Calling it an important part of Western culture, members of a House committee voted Monday to let schools teach the Old and New Testaments to students in public high schools.
The 6-2 vote on HB 2563 supports the arguments by Rep. Terri Proud, R-Tucson, that the Bible is such an integral part of literature and history. She told members of the House Education Committee that keeping the Bible out of the classroom over fears of proselytizing denies students the background they need to understand everything from Shakespeare to the Bill of Rights.
But even some supporters of the legislation said they fear unintended consequences of opening the door to this kind of class, even as an optional elective.
"Those in the smaller religions would say that, from their perspective, you know what, their religion has as much depth and meaning in American history as the Bible does,'' said Rep. John Fillmore, R-Apache Junction.
"What about the Koran, is it acceptable?'' he asked. "What about the Book of Mormon?''
But in the end, Fillmore and other Republicans on the panel decided to support the measure.
"I believe we have lost a part of our soul by taking religion out of our classrooms,'' he said.
Others, like Rep. Justin Pierce, R-Mesa, argued that, properly taught, the Bible -- at least as literature -- can make a difference in how people understand the language.
For example, Pierce related how, in a conversation about choosing a mediator in a lawsuit, one attorney said that person "tends to split the baby.''
"I knew what that meant,'' Pierce said, with the reference coming from a Bible story about how King Solomon, dealing with two women who each claimed a child as her own, suggested splitting the child and giving each woman half. Only when one woman agreed to give up her claim could Solomon determine she was the real mother.
"I wonder, without an understanding of the story of wise King Solomon, if I might have thought that senior partner was a bit crazy and possibly a bit murderous,'' Pierce said. Similarly, he said the language -- and even Arizona law -- has biblical references, such as the state's Good Samaritan law that provides legal protections for those who stop at accidents to help.
But Rep. Lynne Pancrazi, D-Yuma, feared crossing the line into promotion of religion.
"I do believe this is the responsibility of the parents ... to take their kids to church, to make sure they do the Sunday school and the vacation Bible school and the church camp,'' she said. That, said Pancrazi, will bring back "the family values that we were all raised on.''
Anjali Abraham, lobbyist for the American Civil Liberties Union, told lawmakers that schools already can discuss the Bible "as long as it's done in an objective and neutral way.'' But she warned lawmakers that efforts to determine what in the Bible is "history'' is fraught with problems.
"There are churches and denominations that take a very literal view of the Bible,'' she said. "There are other churches that take a more metaphorical approach,'' Abraham continued, seeing the stories more as parables.
"Schools are going to have to decide what counts as recorded history,'' she explained.
"That invariably means embracing one particular viewpoint or a couple of religious viewpoints and rejecting others,'' Abraham continued. "And that presents a First Amendment problem.''
Proud, however, did not share those concerns, saying there is a clear difference between religion and the texts of the Old and New Testaments.
"We're talking about a book that has ... much history,'' she said. "It is a book that is read and kept and taught by many people of various faiths, religious or non religious.''
One potential lawsuit waiting to happen if the bill becomes law has to do with discrimination.
Current law spells out that school boards must "exclude from school libraries all books, publications and papers of a sectarian, partisan or denominational character.'' Proud's bill creates an exception -- but only for the Old and New Testaments.
Serah Blain, executive director of the Secular Coalition of Arizona, said that means only the texts of certain religions would be suppressed, which she said cannot legally be done.
Proud said her legislation contains safeguards against these classes becoming places to preach. She said schools that want to offer such classes would first have to have the curriculum and reading materials reviewed by district attorneys to ensure they comply with the law. And Proud said teachers who go beyond what is permitted can lose their teaching certificates.
But the legislation also provides blanket immunity from both civil lawsuits and disciplinary action to any teacher who provides instruction "in its appropriate historical context and in good faith.'' That latter provision led to questions of whether any teacher's license could really be at risk.
Rich posted at 8:29 pm on Mon, Jan 30, 2012.
Why teach just the Bible? The Bhagavad Gita, the Tao Teh King, the Talmud, the Koran, numerous other books all have a great deal to understand and have had major effects on history. Should you act in compassion, moderation, and humility? Those are the three treasures and they are in the Tao Teh King. Would that be so terrible to expose your children to? Freedom of religion isn't the same as freedom from religion. The more we teach our children, the freer their religious choices become. My immediate family contains Jews, Christians, Moslems and Buddhists, one of my greatest friends is a Sikh. My own children are three different religions, each were given an education that didn't give them a belief, but choices of how they wanted to see God. All of them are right, and we don't fight over it, we do occasionally discuss it, and when we do we all understand more.
soricobob posted at 5:46 am on Tue, Jan 31, 2012.
