Professor STEPHEN PROTHERO (Chair, Religion Department, Boston University, speaking to students): Okay, so let's talk a little bit about the Bible, the firstÖ
ABERNETHY: At our request Prothero illustrated the national problem at one private high school, the Boston University Academy.
Prof. PROTHERO (speaking to student): Can you tell me anything about Joshua?
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE STUDENT #1: I remember in church there was a song about Joshua. He might have been the person who was swallowed by a whale.
Prof. PROTHERO (speaking to student): In the Adam and Eve story, how did God create Eve?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE STUDENT #1: I would think he took one of her arms.
Prof. PROTHERO (speaking to class): One of her arms?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE STUDENT #1: Yeah.
Prof. PROTHERO (speaking to class): Have you heard of the seven sacraments? What are the seven sacraments?
ABERNETHY: Stephen Prothero thinks religious illiteracy is scandalous and dangerous.
Prof. PROTHERO: Religion is the most powerful force in the world, in world history and in contemporary life. It's the most powerful force for evil, and it's the most powerful force for good, and we are in America pretending as if it doesn't matter.
ABERNETHY: Prothero argues that more religious knowledge will make Americans better citizens.
Prof. PROTHERO: You can't understand American literature, American political history without knowing something about the Bible, and you can't understand the world without knowing something about religions.ABERNETHY: Whatever their degree of religious literacy and whatever their relationship to houses of worship, Boston University students this spring packed Prothero's course.
Prof. PROTHERO (speaking to class): Today I want to look at three people whom I hope you have heard of: Jesus and the Buddha and Socrates, and we'll talk aboutÖ
ABERNETHY: The remedy Prothero proposes for religious illiteracy is both simple and controversial.
Prof. PROTHERO: I think we need courses about religion in the public schools. I think that we need to stop ignoring religion.
ABERNETHY: Required courses?
Prof. PROTHERO: I think the courses should be required.
ABERNETHY: Prothero thinks churches and families are not teaching religion well, so he wants a course on the Bible for every high school student; also, a course in world religions -- Judaism and Christianity and Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism. Prothero insists requiring such courses would not violate the separation of church and state.
Prof. PROTHERO: There's a distinction between preaching religion and teaching about religion. You can't be telling kids, accept Jesus as your Savior and Lord. That's absolutely, totally unconstitutional. Now the other thing, talking about religion, teaching about religion, is totally constitutional. There's no debate about this.
ABERNETHY: But there is debate. Critics say Christianity and Judaism would be favored over other religions in a required course on the Bible, and that would not be neutral. Barry Lynn heads Americans United for Separation of Church and State.
Reverend BARRY LYNN (Americans United for Separation of Church and State): Court decisions make it clear that we can't prefer some religions over others or prefer all religion over no religion. I think that when you take one holy scripture -- the holy Christian Bible -- and decide to use that as the centerpiece for your class, as Stephen Prothero suggests, you're on very shaky constitutional ground.
ABERNETHY: Charles Haynes of the Freedom Forum agrees.
Dr. CHARLES HAYNES (Senior Scholar, Freedom Forum First Amendment Center): I think a required Bible course is not a good idea. I think it would be giving too much room in the curriculum to one scripture and some faiths and not others. But, on the other hand, I think a required world religions course would be a good idea, because there I think we expose students to a wide variety of beliefs and practices.ABERNETHY: When the Supreme Court ruled out school-sponsored prayer in 1962, it set off a generation of conflict not only about school prayer but also about teaching religion. Were the justices really against it?
Dr. HAYNES: They were heard somehow as though telling public schools to ignore religion, to leave it out. But that was a deep misunderstanding of those decisions. They were saying that the state may not impose religion or sponsor religion, but of course public schools must teach about religion in order to offer a good education.
ABERNETHY: At first, after the prayer decision some school districts avoided controversy by ignoring religion altogether. Then, partly because of explanations by the Freedom Forum of how to teach about religion, there was what Haynes calls a "sea change."
BARBARA BLINN (Teacher): They are exploring something for the first time for many of them. They are 16, 17, 18 years old. This is the first time they have ever opened a Bible. If you mention "a garden mentality" and how perfect things once were, and the kids go, "What are you talking about? My garden is full of weeds." You're like, "No, I am talking about the Garden of Eden" and they are, like, "The garden of what?"
Rev. LYNN: I think if you in fact teach a course in the Bible and perhaps a second course in world religions, in many communities in the United States this will disturb both people on the right and the left. It will not lead to better understanding and everybody singing "Kumbaya." It will lead to more cultural clashes over what version of the Bible, what religions should be included in the curriculum.
ABERNETHY: One sign this week of ongoing controversy. On behalf of several parents, the American Civil Liberties Union and People for the American Way filed a lawsuit against the school district in Odessa, Texas, charging that an elective high school Bible course violates Supreme Court rulings because it proselytizes rather than teaching objectively. And a footnote to our story: One frequent question about requiring a course in religion is what course now required should be dropped to make way for it? The runaway favorite choice, we found, is math.
Read more of Bob Abernethy's interview with 
