Nampa Classical Academy in Idaho, a publicly funded charter school set to open in late August 2009, has decided to incorporate religious texts into their lessons as aids when needed.
School officials explain that religious texts will be used in the classroom in cases where they aid in teaching literature, or when explaining how these documents have shaped certain societies and civilizations,
a recent article reports. They will not in any way be presented as "true" or "not true."
Bryan Fischer, the former executive director of the Idaho Values Alliance, expresses his wholehearted support for the academy's decision. He believes that Christianity, especially, has played an enormous role in influencing literature throughout history. He sees no reason why the Bible
shouldn't be examined in a classroom setting.
"If you think of the great works of literature that have been produced, in particularly western civilization since the dawn of Christianity, immense percentages of those [works] have been influenced and driven by biblical concepts and themes," Fischer explained. "So we are impoverishing our students by not exposing them to the themes of scripture. So what...this public charter school is intending to do in Idaho is exactly the right thing. They're trying to plug that vacuum that's existed in the American educational system when it comes to the literature of the Bible."
School founder Isaac Moffett believes it's important that other sacred texts besides the Bible, such as the Quran and the writings of Confucius, are studied in the classroom as well. Fischer agrees.
"You know our kids need to have, particularly today, some working understanding of the Quran because that is what's fueling Islamic terrorism and the jihadist movement," Fischer said.
The
Associated Press reports that the American Civil Liberties Union of Idaho is looking into the academy's use of the Bible to ensure that it is not funding or endorsing any particular religion.
Do you support Nampa Classical Academy's decision to incorporate religious texts into their lessons?
Comments (19)
First!
And, I support this message...even if I'm not running for anything. Sounds like common sense to me.
Yes! I think this is a step in the right direction, especially as our culture has lost a working knowledge of both the influence and (more basically) the content of the significant religious texts in history. I also agree that the Qu'ran and the writings of Confucious should be included as well. Our school system has gone too far "secular", and the fact that schools are dancing so lightly around this issue is a testament to that.
i'm fine with it, provided that nowhere in the lesson plan does it support believing the Bible's theological claims.
Yes- I did not read the whole article, but I think you'd have to be pretty blind to ignore the shaping influence that Christianity has had over the world.
If we're actually educating our students, they should be taught about Christianity. Otherwise I think we're more or less endoctrinating them.
@too_pretty_to_die@xanga - Ditto.
I'm graduating this semester with a degree in English Language and Literature, and I can attest to this. Religion does shape cultures and literature, so introducing religious texts can help readers understand what impact religion had on certain works. I see no problem as long as they don't endorse the religion.
This is an excellent idea and a step in the right direction
I definitely think that reading and understanding religious text in schools is beneficial. As long as it isn't presented as fact one way or the other or pushed on the students to believe it. It's important for everyone to understand references to the Bible, Qu'ran and the Torah along with other philosophical writings.
Definitely. It's nearly impossible to understand government in Muslim countries without some sort of knowledge of the Quran. You can't explain why elevators automatically stop at every floor on Saturdays in Israel unless you know the Tanakh. There are countless aspects of culture that are affected by religion. You don't have to endorse a specific religion or take a stance on its truth claims in order to explain how it affects people.
I'm fine with religion being included in the classroom (and am even happy about it) as long as many different beliefs are represented, it's done in a historical, etc. perspective, and students are not told to follow any one particular religion. In other words, I think it's a good idea for students to learn about religion, as long as they are not told that they have to follow any one religion.
Yes, yes, and yes.
This is a step in the right direction. No bias against or for, simply education on the work and it's meaning.
Yes, definitely.
Yes! for sure.
Children should know about the religions they see and hear about; how they work, and what they consist of. It can be done without pressuring or 'indoctrination.' Just because we teach students the concept of Communism and what it was like during Soviet Russia does not mean we adhere to it. It's called education.
