view a short speech by President Obama.  The text of the President's speech may be found here.  If you haven't read the speech, please go do so.  It's important to know what it actually said.

Obama spoke about hard work, taking responsibility for one's actions, and the importance of education.  The last time I checked, all of these were things that are generally considered good, indeed noble.

Why, then, do we have opinion letters like this coming into the newspapers?

Giving a public figure exclusive access to every school child in America lends credence to that person's entire point of view. Whether stated in Obama's speech or not, my concern is that this world view is being indirectly propagated to American schoolchildren, serving no “educational purpose.”  Why else would proposed lesson plans put out by the White House include “writing letters on how you can help the President” or “list three of the most important words in the speech”? (From The Courier-Journal, 8 September 2009)

thestupiditburnsOne could go on at length about the access public figures get to school-age children.  Try walking through a big-box department store like Walmart or Target without seeing Miley Cyrus' immaculately veneered teeth smiling back at you. 

One could go on at length about how one of the many responsibilities parents have is to discuss different points of view with their children.1 

One could go on at length about how writing letters to the President is pretty much a standard assignment for elementary school students, or that picking out key ideas from a speech (or an article, or a book) is an essential skill for anyone who expects to read anything more complicated than Green Eggs and Ham.  (UPDATE:  I've been provided with a link to the White House Lesson Plan.  Thanks, Amy!)

It's interesting how much of the hue and cry surrounding the broadcast of Obama's speech centers on the desire by some parents to shelter their children from other viewpoints, to the extent that many are apparently ignoring what the speechactually says.  Sorry.  If you think that "be responsible, work hard, and stay in school" is a viewpoint that children need to be shetered from, you're an idiot.

Where the whole thing takes a turn for the bizarre is when you get into the fringe groups - the birthers, for example, who will probably maintain well after Obama has left office that he wasn't qualified to be elected in the first place.   Parse this out and you'll see what makes this funny.  You have people out there who are, in effect, saying "We don't want hisviewpoints given wide publicity, but we want you to give our crackpot conspiracy fantasy equal media time because we have opinions and our opinions are as valid as anyone else's."

lolcat_whatWait, what?  This seems like a good opportunity to state a few points:

  1. It is true that everyone is entitled to hold their own opinions on things.
  2. Opinions work best when they're based on facts.
  3. One set of facts may support multiple opinions.
  4. Different opinions based on the same set of facts can make for interesting and productive discussion.
  5. Opinions that deliberately ignore or misrepresent facts, or that assume facts not in evidence, don't share the same status with fact-supported opinions.

In other words, everyone has their own opinions, but some of those opinions just crap.

Probably the best commentary I've seen on this comes from Phil Plait at Bad Astronomy:

If I sound angry, then, yeah, I am. I’m tired of ignorance held up as inspiration, where vicious anti-intellectualism is considered a positive trait, and where uninformed opinion is displayed as fact.

It’s killing any real debate in this country, where the system of government depends utterly on a well-informed public. When rampant idiocy is presented as reasonable discourse without any rebuttal, then we all suffer.

Beautiful. 

Jay
----------
1This is one of the key reasons my kids are in public schools - the social, cultural, and ideological diversity that they experience will serve them very well in the long run.

Filed under: critical thinking, Current Events, politics No Comments
5Sep/092

Church/State Separation in Kentucky Office of Homeland Security

Greg Laden (and others) had recently blogged on the Franklin County, KY court decision requiring the removal of wording in the legislation establishing the Kentucky Office of Homeland Security requiring the acknowledgment of  "the dependence on Almighty God as being vital to the security of the Commonwealth."

The court decision, in a nutshell, flagged the wording as an unconstitutional endorsement of religion.

The September 5, 2009 Louisville Courier-Journal reports that Kentucky AG Jack Conway has formally filed an appeal against the court's ruling:

Attorney General Jack Conway, who represents the state, decided to appeal the ruling because the law in question “merely acknowledges religion” and does not try to establish it, said Shelly Catharine Johnson, deputy communications director for Conway's office. (Courier-Journal, Sept 5, 2009)

The judge in the case, Thomas Wingate, commented that the wording in question "likely would have been permissible had it allowed officials to merely request God's help in protecting Kentucky." (Courier-Journal, Sept 5, 2009)

I disagree with both Conway and Wingate, most strongly with the position of Conway's office.

