Georgia Passes Bill to Fund Bible Courses in Public High Schools

By Richard Fausset, Times Staff Writer
March 28, 2006

ATLANTA — Georgia's Legislature on Monday passed a bill to fund elective Bible courses in public high schools, sparking concern among 1st Amendment advocates and generating praise from lawmakers worried that children are losing their grasp on one of Western civilization's most influential texts.

The bill — which still must be signed into law by Republican Gov. Sonny Perdue — would fund separate high school courses on the Old and New Testaments in the context of history and literature.
<!-- img ad style -->http://brt.trb.com/event.ng/Type=count&ClientType=1&AdID=204637&FlightID=520817&TargetID=58894&Segments=254,685,687,926,1093,1268,1309,1899,1952,1953,1962,2168,2532,2776,3036,3099,3370,3581,3765,4102,4401,4960,5402,5777,7846,50827,51336,51933,52641,53126,53166,53686,54003,54162,54239,54832,54960,55488,55490,55516,55613,55614,55679,55885,55936,56278,56279,56382,56573,56574,56599,56677,56682,56683&Targets=10772,59259,59346,59553,59602,57516,2423,57003,1309,2713,58175,57001,59317,55345,2337,58894,2474,2811,59179,58272,58624,59315,56362,55807,55695,59621,57252,57483,58250,58253,58312,58849,58977,58978,59186,59309&Values=31,43,51,60,72,82,91,100,110,150,287,289,301,328,351,391,493,583,591,593,834,903,1016,1051,1065,1066,1089,1091,1093,1105,1112,1136,1191,1212,1263,1272,1282,1309,1604,1606,1617,1646,1648,1653,1654,1656,1664,1681,1732,1737,1745,1754,1758,1786,1787,1788,1835,1836,1837,1838,1863,1870,1871,1882,1890,1892,1917,1946,1949,1956,1977,1985,1986,2011,2017,2035,2036,2044,2061,2106,2161,2274,2281,2283,2297,2366,2377,2380,2482,2548,2718,2765,2782,2804,2805,2806,2837,2838,2861,2863,2915,2938,2948,2972,3005,3023,3024,3047,3051,3055,3058,3061,3067,3070,3086,3103,3113,3117,3153,3215,3238,3242,3257,3258,3286,3331,3333&RawValues=USERAGENTID%2CMozilla/4.0%2520(compatible%253B%2520MSIE%25206.0%253B%2520Windows%2520NT%25205.1%253B%2520{A43079C7-5D51-43B2-82AE-C896287F9AF6}%253B%2520SV1%253B%2520.NET%2520CLR%25201.0.3705%253B%2520.NET%2520CLR%25201.1.4322)%2CTID%2C2f3mmg2122j30i&random=Acukql,bcctdcebWvpve <!-- /Ad Space: html.ng/tag=std&site=latimes&color=none&edition=newspaper&content=news&channel=nationworld&area=main&adtype=cube&adsize=300x250 -->

The bill states that the classes should be taught "in an objective and nondevotional manner, with no attempt made to indoctrinate students as to either the truth or falsity" of the works.

The measure passed late Monday, and lawmakers who supported it were unavailable to comment. But Republican state Sen. Tommie Williams, the bill's sponsor, has said in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution that the Bible is crucial to understanding the foundations of American government.

Federal courts have ruled that public school Bible courses do not violate the 1st Amendment principle of church-state separation as long as they are objective and do not promote religion. A number of districts around the country already teach such classes.

But Charles Haynes, a senior scholar with the First Amendment Center, said this was the first time to his knowledge that a legislature had approved such a course on a statewide basis.

Judith E. Schaeffer, deputy legal director of the liberal People for the American Way, said the proposal's constitutionality could only be determined once the specifics of the curriculum were laid out.

But she was troubled by the bill's language. She pointed to a section that says students should learn "the history recorded by the Old and New Testaments." Schaeffer noted that courts have ruled the Bible cannot be taught as history.

"It's setting up a course that's presented from an unconstitutional perspective," she said. "It's starting out by digging a hole for itself."

