Bible study rules for public schools ...

Bible study rules for public schools proposed

There are 148870 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.

“Question, Explore, Discover”

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#128494 Apr 17, 2014
Libertarian wrote:
<quoted text>
No. Before our system of tax supported "free and compulsory" education, when everyone paid their own way, the cream still managed to rise to the top. Examples from history: Isaac Newton. He could not afford to pay for college but worked his way through. John D. Rockefeller. He was a poor immigrant without education but ended the world's wealthiest man. John Jacob Astor. Same thing. In that system, the system in which competition rules, rewards ability. A poor person who is capable of getting a superior education in that system has the ability to succeed later as well.
What we have is a mass production system that educates people who do not have the ability to attain it on their own. It is given to them, paid for by the taxpayers. The result is that people who do not have the ability to succeed later are educated to think that they are entitled to success, even though it is beyond their natural abilities. As a result they refuse to take the jobs that they are naturally suited to do and become revolutionaries who try to overthrow the system when nature denies them the place in it that they feel entitled to. If that free education was not available to those people, they would be content to work at their natural level in the socio-economic pyramid.
Yeah, you and I fundamentally disagree on this. For every Isaac Newton (who, by the way, was not necessarily "poor" but came from a family with land and resources) there could be a dozen more people of equal or greater intellect who can never ascend within your dog-eat-dog system. Free public education is a MUST for a civilized world if you care about people at all.
Mike D

Kernersville, NC

#128495 Apr 17, 2014
curious wrote:
<quoted text>
Not all atheists may subscribe to the decadent behaviour that I have posted, however, the point remains. Atheism does not have a moral code, each person is left to decide for himself/herself what is acceptable behaviour based on their selfish human nature's desire.
That is why Peter Singer can condone beastiality. As he stated" some men can find pleasure in a sheeps vagina.
That is why Lawrence Krauss can justify incest,,, and I can go on and on. Inessence , it is not a search for that which is moral , but that which brings pleasure,regardless of the consequences.
My faith is not based on OT teachings....I try,as much as possible,to follow the NT teachings as authored by Jesus Christ.
I am sure that you are aware of his instructions to the woman caught in adultery and to those who would judge her.. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone
Then ,jesus said , woman where are your accusers,has no one condemed you and she said , no one lord and Jesus said , neither do I condem you, and instructed her Go AND SIN NO MORE
Christ ,under the new testament , does not advocate stoning, neither do I
So you claimed the old way of killing the adulterers worked wonderfully and atheists allow women to have sex before marriage. Well you just showed Jesus is on the side of atheists. He would not kill them as the bible demanded.
I am glad you are on our side.
Strange that you support two extremely different ways. It is as if you chose whatever morality suits you. So ironic and so amazing you cannot see your contradictions.
Libertarian

Cadiz, KY

#128496 Apr 17, 2014
Yiago wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, you and I fundamentally disagree on this. For every Isaac Newton (who, by the way, was not necessarily "poor" but came from a family with land and resources) there could be a dozen more people of equal or greater intellect who can never ascend within your dog-eat-dog system. Free public education is a MUST for a civilized world if you care about people at all.
No. There may have been people who had as much of what my grandmother called "book sense" as Isaac Newton did, but they did not have his innate ability, what in the 19th century was called "moral virtue." Moral virtue is a misleading term today because it had nothing to do with today's religious "moral" ideas, but with the work ethic and doggedness in pursuit of a goal. If those people had been Newton's equals, then they too would have succeeded as he did.

Free public education is NOT a MUST for a civilized world. It is the cancer that will ultimately destroy civilization. Because, REPEAT, it produces too many people with expectations that exceed their ability to attain.
Mike D

