Bible study rules for public schools proposed

There are 20 comments on the The Courier-Journal story from Feb 10, 2010, titled Bible study rules for public schools proposed. In it, The Courier-Journal reports that:

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.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Courier-Journal.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#104415 May 22, 2013
do whut wrote:
<quoted text>
Think of what germs do for us though. They aren't all bad. Just like vultures. They are disgusting but serve a purpose.
So bad germs had to be created by god in order for him to create bad ones?
You have all the answers for magic, don't you?

“See how you are?”

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#104416 May 22, 2013
stuck in a lodi wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok my gloves are off! I tried to be nice , I didn't say it was YOUR website as "ownership" I was saying as your source of information, you IDIOT. I didn't intentionally botch another's post to make my stats look more legit, and you have the gall to call me a FRAUD! IDIOT. About the facts : I posted in my original comment that when used correctly and properly the condom was 90 - 95% effective , I was wrong ACCORDING TO THE WEBSITE YOU COLLECTED YOUR DATA FROM! it was actually 98%. Now I must ask you! Are you some sort of Mentally Disturbed/challenged person that cannot accept the FAULTS and wrongs within yourself? Sounds like it. Seek Help!
1) you are still being nice
2) the answer is yes.

“See how you are?”

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#104417 May 22, 2013
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>So bad germs had to be created by god in order for him to create bad ones?
You have all the answers for magic, don't you?
You have to look at it from a religious perspective - just like birth defects are punishment for the sins of the parents,
recovering from life threatening diseases give people the opportunity to repent their sinful ways and Praise His Name. HIV is God's "magic bullet" against homosexuals. How could Jesus cure lepers if there was no Hansen's disease? STD's are a Divine Deterrent against promiscuity. God loves us all - He spares 1 in 10 Ebola cases, doesn't He? Plagues give Him the opportunity to demonstrate how well He restrains His wrath.
stuck in a lodi

Elkhorn City, KY

#104418 May 22, 2013
ProvenScience wrote:
<quoted text>
1. That is NOT my website, it is the official website of Planned Parenthood.
2. YOU are remiss and guilty of FRAUD, for NOT posting ALL the FACTS as presented by that same website.
15-24 percent FAILURE rate, in NON perfect (REAL WORLD) situations.
NOT the BEST choice for females who TRULY wish to do the RIGHT thing.
3. Are you some sort of developMentally challenged person that cannot accept the FAULTs and Wrongs with in yourself? Sounds like it.
Seek help.
Author Unknown: Sometimes it is better to remain Silent and people think you a fool, than to speak and end all doubt!
stuck in a lodi

Elkhorn City, KY

#104419 May 22, 2013
somebody posted that somewhere so I'm borrowing it to post here, because it fits

“See how you are?”

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#104420 May 22, 2013
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>i think the language of "valley girl" is what leads one to abortion over adoption.
The condemnation you just showed towards the burden of raising a child is cause for some to abort in secret instead of being judged by the likes of you in church.
This is just another reality you ignore.
Obviously the problems all started when we allowed them uppity females to vote and show their ankles. Now we actually let them walk around without a male escort, let them drive cars, have jobs and educations and get this - talk on cellphones. I've even heard of some women divorcing the master of their house just because he had to discipline them once in awhile. What happened to the good old days when women knew their place? In the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant. The world is going to Hell in a handbasket.
stuck in a lodi

Elkhorn City, KY

#104421 May 22, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
Obviously the problems all started when we allowed them uppity females to vote and show their ankles. Now we actually let them walk around without a male escort, let them drive cars, have jobs and educations and get this - talk on cellphones. I've even heard of some women divorcing the master of their house just because he had to discipline them once in awhile. What happened to the good old days when women knew their place? In the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant. The world is going to Hell in a handbasket.
Thats a good one. I may have to borrow this one too sometime. I'll add to favorites along with your name, if you don't mind

still laughing :)

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#104422 May 22, 2013
_Ummm_ wrote:
<quoted text>Thanks for supplying most of the answers.

