Bible study rules for public schools proposed

Feb 10, 2010 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: The Courier-Journal

FRANKFORT, Ky. - The state would create rules for teaching about the Bible in public high schools under a bill filed Monday by three Democratic senators.

Comments
99,261 - 99,280 of 130,211 Comments Last updated 6 min ago

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#103857
May 17, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

do whut wrote:
<quoted text>
Life begins at conception because unless aborted or miscarried, a human will result. Any other definition was created to justify murder and make it seem less terrible.
Again, patently false. Without medical attention most fetuses never live, even with medical attention many do not live anyway.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#103858
May 17, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

do whut wrote:
<quoted text>
Why does the government care if a man punches a woman in the stomach and causes her to lose the child? It seems the will of the mother is the only variable.
In that case, what is the difference between a woman deciding in month 6 of a pregnancy that she doesn't want a kid vs. deciding she doesn't want her 6 month old child?
Once birth occurs, the mother is no longer at a health risk.
Forcing someone to carry to birth is against a persons right to freedom of their bodies. Once birth occurs, that child is then protected by the same constitutional rights.

“There is no god.”

Since: Jan 12

USA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#103859
May 17, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Ahhhh, the old should abortion be legal discussion has returned. In the holyhatebible god killed lots of kids. From what one reads in the holyhatebible it can be said god still kills kids. I would go as far as to say god likes killing the bible shows us this. Just one of the many reasons the holyhatebible should not be around our children in public schools with all the bad moral lessons the holyhatebible contains no wonder crime is on the rise. 98% of prison populations are religies. Go figure.

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#103860
May 17, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>Again, patently false. Without medical attention most fetuses never live, even with medical attention many do not live anyway.
What are you talking about? A fetus that is left alone, or one extracted from the mother?

My statement is true. Please explain what type of twist you are trying to put on this to make it false.

Since: May 13

Somerset, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#103861
May 17, 2013
 

Judged:

1

just my opinion, the state, as the article reads, is trying to make guidelines on Biblical courses that are already electives. Now, I've never seen a school grade 1-8 that has electives. But I'm as old as the dinosaurs! So, essentially, they are spending our money on something that already exists. They are simply fine tuning it--in their minds.

What I think. The constitution specifically provides for separation of school and state. Someone up there said it so much better than I can. Government schools cannot teach religion due to the constitution. It's not up to debate. They can teach about Moses crossing the desert in the context of escaping from the Eguptions, but cannot teach about the events leading up to their leaving, for example. So, to address someone's post about teaching our rich history, it can be done without mention of religion, except maybe in the very fewest of words. I know my English is wrong there, but it is the best I could think of on such short notice.:)

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#103862
May 17, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>Once birth occurs, the mother is no longer at a health risk.
Forcing someone to carry to birth is against a persons right to freedom of their bodies. Once birth occurs, that child is then protected by the same constitutional rights.
No it is a failure to hold someone accountable for the misuse of their bodies. It is a failure to recognize that another life form is now dependent on what they do with their body. You favor granting people the right to be irresponsible at the expense of another life.

Since: May 13

Somerset, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#103863
May 17, 2013
 
I need to correct my last post. When I read the first article from the Courier Journal, I did not see anything about high schools. Therefore I was thinking that these classes were for all classes. That is why I made the statement about grades 1-8. When I tried to find the same article again, I found two sentences that stated high school. I beg your indulgences for my ignorance.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#103864
May 17, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

do whut wrote:
<quoted text>
What are you talking about? A fetus that is left alone, or one extracted from the mother?
My statement is true. Please explain what type of twist you are trying to put on this to make it false.
This is kind of fun, watching you completely deny everything about reality:

Here's with medical assistance, in the US:
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fetal_death.htm

In 2006 there were 25,972 fetal deaths within 20 weeks of gestation.

An interesting paper on the very subject:
http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/86/6/07-0...