Kernersville, NC

#128497 Apr 17, 2014
ChristWarrior wrote:
<quoted text> Curious is merely pointing out the fact that you are being a hypocrite for suggesting Christians are bad, while not pointing out the flaws of your own group of like-minded people (Hmmm! Hmmm!, atheists, Hmmm! Hmmm!). Atheists killed far more people in the 20th century than any Christian leaders ever did, and for far more sinister reasons. Have you ever heard of the Holodomor of 1933 in Ukraine? Atheist Bolsheviks intentionally cut off all food supplies to Ukraine, destroyed all of their food crops, leading to the death by starvation of 10 million largely Christian Ukrainians within a year. Why did they do this to the Ukrainians? Only because they did not want to follow atheistic Communism! Of course, you will probably enter and exit this website several times over so that you can give negative judgement icons to this statement, giving the impression that multiple people think that what I am saying is wrong, but in reality, what I am saying is the truth! Get used to it and get out of "The_Box"!
If you think pointing out hypocrisy is all Curious does here, you already lost me.
And most atheists here acknowledge what dictators have done that are bad, both atheist and Christian. But none of that takes away from our points. The bible condones bad things. Thus it could not be of a moral god.
No matter how many atheists do bad things, it does not change the point. The bible condones bad things.
Strange you wish to point out hypocrisy and you did just what you accused. It is as if you cannot see the log in your eye.
Libertarian

Cadiz, KY

#128498 Apr 17, 2014
Mike D wrote:
<quoted text>So the rich are tired of paying to live in the best country in the world? The system we have is why they are rich. Pull that system and they will lose it.
Before America had such a system only a small handful of people were rich. There was hardly any middle class, and the majority of Americans were dirt poor.
History shows your system sucks. Oh, it can be argued it lead to a depression.
Your system failed. Now why would anyone try it again?
You are completely wrong on every count. Learn some real history, not the Socialist garbage taught in today's public schools.

True, before the Civil War there were very few rich people. There was no free tax supported public schools outside of New England and a few areas in the Old Northwest settled from New England. Even there free public schooling ended at the 8th grade. After that it had to be paid for.

It is not true that the majority of people were dirt poor. Wealth was in fact more evenly distributed then that it is today. The socio-economic pyramid was broader and flatter than today. The great majority of people were landowning farmers. They were above a class of farm laborers. Just above the farmers were a class of craftsmen and small merchants. There was a class of larger merchants just above them. At the top were a group of merchant capitalists, people who earned their money in trade and then invested the profits in things like canals, railroads, and the first factories and mills. Everyone got the education that they needed and no more. Occasionally some young man of high ability would get more. Only after the lunacy of educating the lower classes took hold did a great disparity of wealth appear.
Libertarian

Cadiz, KY

#128499 Apr 17, 2014
Mike D wrote:
<quoted text>The public schools I went to never promised any great job due to a high school education. Now good jobs are claimed to be had with a higher education. But that is not typically paid for by the Government.
I really don't think anyone expects to be middle class on a high school education. It can be had but not expected.
And even many low paying jobs need some education. One needs to be able to read for many of them. And let's keep in mind how the situation was in America before Government built a strong public education system. Most people were illiterate and could not perform all to many basic jobs.
I think your system would cause more problems than you realize.
You must not have walked through a public high school recently. Today the kids are taught that if they get a certain level of education they should expect a certain kind of job at a certain level of pay. There are even posters on the classroom doors that read something like this:

If you drop out of high school, then you should expect to make X amount of money per year.

If you graduate from high school, then you should expect to make X plus Y amount of money.

If you get two years of college, then you should expect to make X plus Y plus Z amount of money.

If you get a master's degree, then you should expect to make X plus Y plus Z plus A amount of money.

If you get a doctorate degree, then you should expect to make X plus Y plus Z plus A plus B amount of money.

When those false expectations are planted in the heads of people who lack the "moral virtue" to attain that level of success, then two things happen. First, the majority of those who cannot attain the level that they have been taught to expect cannot do it, they refuse to day anything lower and fall back on the welfare system, either as welfare recipients or in non-productive government jobs paid for by taxing productive people. A smaller and much more dangerous group become social revolutionaries who, because they do not have the ability to earn a place in the socio-economic pyramid that meets their expectations, turn against the system itself and try to destroy it.
USA

