by William Jeynes

Professor, California State University at Long Beach 

Senior Fellow, Witherspoon Institute in Princeton, New Jersey

Ph.D., University of Chicago  Ed.M., Harvard University 

     The resolution to allow the Bible to be taught as literature in South Dakota is both logical and wise for a number of reasons. First, it is hard to conceive how an individual regarded as an educated individual unless one at least has a working knowledge of the Bible. The Bible is, by far, the most published book in the world. Over 60% of the world’s populace regards the Bible as a holy book. Moreover, the world’s largest religion, Christianity, a religion of over 2 billion people. The Bible is indubitably the most influential book in human history. For centuries the writers of books from most of the world’s continents, wrote with assumption that the reader would have a working knowledge of the Bible. William Shakespeare alone cites the Bible about 1,300 times. In addition, such books as A Tale of Two Cities, Brothers Karamazov, War and Peace, and a copious number of others cannot be fully understood unless one has a familiarity with the Bible. The Bible has also had profound impact on American- and world- history. Whether one studies about George Washington’s miraculous avoidance of certain death during the French and Indian War, or the Puritans and Quakers teaching the slaves the truths of the Bible, or the role of the Bible in the civil rights movement, understanding the Bible is necessary to comprehend American history.

          Second, the U.S. Supreme Court has asserted that the teaching of the Bible as literature and history is constitutional, provided that it is “presented objectively as part of a secular program of education”  (Abington v. Schempp ,1963). In 1948 in McCollum v. Board of Education Justice Robert Jackson’s concurring opinion stated, “one can hardly respect the system of education that would leave the student wholly ignorant of the currents of religious thought that move the world society for…which he is being prepared.” Jackson warned that making faith off limits in the classroom would leave public education “in shreds.” A meticulous reanalysis of these decisions created the foundation for the effort to introduce the Bible as literature into the public schools.

     Third, knowledge of the Bible will increase one’s understanding of religious people generally, including those of other faiths. This point is especially vital because in recent years the United States has increasingly developed friction with nations who highly value faith. As the United States has become increasingly secularized, it is difficult for it to relate to deeply religious populations. This should concern Americans, because some of the most important international relationships that the United States possesses are with nations that are either strongly religious or are going through tremendous religious revivals. According to a Gallup Poll, China has about as many Evangelical Christians as the United States and will soon be, along with other East Asian nations, the world center of Evangelical Christianity. In recent decades, China has experienced a growth in Christianity that is unparalleled in modern history. According to the BBC, the Chinese government is pouring in millions of dollars to build churches and seminaries to help ensure the growth of Christianity. President Obama has announced that America’s most crucial relationship in the coming decades will be with China. If thus nation does not develop a greater understanding of the Bible, they will not be able to fathom the nature of the revival in China and how it is dramatically changing the country. Currently, secular American does not truly understand why myriad nations where Christianity is strong such as South Korea and the Philippines, find the view many American television programs as offensive and promoting sex and violence.

     Similarly, one can argue that the relationship between the United States and Islamic nations has deteriorated as the America has become increasingly secularized. Tensions have clearly escalated as certain elements of the Middle East have developed a propensity to become more extreme and they actually school many of their children to become terrorists, but it is also true that many moderate Muslims object to the United States using attractive females to sell cars, pornography, etc. Many of them believe that as the United States has become more secularized, many Americans have little regard for what is holy. Naturally, this dearth of understanding is most ostensible in the case of the relationship between the United States and Islamic countries, but it is creating friction with a variety of other nations as well.

