Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash
There are philosophical agenda that are just as problematic as the theological that make their way unhindered into the classroom. Humanism is, in my opinion, a philosophical approach with very weak foundations.
Like you, I have concerns about school teachers using the podium as a pulpit, but for different reasons. My questions would be (1) what are the teacher's qualifications to opine on hermeneutical methods and historic doctrinal issues and (2) how do the teacher's person views on biblical interpretation influence the content of his or her teaching. Depending on one's theological outlook, the OT and NT interpretations can be significantly different. My answer to these questions is to permit teachers to teach the bible as literature, history, and a source for Anglo-American jurisprudence, but that differing opinions on theological interpretations of the Biblical texts throughout history must be given fair representation in the curriculum.
Unlike you, I don't agree that the Establishment Clause prohibits (or seems to prohibit) the teaching of these subjects in the classroom. I think most legal scholars agree that the current "Lemon Test" is too strict a doctrine for interpreting the Establishment Clause but, even so, allowances have been made for the presence of such things as Christian themes in artwork and sculpture in public property on the basis of its historic significance.
To illustrate how teaching on these subjects might be accomplished, consider these two statements:
1. Christians throughout history believe that Jesus' death and subsequent resurrection from the dead satisfy God's penalty for sin and, through faith, provide the Christian with hope that he/she too will raised from death and live eternally.
2. Christ's death on the cross satisfied God's penalty for sin and, through faith, you can have assurance that you too will be raised from death and live eternally.
Both convey the Christian meaning of Christ's death and both are arguably evangelistic, but the first reports the meaning, while the second invites a response of faith.
If you disallow both, then you tie the teacher's hands if books like "The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe" (Lewis) or "An Essay on Man" (Pope) are part of the curriculum. If you allow the second, then I think you are treading on Establishment Clause territory. The reasonable alternative is to allow the first.
Regardless, I will teach my children my understanding of the meanings of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection.
I'm not sure what you mean by "Whose Bible do you teach." I would think that a reputable English translation (KJV, NASV, NIV, NEV, or RSV) would be the best choices. Paraphrases, while written on a lower reading level, come too close to becoming commentaries of the paraphraser's theological biases. I guess I would ask you, as a non-believer, what would you look for in a translation of the Bible should you find an interest in studying it as history or literature?