Opposed to Learning Tanach?

I was composing a reply to one of the commenters and when I noticed it had grown to a page long, I felt it qualified as a full-fledged post. Not that this issue really matters much to me, but I figure I might as well put it on the main page instead of in a comment. I admit that it's more of a theory based on cursory anecdotal evidence and personal observation than anything very solid or substantial, but I still think it's correct.

I had written that one of the things I've heard chareidim argue against doing was learning tanach. Anonymous replied:

"charedim are not opposed to learning tanach.
again, i really wonder about you, because even when I agree with your point, the sociological detail is all wrong."

Ok, so let me elaborate. They're not opposed to it in the sense of it being assur (like the other issues I delineated). But they're not at all comfortable with yeshiva bochurim doing it. In fact, one year I set up a chavrusa with a friend to learn tanach, and whenever I met any chareidi acquaintance (I was still pretty much in that world back then), and they would inevitably ask me, "So what are you learning now?", and I answered "Tanach", the response was almost always the same: They would at first chuckle politely, then say to me, "Seriously. What are you really learning?" When I would insist that that's what I was currently studying, they'd respond with a disapproving tone, "But that's not real learning!" Some would even give me the classic rejoinder, "You should ask your rebbe about that."

Putting that aside, what I really meant in my comment was that they're not at all big fans of learning tanach in any serious way that doesn't gloss over all the less than pleasant accounts throughout it. Most chareidi people's view of the figures in tanach are like their idealized view of their favorite tzadik: Sits and learns all day, davens a long shemone esrei, does lots of hidden chesed that no one finds out about, and never speaks loshon hara. And I'm not even talking about the prominent figures. That's how they think all of Jewish society was back then. Wonderfully, magically, super-frum. It's the "The Midrash Says" and Olomeinu version that never developed further. The parts where the neviim are critical of the populace are portrayed as them yelling at the bums and reshaim (i.e. MO, Reform, Zionists) who are ruining it for the rest of the authentically frum world (i.e. chareidim, gedolim).

Of course once you open up a tanach and find out what it actually says, it's a bit difficult to maintain that fantasy for very long. Which is why they are not for learning it seriously or without a sufficiently indoctrinated person to guide you in looking at it the way they want it to be viewed. Of course, it's hard to spin stories like Pilegesh B'givah in any way that makes the "Yidden" come out looking frum by anyone's definition, which is why bottom line, they are pretty much against learning it at all.

I admit that it's hard to point to anything concrete that supports this conclusively, but it's a sentiment that I'm sure many people can confirm. And the simple fact is that everyone knows, and chareidim even admit it, most yeshiva guys coming out of the chareidi schools are abysmally ignorant of tanach. Ever have that experience where a chareidi person will hear a modern Israeli name and react with a "What kind of name is that? Is it even Jewish?" and informing them that yes, it's Jewish and it's actually a name of one of the Neviim?

I always get funny looks when I tell them that.