One can teach Tale of Two Cites in a regular English class and the history of the Civil Rights movement certainly would be incomplete without knowledge of the role of Biblical imagery.

There you go again–I think one of your heroes famously made that statement.

I supported this resolution in several comments on Cory's blog. One element that gave me pause was the use of a specific curriculum. I took heart in the fact that the resolution states "or to include in the literature or social studies curriculum courses or lessons that help students become familiar with the content, characters, and narratives of the Bible."

The "or" clause makes clear that there is no need for a new curriculum.

Now, however, you recommend one. This recommendation will taken as gospel by many who will now appear before school boards demanding the adoption of this particular curriculum as part of the sponsors' intent.

Any such curruculum, if adopted, will make it harder for those of us who use the Bible in class to continue to do so. Last week, I used passages from Hamlet and compared them with Psalm 8. It's a good thought provoking lesson. I don't need a specific curriculum to allow me teach the lesson. In fact, if my school board ever adopts a curriculum, I won't be teaaching the lesson, because, in the age of RTTT and NCLB, double covering items not on the test is actively discouraged.

Second, stating "And the teachers who wrote me opposed to this on the grounds that Christian propaganda has no place in the class room, I'd suppose by their tone, are the same teachers who espouse secular humanism in their classrooms and open hostility to things Christian." condemns all with a rather broad brush. Most of us don't have much time at all to "espouse" any philosophy or religion in our classrooms. It's all we can do to cover the basics.