There are several red flags on this one: 1. Who will teach it; 2. When, during the already crowded school day, will it be taught; 3. Will it replace other electives or will the number of credits needed to graduate be increased; 4. Will equal time be given to various faiths?
davidflucier posted at 5:54 am on Tue, Jan 31, 2012.
This is another wholly unnecessary bill fraught with constitutional landmines as well as administrative and legal entanglements.
If there weren't the foreseeable problems, then why the provision which protects teachers from legal action and affords them blanket immunity?
Parents should be the ones instilling religious values into their children. Children are available for religious instruction before and after school and throughout weekends and during all their numerous school breaks.
I think Arizona should be more concerned about how to mitigate its nation leading dropout rate, increasing its graduation rate and offering a curriculum that prepares them for their post secondary educational aspirations...and doing what it takes to insure their success.
HB 2563 fulfills none of those objectives, therefore,it should be soundly rejected as really bad public policy and a total waste of time and energy.
gil the baker posted at 7:38 am on Tue, Jan 31, 2012.
and pray tell who shall determine as to which religion's bible shall we use out there.
also this sounds similar to the situation in tucson where they were offering a class in
mexican studies that was called out of bounds
Dale Whiting posted at 7:43 am on Tue, Jan 31, 2012.
You all raise good points, valid points. I'll raise another point for consideration.
I understand and am trying to verify that Representative Keith Ellison, the first Congressman of Muslim faith, took his oath of office on an English translation of the Koran which originally belonged to Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson had this book in his possession when he did his first draft of the Declaration of Independence and arguably was influenced by his reading of the Koran in that draft.
Wow! Our nation's independence was established not only on the thinking of Paine and Locke, but also on Mohamud! Let the TeaParty swallow this! One of our Founding Fathers, one who belonged to no religion in particular, was inspired, at least in part, by Islam!
Rich, have you heard this about Jefferson and the Koran before?
Dale Whiting posted at 8:53 am on Tue, Jan 31, 2012.
Ok, Gang. I've found it.
Thomas Jefferson did own the Qur’an used by Minnesota Rep. Keith Ellison in his private swearing in ceremony and appears to have read it as a part of his search for religious understanding and constitutional issues, this two years prior to drafting the Declaration of Independence in Philadelphia. From the "Keith Ellison" article in Wikipedia [references deleted hereinbelow] we learn:
"Kevin J. Hayes, author of How Thomas Jefferson Read the Qur’an, wrote that Jefferson purchased the Qur'an at the printing office of the Virginia Gazette in the autumn of 1765. This is seen as a development of his legal studies on natural law. "The standard work in the field, Freiherr von Pufendorf's Of the Law and Nature and Nations, gave readers an almost endless number of possible references to track down and thus offered Jefferson an excellent guide to further reading. Though Pufendorf's work reflects a prejudice against Islam characteristic of the time in which it was written, he nonetheless cited precedent from the Qur'an in several instances. Jefferson acquired his Qur'an not long after the injustice of the Stamp Act had forced him to question seriously the heritage of English constitutional law and to seek ultimate answers in the ideas of natural law and natural rights. Reading the Qur'an also let him continue studying the history of religion."
"Jefferson's Qur'an is an English translation by George Sale published in London in 1764, (a later pressing of the 1734 edition). Chief librarian Dimunation stated that Sale's translation "is considered the text that shaped Europe's understanding of the Quran." Congress acquired this Qur'an in 1815 as part of the more than 6,400-volume collection Jefferson sold them for $24,000 to replace the congressional library burned by British troops in 1814 during the War of 1812. The Qur'an survived the 1851 fire in the Capitol that destroyed most of Jefferson's collection. It is a two-volume work, bound in leather with marble boards, and was given a leather binding in 1919. Its title page reads, ``The Koran, commonly called 'The Alcoran of Mohammed.'" Jefferson marked his ownership of the book by writing the letter "J" next to the letter "T" that was already at the bottom of pages.
