Bible study rules for public schools ...

Bible study rules for public schools proposed

There are 171895 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.

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#109640 Aug 5, 2013
Yiago wrote:
<quoted text>1. So? Unless you have evidence FOR this creator, why offer it up as a hypothesis to begin with? Scientists don't just pull sh*t out of their asses and present it for review. And if they do, they get shot down. That's why there is NO scientific theory that includes deities.

2. If god has a creator then god is not perfect. That's antithetical to every bit of Christian theology I've ever read about. It also leads to infinite regress, which has some philosophical problems. But hey, at least its honest.
1. What if the creator, created the laws of science? And since He does not want to be "proven" because it disposes of the need for faith because it is contrary to His plan, couldn't He avoid being proven to ensure His plans are not foiled?

And I can't really compare God to a scientist. Unless you know some that are claiming to BE God, I don't think it is a relevant comparison.

2. Why would God not be perfect if He had a Father? Jesus was perfect and He had a Father.

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#109641 Aug 5, 2013
Yiago wrote:
<quoted text>I don't know. All the thousands of people slaughtered in his military campaigns adds up to a lot of blood. Hardly a perfect man at all. More like a murderous, misogynistic thug.
The definition of murder was spilling of innocent blood. David was told there was no innocence in the people he fought against.
Name

Greenbrier, AR

#109643 Aug 5, 2013
If you don't want to study the bible, then don't. No one is making anyone be religious. But, don't keep the people that want to study and fellowship with others from doing so. It's their right.
curious

Winter Garden, FL

#109644 Aug 5, 2013
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>Just because it is difficult for you to conclude does not mean it is a false conclusion. Most of those who study nature as a profession ( scientists)conclude life needs no intelligent creator. Many if not most of these people were once god believing persons. But after much study they most often conclude it is highly plausible no creator god is needed.
So when a religious fundamentalist rants on and on about all these highly educated and professional people being stupid or insane, it only makes you seem to be all the more brainwashed.
It is not reasonable to expect man to be able to duplicate in a lab what took ten billions years of natural forces to create.
But yet man has produced the building blocks of life in a lab that leads one reasonably assume nature could have produced life naturally over the span of a billion years of earth existing.
Side note, Darwin never promoted atheism.
Well, These same intelligent Scientists, who claim that life does not need an intelligent creator, have no clue as to how life began.
In order to attempt to find out,Scientists have spent innumerable hours in the laboratory attempting to create life

Article in New York Times
. All the amazing breakthroughs that these outstanding scientists have accomplished in their quest to create life in the laboratory have one thing in common: They are only possible under the strictest and most rigorous of laboratory procedures, processes, and protocols, and only under the guidance and direction of the most brilliant scientific minds working with the most advanced equipment available. These procedures and processes did not pop out of thin air; they are themselves built on the collective acquired knowledge and experience of thousands of different researchers and represent, literally, millions of man-hours of intensive labor, contemplation, and analysis. None of them could have conceivably taken place in a prebiotic swamp through undirected processes.
No one has summarized it more incisively and succinctly than Dr. Robert Shapiro, a self-proclaimed agnostic who is Professor Emeritus of Chemistry at NYU, and a world recognized authority on Origin of Life research. Dr. Shapiro wrote the following in 1999, in anticipation of the creation in the laboratory of “self-sustained RNA evolving systems,”(which are discussed at length in Overbye’s article):“The media probably will announce it as the demonstration of a crucial step in the origin of life…The concept that the scientists are [actually] illustrating is one of Intelligent Design. No better term can be applied to a quest in which chemists…prepare a living system in the laboratory, using all the ingenuity and technical resources at their disposal.”