You should learn how to look things up before you repeatedly make a fool of yourself.
curious

Ocoee, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#103865
May 17, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

_Ummm_ wrote:
<quoted text>
OK then, moron... why are you responding with things that don't apply? Are you just an intentionally wasting everyone else's time?
Just shut up. That was rhetorical. You're such a petulant child. And a hypocrite. You post a bunch of ambiguous Bible garbage with interspersed ranting and then try to play gotcha when the people you're "arguing" with think that you are talking to them.
Try this on for size:
In your rush to judgement, you assumed that I thought you were referring to atheists (or even cared in the slightest). I did not. I didn't even read it, because (for the millionth time) I'm not here to read your cherry picked Bible verses. If you can't be bothered to reciprocate and have a real thought (as I always do), I'm not going to bother to read what you vomit out onto the internet. All I did was make fun of your complete inability to form your own thoughts.
So, as always, I am rightfully calling your judgement into question. On every level. About everything I've seen you state an opinion on.
A general statement was posted.You,Chrome and Mike took it personally.
Why you might have felt it applied to all of you,I can not explain.
Otherwise,why did you respond?....
I tend to wear shoes that fit me,if they don't fit,I throw them out.

Since: May 13

Somerset, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#103866
May 17, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Yiago, except for rape, abuse or incest, the mother of a baby expended her rights when she CHOSE to have sex. That was HER right. She knew she could get pregnant and make a new LIFE. A new PERSON. After she had expended HER rights, if she became pregnant, then the rights became the baby's rights and NOT hers.

Furthermore, since this topic has sprouted out of the topic of teaching the Bible in schools, I will add this little tidbit. If the pro-choice, and the right-to-life camps came together and spent all that energy and money on teaching PROPER sex education (a subject which the parents have abdicated), self-erotica (no, you won't go blind or grow hair on your knuckles), taught about proper birth control, including but not exclusively abstinence, helped pregnant mothers through term, then helped them adopt their babies, well, all this BS would be a much smaller topic. The GOOD sex education would drastically decrease pregnancy, and decrease sex before marriage as well. Helping the poor mothers adopt their babies would keep them from the burden of rearing a child they cannot care for, and decrease the incidence of child abuse. Also, it would help out a family who "must" have an infant, rather than adopt an older child who desperately needs a good home as well as a newborn. But, they cannot see past their eyelashes, cannot see what harm they are doing. They are mean, short-sited and dangerous. I am pre-life myself, but not a pro-LIFER.

“pervinco per logica”

Since: Feb 12

Eradicate willful ignorance.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#103867
May 17, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

do whut wrote:
<quoted text>
Life begins at conception because unless aborted or miscarried, a human will result. Any other definition was created to justify murder and make it seem less terrible.
Are you seriously unable to provide an answer? Do you not understand or do you think that clarification would make your position weak?

Not "when does life begin". Not "is ______ living". Not "what results in a human". Just define "human", as applies to your statements. Then define living as it applies to the human you define. Exceedingly simple, and essential to establishing any point you're trying to make.
do whut wrote:
<quoted text>
What are you talking about? A fetus that is left alone, or one extracted from the mother?
My statement is true. Please explain what type of twist you are trying to put on this to make it false.
It is estimated that a very large percentage (around 50%, some say higher) of fetuses do not survive pregnancy. About 40% of these losses are considered "know pregnancies". That's all they are saying (or at least that's how what they are saying matches my knowledge on the subject).
do whut wrote:
<quoted text>
With or without medical attention, a fetus thrives in a uterus and is born. I can read, you just can't make your point clear. Nor can you address the questions I asked.
You are simply not understanding. I got the point. I'm sure others did, as well.
curious wrote:
<quoted text>
A general statement was posted.You,Chrome and Mike took it personally.
Why you might have felt it applied to all of you,I can not explain.
Otherwise,why did you respond?....
I tend to wear shoes that fit me,if they don't fit,I throw them out.
Read, you moron. Read the things you JUST quoted. I just told you what I did, and it is none of the bullsh!t you're claiming. Stop putting words in my mouth, and stop posting pointless inane "general statement" crap just so you can feign amazement that people think you're talking about them when you're talking about them.

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#103868
May 17, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
This is kind of fun, watching you completely deny everything about reality:
Here's with medical assistance, in the US:
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fetal_death.htm
In 2006 there were 25,972 fetal deaths within 20 weeks of gestation.
An interesting paper on the very subject:
http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/86/6/07-0...
You should learn how to look things up before you repeatedly make a fool of yourself.
I'm the fool? I'm talking about abortions and intentional miscarriages, not still born babies from natural causes. Why are you avoiding the topic and bringing something totally unrelated to the table and then calling me a fool?

