BCT Editorial – 5/2/05

This page was last updated on May 14, 2005.

Wall of separation; Editorial; Beaver County Times; May 2, 2005.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

5/14/05 - The third paragraph refers to “the right-wing wing myth that public schools are hostile to religion.” I gave some examples in the original critique showing public school hostility to religion is not a myth.

Here’s just one example of recent public school hostility to religion. When parents complained about a 10-year old elementary school student and friends reading the Bible in the playground during recess, the principal allegedly barred bringing Bibles to school. This was at Karns Elementary School in Knoxville, TN, part of the so-called “Bible belt.”

While I don’t claim all public schools are hostile to religion, perhaps it’s time for the Times to acknowledge “the right-wing myth” is not a myth after all.

“The school board in Odessa, Texas, unanimously has voted to add a Bible class to its high school curriculum as an elective.

“More than 6,000 residents signed a petition supporting the class.

“This really was much ado about nothing and is based, in large part, on the right-wing myth that public schools are hostile to religion.”

[RWC] Too bad the Pennsylvania school district that fired a teacher for wearing a necklace with a cross on it didn’t get the memo. The same is true for schools that don’t allow non-denominational prayers before sports events, graduation ceremonies, et cetera. After a lawsuit, the teacher got her job back and she was allowed to wear the “offensive” necklace.

“The Associated Press reports the developer of the course said students in the elective class could learn such things as the geography of the Middle East and the influence of the Bible on history and culture.

“‘How can students understand Leonardo da Vinci’s ‘Last Supper’ or Handel’s ‘Messiah’ if they don’t understand the reference from which they came,’ he asked.

“Why the bogus argument? They can do that already.”

[RWC] The editorial author has no imagination, or is sandbagging us. I can hear an ACLU lawyer arguing that the “Last Supper” and the “Messiah” are inherently religious and thus the school has no business teaching about them. If you can’t teach about anything religious, there’s no need to teach about the Bible, Koran, Torah, et cetera for context. Come on, Times, think outside the box!

“The following is from the pamphlet ‘Religion in the Pubic [sic] Schools: A Joint Statement of Current Law,’ which has been around for a decade but is still relevant.

“‘Students may be taught about religion, but public schools may not teach religion. ... It would be difficult to teach art, music, literature and most social studies without considering religious influences.

“‘The history of religion, comparative religion, the Bible (or other Scripture)-as-literature (either as a separate course or within some other existing course), are all permissible public school subjects.’

“However, great care must be taken to prevent specific Bible classes from being used for preaching instead of teaching. The AP reports critics argue this course’s materials promote religion.

“It starts with the person who teaches the class. The developer of the class says the coursework is not about proselytizing or preaching, but the wall of separation between personal preaching and professional teaching is built on sand.

“Which parts of the Bible will the course and the teacher focus on, and which will they gloss over or ignore? It makes a difference because there are many interpretations of the Bible.

“Our public schools are not hostile to religion. However, they must be neutral and not favor one faith over another. Given the circumstances surrounding this issue in Odessa, the antennae should be twitching. There’s more here than meets the eye.”

[RWC] I agree our BS alarms should be going off, but not for the same reason as the editorial.