In other words, these scientists have made it incontrovertibly clear that all the steps that are necessary for the emergence of life require the conscious and direct involvement of an active, guiding, and highly intelligent force. The very language that Overbye must inescapably use in describing the efforts of these scientists, strikingly illustrates this notion:

“researchers are trying to construct life…in a thimbleful of liquid.”
“If you had a second example of life, even if it were synthetic, you might know better. I’m betting we’re just going to make it.”
“The ability to synthesize life will be an event of profound importance, like the invention of agriculture or the invention of metallurgy.”
“George Church and Farren Isaacs of the Harvard Medical School recently reported that they had reprogrammed the genome of an E. coli bacterium.”
“Jack Szostak…embarked on an ambitious project to build an artificial cell”
“At the center of the Joyce lab experiments is a T-shaped piece of RNA…In 2002 Joyce and Natasha Paul, configured it to recognize and glue together a pair of smaller molecules.”
curious

Winter Garden, FL

#109645 Aug 5, 2013
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>Just because it is difficult for you to conclude does not mean it is a false conclusion. Most of those who study nature as a profession ( scientists)conclude life needs no intelligent creator. Many if not most of these people were once god believing persons. But after much study they most often conclude it is highly plausible no creator god is needed.
So when a religious fundamentalist rants on and on about all these highly educated and professional people being stupid or insane, it only makes you seem to be all the more brainwashed.
It is not reasonable to expect man to be able to duplicate in a lab what took ten billions years of natural forces to create.
But yet man has produced the building blocks of life in a lab that leads one reasonably assume nature could have produced life naturally over the span of a billion years of earth existing.
Side note, Darwin never promoted atheism.
It is not reasonable to expect man to duplicate or create that which is beyond his intellectual means.
What God accomplished in 1 day man can not duplicate,regardless of how much time he is given.
Man can make a dummy, but can not give it life.....Although...
stuck in a lodi

Elkhorn City, KY

#109646 Aug 5, 2013
Nox Aeterna wrote:
<quoted text>
How is it that when you attempt to support your own position you always actually undermine it?
"I think the letter showed the intent of the willingness of the forefathers in keeping the government OUT of the "business" of peoples personal choices in religion."
Those are your words, and your words agree with my argument that Bible study is unconstitutional. Do you know what it means for the government to keep out of the "business" of peoples' personal choice of religion? It means that government will neither promote a religion nor will it denounce a religion.
Bible study in public schools is promoting a religion, and public schools are State run, and State is another word for "government" in this context. By allowing Bible study in a public school you promote the Christian faith, which is unconstitutional and puts the government right in the middle of the "business" of peoples' personal choice of religion.
Essentially, what you're doing, in a more simplified manner is saying this: I think we should paint all schools pink. Pink is the worst color ever!
Or, if that went over your head I'll be quite blunt and spell it out: Your arguments contradict your position.
Thomas Jefferson's letter comes to mind Separation of Church and State.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#109647 Aug 5, 2013
SistaNoneYaBiz wrote:
I think of parables that are more open to pondering like Noahs, or for another example, the Good Samaritan, the same as I would of, for instance, of the elements that can be found in Aesops tale of The Ant and the Grasshopper.
There is STILL, good Moral basis to be gleaned of such.
It's all in HOW one perceives/and reads such.
And, I will STILL remain of the opinion that I personally do NOT actually know with certainty, what went on during the parable of a flood as possibly experienced by Noah, other than GEOLOGY HAS proven extreme climate changes in the region-INcluding areas of now dry, arid lands being, where once flourishing, water laden and lush agriculture existed, and adding to that, sooo many archeological evidences that seem to fortify other passages that are mentioned in this particular book. Therefore, I would never be so condescendingly arrogant as to insist that anyone else view it with any absolute certainty in one particular regard or another.
The Noah story is not one of good morality. It is a story of mass murder. In fact the most massive murdering spree of all time.
Now you can keep that death cult story in your own life, but please don't glorify that evil mentality to my kids in public school.
stuck in a lodi

Elkhorn City, KY

#109648 Aug 5, 2013
You may have been discussing that letter as I have not been following the conversation, If so, then yes I agree that the letter is stating the Government will make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The Government is neutral and deems it solely between the Man and his God and none other.