Jamestown, KY

#128500 Apr 17, 2014
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not superstitious. There is no Satan, no "plan", no "side", no taking donkeys, no parted Red Sea, no plants "created" before the sun, no global flood, no Garden of Eden or Adam and Eve, no virgin birth, no magic reanimation of the dead,....
In any case, according to your own lore it >couldn't< be "Satan's" grand scheme to inflict misery, afflictions and early deaths on the mere mortals and boil vast numbers of human souls in molten sulfur for eternity - it's all Yahweh's implementation of "LOVE." That'll teach us a lesson... By your stories, Satan got humans the understanding of morality and the gift of knowledge - the same things that set us apart from house cats and lap dogs. Satan gave boils and killed what - 11 members of Job's family? Compare that to the 1,700 pages of God's deeds. Go ahead. What side are you on?
Sorry to say, but this comment of yours was probably written by a three year old child, or else you're using some drug, its just tangled up words. What do you mean by this ''Compare that to the 1,700 pages of God's deeds.'' I'm a believer in God and Jesus Christ.
You should read and study Bible Prophecy for help and proof.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#128501 Apr 17, 2014
curious wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, in all your attempts to disprove God's existence have ended in futile failure.
If I am not mistaken , have not you and other atheists on this forum admitted to the pssibility that a God or Gods exists?
It seems that your faith is shaking and on unstable ground..........
I accused you of being obsessed with atheism, and you deny it by obsessively writing about my atheism. Thanks for the evidence.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#128502 Apr 17, 2014
Libertarian wrote:
<quoted text>
You are completely wrong on every count. Learn some real history, not the Socialist garbage taught in today's public schools.
True, before the Civil War there were very few rich people. There was no free tax supported public schools outside of New England and a few areas in the Old Northwest settled from New England. Even there free public schooling ended at the 8th grade. After that it had to be paid for.
It is not true that the majority of people were dirt poor. Wealth was in fact more evenly distributed then that it is today. The socio-economic pyramid was broader and flatter than today. The great majority of people were landowning farmers. They were above a class of farm laborers. Just above the farmers were a class of craftsmen and small merchants. There was a class of larger merchants just above them. At the top were a group of merchant capitalists, people who earned their money in trade and then invested the profits in things like canals, railroads, and the first factories and mills. Everyone got the education that they needed and no more. Occasionally some young man of high ability would get more. Only after the lunacy of educating the lower classes took hold did a great disparity of wealth appear.
Well I guess we dispute what is middle class maybe. Just because someone owns some land, and farms it, does not equate to middle class. I think in most cases they were in what I consider a poverty state. Same goes for all you cited. The factory workers were in a poverty state.
And your claim of "occasionally some young man of high ability would get more" is evidence to showing the system was not conducive to progress at the rate needed to stay competitive.

And then you actually agreed on how poor the majority was before government education got underway, "Before the civil war".

Now please show a statistic that supports your argument, or I will just believe the history I now believe. I am pretty sure their is no great shortage of wealth today, as you claim.

I believe capitalism is great, as long as a bit of socialism is working with it. Any absolute system fails. Yours is absolute. No system is perfect, or will please all. The system we have at least keeps most from the most suffering. I measure success by this. I have no idea what you measure success with? Care to enlighten us?

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#128503 Apr 17, 2014
USA wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry to say, but this comment of yours was probably written by a three year old child, or else you're using some drug, its just tangled up words. What do you mean by this ''Compare that to the 1,700 pages of God's deeds.'' I'm a believer in God and Jesus Christ.
You should read and study Bible Prophecy for help and proof.
Or maybe you are just to ignorant to understand his words? I understand them just fine, although the 1,700 pages thing did confuse me. Otherwise it all made perfect sense. Maybe we use the same drug "reality".