People for the American Way has successfully sued school districts in Florida and Mississippi for overstepping constitutional guidelines for Bible classes. Schaeffer said the group would prefer to see courses that focus on the range of sacred texts, not just those favored by Christians.

Democratic lawmakers first introduced a Bible literacy bill in Georgia this year. At the time, they said they were keen to show that Republicans do not have a monopoly on issues of faith. But Republicans, who hold a legislative majority in the state, killed the Democratic proposal and introduced their own.

Democrats and Republicans are sparring over competing Bible literacy bills in the Alabama statehouse. Missouri legislators are also considering such a bill.

But she was troubled by the bill's language. She pointed to a section that says students should learn "the history recorded by the Old and New Testaments." Schaeffer noted that courts have ruled the Bible cannot be taught as history.

"It's setting up a course that's presented from an unconstitutional perspective," she said. "It's starting out by digging a hole for itself."



I'm convinced lawyers put phrases like that in these laws just to guarantee several years of trials and appeals, just so the law can be overturned and the whole process can start again.

I took a New Testament class at William and Mary (a public school, albeit a university) and I found it really interesting. I think there is a place for religious studies in public schools and hope that this ruling opens the door for other types of religious studies classes, too.

Beyond arguing semantics, I'm not too concerned about high school electives. The kids are old enough to make up their own minds and how they want to apply this knowledge..

Seems quite pointless when it is in such clear violation of multiple established precedents.

Seems quite pointless when it is in such clear violation of multiple established precedents. Which will probably be the end of it. I'd be much more concerned with the prospect of middle and elementary school classes.

I took a New Testament class at William and Mary (a public school, albeit a university) and I found it really interesting. I think there is a place for religious studies in public schools and hope that this ruling opens the door for other types of religious studies classes, too.


I agree. It should be "religious studies" class. They are going to have to at least offer other courses in various religions if this isn't going to be overturned.

In theory I don't have a problem with this at all, and don't see why a "History of Religon" or "History of Western Religon" or a number of other relgious courses couldn't be offered if there were qualified teachers at a school to teach them.

In practice, this isn't going to end well.

I took a New Testament class at William and Mary (a public school, albeit a university) and I found it really interesting. I think there is a place for religious studies in public schools and hope that this ruling opens the door for other types of religious studies classes, too.

Yep. I see no reason why there cannot be elective classes for Judaism, Christianity, Islam, etc.

Seems quite pointless when it is in such clear violation of multiple established precedents.


Federal courts have ruled that public school Bible courses do not violate the 1st Amendment principle of church-state separation as long as they are objective and do not promote religion. A number of districts around the country already teach such classes.


Actually, precendent is on their side barring the afore mentioned "history" comment.

I agree. It should be "religious studies" class. They are going to have to at least offer other courses in various religions if this isn't going to be overturned.

I think a religious studies class involving the texts of various world religions is a great idea. It was one of my favorite college courses. However, in practice, how many of these classes will simply turn into Bible study time?

dola(plus or minus timestamp fun), I missed the point about it being specifically a *bible* class. Offering "History of Christianity" and putting a pretty heavy focus on the bible would be perfectly fine, as far as law and precedent is concerned, or no?

I think a religious studies class involving the texts of various world religions is a great idea. It was one of my favorite college courses. However, in practice, how many of these classes will simply turn into Bible study time?


Not as many as you think.

This is a political move, pure and simple. A shrewd, thinly-viewed, somewhat-demagogic political move.

1. Law gets passed.
2. Someone challenges the law.
3. Law gets overturned.
4. "Elect more godless liberals, and soon it will be illegal to study the Bible in your HOME, not just the schools." ,"Yeah, Democrat so-and-so is running for re-election. Remember, he voted against the freedom to choose an elective class about the Bible."

Oh, the soundbites to come.

This is a political move, pure and simple. A shrewd, thinly-viewed, somewhat-demagogic political move.