     The research data clearly support the notion that high levels of Bible literacy are associated with strong academic achievement. I have conducted several studies on this issue. Two of these studies are especially noteworthy. I have examined the issue both by conducting a meta-analysis and by analyzing students in the Chicago area. The meta-analysis is very enlightening because what a meta-analysis involves is statistically combining all of the studies that have been done on a particular topic. That is, a meta-analysis statistically combines all the relevant existing studies on a given subject in order to determine the aggregated results of said research. The meta-analysis yielded some amazing results. Not only did it indicate a powerful relationship between high levels of Bible literacy and strong scholastic results, but also of all the studies that have been undertaken on this topic not even one of them indicated a negative or neutral relationship. Every single study indicated that there existed a positive relationship. Such an overwhelming association is almost unheard of in the research world. For academic achievement variables specifically, students with high level of Bible literacy attained GPAs that averaged over 1.00 GPA points higher than those with low levels of Bible literacy (Jeynes, 2010). The results of the Chicago study were equally noteworthy. Among the students who had high rates of Bible literacy, the average GPA was 3.60. In contrast, the students who had low rates of Bible literacy had an average GPA of 2.47 (Jeynes, 2009). This is a difference of 1.13 GPA points or put in usual form, the difference between a grade of “A-“ and a “C+.” Clearly, this is a substantial difference. If one were to ask any parents which GPA they would prefer their children to bring home, there is no doubt what their answer would be.

     These findings confirm the notion that the knowledge of the Bible contributes to comprehending other subjects such as the understanding of countless literature classics, reading, history, and so forth. With this understanding present in many European nations, virtually all these countries have such a course. In fact, these nations are baffled as to why a topic that from an intellectual standpoint has a resolution that is so obvious, especially since it is an elective course, is a subject of such debate.

     It is the responsibility of this nation to graduate students from public schools who are knowledgeable and educated, and this really is almost impossible unless they are permitted to study in their schools, the most published and influential book in human history.

REFERENCES

Jeynes, William. (2010). The Relationship between Bible Literacy and Academic and Behavioral Outcomes in Urban Areas:  A Meta-analysis. Education & Urban Society, 42 (5), 522-544. 

Jeynes, William. (2009). The Relationship between Bible Literacy and Academic Achievement and School Behavior. Education & Urban Society, 41 (4), 419-436.

My resolution encouraging our public schools to offer an elective in the academic study of the Bible not only passed the House on Thursday 55-13, yesterday the Senate supported it overwhelmingly, 25-10!! Be sure to thank your reps and senators who ignored those intolerant of the Bible by supporting this resolution. While the Bible in California schools is taboo (but teaching gay history is mandated there), it is noteworthy that 79% of the legislature of South Dakota supports teaching the Bible in our schools in a non-devotional way.

You are mistaken if you think this legislature is made up of conservative Christians like me. That is hardly the case. What we do have are people who recognize the Bible for what it is… a book that has shaped western civilization, law and literature for a couple millennium. They recognize every great leader in our national history quoted the Bible and that we are in danger of cranking out a generation of students who are only able to quote Sponge Bob. This is a step toward raising up a generation of South Dakotans of the quality of Bible-quoters like George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abe Lincoln and Martin Luther King Jr.  I'm thankful that two of the three Jewish members of our legislature supported this resolution.

Here's something curious that I've noticed, legislators who fear this Bible resolution typically have no issue at all with the in-roads Sharia Law is making in our society, culture and courts. 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.

Lots of media coverage on this, nationwide. And lots of discussion statewide. I clipped a few of the priceless comments for later use. One was a school superintendent in SD in a TV interview… "Well, our forefathers came to this country from other countries and one of the basic principals that they put into our Constitution was the separation of church and state." It took some restraint for me not to call the government/civics teacher in his school to run a copy of the Constitution down to him to show him there is nothing there about the separation of church and state.