"Ellison spokesman Rick Jauert said "Keith is paying respect not only to the founding fathers' belief in religious freedom but the Constitution itself." Ellison, who was originally told about the Qur'an from an anonymous letter, spoke to the Associated Press in a phone interview. He said that using Jefferson's Qur'an makes a point, "It demonstrates that from the very beginning of our country, we had people who were visionary, who were religiously tolerant, who believed that knowledge and wisdom could be gleaned from any number of sources, including the Quran. A visionary like Thomas Jefferson was not afraid of a different belief system," Ellison said. "This just shows that religious tolerance is the bedrock of our country, and religious differences are nothing to be afraid of."
So where we consider opening up public schools to teach from the Old and New Testiments, this based upon our heritage, it would appear, dear Arizona Representatives, we must include in your bill the Qur’an, as well! [beam] If this does not kill this legislation, I don't know what will! Knowing that Thomas Jefferson studied the Qur’an should send shivers up the spines of local Neo-conservatives and TeaPartiers! [wink] But Rich and I will love it! [smile]
hamguy posted at 2:03 pm on Tue, Jan 31, 2012.
Any student of American History prior to the Hippy generation is aware, American history was built primarily around the Christian faith. Were there other religions? Yes,
but none had the effect that Christianity did. After the Pledge to the flag and a moment of quite time for prayer (If the child wanted to otherwise, head down on desk to respect those who wished to pray) was eliminated, every pot headed kook seemed to decide they had a right (they had not earned) to spout nonsense. How many knew Yale university started as a Bible College? etc. There is no need, from a historical point of view to teach the founding of any other group. The Bible has proven to be historically accurate to the chagrin of many scholars. Many deny it but non have disproved it. Check how many prophesies have been proven accurate.
BTW, owning a Koran or any other material does not imply a belief in the subject.
Juggernaut8000 posted at 3:43 pm on Tue, Jan 31, 2012.
It is a real shame that we pump our childrens' brains with this fairy tale. They should be taught about science, mathematics and history, not talking snakes and walking on water.
To quote a pretty smart man; "religion is a fairy tale for those who are afraid of the dark".
Dale Whiting posted at 5:34 pm on Tue, Jan 31, 2012.
hamguy,
I'll go you one better. "Any [consciencious - this excludes Newt] student of American History prior to [during and after] the Hippy generation is aware, American history was built primarily [but not exclusively] around the Christian faith. Were there other religions? [Apparently Islam was in Tom Jefferson's hip pocket.] Yes, [while] none had the effect that Christianity did, [others did have an effect. 1 in 3 African Slaves were Muslims, but we Christians forbade them from worshiping, so they developed their own way of worshipping in secret! Let's teach this in Religion 101, too.]
Now to find out which parts of the Declaration of Independence might have been lifted by Uncle Tom Jefferson from his Quo'ran![smile]
Accuracy posted at 6:16 pm on Tue, Jan 31, 2012.
Arizona the sixth state in the nation to allow schools to offer a high-school elective course on the Bible – Georgia, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee and Texas already have laws allowing such classes.
And South Dakota House of Representatives also overwhelmingly passed a resolution that calls for academic instruction on the Bible in public schools. The non-binding South Dakota resolution urges schools to support elective classes to teach the Bible, saying awareness on the role of the Bible in literature, art, culture and public discourse will benefit students.
ohohmrbill posted at 8:33 pm on Tue, Jan 31, 2012.
The idea of Jefferson using the Koran to help write the Declaration of Independence is completely ridiculous and false. This is another example of Taquia that Muslims lie about take credit for something they did not do and to help proselytize those that do not know history. The Declaration of Independence was already written long before he had his English translated Koran.
The reason why Jefferson needed it was to learn more about his enemies. There was no CIA at the time to gather intelligents from. During the early formative years of the United States, our forefathers fought an international group of terrorists who, like today’s conservative, Wahhabi-type, radical Muslims, made no distinction between geopolitical nation states. They were called the Barbary Pirates. They were from the Barbary Coast of North Africa. Allusion to the affair can be found in the words “…to the shores of Tripoli” mentioned in the Marine Corps Hymn. The Barbary pirates would be at that time part of the Ottoman Empire and today's Turkey. Be sure to share that with others.
Which leads me to another problem I have with teaching religion in schools. This will also open the doors for schools like Sonoran Science Academy to proselytize students into following there some of the schools staff members cult leader Fethullah Gulen. This will embolden them to do so. Also this will lead to misinformation and fallacies as I have just corrected.
Here is an expample of what I am talking about and how dangerous education could be to our nation if it left to the wrong hands. The man asking the questioning this video is telling the truth.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oCZaLqg3oo