As of right now (3PM EDT) Yahoo lists this on the front page as follows:
Secular Bible text developed for high schools
Now, I don't know if the CSM or Yahoo have editors like the one Terry found, who actually edit stuff when it's, duh, wrong, but it's kind of stupid for such a headline to appear. Makes me think of some other headlines they could assemble:
"Kerry Becomes President, Loses Election"
"Earth is Flat, except for the Round Parts"
"In New Scheme for Daylight Savings, All Hours to be AM"
Look, I'm sorry, but there's no such thing as a secular bible (well, the NY Times is treated that way, but...). Either your bible is about religion and faith in God, as it has been for thousands of years, or it doesn't exist. Give me all the claptrap you like about "the bible as literature", or all the so-called scholars with their "book of J, Book of E" BS. Anyone with half an ounce of sense knows what the Bible is - a religious tome that believers take to be the transmitted word of God.
This dancing around by the ACLUniks and so-called "free speech" types (motto - "MY speech is free - yours is not, because you disagree with me") about how (GASP!) reading the bible will somehow turn us into Iran is beyond stupid. Trying to satisfy these dopes is like trying to kiss a roach - they're damned quick to move to a new position, and it's not much of an accomplishment if you do pull it off.
Some specifics from the article:
Others express concern: "I don't think the Constitution prohibits the use of this textbook, but I have real doubts about the wisdom of this approach," says Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State. "At this time in America, it's better to simply talk about religious influences when they come up during the study of literature, art, and history, and not take the text of one religious tradition and treat it with special deference."
Look, chuckles, admit the truth. You don't really want them talking about it at all, and you'll fight like hell to keep them from even discussing it, much less treating it with deference. Even a nitwit secularist like you, if you were capable of being honest, would admit the profound influence this book has had on society. You might disagree with it and its principles, but its effect is blatant. Now, were someone to build a curriculum around, say, Lolita, or Tony Kushner's Angels in America, I imagine you'd be crowing about the preeminence such powerful literature should have in the American psyche, and cursing the religious wackos who might think it's offensive.
At the same time, many US English teachers express concern that students' deficient biblical knowledge is hampering their education.
Nice deduction, Sherlock. Glad you're paying attention.
Marc Stern, general counsel of the American Jewish Congress, a constitutional watchdog, says that, "Without question, it can serve as the basis for a constitutional course."
Let me get this straight. The American JEWISH Congress, not a constitutional watchdog, but another collection of secularist, barely Jewish lobbying busybodies (see Foxman, Abraham; ADL) is taking the text central to the faith of its name, and allowing the bowdlerized version as "constitutional." I'm sorry, bubbaleh, but you seemed to have missed a few days of Hebrew School. The point of being a Jew and a Jewish organization is not to destroy the Torah, it's to support it with every ounce of your strength. You should be decrying the bastardization of our holiest text instead of shrugging noncommittaly and saying "meh."
Look, boys, as they still say in Brooklyn sometimes, "Don't do me no favors." You want to dance nekkid in the streets at the altar of secularism, have a good time. Just don't act surprised if the rest of us point out that you and your emperor are a few stitches shy of a three-piece suit.
|