Mostly I've been quoting the famous Supreme Court case in 1963 which threw prayer out of public schools.  Most don't realize that though that decision tossed prayer out, that decision expressly states the Bible is essential IN SCHOOLS:

It might well be said that one's education is not complete without a study of comparative religion or the history of religion and it's relationship to the advancement of civilization and… that the Bible is worthy of study for it's literary and historic qualities. Nothing we have said here indicates that such a study of the Bible or of religion, when presented objectively as part of a secular program of education, may not be affected consistently with the First Amendment. (Abington v Schempp, 1963) 

An interesting detail, two or three of the twenty-two legislators who voted against this told me they are absolutely for teaching a Bible elective in public schools but they voted against it only because they want no dictates from Pierre or DC for that matter influencing local school board curriculum choices. This is the reason I brought this as a resolution not a bill. Yesterday SD blogger and Republican-platform-scorecard-maker Steve Sibson was in the Capital and he told me the Bible resolution would definitely be on their next scorecard. That's fine, but I asked how he'd rate those three who voted no who are actually for teaching Bible in schools. He agreed that was a flaw in the scorecard which is a point I've been making for weeks. (He appeared to see the humor in the rubber rhino I have on top of my desk on the House floor in the Capital. I bought it at Tractor Supply after my conservative friend Rep. Don Kopp and I got rated 50% Republican and dubbed a RINO=Republican in name only). I named my rhino Gordon. All in fun.)

Some have asked who writes the curriculum for such a Bible elective. There are a number of good choices out there. I have reviewed two, one extensively and that one can be seen here - The Bible and It's Influence. Some don't like it. Here is the other: The Bible in History and Literature. None of these curriculums are of the sort that they'd be useful in churches or home school settings. These have no devotional component to them.  My question, when will they stop teaching evolution and global warming in a devotional way? Again, all in fun.

Yesterday was Women 4 Women day at the Capital and I'm told there was an audible groan in the gallery of the Senate from the vanload of abortion fans when the 25-10 vote was announced on this Bible resolution. I think they are sore from what we did in the House last week. This picture explains…

Surprising some, a bill, HB1002, which would have repealed the sales tax exemption on coins, currency and bullion died in the tax committee, 11 to 2. Had it made it to the House floor, I'd have voted no. My father would have haunted me had I voted to tax money.

Most unfortunate this morning was the demise in committee of my friend Rep. Kopp's handgun or Constitutional Carry bill which would repeal the requirement to get a $10 Concealed Carry permit. I would have voted for it if I had the chance. Why? The Second Amendment is my "permit" to carry a hand gun. Perhaps he'll try to smoke the bill out of committee to get it directly to the House floor.

Please read David Montgomery's post giving the details of the fate of this bill. Several on the committee admitted to voting against it at least in part because it was being pushed by a dubious and fringe gun owners group whose renowned friendly-fire tactics have earned them the ire of many in the legislature. There is such a thing as you getting in the way of your cause. And in this case, it's a good cause… one that I wholeheartedly support. When we aren't winsome, we lose some and here a good gun bill was shot down.

YES we should just vote on a bill based on it's merits. But, politics is people too. It's too bad. Hopefully there will be a smoke out attempt Monday as it's justified because of the stated reasons committee members rejected it - not on it's merits but for other reasons.

Click the link above (pdf alert) and you'll see the short list of my colleagues who now HAVE TO vote yes on bills they've not yet seen, regardless of whether a so-called "Repeal Obamacare bill" is ill-conceived, hastily drafted, a distraction or even a bill that is detrimental to the overall cause. Pledging means you are voting for it, regardless. If you decide to vote against it later, you can give reasons otherwise all day long but there is no room for those on this groups next scorecard. Those who didn't sign, like myself, are dubbed "political pollution" in the party. Rubbish.

My conversation with these folks went nowhere. This was my statement to them:

Here's my pledge and you do with it what you want…

1) I oppose Obamacare and am delighted it's being challenged in court and I'll do whatever I can to support the repeal of it.

2) I will not pledge to blindly support any and every different legislative attempt to appeal it as some attempts just may be poorly conceived, hastily drafted, distracting and even worse, detrimental to our goal of repealing Obamacare.

3) I will never pledge blindly to vote for a bill I've not read, let alone these bills which haven't been written.

That's what Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi want their followers to do… just sign them, we'll read them later and see what they say. That's a disservice to the voters in my district. Let's say I signed, then saw the bill was a mess and vote against it. Of course that would mean I "broke the pledge."