This is like me talking about 1st degree murder and you bringing up statistics on deaths from natural causes in a nursing home.
curious

Ocoee, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#103869
May 17, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

_Ummm_ wrote:
<quoted text>
y not understanding. I got the point. I'm sure others did, as well.
<quoted text>
Read, you moron. Read the things you JUST quoted. I just told you what I did, and it is none of the bullsh!t you're claiming. Stop putting words in my mouth, and stop posting pointless inane "general statement" crap just so you can feign amazement that people think you're talking about them when you're talking about them.
Calling people names,getting angry and showing your frustrations are not the right path to get you to the solution you are seeking.

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#103870
May 17, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

_Ummm_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you seriously unable to provide an answer? Do you not understand or do you think that clarification would make your position weak?
Not "when does life begin". Not "is ______ living". Not "what results in a human". Just define "human", as applies to your statements. Then define living as it applies to the human you define. Exceedingly simple, and essential to establishing any point you're trying to make.
<quoted text>
Webster says:
Definition of HUMAN

1: of, relating to, or characteristic of humans

2: consisting of humans

3 a: having human form or attributes

b: susceptible to or representative of the sympathies and frailties of human nature

Lets take #1.
Characteristic of humans. By week 4 it is undeniable that the embryo has appendages, eyes, a head, a spine, etc. It is a human from conception.

Have you ever seen body parts of an aborted baby? The tiny hands, feet, and face? It is a human, and how anyone could deny this, or try to justify the murder of such, is beyond me. Some babies have been shown to react to the torturous death they have to endure.

Define living? Not dead. If the embryo is still in stages of development, it is alive.

What is your definition of human and living?

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#103871
May 17, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

do whut wrote:
<quoted text>
If you want my opinion: God allows us to choose, but He knows us so well, He knows which Mother will more than likely abort.
So you still cannot get an answer out of that ghost?

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#103872
May 17, 2013
 

Judged:

1

do whut wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm the fool? I'm talking about abortions and intentional miscarriages, not still born babies from natural causes. Why are you avoiding the topic and bringing something totally unrelated to the table and then calling me a fool?
This is like me talking about 1st degree murder and you bringing up statistics on deaths from natural causes in a nursing home.
No, you denied what I stated, which again was: Without medical assistance most fetuses are not born alive.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#103873
May 17, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

do whut wrote:
<quoted text>
Webster says:
Definition of HUMAN
1: of, relating to, or characteristic of humans
2: consisting of humans
3 a: having human form or attributes
b: susceptible to or representative of the sympathies and frailties of human nature
Lets take #1.
Characteristic of humans. By week 4 it is undeniable that the embryo has appendages, eyes, a head, a spine, etc. It is a human from conception.
Have you ever seen body parts of an aborted baby? The tiny hands, feet, and face? It is a human, and how anyone could deny this, or try to justify the murder of such, is beyond me. Some babies have been shown to react to the torturous death they have to endure.
Define living? Not dead. If the embryo is still in stages of development, it is alive.
What is your definition of human and living?
Based on your definition here, apes, monkeys, chimpanzees, cats, dogs .... well a lot of animals are human as well.

“Question, Explore, Discover”

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#103874
May 17, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

do whut wrote:
<quoted text>
So you blame born children for crime?
And you think a parent has the right to kill their own children?
No, no.

Statistically, crime correlates with poverty. Poverty is increased when reproductive rights are decreased or denied. That much should be common sense, right? Look at areas where poverty is a problem. Look at the families. What do you see? Tons of kids. Look at areas of affluence. What do you see? Fewer kids.

People with privilege tend to be educated. They tend to control their reproduction, pushing more of their resources into fewer offspring.

In families where living on food stamps is essentially a tradition they pump out a lot of babies. You sometimes see kids coming out of those groups break that tradition by NOT having kids early or at all.

It is NOT the kids fault. But uncontrolled reproduction HARMS children that are already here. Controlling reproduction (abstaining, using the pill, using condoms, and aborting unwanted pregnancies) greatly improves average income and living standards.

