Or so it would seem based on the wording of a new proposed amendment on the agenda of the Missouri Senate. I have just received the following document and have yet been able to confirm further details. As it reads, it sounds rather sinister. As they say on Fox: “You decide:”
AN ACT
To amend chapter 170, RSMo, by adding thereto one new section relating to teaching the Bible in public schools.
Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the state of Missouri, as follows:
Section A. Chapter 170, RSMo is amended thereto one new section, to be known as section 170.023, to read as follows:
“Any public school district may offer a class or classes in which the Bible is taught, provided that the local school board approves of the class itself and the context in which the bible is presented. The Bible may be taught in multiple circumstances, including, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, history, literature, or comparative religion courses.” (Emphasis mine)
Yes, the last sentence could possibly be used to back-door creationism into the biology curriculum. It seems like a long shot, however.
Two other more obvious things concern me. The first is, what the hell happened to the idea of the separation of church and state? This amendment is just begging for a legal challenge on first amendment grounds. In my un-legal opinion, it looks profoundly unconstitutional on its face. I doubt if any school board would be willing to blow a majority of its budget on a legal defense of their decision to teach the Bible. I assume the local school board (not the State of Missouri Dept of Education) would assume full liability for any legal defense of such a decision. This thing seems even more perilous than trying to promote the instruction in the wisdom of the Book of Genesis in the science class in light of the 1987 Supreme Court ruling concerning the teaching of creationism.
Of course with Samuel Alito on the Court it could signal the start of a whole new ball game. Parenthetically, that’s why we cannot allow the Dems in the U.S. Senate to roll over and play dead on this one. If it requires the Mother of all Filibusters, so be it. This guy cannot be confirmed!
Also the use of the word “teach” looks highly problematical. In academic parlance, “teaching” a subject usually indicates not only the covering of the material, a critical analysis of the subject, but also a implicit endorsement of the intellectual agenda and tradition it derives from. In science we teach evolution because, even though a rigorous critique of its data, analysis and assumptions is encouraged, evolution is universally endorsed by biological science. On the other hand, in political science, one might say it is necessary to “study” Communism in order to have a fully-informed grasp of 20th Century realpolitik. I think a professor, however, who contends that he was “teaching Communism” would find himself with a pretty swift loss of tenure. And I’m not sure how speedy would be my efforts to defend such an obviously imprudent academic. Subjects like Communism, Christianity and even Capitalism should not be “taught” as much as they should be critically, rigorously studied. I think the fundamentalists in the Missouri Senate would view with horror any attempt to have their Holy Bible subjected to a truly critical analysis from the view of disciplines “not limited to, history, literature, or comparative religion courses.”
On the other side of the fence (in the non-academic Fields of the Lord) the word “teach” usually means not only a non-rigorous, non-critical study of the material but an attempt to “witness to” and an advocating (or indoctrination) to students the ideas, morality, and world view advocated by the Judeo/Christian belief system i.e. an attempt at a fundamentalist Christian conversion. For the sake of the bill’s chances of survival, the choice of the word “teach” here is most unfortunate.
As I said, this whole thing is so bogus and patently unconstitutional that I cannot believe what I am reading. Don’t these guys ever have any real lawyers look at this stuff as it is being drafted? I know Cynthia Davis (of old HB 35 fame) certainly doesn’t. Her anti-evolution bill, that she promises to reintroduce this session, was illegal and practically impossible to implement as stated in last years wording. And now supposedly it is once again being trotted out to waste yet more of the House Education Committee’s time.
Does anyone know the history of this Bible-thumping addendum? Who is sponsoring it? Is it scheduled for hearings any time soon? Who can we identify in the Missouri Senate who can spearhead opposition to this nonsense? Somebody please tell me this is a hoax!!!
Peace,
Bob Boldt