Following that statement I informed my good Christian conservative friends they now had an ethical dilemma on their hands. Would they proceed as planned to report me, a non-pledger, as not supporting the repeal of Obamacare all the while knowing my clear position is to repeal it?

Yep, they did just that. These report cards mislead voters and are a great disservice to legislators.

There are better ways to advance our values. They've chosen to posture themselves in attack mode and it's unnecessary friendly-fire. Consider this post yet another plea from me that they work to figure out more winsome ways to influence public policy. If they can't win me over, how on earth will they win over the 90% of the people in our state who are to the left of them? (I'm guessing at the 90%. I don't remember what the percentage vote was in the 2010 SD Republican primary. It's probably not good to throw percentages at each other, forgive me.)

Having just come from the Janklow funeral which was, visibly, far more "South Dakota" than either Republican or Democrat I have hope there will be an emerging generation of leaders who "don't give a damn what a few (philosophical purists) think but just do the right thing."

The state House of Representatives this afternoon had only one item on its Friday calendar of business. That was a commemoration recognizing the Yellowboy rifle, a .44-caliber lever-action made by Winchester after the Civil War. The connection was the supposition that “nearly one-half of the people in South Dakota” carried the rifle in the years leading up to statehood. Like nearly all commemorations, the House didn’t bother to discuss it. The House spent 19 minutes in session before adjourning for the day. The Senate started late, allowing this scribe to hear two opening prayers and say the Pledge of Allegiance twice on the same afternoon. The Senate deferred all of its business calendar to Thursday, Jan. 19. The Senate spent 10 minutes in session before adjourning at 1 p.m.

Today the Watertown Public Opinion was singing the same tune: Should Legislative Sessions be Shortened?  This session was already abbreviated from 40 down to 35 days and with the Janklow funeral we are now down to 33. So, the Watertown Public Opinion is wondering…

Do we really need a 35-day session every year? Does the cost justify the return? We realize like in any business - and don't kid yourself, government is a business - there are busy days and down days. But every year it seems like there are more than a few days where the Legislature has little or nothing on its agenda to productively occupy its time. Maybe it's time to look at ways to modify the session. Instead of having 35-day sessions, why not look at lowering them to 25 or 30 days with an option of extending them by "x" number of days if warranted. Or perhaps we could take a cue from our neighbor Nebraska, where the Legislature meets every two years instead of every one.

Lots of chatter these days about how wonderful it would be if we had "part-time congresses" and legislatures that met every other year. We heard it again from Rick Perry in the South Carolina GOP debate last night: a part-time Congress. Would a "part-time congress" ensure that only the old, white and wealthy demographic could serve? South Dakota lawmakers are part-part-part time. I'm discovering only the retired can really fully meet the demands back in their districts and in Pierre. As it is, part-time legislators serve alongside full-time lobbyists, lawyers, department heads and all the rest have staff to help them. Yet the legislator is the one portrayed as inept as we are the ones who are public. Not complaining, just saying.

Here's the comment I left at the Watertown Public Opinion article.

No, [the SD legislative session] shouldn't be shortened. This article and Mercer's gives the impression we are just sitting on our hands these early days of session as there is nothing to debate on the floor the first week. Reality is, there was little idle time last week as we were getting bills ready, pitching them to colleagues seeking co-sponsors, meetings with lobbyists to understand what matters will be on the table, etc, etc. It takes a few days to get other legislators to sign on, and a few more to get the bills through a committee and that means not much is happening early on in terms of floor debates. I'd think most legislators were surprised we shut down for two entire days for the funeral and that those days weren't added on to the end of session. (Would Janklow have canceled session for two days? Maybe so. Or maybe he'd have made us go late into the night.) It'll be crunch time these remaining days as we wade through 500 or so bills in thirty days or less. There are enormous issues to sort out and though it sounds wonderful to talk about "part-time congresses" and legislatures that meet every other year, the public is better served with more time not less.

It's the calm before the storm in the SD Legislature right now. Surely you have a thought.  Share it with me.