The state school board has preliminarily approved two new literature and culture classes for use in public schools beginning next year. Pending a 30-day comment period, the board is expected to give these courses final approval.
The difference between these new courses and others - and the reason there will be controversy surrounding them - is that they involve the Bible. Entitled "Literature and History of the Old Testament Era" and "Literature and History of the New Testament Era," the classes involve the reading of the Bible as literature, not as a religious text, and are intended to provide cultural, historical and literary education and context - not religious indoctrination.
As Senate Majority Leader Tommie Williams, R-Lyons, the program's legislative sponsor, said, the Bible "plays a major role in history," and "is important in understanding many classic literary works."
"It's not just 'The Good Book,' " he's been quoted as saying. "It's a good book."
While this development will cause the usual suspects to claim government establishment of religion, and violation of the mythic "separation of church and state," the fact is that using the Bible as a literary and cultural reference is, in actuality, neither.
The Bible can serve as a history and a literature text every bit as effectively as it can a religious one, and there should be no more problem with offering non-religious classes on the Old and New Testament eras (which involve the study of the Bible as a primary source) than with offering classes on ancient Greece or any other civilization or culture.
The ancient Greek "Iliad" and "Odyssey," for example, are studied in public schools for literary and cultural edification, yet there is no outcry that such instruction is a governmental endorsement of Zeus or Apollo. These works, though, were as serious an example of religious and moral texts in their day as the Old Testament and New Testament have been in theirs.
Similarly, diverse texts of ancient and religious law - such as the Roman Twelve Tables or the Babylonian Code of Hammurabi - are acceptable for study. Will the simple fact of greater modern relevance prevent the laws of the Hebrews and the later laws of Christianity, as presented in the Bible, from being read as the historical documents and mores that they are?
On the other end of the spectrum, there will be those who oppose these curricular additions because they do remove religious teaching from the study of the Bible. Lost in the protest against any non-religious study of this text is consideration of the invaluable historical, cultural, and literary knowledge and context that can be gained. Such knowledge and context can be used, by those who so choose, to achieve a better understanding of Judaism and Christianity.
The events of the Old and New Testament eras are an integral part of the history of Western and Near Eastern civilization - and, by extension, of our own culture. Furthermore, as a primary source, the Bible offers invaluable information and insight into the culture of its time. Primary sources are the Holy Grail, if you will, of historical scholarship. Rather than depending on interpretation after interpretation, taken further out of temporal, spatial and cultural context, primary sources are the words of the people of the time, and whether it be Herodotos, Suetonius or the Apostle Paul, a primary source's words carry a weight and authenticity that can't be matched by later interpretations or summaries.
Outlawing the study, via primary sources, of certain parts of history - out of fear of accidentally promoting religion - would be akin to sacrificing education on the altar of political correctness. And political correctness is a poor reason for breeding ignorance in our children.
Several groups and individuals claim to oppose this new curriculum because of the lack of clearly defined boundaries with regard to what teachers might and might not say. Ironically, many of these also protest the Intellectual Diversity in Higher Education Act, precisely because they see it as a threat by government to establish boundaries with regard to what teachers may and may not say. There apparently is only room for such restrictions when a Bible literature class is the subject of regulation.
There are two options here.
One of those options - kowtowing to political correctness or to fundamentalists - would prevent the Bible from ever being used in a public educational setting. The other - being sensible - would recognize the Bible has as much a place in the contextual study of cultural and literary history as other primary sources, and would allow it to be used as such.
Jeff Emanuel, a Special Operations military veteran who served in Iraq, is a Security Leadership fellow at the University of Georgia Center for International Trade and Security.