In the sixties, schools were morally tight ships. Teachers and Principals missed no opportunity to discuss moral behaviour, and other aspects of social responsibility. 

In every assembly, the Principal or a deputized teacher, would pontificate about accepting others, respecting adults, or the evils of something like lying. 

Kids dutifully listened, bored, knowing the schtick. It was a time in schools, much like in schools today, when educators and parents believed that simply by proselytizing about social responsibility, young kids would be persuaded to behave in a way that their adult mentors thought appropriate. Patronizing attitudes and guilt would ultimately work, they thought. Even though there was considerable data to indicate the contrary, it made them feel good to preach the homilies they felt needed consuming.

Perhaps it was just that I was young and limited, but it always seemed to me that morality and good behaviour was modeled after the behaviour of those adults for whom one had respect, not formed by those who patronizingly explained how I should behave. I respected those adults who respected my intelligence, not those who felt I needed to have moral behaviour repeatedly explained to me.

 At Inman Avenue School, each morning began with a Bible reading over the public address system and a subsequent mumbling of the Lord’s Prayer by all. This had the desired effect on the students. 

First, it was good for them. The fact that no one understood any of the language or subject matter didn’t seem to matter –it would just sink in by osmosis. Neither did it matter that the words, listened to or spoken, weren’t heard by the semi – comatose students. It was just a good thing to do.

 Efficacious or not, it was good. The fact that this daily torture caused many a student to identify the Bible with boredom and as something to be devoutly avoided subsequently seemed to elude those in charge. 

The other desired effect of the daily Bible reading was to start the day formally and to “calm the kids down” from their pre- school soccer or scrub game.

The Bible reading and the Lord’s Prayer did that very well. The five or ten minutes of droning and chanting removed any vestige of enthusiasm from the young scholars.

At Inman Avenue, they always followed the Bible reading and Lord’s Prayer with a good dose of Arithmetic, just in case there was any residual enthusiasm after the numbing religious rite.  

 In grade six I finally asked the teacher what would happen if I didn’t recite the Lord’s Prayer with the rest of the kids, but rather just sat with my head down. Of course I represented myself as a conscientious objector, which I wasn’t really, but it sounded better than saying I just wanted to see what she’d say if I put my head down instead of performing my daily duty. The teacher had to “check” to find out. A few hours later, a Friday afternoon, she told me that I should just say it with everyone else or at least pretend to say it. They didn’t want a secular rebellion with stacks of kids refusing to recite the Lord’s Prayer each day. 

Over the weekend, I couldn’t think of a plausible objection that my atheist parents would back up, so I listened, eyes rolling back in my head, and chanted with everyone else from then on, much to the relief of my teacher.

One day at recess, several of us were complaining about how boring the Bible reading was each day. Some tried to make rudimentary socio- political arguments, as if it was politics not merely boredom which motivated their dislike of the daily Bible reading.

Some said their families weren’t religious at all and that the Bible shouldn’t be read in school. 

Others said things like, “What about the Muslims in the class -the Shintos, the Taoists, the Hindus, and the atheists?” was the common complaint. 

The concept of the separation of Church and State was a bit sophisticated a concept for such young complainers, so they stuck with the argument that pushing the Bible on everyone, regardless of religious belief, was not just numbingly boring, but wrong.  

Luckily, the rising rebellion was quelled by one of our more devout classmates. After saying we were wicked for complaining about having to listen to the good book each day, she told us that, in a week or so, according to her scriptural calculations, the Principal would get to a verse in the Bible that included the phrase  “Jacob jumped on his ass…” 

(I have since been informed that, although there are no fewer than 7 uses of the word “ass” in the Bible, John 12:15 was the verse in question… “ thy King cometh, sitting on an ass’s colt…”)
 

This immediately ended all negative discussion about the Bible reading. We were all titillated as we considered how deliciously naughty it would be to hear the Principal say “and Jacob jumped on his ass…”, over the public address system.

We forthwith accepted Bible reading in gleeful anticipation as we thought of the sheer deliciousness of the imminent Biblical naughtiness. 

The irony of the situation was not lost on some of us – the Bible reading fundamentalist saying “ass” – wow. But for most of the kids, it wasn’t irony but just good old prurient silly, like saying “underpants”  or “brassiere”. 

 We all waited for the verse that included the tabooed double entendre. Jacob jumping on his ass! We giggled and tittered about it for days in anticipation. We used the phrase “Jacob jumped on his ass “ repeatedly, knowing that it was about to be sanctioned by the Bible and even more impressively, by the Principal of the school. We always emphasized the word “ASS” whenever we said it. Those kids who knew something about the Bible told us the exact day that the verse would come. 

The appointed day came, and before school, the word “ass “was used by more than one kid, who, when chastened by peer would invariably say, “hey it’s in the Bible – if it’s good enough for God it’s good enough for me.” 

When daily order was called with the dinging of the institutional PA bell, we waited with bated breath. The principal began the reading of the day’s verse. He droned on and on and finished; without mentioning either Jacob or his ass.

 He had skipped the verse. We all felt cheated. One student blurted out to his teacher, “what about Jacob and his ass?”

The intemperate young lad was sent immediately to the office, where the Principal patiently explained that the daily Bible readings were randomly chosen and representative of the desirable teachings contained in the Bible. The cowed young student apologized for his remark and returned to the class. 

The students, especially the older ones, knew that the Principal had simply weaseled out of saying “ass” over the P.A. and it disturbed us deeply. The goody goodies who suggested we were wrong only made it worse.

For the first time, I was moved to read the Bible, or at least “consult” it, in order to prove to myself and others that it wasn’t a random reading, but rather was the Principal being chicken to say the word “ass”.

 From our way of thinking, if the word “ass” was in the Bible, he shouldn’t be able to bore us to tears each day and then wimp out when the going got a little tough.

I couldn’t really understand much about what I read in the Bible – too many thees and thous and begats. I did find the word “ass” in several places and lived in hope that some day the Principal might have to say it out loud. 

But, God be praised! In my perusal of the Bible, in addition to “ass”, l found in several places, the word “cock”. This discovery gave me an additional sense of anticipation.