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
99,821 - 99,840 of 130,451 Comments Last updated 2 hrs ago

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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?

“pervinco per logica”

Since: Feb 12

Eradicate willful ignorance.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#104435
May 22, 2013
 

Judged:

1

do whut wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
I'm not sure if you are aware, but IUDs, as with other chemical/hormonal birth control methods, generally attempt to prevent fertilization either by preventing the release of eggs or killing sperm. These attempts do fail. And these birth control methods generally have "backup" effects that cause the uterus to be unfavorable for pregnancy, causing the fertilized egg to be rejected.
This fact is a large part of my confusion about the opinions of "life begins at conception" people who also support birth control methods like this. It would seem to me that these have a significant chance of essentially being automatic abortion of a zygote, and would therefore be absolutely incompatible with such a view. Is this a matter of people not understanding the mechanism involved, or do they consider it an unfortunate side effect that is OK because it generally tends to happen less than 10% of the time.
do whut wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Yes, they know the risks, but you know the risks when you get in a car. If you have a wreck, should you not be able to get help with the situation, or should you have to lay in the ditch bleeding and just deal with it because you knew the risks?
do whut wrote:
<quoted text>
Just curious, how can something be off hundreds of percent?
I tend to say things that way because people generally do not "get" the difference between 1% and 2%. It's not that they intentionally try to diminish the difference, it's just the way the human mind works unless you train it to deal with statistics. The fact is, a 2% occurrence happens 100% more often than a 1% occurrence. So if something actually happens 10-11% of the time instead of 1%...
do whut wrote:
<quoted text>
And why do you care so much about my position? And why won't you share yours?
Because you're capable of being more articulate than the vast majority of people I've seen that share your general opinion on this. Maybe you could explain your position where others have utterly failed. Perhaps you will actually consider questions that I have about things that I see as highly inconsistent. I mean, after almost a week of prodding, you've eventually given me pretty good answers.

I don't share my opinions because things get very very gray for me after a point. This isn't black or white and I don't have any stance that I could hold firm to (and CERTAINLY nothing that I would stand on a soapbox for), whereas you apparently do. I honestly don't know what I would be inclined to do in some situations, and I can see multiple sides with valid points.
do whut wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
I'm not sure that going down that path is beneficial to your position. If an individual is brain dead, then I cannot imagine why a single penny should be spent keeping the rest of their body "alive" when there are people with fully formed and functioning brains suffering and dying all over the world, and the organs of the brain dead person could undoubtedly save many lives. It does far more good for humanity (and is clearly the moral choice) to simply let them go, and it's utterly selfish on the part of the families that cling to nothing for years and years.

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#104436
May 22, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>The common link is, your church just sticks to teaching fiction and does not concern itself with actually teaching what helps people the most.
This is entirely your opinion.
I believe the Church teaches salvation which lasts for eternity. To me there is nothing that helps me more than leading me back to live with my Father in Heaven.
stuck in a lodi

Elkhorn City, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#104437
May 22, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

I'm just saying this not a specific toward anyone here. Going to church does not make one a christian no more than going to Mcdonalds makes you a hamburger! This is just my opinion , not directed to anyone at all

“See how you are?”

Since: Jul 12

Earth

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#104438
May 22, 2013
 
do whut wrote:
<quoted text>
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 footing to support the notion that marriage began as a religious act. If you are wed by a secular Justice of the Peace or sea captain, you are married - not unioned. Are there any women bishops in the LDS? NO. If you do not actively advocate women in your "priesthood," then you do not wish for women to have high ranking jobs. Don't propose invalid statements just to support religious opinion.

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#104439
May 22, 2013
 
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>Piggly Wigglies do not claim to be getting messages from a god and do not claim to be promoting agendas to life. Your church does.
Talk about changing the subject.
Not changing the subject, just relating the absurdity.

The message from God is abstinence, remember?

Police don't say "You must always wear your seat belts. But if you choose to disobey, make sure you throw your arm in front of your toddler in the front seat to prevent them from going through the windshield"

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#104440
May 22, 2013
 
do whut wrote:
<quoted text>
...
It is not their place to teach how to use contraceptives any more than it is their place to teach sexual positions...
Maybe not. But should they (churches) be going out of their way to disrupt the teaching of contraceptive use? That seems irresponsible to me, but yet it's happening.
stuck in a lodi

Elkhorn City, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#104441
May 22, 2013
 
Ummm Wrote: I don't share my opinions because things get very very gray for me after a point. This isn't black or white and I don't have any stance that I could hold firm to (and CERTAINLY nothing that I would stand on a soapbox for), whereas you apparently do. I honestly don't know what I would be inclined to do in some situations, and I can see multiple sides with valid points

Wow! I must say I completely admire and respect your comment above ,and agree that alot of topics are gray areas for alot of people.
Allow me to be the first to say Thank You for finally answering it.

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.

Barbourville Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
KY What's mitch McConnell done for coal, when ther... 15 min brer rabbit 1,059
'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 1 hr Curmudgeon 151,027
Mayor West Sunday Campaining Respect the Sabbath 2 hr yep 15
union 3 hr curious 7
betty mills 3 hr town girl 1
{keep a word drop a word} (Oct '11) 5 hr SLY WEST 3,489
hot girl a the funeral home 5 hr justbecause0105 5
Ambulance hit 3 people last night in Knox count... 14 hr Hey 16
•••
•••
•••

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 ]
•••