Kennedy also touched on this subject in 1960.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#109649 Aug 5, 2013
SistaNoneYaBiz wrote:
<quoted text>
Disagree on the Danbury thing. I think the letter showed the intent of the willingness of the forefathers in keeping the government OUT of the "business" of peoples personal choices in religion. GOOD for people who chose to live as individuals, rather than shackled to plantations of diests...even if probably why we need a flat federal sales tax with no exclusions these days.
My personal opinion on the rest, they're all interesting, and learning about anything like that just offers insights, as to just how people may think (or not...and I don't think communisTic type regimish ones, think very enlightenedly...more so rather power hungrily and corruptedly)
Do you have any idea of how Danbury was interfering with people's religion? I really don't think you do. They were insisting on a state religion. So Jefferson said get your government paws out of the religion game and stick to secular duties.
So you claim to disagree with me yet give no explanation if the disagreement.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#109650 Aug 5, 2013
curious wrote:
<quoted text>
It is not reasonable to expect man to duplicate or create that which is beyond his intellectual means.
What God accomplished in 1 day man can not duplicate,regardless of how much time he is given.
Man can make a dummy, but can not give it life.....Although...
First show some evidence god ever created a single thing, then show us evidence he created a bunch of stuff in one day.
Fact is, their is absolutely zero evidence the creation story of the bible is as claimed.

But yes, their is no reason to assume man can create what nature took billions of years to do.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#109651 Aug 5, 2013
SistaNoneYaBiz wrote:
<quoted text>
That the forefathers didn't have quite a hold on creating as perfectly an oiled running nation as they thought they did.
Utopia cannot exist. I note you avoided all questions and points.
SistaNoneYaBiz

London, KY

#109653 Aug 5, 2013
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>
So you claim to disagree with me yet give no explanation if the disagreement.
Nice try boonedoooglymassholio. But here's the REAL baBing...

In 1947, in the case Everson v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court declared, "The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach." The "separation of church and state" phrase which they invoked, and which has today become so familiar, was taken from an exchange of letters between President Thomas Jefferson and the Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut, shortly after Jefferson became President.

The election of Jefferson – America's first Anti-Federalist President – elated many Baptists since that denomination, by-and-large, was also strongly Anti-Federalist. This political disposition of the Baptists was understandable, for from the early settlement of Rhode Island in the 1630s to the time of the federal Constitution in the 1780s, the Baptists had often found themselves suffering from the centralization of power.

Consequently, now having a President who not only had championed the rights of Baptists in Virginia but who also had advocated clear limits on the centralization of government powers, the Danbury Baptists wrote Jefferson a letter of praise on October 7, 1801, telling him:

Among the many millions in America and Europe who rejoice in your election to office, we embrace the first opportunity ... to express our great satisfaction in your appointment to the Chief Magistracy in the United States....[W]e have reason to believe that America's God has raised you up to fill the Chair of State out of that goodwill which He bears to the millions which you preside over. May God strengthen you for the arduous task which providence and the voice of the people have called you.... And may the Lord preserve you safe from every evil and bring you at last to his Heavenly Kingdom through Jesus Christ our Glorious Mediator.[1]

However, in that same letter of congratulations, the Baptists also expressed to Jefferson their grave concern over the entire concept of the First Amendment, including of its guarantee for "the free exercise of religion":

Our sentiments are uniformly on the side of religious liberty: that religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals, that no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious opinions,[and] that the legitimate power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor.
In short, the inclusion of protection for the "free exercise of religion" in the constitution suggested to the Danbury Baptists that the right of religious expression was government-given (thus alienable) rather than God-given (hence inalienable), and that therefore the government might someday attempt to regulate religious expression. This was a possibility to which they strenuously objected-unless, as they had explained, someone's religious practice caused him to "work ill to his neighbor."....
AND-In matters of religion, I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the Constitution independent of the powers of the general [federal] government. Second Inaugural Address, 1805 [4]
AND[O]ur excellent Constitution ... has not placed our religious rights under the power of any public functionary. Letter to the Methodist Episcopal Church, 1808 [5]
AND-I consider the government of the United States as interdicted [prohibited] by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions ... or exercises. Letter to Samuel Millar, 1808 [6]
AND MOSTLY
Jefferson believed that the government was to be powerless to interfere with religious expressions for a very simple reason: he had long witnessed the unhealthy tendency of government to encroach upon the free exercise of religion.
"DUH" Gvrment OUT of church business.
SistaNoneYaBiz

London, KY

#109654 Aug 5, 2013
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>Utopia cannot exist. I note you avoided all questions and points.
Not my fault if you can't comprehend that which is plainly stuck in front of your eyeballs to read.
SistaNoneYaBiz

London, KY

#109655 Aug 5, 2013
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>Do you have any idea of how Danbury was interfering with people's religion? I really don't think you do. They were insisting on a state religion. So Jefferson said get your government paws out of the religion game and stick to secular duties.
So you claim to disagree with me yet give no explanation if the disagreement.
and you can STOP just trying to rewrite REAL History now--

Unless of course you think it's something original or something..mm on second thought, nah...you'd probably just try and dump in your opinion and and try and twist and distort the REAL facts.

