Pardon the BloggEruption

Stories like this one just infuriate me. Seriously, I feel sorry for the kid and what he's been through, but doesn't the fact that his assailants received sentences of life and 90 years sort of render his crusade a bit pointless?

Laws don't prevent crimes in and of themselves. No hate crime legislation would make an attacker think twice about perpetrating a crime. Aside from being completely useless, they serve only to criminalize thought, which is a very treacherous path. It would be nice if everyone loved everyone else, the whole world got along, and there was no tangible hate in the world. Yes, it would be very nice, indeed. But we don't live in Candyland, and if someone wants to hold hate in his heart against someone because of something utterly ridiculous like skin color or surname, I don't want to make that a state offense. Once he acts on that hate by assaulting someone, then we can take all the legal action we want ... and we pretty well do. The same sort of refrain went around when the tragic murder of James Byrd happened back in the late 90s. The killers received sentences of death or life in prison. Should we give them a double lethal dose?

It's pointless. It sets a very dangerous precedent. It's just bad policy.

So Texas Rep. Warren Chisum has introduced a bill to mandate that Texas schools to offer elective courses on the history and literature of the Bible. The initial reactions are pretty standard fare, with cries about the separation of church and state, etc. Since Georgia brought Bible study back into the public schoolhouse last year, I'd expect to see a lot more of this over the next decade.

I find the First Amendment arguments against this a bit specious (though SCOTUS might not), but my main concerns are echoed by Mark Chancey:

But Mark Chancey, an associate professor in religious studies at Southern Methodist University in Dallas, said Judaism fares poorly in such courses. Students, he said, are taught how to read the Bible from a Christian perspective.

"'Christian' here means Protestant, by the way. Roman Catholic interpretations are almost invisible in most courses," he said.

What I would much prefer to see is for 9th grade English courses to focus on the foundations of Western literature, including some portions of the Bible. So very much of Western literature alludes and is based off of Biblical texts that those students who don't have a solid background of knowledge are losing out. The same can be said for Greco-Roman myth & history, some Arthurian legend, and the primary works of Shakespeare. Certainly that's a lot of material, but I'd much rather students focus on those things than much of the modernistic schlock and pointless grammar instruction that makes up the majority freshman lit in high school.

As for what portions of the Bible to include ... I'd pick Genesis, Exodus, Psalms, and maybe Isaiah from the Old Testament. From the New, I'd choose the Gospel of Matthew, Acts of the Apostles, and then maybe 1 Corinthians. The Revelation of St. John would be useful, too, but it's almost unteachable without utterly pissing off everyone in sight. You could certainly let students choose their own translations, I think, as you'd be focusing primarily on the stories and "message," not the words, verses, and theological implications.