Not just those. You're oversimplifying, or perhaps aren't aware of the methods of operation. You must also consider IUDs and standard birth control hormones (pill/injection/implant/patch/ ring). Are those OK, and why/why not?
do whut wrote, "<quoted text>
In the case of rape, the victim is scarred for life already. "

To me, this is kind of like "well, she just lost a hand already. losing another is not a big deal". It may not be the intent, but that's how it sounds when you bring the fact that she is traumatized even without enduring pregnancy.
do whut wrote, "<quoted text>
She is scarred emotionally and many times physically. This is one of the two instances that I fully agree does not warrant a cut and dry answer. If the rape victim is of a very young age, it is likely that carrying out the pregnancy will permanently damage her body. Of course there are cases where there is no permanent damage too. But if the victim is pre-teen, I would certainly understand a wanted abortion. In most rape cases, the victim is older and there is no abnormal risks to her body. I think adoption is best in these cases, but understand if they wanted an abortion."

Now we're getting somewhere. I finally see where you acknowledge that this issue is not black\white. Is this feeling extended to young women who take precautions, use protection properly, and manage to be that 1-3% that fails? Especially if they are in no financial position to be raising a child or are part of a community in which their are significant repercussions for being a young single pregnant girl?
do whut wrote, "<quoted text>
Again, these cases represent less than 1% of abortions."

Not sure how reported rate of occurrence is relevant in any way to this discussion. If we were going to discuss it, I would bring up how the vast, vast majority of rapes are never reported and how the reporting of rape as a reason for abortion could be expected to be many hundreds of percent off. But, again, irrelevant since I'm just trying to understand your position.
IUD's: if they prevent an egg from being fertilized, then there is no chance of a life resulting. I realize that they can be used a few days after sex too. Not sure I agree with that method of use, but then again the egg may not be fertilized yet.

And no, that isn't what I meant about the rape instance. Just pointing out how horrible rape is and that even if no pregnancy occurs, the victim is scarred forever.

No it isn't black and white for the less than 5% occurrences I mentioned. Most of what I have been discussing is the overwhelming majority of cases where irresponsibility was the root cause.

No, those that are taking the proper precautions and become the 1-3% do not get a free pass in my opinion, because they knew the chance that they were taking. Unless they fall in the category that it may put their own life at risk, abortion should not be an option for them.

The percentage has been important in this discussion thus far. If you are clear on my views on the 97% of cases and want to move to the other 3% where it is fuzzier, that's fine.

Just curious, how can something be off hundreds of percent?

And why do you care so much about my position? And why won't you share yours?
stuck in a lodi

Elkhorn City, KY

#104423 May 22, 2013
we need to add a disclaimer here... Be warned you'll laugh your azz off at times!

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#104424 May 22, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>So Jesus wasn't predestined to become a martyr - he could have just opened a furniture shop, had a bunch of kids and lived to a ripe old age grousing about the temple, taxes and the occupation just like his neighbors did.
He was foreordained. There is a difference. Yes He had choices. But the veil was gone from His remembrance, unlike our position. So He knew His purpose and understood its importance. So though He could have ignored His calling, He chose to honor the will of the Father.

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#104425 May 22, 2013
Yiago wrote:
<quoted text>OK. So God created all things, even the ones that kill us.

Doesn't that make God indistinguishable from nature?

If your God is just nature...good ole scientifically-demonstrable nature...then I believe in God.

Just a label, right?
It makes God the creator of nature too.

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#104426 May 22, 2013
Yiago wrote:
<quoted text>You are confusing what a fetus will become with what a fetus is. Before consciousness there is no self, therefore no suffering.

But the mother is a real person with a self and a history. Her suffering is a very real concern.

So yeah, if she has a "valley girl moment" and wants an abortion it ain't your business. There's no person to suffer. A potential person is being terminated, not an actual person.

Now before you go to the extreme, I'm not saying girls should use abortion as birth control. And they don't. There aren't that many abortions being performed anyway and nearly all of them are very early in the pregnancy. This idea of a genocide of infants is an invention of right wing nutters and appeals to the dumbest people only.