Maybe a new hobby?
SistaNoneYaBiz

London, KY

#109656 Aug 5, 2013
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>Utopia cannot exist. I note you avoided all questions and points.
YOU owe me GOOD for that explanation now lol.
SistaNoneYaBiz

London, KY

#109657 Aug 5, 2013
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>Utopia cannot exist. I note you avoided all questions and points.
See how your post has a number ending in 51...

Be SURE-not to miss my response answering all your blablahblahblather and then some-(ending in 53!!!)
curious

Winter Garden, FL

#109658 Aug 5, 2013
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>First show some evidence god ever created a single thing, then show us evidence he created a bunch of stuff in one day.
Fact is, their is absolutely zero evidence the creation story of the bible is as claimed.
But yes, their is no reason to assume man can create what nature took billions of years to do.
In other words,you are saying that, man is capable of creating life and that by using his intelligence he will be able to design and create some form of life...That process would be called Intelligent Design.....
Gee,Where have I heard this Intelligent Design argument?
And to think,there are those who would disagree with you.
These Fools would tell you that you do not need Intelligent design or God , in order to create life.
They will tell you that life was spontaneously created from nonliving matter.... And,,,They have no idea how this happened?
Some will make those assertions and then recant.......

Life is the result of one,that being God,having the knowledge to intelligently design it....
Yes,Our God lives and creared all by means of Jesus Christ.
His word tells me so And,,,To those that seek him,he has proved his existence
SistaNoneYaBiz

London, KY

#109659 Aug 5, 2013
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>The Noah story is not one of good morality. It is a story of mass murder. In fact the most massive murdering spree of all time.
Now you can keep that death cult story in your own life, but please don't glorify that evil mentality to my kids in public school.
How ever, I CAN agree with you 100 percent on THAT type of pitch forked, witch hunting, dark age, barabaric, under a rock ignorant type of mentality.

I wouldn't want any one like that around my kids either!!!

(and I thank goodness they never let such around US as kids!!)
SistaNoneYaBiz

London, KY

#109660 Aug 5, 2013
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>Utopia cannot exist. I note you avoided all questions and points.
Although I will give you a few points for maybe having a shred of enough actual COMMON SENSE (as did the FF) to realize-

NO GOVERNMENT would ever be able to "demand" ALL people believe/worship (or not) the same.

That would just be plain old, outright-- IGNORANT.

Hense, your "utopia" comment would be quite TRUE.
SistaNoneYaBiz

London, KY

#109661 Aug 5, 2013
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>Do you have any idea of how Danbury was interfering with people's religion? I really don't think you do. They were insisting on a state religion. So Jefferson said get your government paws out of the religion game and stick to secular duties.
So you claim to disagree with me yet give no explanation if the disagreement.
And here---one more little quip-just for the fly ball out beyond centerfield HOME RUN!

That Court then succinctly summarized Jefferson's intent for "separation of church and state":
[T]he rightful purposes of civil government are for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order. In th[is]... is found the true distinction between what properly belongs to the church and what to the State.[13]

(OR duhmed down and more plainly stated-people are free to worship/believe (or not) whatever-but they are LIABLE, AND Subject to CIVIL LAW codes of behavior-- should they inflict Harm in any shape, form or fashion! And that includes Bullying, terrorzing, stalking freakishly etc etc others!)

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
Crystal bingham 1 min Rick 2
Corbin Put the monkeys back in the cage WTF 2 min nosey 4
Jamie Frederick 11 min Crystal 4
What to do 14 min crazy 16
Gayle leddington 16 min Curious 6
Will Knox co get 40 liquor stores 51 min Respado 10
Glad KC and Corbin don't play each other again 3 hr justsaying 13

Barbourville Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Barbourville Mortgages