A priest, a rabbi, and a minister walk into a comparative religion class...

So we've all heard about the drastic failures of American public schools, and how high-school seniors can't find their ass on a map of the country and whatnot. Gentle readers, Time is deeply concerned about this state of affairs, so much so that the cover of their April 2nd issue boldly purports to prove "Why We Should Teach the Bible in Public School (But Very, Very Carefully)." I'd like to propose an alternate cover article, maybe something like "Why We Should Shut the Hell Up Until We Have Something Meaningful to Say About This Hoary Yet Unceasingly Controversial Topic."

It's not really discussing the Bible in a classroom setting that bothers me, I'll get to that in a second, it's the fact that the article basically boils down to "we should teach the Bible, not religion." I'd like to offer everyone involved a tasty shake with that penetrating McArgument. Like, a comparative religion class is a great idea, frankly. Everything outside of Christianity is so mystifying to us as a country, and it's just retarded to look at Judaism, or Islam, or any other long-established religion as some kind of wacky fad. But, this David Van Biema goober in Time is a little too focused on the Bible in particular, and as always when this subject comes up, I get concerned over whether we're talking about teaching or converting.

The article doesn't really piss me off that bad, it's simply a waste of time because there's nothing new in it. The author mentions a few facts about the history of the debate, and drops the "fact" that the Bible is "the most influential book ever written" (almost certainly true, but something about the definitive tone doesn't sit right), thus proving that it should not be ignored in any comprehensive educational setting. Again, I pretty much agree, but seriously, why is this a cover story? I know several agnostics and atheists, and they all know the Bible is a materially important book, no matter their opinion of it, but maybe that's because none of them are stupid. The guy also asks rhetorically whether teaching the Bible wouldn't play into both secularists' and evangelicals' hands, then answers by way of saying "Yes. Both. Which may suggest that each is exaggerating its claim." OK…seriously, what does that mean? There's a paragraph that quotes a secularist, and one that quotes an evangelical, but it still doesn't explain the reasoning behind that cutesy bullshit. Then there's some stuff about a couple of proposed curricula, and his observations of a classroom wherein a Bible class is being taught. That's it. End of story. Whoopty-fucking-doo.

The only thing that kind of grabbed me was this paragraph:

"A BASIC QUESTION: WHY TEACH THE BIBLE and not comparative religion? It may not be necessary to provide Islam, Buddhism or Hinduism with equal time, but it seems misguided to ignore faiths that millions of Americans practice each day; and a glance at the headlines further argues for an omnibus course. Yet could a school demand that its already overloaded kids take one elective if they take the other?"

Well, actually, it's absolutely fucking necessary to devote equal time to other religions, if what we're really talking about here is the broad, humanistic process that is true education. This is where it feels a little like the author wants to crank up the temperature in the Easy Bake Christian-Making Oven. Stir in a Bible, sprinkle the briefest of lip services to "other religious texts," and broil for four years of high-school at Fahrenheit 451. It's not that I am seeing some grand conspiracy here, just the opposite; it's the breezy "oh shit, I almost forgot to name-check that Islam thing in one single fucking sentence" forgetfulness of everything outside the comfort zone. I mean, the guy seems neutral enough in tone, and he talks enough about the constitutionality of Bible education that I know he isn't a dumb-ass, but, what would a dumb-ass think about this subject? I don't like any of the answers I come up with for that.

For example, I think about how a Bible class would play out in my not-so-enlightened hometown of Corinth, Mississippi. And, first of all, I am truly grateful to my parents for never forcing me to go to church in Corinth, which anyone could tell you is strangled socially, culturally, and economically by an incredibly noxious mixture of ignorant "Christian" assholes. I mean, I haven't read the local laws or stone tablets or whatever the fuck real closely, but I know liquor sales are illegal, and possibly dancing, or looking at any given sex organ for more than five seconds. Anyway, all that being said, how can anyone expect in fairness that small-town teachers like the ones I grew up with talk about the Qur'an when everything in their environment begs them to be scared as shit of Muslims? I don't expect every teacher to be perfectly objective when dealing with such powerfully divisive subject matter, but that's kind of the point in NOT TEACHING THIS SHIT IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS IN THE FIRST FUCKING PLACE. Jesus. The plain fact is that Christianity is not going to scare the bad old alternative religious beliefs away, so, if you can't talk about them all and sundry with due diligence and without freaking out, then the Bible as taught in school is nothing more than an extension of whatever you're getting in Sunday school. So, what's the point? Oh yeah, that's right, turning the whole of American society into a crazy Dobson fundamentalist zombie factory. My bad, I forgot. Queer killin' rocks!

Like I said before, I'm not feeling a grand conspiracy about this particular issue stated in this particular way, but it's just a little too risky to me. God knows I hate to trot out the tired old "slippery slope" routine for any length of time, but seriously, this kind of shit could get ugly if we aren't careful. I guess I could compare it to Pandora's Box. Booyah...Jason's ability to draw a metaphor from a mythological source, 1, America's subtly and not-so-subtly instilled Christian idioms, 0. Suck on THAT, Bible!!!