Abortions should be: rare, safe, early.

F*ck what the church thinks about it. It ain't the church's vagina, now is it?
We disagree so much on this.
Once an egg is fertilized, it is human and is considered a stage of development. Development goes from zygote, to child, to adolescent, to adult, to golden years.
There are people today in hospitals or nursing homes that have no feeling or are unconscious, should we kill them too? Should we pull the plug on those that are being kept alive by machines?

Aren't that many abortions being performed? In the US alone: 1.2 million per year. What would be considered a lot to you?
That equates to 137 per hour
1 every 26 seconds.
Not that many?
If these were homocides of 5 year olds would it seem alarming to you then?

I'm not talking about a church. I'm talking about children that deserve to live their life.

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#104427 May 22, 2013
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>So you wish to withhold marriage to homosexuals due to your superstition and yet cannot understand why we oppose your religion?
America is not a theocracy. We should not be making law due to your superstitions.
Would you not be just as upset as I if Muslims became a majority in America and they made superstitious laws (Sharia law)?
I am sure your church would love it if women could be kept from high ranking jobs also.
We get it, you and your church are bigots. And you wonder why so many look at your church as if it were a cult?
Show us your church is a leader in morality then we can talk about it following an actual god.
Withholding rights and privileges due to race, sex, or sexual persuasion is not moral. Your church has done all three and is still doing two of them.
You and your church learned nothing from its racism debacle.
Calm down Mike. No need for insult on an opinion forum.

Marriage began within religion. Why would someone even care about marriage if they don't believe in any form of religion? Civil unions are just fine with me for gays. They should receive the same benefits as marriage. The word marriage matters to religious people because it carries the belief that God is a part of the union. Civil union carries all the same rights in the rest of the world, but it isn't recognized by God. Since you don't believe in God, why would you care if He recognized it or not?

No, I would not wish women be kept from high ranking jobs. I have no problem with female CEO's or politicians (except Hillary haha. Is she female?). I would vote for a woman for president if her views and intentions were acceptable. Please don't speak for me.

If you want to learn about the leader of my church, google him. Thomas S Monson

“There is no god.”

Since: Jan 12

USA

#104428 May 22, 2013
In the early 1900's we could expect to live about 46 years, today we can expect to live about 75 years, of course this is mostly due to medical and scientific advances(no god required). Infant mortality was about 160 per 1000 births in the early 1900's, today about 5 per 1000 die, once more it is mostly attributed to medical and scientific advances(no god required). Of course the life you live(rich or poor) played a part along with the weather, food availability, war, and epidemic proportioned diseases(no devil required). I would have to check but I think about 900,000 to 1.1 million infants die a year due to premature birth(just in america). Consider miscarriages, how many fetuses just get flushed and the mother never knows. I have seen estimates that go as high as 40% of all sperm and egg meetings end in death before leaving the womb.

So if we go from the early 70s(abortion became legal) till today about 60 million abortions have been done. During this same time about 140 million have died in the womb. During the same time frame about 200 million have been okie dokie.

No god exists.
But.
If a god did exist according to the holyhatebible this mythical sky critter is responsible for everything.

Soooo, over 40 years,
Abortions=(Allowed by "The Mythical Sky Critter") 60 million dead babies.
The mythical sky critter=140 dead babies in the womb.
Oleo lord, god in a jesus suit wins the body count.

Cherry picking.
It's a religie head up the shiite canal thingy.

“See how you are?”

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#104429 May 22, 2013
do whut wrote:
<quoted text>
He was foreordained. There is a difference. Yes He had choices. But the veil was gone from His remembrance, unlike our position. So He knew His purpose and understood its importance. So though He could have ignored His calling, He chose to honor the will of the Father.
I respect your opinion, but...
Churchgoers are an incredible species.
If logic contortions were physical, there would be 2 billion circus performers in the world.