1. Law gets passed.
2. Someone challenges the law.
3. Law gets overturned.
4. "Elect more godless liberals, and soon it will be illegal to study the Bible in your HOME, not just the schools." ,"Yeah, Democrat so-and-so is running for re-election. Remember, he voted against the freedom to choose an elective class about the Bible."

Oh, the soundbites to come.

So true.

Not as many as you think.

Perhaps. In the meantime, it's not something I think is worth worrying about.

Hrmmm...

I took a "Bible as literature" course in college. It was probably the best class I took in my 4 years. Mostly because of the professor who taught it. He's a brilliant guy who knew the Bible inside and out. An amazing class.

In the hands of the right teacher, it's possible that a similar class at the highschool level could be quite valuable. It will be a very difficult path to tread. Some of teachers I had in highschool, I think could have pulled it off nicely, but most probably not. You also have the extra burden of less mature students.

I think there is a lot of merit in teaching the Bible as literature. Lady H_B and I are both athiests and one thing I have always wanted to make sure of is that when we do have kids, they at least get some exposure to the Bible. It's too important a text, on many levels, to be ignorant about.

If anything, I think it would further benefit the students if the "bible class" were expanded to include at least some time teaching on other modren day religious texts/myths.

If the class was actually taught properly as a literature and history course, and didn't turn into a religion-ed course, then I think this would be great. A LOT of English-language literature makes allusions to the Bible, as do many important documents and speaches throughout history. Without knowing the background behind these illusions, you can't completely appreciate what is being said. Even today you see many comments in the media and by politicians referring to things in the Bible.. how often do you hear a "David and Goliath" reference? So long as nobody starts spouting off "This is what God says" then I have no problem with this course and think it's actually a great idea.

Here's a question that might sound silly, but don't you have a "Religion"-class in High School or Junior High? As part of our core corriculum, I had "Religion" at various ages, learning first the foundations of Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Budhism, as well as ancient religions (go Odin!!).

In 8th and 9th grade we had religion at least once a week, and once again the focus was on religion, as in several different religions, not "the teachings of Jesus Christ".

I've always been under the impression this was also done in the United States, in which case I don't quite see what needs there are for any other kind of religion-classes.

Hrmmm...

I took a "Bible as literature" course in college. It was probably the best class I took in my 4 years. Mostly because of the professor who taught it. He's a brilliant guy who knew the Bible inside and out. An amazing class.

In the hands of the right teacher, it's possible that a similar class at the highschool level could be quite valuable. It will be a very difficult path to tread. Some of teachers I had in highschool, I think could have pulled it off nicely, but most probably not. You also have the extra burden of less mature students.

I think there is a lot of merit in teaching the Bible as literature. Lady H_B and I are both athiests and one thing I have always wanted to make sure of is that when we do have kids, they at least get some exposure to the Bible. It's too important a text, on many levels, to be ignorant about.

If anything, I think it would further benefit the students if the "bible class" were expanded to include at least some time teaching on other modren day religious texts/myths.


I think that the Bible studied in its historical/socio-cultural context is a very legitimate course of study. I took a course in Ancient Israelite Religion in college that used such an approach. One of the best classes I've ever taken. I was amazed to see how much of the Old Testament stories are rooted in Canaanite and Mesopotamian myth...

I also have my doubts that a legitimately non-sectarian approach to Bible-study can actually be pulled off in public school, however...

Here's a question that might sound silly, but don't you have a "Religion"-class in High School or Junior High? As part of our core corriculum, I had "Religion" at various ages, learning first the foundations of Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Budhism, as well as ancient religions (go Odin!!).

In 8th and 9th grade we had religion at least once a week, and once again the focus was on religion, as in several different religions, not "the teachings of Jesus Christ".

I've always been under the impression this was also done in the United States, in which case I don't quite see what needs there are for any other kind of religion-classes.


Nope. I know when I attended school the only religion we received was the "Classics" (Greek and Roman gods) in seventh grade, and a little exposure in World History (which was really more Western History) in ninth. And then, only the influence of the Catholic church and the Protestant Reformation was discussed, with a little module done Islam.

Here's a question that might sound silly, but don't you have a "Religion"-class in High School or Junior High?