There exists the danger that behind this movement is a ploy to get someone's religious agenda-ridden foot in the door of history. How deeply can one delve into understanding the teachings of the bible, the teachings of the Qu'ran, the teachings of the Bhagavad Gita (one of the writings behind Hinduism), the teachings of the writings behind Mahayana Buddhism, the teachings of the writings behind Hinayana Buddhism, the teachings of Shintoism, the teachings of the Torah, the teachings of Sufism, the teachings of Confusionism etc etc in a history class? Then there is atheism, existentialism.....who has the time to give a class that includes the effects of religion and philosophy on our society in a history class? How many fat books can a student carry in a knapsack? It makes me wonder if the physical education department isn't behind this or more likely, the Chiropractic Association of Ohio. A study of the British colonization of India would necessarily include a study of British Christianity of the time, Hinduism of the time and Islam of the time which would still leave out many religious and philosophical beliefs intrinsic to the religious melting pot we call India. Last I heard courses in religion already exist at universities throughout the world so I question how well thought out this "new" proposal is and whether or not the underlying intention is truly educational.
Also there will most certainly arise instances where fundamentalists on all sides will refuse to buy or read passages from the Qu'ran, the Bible, the Torah, etc for fear of sinning or polluting their minds. Do you automatically pass those students or automatically fail them? Narrow minded as those students may be, will they not be able to take a history class because of their beliefs?
Yes, so long as it's taught in the same spirit of mythology and superstition mixed with history that is taught of other ancient civilizations, like the Greeks, Romans, and Celts, for example. To teach them at face value the way churches or religious schools do would be as big a mistake and misleading as trying to treat all religions as having essentially the same beliefs. It will be tricky to screen teachers suitable to handle this however. When it comes to religion - the living ones anyway - everyone seems to be predjudiced one way or the other and some serious slanting could end up taking place.
Again, I wonder how much real thinking was done before this decision was made. The idea of open discussion about anything, including the influence of religion on historic events is good but does the incorporation of religious texts into a curriculum open a can of worms? Does it open up the potential for more problems than solutions? In a growing number of corporate workplaces the discussion of religion and politics is strictly forbidden. The reason for this is that with the knowledge of someones' religious or political leanings in the hands of management comes the possibility of favoritism in handing out raises and promotions. It is pointed out that where politics and religion are openly displayed favoritism might be suspected even when favoritism is not a factor. Could this also be a concern when it comes to how students are graded.
This blog reminded me of my 10th grade world history class. The single thing I remember most from that class was a bombshell the teacher dropped one day. She told us that she was raised in an orthodox Jewish family but at a young age she disavowed herself from the religion. She then explained her reason. She explained that orthodox Jews believe they are the chosen people and that unlike other people, from the moment they are born they are destined to go to heaven when they die regardless of what they do in this life. She further elaborated that this belief was the justification for making as much money as possible in this life however possible in order to secure the well being of their kind. She said that although they know it would be counterproductive to get caught breaking the laws of society and therefore they try not to, they justify pretty much anything that leads to the goal of financial gain. She then insinuated that this belief system was what brought Jews to take over the banking system of an economically broken pre WWII Germany which in turn fueled justification for the persecution of Jews by the German people.
Now that was a bold statement to bring into a 10th grade history class. I admired this teacher and that day I admired her for the conviction of her beliefs but was what she was teaching us in this regard true? I don't remember any of the students questioning her. She was a strict teacher, a lecturer, and most students couldn't wait for the bell to ring ending her classes lol. Maybe her statement went in one ear and out the other of most of the students. Maybe some agreed while others were offended but because students were afraid of her nobody spoke up. Should her statement have been given more weight because she was raised in a Jewish family? If it had been a Christian or a Muslim or an Atheist making the same statement would there be a call to fire that teacher? Where does one draw the line? Should a line be drawn? I wonder if this school has considered the inevitabilities of bringing religious text into play.
I don't this is eaither a new thing nor do I think its a bad thing. I mean the first time I heard the parable of the prodigal son was in school. The story was in our honors english textbook.