The word "dependence" obviates Conway's contention.  Dependence implies a necessity, not a simple acknowledgment, and the use of the term "Almighty God" heavily constrains the religions that could possibly be referenced here.  (Particularly in the context of a Homeland Security office, which is inextricably linked with terrorism, which in turn is so closely associated with Islamic fundamentalism as to be synonymous with it.)  Indeed, the selection of words in question can hardly be seen as anything other than a direct endorsement of Christianity, which is precisely the sort of endorsement that is prohibited under the Establishment Clause.

Wingate is apparently trying to suggest some wording that might stand up to an Establishment Clause challenge, but such wording isn't needed - nothing prevents officials from requesting God's help in protecting Kentucky (or anything else), and it also falls into the same bin as Conway's argument.  (It would be interesting to see if anyone suggests replacing "God" with "God/Allah" or something along that line, since the claim is sometimes made that the Abrahamic religions all worship the same god using different names.)

In any case, regardless of how you unpack the language, there's simply no reason to include any sort of sectarian reference into the law, let alone one so vague and unbounded as this one.  Mr. Conway has put himself into a battle that he will almost certainly lose, and has unwisely risked the credibility of the Commonwealth of Kentucky in the process.  The only positive I can see coming from this is that if he appeals the matter high enough, it could make it much easier to get language like this removed in the future.1

CB
----------

1Church/State Separation (CSS) is a concept that protects everyone, regardless of the specifics of their particular faith.  Despite what some conservative Christian groups try to argue, CSS does not result in "oppression" of Christians, or anyone else.  People in the United States have unprecedented freedom to believe and worship, which is obvious if you open the phone book and look up "Churches" or "Houses of Worship".  What CSS prevents is the government favoring one faith over another.  Since the U.S. is predominantly Christian, a lot of folks don't understand why Christian references are a problem.  Leaving aside for the moment that not everyone is a Christian, it's worth pointing out that even among the nominally Christian denominations, there is a huge spectrum of beliefs, not all of which play well in the same sandbox (for example, some Protestant groups are venemously anti-Catholic, and would likely oppose legislation that specifically favored Catholicism).  The only way to be equitable to everyone is to keep religion out of government entirely.

Filed under: Current Events, politics, Religion 2 Comments
3Sep/090

Please Go Away, Levi

Levi Johnston, former future son-in-law of Sarah Palin, can't seem to keep his mouth shut.

Levi, in case you've been living in a cave for the last year, came to be famous during the McCain/Palin Presidential run when it came to light that he was the father of then-pregnant Bristol Palin's child.1

Despite a lot of talk of marriage, Bristol and Levi broke up around the time the baby was born. Bristol seems to have largely stepped out of the spotlight. Levi, on the other hand, appears to be determined to hop to whatever part of the stage the spotlight happens to be shining on.

This time he's in an upcoming Vanity Fair revealing fairly intimate details about the Palin family's private life. 

Now, as much as I don't like Sarah Palin qua a public figure, and regardless of the fact that since she is a public figure, much (but not all) of her life is open to media scrutiny, I find Johnston's actions to be reprehensible - he's basically making money off of airing other people's dirty laundry. 

That's just sleazy.

CB

----------

1In fairness, thrusting an expectant teen couple onto the national stage at all, let alone in the context of a Presidential campaign, was just insane. To her credit, Bristol appears to be handling herself in her role as a young mother with a considerable amount of maturity.

Filed under: Current Events, politics No Comments
 « Newer Entries  Older Entries »

Contact Me

feedback@cleverbadger.net

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Meta

Archives

Shelfari

Shelfari: Book reviews on your book blog

Critical Thinking

Film

Friends and Acquaintances

Science

Religion

Humor

Geekdom