Rhetoric heats up in battle over Bible in public schools

On one hand, by Victoria Nagele

Is the question of your Aug. 19 editorial, with its "Holy curriculum, Batman" headline, whether the Bible is a worthy tool for secular instruction? Is "War and Peace" or "The Fountainhead?" Any literature endorsed in the classroom brings its own moral (or immoral) voice to impressionable students. And in many cases, students have no choice in what material they read. But clearly, the Bible class would be an elective.

In this society, there are champions aplenty for even the most unworthy of literature if it espouses politically correct viewpoints. The Bible fails in this measure, and is attacked from all sides.

If there are sufficient interested students in any Mat-Su Borough School District high school or junior high to warrant the inclusion of a class on the Bible, and a qualified teacher to instruct them, why should the Bible not be taught? If, indeed, there are ample students to analyze the Talmud, Koran or writing of Confucius, they, in all fairness, could also be studied.

The study of those religions would be unlikely to incite a like reaction. Even the study of the Old Testament can be shrugged off as historically significant and morally arcane. But add the study of the New Testament and a cacophony of "separation of church and state" peals from editorial boards and ACLU members alike.

Where is that highly touted religious tolerance then? And where is the separation of church and state clause that not only protects the state from church interference, but allows religious study to be unimpeded by state prejudices? The Bill of Rights reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof …" It does not confine religion and faith to "people's homes and churches."

If this were a mandatory class, I would stand beside you in protest, as I have stood with some of you in the past. But this is about choices, and limiting them unnecessarily, even unwisely. Those of you who stand so solidly for freedoms and freewill in other matters should not now waiver and cower behind a misapplication of the same amendment to the U.S. Constitution that safeguards freedom of the press. To quote you, "The questions here should be about intent, content and about fairness."

Victoria Naegele is a Delta Junction resident and former managing editor of the Frontiersman.