Free Congress.org | Paul M. Weyrich | May. 29, 2008
Alabama State Senator Scott Beason has turned out to be the principal opponent of a new textbook, THE BIBLE AND ITS INFLUENCE, backed by liberals for schools which want to teach about the Bible. Writing in Worldnetdaily.com, Beason outlines not only the background of the chief architect of the book but details how the book undermines belief in God.
Beason notes that Dr. Charles C. Haynes is a consultant for the Bible Literacy Project. Haynes is the author of a piece entitled “When the Government Prays, Nobody Wins,” which implies that the National Day of Prayer should be eliminated. He has authored books with the Council On Islamic Education. He serves on the board of the Pluralism Project along with Wiccan High Priestess Margot Adler. He also authored “Sexual Orientation and Public Schools: All or Nothing?” which has been endorsed by the radical Gay Lesbian, Straight Education Network. Haynes was a reviewer and consultant for the Bible Literacy Project’s textbook THE BIBLE AND ITS INFLUENCE.
That textbook redefines Biblical terms and demeans God, according to a number of reviewers who have reviewed it. The book asks, “Do absolute good and evil exist?” In the Judeo-Christian tradition, God represents all that is good but the textbook asks, “Where does all of the evil come from? How would a good God let something like the Holocaust happen? Why would God let innocent children suffer?”
The book further denies the moral value of Old Testament illustrations. For example, “Job is one of the most difficult books in the Bible in that the text provides no clear moral or answer to Job’s situation.”
On page 72 the book debases the character of God: “God’s help comes with strings attached – commandments or laws that the Israelites must obey in order to keep the faith.” On page 138 the text demeans God by making Him accountable to man. The text diminishes the value of Old Testament texts. On page 160 the text reads, “The Lord blessed the latter days of Job more than his beginning. This ending through pleasing in some ways has failed to satisfy various readers over the centuries.” On page 75 the text book says the Ark of the Covenant “has become famous in Western imagination.”
I could go on and on citing problems with this text book. The late eminent Christian pastor Dr. D. James Kennedy said, “It would be a tremendous mistake to impose such very anti-Biblical material upon our children in public schools.”
Use of THE BIBLE AND ITS INFLUENCE has become controversial in school boards and state legislatures, especially in the South. When I was made aware of the “Bible Literacy Project” I rejoiced, thinking that this was a way for students to study religion in the Godless public schools. I endorsed the Project. Now that I have been made aware of what this Project is really about, thanks to Senator Beason, I hereby withdraw my endorsement. Once again liberals stole what began as a worthwhile initiative. This is worse than public schools without God. This may well cause young impressionable young people to lose their faith and to be contemptuous of those who have faith.
. . . more
It is interesting to note that historically, persecution of Christianity is like fertilizing and watering a garden; the more you do it, the more it produces. No matter what the world does to us, I remember Christ’s words in John 16:33, “I have said this to you, that in me you may have peace. In the world you have tribulation; but be of good cheer, I have overcome the world.”
I’m having a difficult time figuring out what the complaint is here given that the proposal is not to keep the Bible out of the classroom but to present it to students.
The writer seems bothered by the fact that questions are asked such as “How would a good God let something like the Holocaust happen?”. Is this because he doesn’t like the answer formulated or because the question itself is blasphemous? (the answer was not given here)
Either way, I’d like to know how a teacher is supposed to present the Bible without any taint of personal interpretation or subjectivity. Are they simply supposed to read passages at random and leave it at that? What would be the point?
Therein lies the problem, and the line isn’t just delineated between conservative and liberal thinkers: a Pentecostal teacher may highlight passages that underscore or seem to support the “gifts of the Spirit” while a Reformed believer may use Scripture to condemn the beliefs and practices of Catholics and the Orthodox as idolatrous. Will the Bible be used to single out Jews for condemnation? There are many Christians who still believe that adhering to the Jewish faith will of necessity deny one entrance to Heaven.
I don’t have a problem with the Bible being presented within public schools. In fact, I think it should. However, I think there needs to be an understanding that few are going to agree on how it should be taught. That is, unless we wish to form some sort of body who will determine the manner in which Scripture will be taught and how it will be interpreted. I don’t see that happening, however.
Looks like Mr. Weyrich was taken in by a smear campaign orchestrated by the Bible Literacy Project’s competitors. It is sad that Christians will defame other Christians in this way, and sadder still that Mr. Weyrich believed it.
http://www.crnewswire.com/news_details.php?nid=407