Not a silly question (IMO), but I believe the answer from U.S. posters will be almost certainly a resounding "No".

The only exceptions I imagine will either be those who attended various private schools (be they secular or religious) or a scattered handful who might be in what I believe would be rare public school districts who had such a course.

I took a New Testament class at William and Mary (a public school, albeit a university) and I found it really interesting. I think there is a place for religious studies in public schools and hope that this ruling opens the door for other types of religious studies classes, too.

THREADJACK WARNING!!!: This wasn't by any chance with the dreaded Tieffel, was it?

Yep. I see no reason why there cannot be elective classes for Judaism, Christianity, Islam, etc.

What the hell? I agree with Franklinnoble.

Here's a question that might sound silly, but don't you have a "Religion"-class in High School or Junior High? As part of our core corriculum, I had "Religion" at various ages, learning first the foundations of Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Budhism, as well as ancient religions (go Odin!!).
I went to public school, I had a World Cultures class in 10th grade that touched on all the major religions, from Christianity to Zoroastrianism.

THREADJACK WARNING!!!: This wasn't by any chance with the dreaded Tieffel, was it?
It was a long time ago (91) but I think it was a visiting professor...

I wish I had been a better student - I sequenced in religion and really enjoyed all four of the classes I took - just didn't put enough effort in to make the most out of them though...

I went to public school, I had a World Cultures class in 10th grade that touched on all the major religions, from Christianity to Zoroastrianism.

Under this definition, I would think that most American kids would get at least some classroom instruction in comparative religion...

What the hell? I agree with Franklinnoble.

Your feelings betray you. Join me, and we shall rule the galaxy...

It was a long time ago (91) but I think it was a visiting professor...

I wish I had been a better student - I sequenced in religion and really enjoyed all four of the classes I took - just didn't put enough effort in to make the most out of them though...

Well, Tieffel was there for like 25 years before I got there, but anyway...

Sequencing went out when I got there, they had a much more student-friendly system...

In hindsight though, I took 0 courses in religion and wish I would have taken some.

If he was a pruned-out old white guy that taught christianity, then yeah...I had him.

Nice to know that in an age when funding schools properly is becoming more and more difficult, the legislature is choosing a solution that will require the schools to hire more teachers and may well invite expensive legal battles.

There's nothing in these classes that the legislators want that shouldn't be the sole responsibility of a parent to provide independent of the school system.

This type of course, when run responsibly, is much more appropriate at the college level. High schools should focus on the basics - reading, writing, arithmetic, natural science and maybe social science.

I had a, um, friend who transferred to W&M and then took a class in Religious Studies from the head of the drpt, loved it, changed her major, and is now a grad student working on her doctorate at Yale.

-Anxiety

I had a history of World Religions class in high school. It was an elective but a lot of people took it because there weren't a ton of other options available.

It was a good class. My teacher took us to different places of worship (Jewish, Mormon, and Buddhist) on a field trip. The Mormons basically used it as a recruiting thing so we didn't stay too long.

I also got extra credit for attending a charismatic church and writing a report on how it differed from the common churches in the area.

Yep. I see no reason why there cannot be elective classes for Judaism, Christianity, Islam, etc.

If you're talking about high schools instead of colleges, I'd strongly imagine that a lot of school systems would have a hard time finding enough students to justify putting a lot of religions into their own elective due to lack of students signing up for them. Hard to justify a full-time teacher/class period for a course that has less than a half dozen students in it. (A very real possibility in the small systems I'm thinking of, say, <500 students total in grades 9-12).

If you're talking about colleges, then you probably have a much smaller issue on that score so ... nevermind.

Seems quite pointless when it is in such clear violation of multiple established precedents.

See I don't know about that. I know that courses like "The Bible as literature" or "History and the Bible" have been around public education, mostly at the college level, for years. Even some of the high end public high schools offer such classes. As long as the perspective is essentially secular, then I don't see a problem.

Slightly off topic, the Christian Coalition's wet dream is Ralph Reed, the idiot who's running for lieutenant governorship of .... shockingly, Georgia. Will be interesting to see what happens with that.