The second part is a loaded question. If a woman gets pregnant and then has an abortion within a reasonable amount of time she is not killing her child. She is ending her pregnancy. A fetus is not a kid with snotty nose, it doesn't even have a sense of self or awareness before 26 weeks or so.

Now, we can have a serious discussion about limiting "late term" abortions. I'm down with that discussion. But prior to 26 weeks it ain't your business, it ain't my business, and it damn sure ain't the government's business. So don't go down that road of "baby killing" argumentation. I don't have any patience for claptrap.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#103875
May 17, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Electratroll wrote:
just my opinion, the state, as the article reads, is trying to make guidelines on Biblical courses that are already electives. Now, I've never seen a school grade 1-8 that has electives. But I'm as old as the dinosaurs! So, essentially, they are spending our money on something that already exists. They are simply fine tuning it--in their minds.
What I think. The constitution specifically provides for separation of school and state. Someone up there said it so much better than I can. Government schools cannot teach religion due to the constitution. It's not up to debate. They can teach about Moses crossing the desert in the context of escaping from the Eguptions, but cannot teach about the events leading up to their leaving, for example. So, to address someone's post about teaching our rich history, it can be done without mention of religion, except maybe in the very fewest of words. I know my English is wrong there, but it is the best I could think of on such short notice.:)
Actually teaching that Moses did anything is not history, as zero evidence exists to any of the claims. Also the evidence shows many if the claims as likely false. I am not even speaking if the supernatural claims.

“Question, Explore, Discover”

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#103876
May 17, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Electratroll wrote:
Yiago, except for rape, abuse or incest, the mother of a baby expended her rights when she CHOSE to have sex. That was HER right. She knew she could get pregnant and make a new LIFE. A new PERSON. After she had expended HER rights, if she became pregnant, then the rights became the baby's rights and NOT hers.
Furthermore, since this topic has sprouted out of the topic of teaching the Bible in schools, I will add this little tidbit. If the pro-choice, and the right-to-life camps came together and spent all that energy and money on teaching PROPER sex education (a subject which the parents have abdicated), self-erotica (no, you won't go blind or grow hair on your knuckles), taught about proper birth control, including but not exclusively abstinence, helped pregnant mothers through term, then helped them adopt their babies, well, all this BS would be a much smaller topic. The GOOD sex education would drastically decrease pregnancy, and decrease sex before marriage as well. Helping the poor mothers adopt their babies would keep them from the burden of rearing a child they cannot care for, and decrease the incidence of child abuse. Also, it would help out a family who "must" have an infant, rather than adopt an older child who desperately needs a good home as well as a newborn. But, they cannot see past their eyelashes, cannot see what harm they are doing. They are mean, short-sited and dangerous. I am pre-life myself, but not a pro-LIFER.
Let's come together. Let's make a compromise: abortions prior to 26 or 28 weeks (I'll have to look it up, can't remember which is the prevailing science) are OK. Always. No questions, no subjecting girls to horrifying videos to slut shame and pressure them away from their decision. No Bible beating. You want an abortion at 14 weeks, here you go.

But after 26 weeks we limit it to rape, incest, risk of death of either the baby or the mother or both.

I can have that conversation. But when it comes to voluntary, early abortion that is not something we can compromise on. It is the right of the mother, period.

Regarding sex ed, I agree we need a much more robust approach to that topic. Abstinence can be part of it, but not exclusive. Kids are going to get nasty as soon as they can. If you were ever a teenager you know this is true. The only thing stopping a teenager from having sex at any given moment is opportunity. Prepare them correctly.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Other Recent Barbourville Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 7 min Ari son of Anarchy 149,777
dead beat mothers 34 min oldlady 1
Charmaine Partin 56 min pissed 2
Looking for a place to rent ASAP 1 hr Momolovesmatthew 1
selfless love witnessed 1 hr IronHammer 1
Sheriff deputies 1 hr cant wait 16
kenfra bimgham smith 4 hr old friend 2
puppet masters of knox co. who are they? 5 hr Brain dead 8

Search the Barbourville Forum:
•••

Severe Thunderstorm Watch for Knox County was issued at August 20 at 4:00PM EDT

•••
•••
•••

Barbourville Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

Barbourville People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Barbourville News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Barbourville
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••