WATERLOO - A Christian activist says she isn't ready to give up efforts to add a Bible course to Waterloo Community Schools' curriculum.

Rochelle Arnold of Waterloo hopes to press her case with the Board of Education at some point, however, she admits the recommendation against providing such a class was not unexpected.

"Not really a big surprise, but kind of disappointing," said Arnold, a parent, who operates Change the World Ministries.

But that doesn't mean she accepts the end result.

"Frankly, it's discrimination and it's intolerant of religious beliefs," she said.

Arnold may look to local or state human rights organizations as another avenue to address her concerns with the decision.

Arnold delivered petitions with 576 signatures to the board in August asking that the elective class in middle or high school be offered to students. The 300-page teacher's guide prepared by the National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools "fully complies with the Constitution," she noted.

Students would use only the Bible as a textbook.

Arnold told board members the class is intended to equip students with an understanding of the Bible's influence on everything from literature to American culture.

"This is not any particular church or religious sect," Arnold said after the meeting.

She noted, though, that a portion of the petition signatures were collected at her church, Celebrations First Assembly of God.

"Our aim is not to proselytize," she said. "It's just studying the Bible objectively."

Officials agreed to review the curriculum but issued a recommendation last month that the district not add the suggested course or infuse materials into an existing class. The decision keeps open the possibility of looking at the curriculum later.

The recommendation came to light last week because of inquiries by the Courier.

"If a course such as this were to be added as an elective, it really shouldn't stand alone so we're not putting one religion above another," district spokeswoman Sharon Miller said.

In a memo accompanying the recommendation, Debbie Lee, the district's secondary curriculum coordinator, wrote that any class would also include the literature of other major world religions, such Islam, Judaism and Hinduism.

Miller said the district does teach about religions that are an integral part of American culture "but we can't teach students what to believe. We really do see that certainly as the prerogative of the family and the faith community."

Arnold doesn't see a conflict.

"That's exactly what I asked for, just to teach about it," she said.

However, the organization whose curriculum she promotes has been criticized for taking a religious rather than an academic approach to the Bible.

The Ector County Independent School District in Odessa, Texas, settled a federal lawsuit in March after agreeing to stop teaching a class using the organization's curriculum. The suit was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union and the People for the American Way Foundation on behalf of eight parents in the Odessa area.

Support

Nonetheless, two University of Northern Iowa professors say the Bible should be part of public schools along with literature of all major world religions.

"I think that studying the Bible in public schools is a very good idea and there are a number of reasons for it," said Jerry Soneson, interim head of the philosophy and world religions department. "One of them is that students need to understand the Western religious heritage that we come out of."

Religion professor Kenneth Atkinson, a biblical studies scholar, said the topic is "more important now than in the past."

"My students, they don't know the Bible, they haven't heard the stories. To understand Western literature, you really need to understand the Bible," Atkinson said.

"If you look at the writings of the founding fathers, they were informed by religion," he added. "If you do it properly, I think it's a wonderful education."

Soneson said fundamental questions should be asked about the texts' reliability, the context, the authorship and other writings of that time.

"In teaching the books of the Bible in the public schools, it really ought to be treated as we treat any other ancient book," he said. "A historical point of view is different from a religious point of view."

Neither professor was very familiar with the National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools, but after Soneson reviewed materials posted on the organization's Web site he voiced concern with the Bible translation the curriculum is based on.

"The use of the King James Version is itself problematic because it's language of the early 17th century," he said, noting the translation is beautifully written but the meaning is hard to grasp.

"Their scholarship at the time was relatively new and there's lots of technical language mistakes in the translations," Soneson said.

As a result, he said "this is not God's word."

"Even if you take the New Testament or the Hebrew Bible as God's word, this is not God's word," he said.

He advocates a modern translation of the Bible, like the New Revised Standard Version.

Soneson and Atkinson voiced concern about Arnold's proposed curriculum not having a textbook beyond the Bible.

"That's the problem: Most public school teachers don't have the academic background (in biblical studies)," Atkinson said. "The problem is if you just have the Bible, most people interpret like you do in church."

Soneson prefers using a contemporary textbook.

"Not a textbook that is interested ultimately in presenting a religious point of view," he said.

"The problem with presenting it as a religious text is it looks like indoctrination," Soneson said. "We couldn't legitimately do that unless we did the same with all other religious texts."

Contact Andrew Wind at (319) 291-1507 or andrew.wind@wcfcourier.com.