Slightly off topic, the Christian Coalition's wet dream is Ralph Reed, the idiot who's running for lieutenant governorship of .... shockingly, Georgia. Will be interesting to see what happens with that.

Is the Christian Coalition even allowed to have a wet dream?

Is the Christian Coalition even allowed to have a wet dream?

LOL!

Slightly off topic, the Christian Coalition's wet dream is Ralph Reed, the idiot who's running for lieutenant governorship of .... shockingly, Georgia. Will be interesting to see what happens with that.

I'd probably handicap him, right now, as the slight front-runner, but that's in part due to the ... I dunno ... lack of any real campaign momentum I feel from his opponent. I think Casey Cagle may be banking on winning via an anti-Reed vote, which might or might not work for him.

Reed is recognizable, and that tends to help a lot in a down-ballot race (which Lt.G definitely is in Georgia most of the time).

I'd probably handicap him, right now, as the slight front-runner, but that's in part due to the ... I dunno ... lack of any real campaign momentum I feel from his opponent. I think Casey Cagle may be banking on winning via an anti-Reed vote, which might or might not work for him.

Reed is recognizable, and that tends to help a lot in a down-ballot race (which Lt.G definitely is in Georgia most of the time).

Yeah, from what I read, there's a large Republican, evangilical sentiment that's running against Reed. Also, Perdue apparently dislikes him significantly.

Quotes such as this help:
* “[Reed] is a bad version of us! No more money for him.” E-mail from Abramoff to Michael Scanlon, questioning whether Reed had properly accounted for funds spent on Indian gambling projects, January 4, 2002

Also, Perdue apparently dislikes him significantly.


Then again, Sonny isn't fond of anyone in Georgia who might actually be smarter than him ... meaning he doesn't really like too many people ;)

(Note: I don't mean that particularly as a compliment to Reed. It's just that Perdue has spent most of his term doing some incredibly stupid things, the kind of stupid that you have to work at being instead of having it come naturally. By comparison, Reed looks like Stephen Hawking.)

If he was a pruned-out old white guy that taught christianity, then yeah...I had him.

That would qualify, plus a german accent...

Isn't this just an attempt to get religion into schools via the "history" or "literature" studies in much the same way as into science classes via ID? Imagine the reaction if it had been the Koran instead of the Bible.

I can't see teachers, who will range from Christian fundamentalists to atheists, teaching such a class with anything like the objectivity or consistency needed.

My first two years of teaching freshman English, I had a Humanities curriculum which examined civilizations. I was supposed to start with the Sumerians and end with Rome. I usually got up to Greece. I found that the easiest way to examine the ancient cultures was via their religious texts. Granted, I never touched Judeo-Christian texts, but I did go through some other major world religions that still exist, particularly Buddhism and Hinduism. I miss the Humanities curriculum.

Well, considering many of the main world issues of today revolve around the Middle East and battles between Muslims/Jews/Christians, I would think that if taught the correct way a study of the histories of these religions and their texts would be pretty solid as a history course.

Taken as literature I could understand this as well, as there are many elements of the Bible that have become part of common culture that most probably don't even realize (myself included, as I would be pressed to name many of them ;) ).

But...I tend to agree with others that this is most likely politically motivated, and won't turn out well. Which is too bad.

Federal courts have ruled that public school Bible courses do not violate the 1st Amendment principle of church-state separation as long as they are objective and do not promote religion. A number of districts around the country already teach such classes.

My high school taught such a class. I never took it, but my impression is that the course did a good job of being objective.

sue sue sue. this is nuts. dont kids have sunday school for this type of stuff?

i went to BC and i took a philosophy/religion class where we spent 1/2 the year on philosophy and 1/2 on reading the bible (the bible came first so we could trace that thru philosophy)
And even though it was BC it was taught more as "the bible as literature" and i actually learned A TON about reading the bible as literature and the historical events in ancient history that are reflected in the stories of the bible.

it was really interesting.

but i think until you see the curriculum you can't know if this one is going to end up that way