You Won’t Believe What Crazy Things The Hobby Lobby-Sponsored School Curriculum Teaches (VIDEO)

Author: May 16, 2014 5:18 pm
hobby lobby

(Photo courtesy of WikiMedia.)

As a number of outlets have reported (including Addicting Info), the President of Hobby Lobby Steve Green has created a course on the Bible that he hopes public schools will adopt.

All sane observers immediately see any number of problems with this idea. The most pressing, from a practical perspective, is the high likelihood that the use of this course in public schools will involve a violation of the First Amendment to the Constitution. Contrary to “conservative” mythology, Supreme Court opinions do not prohibit prayer or the study of the Bible as a literary artifact in public schools.

The public school district in Mustang, Oklahoma, a western suburb of Oklahoma City, has chosen to offer Green’s course as an elective. Sean McDaniel, Superintendent of the Mustang Schools, insisted that the course is “nonsectarian,” because the course is the result of over seventy different scholars who “come from different personal faith backgrounds.”

In any court challenge, the judge is much more likely to look at the material the course presents to the students than the “personal faith backgrounds” of the authors in deciding if the course violates the First Amendment.

The Supreme Court has prohibited proselytizing or advocating the adoption of any specific religion in public schools as violating the rule against adoption of state religion in the First Amendment to the Constitution. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has endorsed a pamphlet for public school use that identifies four principles to use in deciding if a given course is consistent with the law in this area. They are:

  1. A school must approach religion in an academic, rather than a devotional, manner.
  2. A school may inculcate the students’ awareness of religion, but not their acceptance of it.
  3. A school may offer courses for the study of religion, but not for the practice of it.
  4. A school may offer education about all religions, but not promotion or denigration of any religion.
Steve Green, President of Hobby Lobby, speaks at the Religion News Writers Association Conference in Austin, Texas. (Photo courtesy of Religion News.)

Steve Green, President of Hobby Lobby, speaks at the Religion News Writers Association Conference in Austin, Texas. (Photo courtesy of Religion News.)

The Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) in Madison, Wisconsin requested a copy of the course materials from Mr. Green, who has yet to respond. The FFRF has managed to look at a copy of the textbook for the course and has found a number of problems with it, all of which are related in various ways to the four principles above.

First, a hallmark of academic study of any topic is a willingness to adopt a critical attitude. Any question is valid so long as it is directly related to the topic. The Green textbook treats all events that the Bible describes as historically accurate. There are parts of the Bible that historians can confirm with independent evidence, but the Green text offers specific artifacts of biblical events as only remaining to be found, such as Noah’s ark, the Ark of the Covenant, and the Holy Grail (apparently without reference to Monty Python) when no serious scholar thinks the related events really happened or expects ever actually to find any of the objects in question.

The text also ignores the complicated issues of the history of the Bible itself, referring only to Protestant versions of the Bible, which is inherently ahistorical, since absent the Catholic Church as the primary institutional manifestation of Christianity in Europe from the fall of Rome to the beginning of the Protestant Reformation in 1517, there would be no Protestants to begin with. This is one of many ways in which it becomes obvious that the decision to take an uncritical, devotional, implicitly Christian attitude toward religion rather than a critical, academic attitude leads to all of the other three problems as listed above. One is more likely to encourage the acceptance and practice of a religion, and if the religion is Christianity, the denigration of all other religions, if one uncritically accepts as true every claim in the Bible.

The textbook implicitly denigrates Judaism by referring to the “Old Testament” rather than the “Hebrew Bible,” as most non-sectarian modern scholars prefer.

Further, Green’s textbook also offers a whitewash of U.S. history in which the bible plays a role vastly disproportionate to its actual one. Green attributes the concept of freedom of the press to the Bible, thus completely ignoring the long history of suppression of ideas and expression in the name of religion, especially Christianity.

Even more fantastically, Green’s text presents the Bible as describing the origins of feminism, overlooking the long, sorry history of oppression of women that Christians of various stripes have practiced with the apparent endorsement of the Bible, or the fact that early women’s rights leaders such as Elizabeth Cady Stanton chose to produce the Woman’s Bible in order to have a primary Christian text that did not advocate the subordination of women.

Green, of course, as President of Hobby Lobby, has also made a name for himself recently by pursuing to the U.S. Supreme Court a challenge to the mandate in the Affordable Care Act to provide contraceptive coverage in his employees’ health insurance as violating his personal religious beliefs. This fact alone makes it highly unlikely that any course with Green’s imprimatur would pass Constitutional muster.

Apart from a statement from the Oklahoma PTA objecting to the lack of public review before the adoption of the course by the Mustang school district, no one has yet proposed any formal challenge to the course.

facebook comments:

2 Comments

  • “The smell of fundamentalism is strong with this one. . .”

    Imagine a Yoda voice saying that. My choices there were Fundamentalism or Dominionism, and it appears as though they’re both equally valid.

    Yet another tiny mind that refuses to understand, or accept, than not everyone believes the way he does. But this tiny mind is linked to enough money to allow him to project his personal fantasy in a truly appalling way–

    Onto school children, in the guise of an academic course. I’d say shame on him, and on those who try to slip this course in, without review, to school curricula. However, it has been displayed, repeatedly, that these individuals have no shame. Once they come to think they believe in God, and are doing his work, no shameful act dissuades them, or turns them from their course.

    I leave you with this quote, from a man much wiser than I will probably ever be. . .

    I concur with you strictly in your opinion of the comparative merits of atheism and demonism, and really see nothing but the latter in the being worshipped by many who think themselves Christians.

    -Thomas Jefferson, letter to Richard Price, Jan. 8, 1789 (Richard Price had written to TJ on Oct. 26. about the harm done by religion and wrote “Would not Society be better without Such religions? Is Atheism less pernicious than Demonism?”)

    ‘Nuff said.

    Henry D. Rinehart

  • I wonder if they’d mind a competing view?

    http://www.answering-christianity.com/lost_books.htm

    Books referenced to in the Bible, but not found in the Bible….

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

x
Click "Like" to get the latest updates