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#104430 May 22, 2013
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>Churches are teaching fiction, and you are here defending that is all they teach. You oppose them teaching modern inventions that reduce abortions.

You cannot expect me to take you seriously when you complain about abortion so much then shirk the churches role in reducing abortions.
Face palm

Churches teach abstinence until marriage. This is the number one, absolute, 100% method to prevent an abortion.
It is not their place to teach how to use contraceptives any more than it is their place to teach sexual positions.
It isn't their place to teach gun safety tips to avoid accidental deaths.
It isn't their job to teach drivers education to prevent car accidents.
It isn't their job to teach chemical reactions to avoid accidental science fair mishaps at home.
It isn't their job to teach how to paint to prevent accidental falling off ladders.
I hope you get the point.

You cannot expect me to take you seriously if you think Church holds the responsibility to teach these things. They teach the gospel of Jesus Christ (at least mine does, the one you are currently attacking)
stuck in a lodi

Elkhorn City, KY

#104431 May 22, 2013
stuck in a lodi wrote:
<quoted text> I did not say it was 100% fool-proof. The majority of people who put the condom on in the correct manner do not experience "bursting or breakage". My point is; it's better than having no protection and risking such diseases.
For your second point, I said I encourage NO SEX UNTIL AFTER MARRIAGE, what part of that did you not understand? But I'm not going to pretend to be stupid in thinking that they will marry as a virgin! It is my responsibility as a parent to teach them SEX ED 101. for both genders! Yes and Amen wrote:
AMEN!
Lust of anything is bad, sex, money, power!
It all withers, rusts, and blows away!
What we think important today is garbage tomorrow!

I'm still trying to figure out how to take all the good stuff with me when I die.:) j/k

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#104432 May 22, 2013
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>And abstinence teaching does not stop kids from having sex. So neither approach is one hundred percent effective. This is why both need to be taught.
And I think if they do happen to get pregnant, abortion and adoption is an option.
Teaching kids that murder is wrong doesn't prevent murders either.

I agree that kids should be taugh about contraceptives. It should be the parents' role to teach this. I am also just fine with a course in school about it since there are so many deadbeat parents that won't teach their kids. But I think they should bring a real doctor in to teach this part of the course, as I have seen PE teachers first hand that failed miserably at teaching it effectively.

And I can't agree that abortion should be their option.
stuck in a lodi

Elkhorn City, KY

#104433 May 22, 2013
Do Whut Wrote: No, I would not wish women be kept from high ranking jobs. I have no problem with female CEO's or politicians (except Hillary haha. Is she female?).

lmao, perhaps she"s one of those she-males :) You know; the type that makes you wanna say ewwww

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#104434 May 22, 2013
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>How an I mixing topics? Your churches stance on blacks holding the priesthood and women holding the priesthood is different how? Just how is this a separate topic?
So you are offended? Well you should be, it offends me how your church has bigoted policies. It is one large reason I left the Mormon church. Do you want other to leave your church for these reasons?
You refuse to think the church could be wrong on women and the priesthood, but you should take note, they were wrong on blacks and the priesthood for over a hundred years. So why do you have such absolute blind faith they could not be wrong now?
Now go and run from my points like you so often do.
It is different, completely. There was no revelation given that blacks should not hold the priesthood. We already talked about this. This was Brigham's opinion and no one questioned it when they should have. Males as the only holders of the priesthood was a direct revelation from Jesus Christ. This is what makes the situations different. Once Jesus Christ speaks, the church obeys.

No I'm not offended.

Did I run from anything?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

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.

Barbourville Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Pop Train 21 min idiot 2
~~Keep A Word~~Drop A Word Game. (Jun '10) 1 hr Princess Hey 664
Why is Aurther Vaughn in jail? 1 hr Who knows 1
State Police burning Girdler up. 1 hr Wonder why 1
ljs 3 hr danny 4
Check drawers 3 hr cofused 19
Silverscreen Tanning - Ringworm 4 hr source unknown 23
state police 18 hr Dear Knox 10
More from around the web

Barbourville People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]