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#128504 Apr 17, 2014
Libertarian wrote:
<quoted text>
You must not have walked through a public high school recently. Today the kids are taught that if they get a certain level of education they should expect a certain kind of job at a certain level of pay. There are even posters on the classroom doors that read something like this:
If you drop out of high school, then you should expect to make X amount of money per year.
If you graduate from high school, then you should expect to make X plus Y amount of money.
If you get two years of college, then you should expect to make X plus Y plus Z amount of money.
If you get a master's degree, then you should expect to make X plus Y plus Z plus A amount of money.
If you get a doctorate degree, then you should expect to make X plus Y plus Z plus A plus B amount of money.
When those false expectations are planted in the heads of people who lack the "moral virtue" to attain that level of success, then two things happen. First, the majority of those who cannot attain the level that they have been taught to expect cannot do it, they refuse to day anything lower and fall back on the welfare system, either as welfare recipients or in non-productive government jobs paid for by taxing productive people. A smaller and much more dangerous group become social revolutionaries who, because they do not have the ability to earn a place in the socio-economic pyramid that meets their expectations, turn against the system itself and try to destroy it.
I have never seen such a poster, although the last time I walked through a public school was about four years ago when my son was in one. Maybe this is something new? I see you list no amounts, so you have yet to prove your point. Maybe if you showed evidence of the poster showing a person should expect to make what society calls middle class with a high school education, you may have an argument. But you did not come close to this at all. I do not entirely doubt such a poster exists, but again, if you fail to say what the poster claims fully, you have no argument. For all I know, you are simply believing what some radio talk show host is feeding you.

And though it has no bearing on the debate, I have read one of John Stossel's books on libertarianism. I hear he is an agnostic, so I am not sure you respect him.
Known Fact

Kissimmee, FL

#128505 Apr 17, 2014
ChristWarrior wrote:
<quoted text> My apologies. Thank you for the correction.
In a rush and hit the wrong key it is "Known Fact"

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#128506 Apr 17, 2014
Libertarian wrote:
<quoted text>
You must not have walked through a public high school recently. Today the kids are taught that if they get a certain level of education they should expect a certain kind of job at a certain level of pay. There are even posters on the classroom doors that read something like this:
If you drop out of high school, then you should expect to make X amount of money per year.
If you graduate from high school, then you should expect to make X plus Y amount of money.
If you get two years of college, then you should expect to make X plus Y plus Z amount of money.
If you get a master's degree, then you should expect to make X plus Y plus Z plus A amount of money.
If you get a doctorate degree, then you should expect to make X plus Y plus Z plus A plus B amount of money.
When those false expectations are planted in the heads of people who lack the "moral virtue" to attain that level of success, then two things happen. First, the majority of those who cannot attain the level that they have been taught to expect cannot do it, they refuse to day anything lower and fall back on the welfare system, either as welfare recipients or in non-productive government jobs paid for by taxing productive people. A smaller and much more dangerous group become social revolutionaries who, because they do not have the ability to earn a place in the socio-economic pyramid that meets their expectations, turn against the system itself and try to destroy it.
It would be nice to see a stat. on who actually are on welfare. I doubt most of them are high school graduates.

“See how you are?”

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#128507 Apr 17, 2014
USA wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry to say, but this comment of yours was probably written by a three year old child, or else you're using some drug, its just tangled up words. What do you mean by this ''Compare that to the 1,700 pages of God's deeds.'' I'm a believer in God and Jesus Christ.
You should read and study Bible Prophecy for help and proof.
If you are going to claim that you know the Bible then I don't have to explain what I mean by pages of god's deeds. Since you claim that you are believer, you aren't going to listen to any explanation I offer anyway.
I don't care that you believe in the spin that was written and adopted after Jesus the rebellious Nazarite was executed. Since you're consumed by a need to read and "study" prophecy, mix in a little Nostradamus, Jean Dixon, Edgar Cayce - and maybe some Stephen King to set the mood.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#128508 Apr 17, 2014
Libertarian wrote:
<quoted text>
No. Before our system of tax supported "free and compulsory" education, when everyone paid their own way, the cream still managed to rise to the top. Examples from history: Isaac Newton. He could not afford to pay for college but worked his way through. John D. Rockefeller. He was a poor immigrant without education but ended the world's wealthiest man. John Jacob Astor. Same thing. In that system, the system in which competition rules, rewards ability. A poor person who is capable of getting a superior education in that system has the ability to succeed later as well.
What we have is a mass production system that educates people who do not have the ability to attain it on their own. It is given to them, paid for by the taxpayers. The result is that people who do not have the ability to succeed later are educated to think that they are entitled to success, even though it is beyond their natural abilities. As a result they refuse to take the jobs that they are naturally suited to do and become revolutionaries who try to overthrow the system when nature denies them the place in it that they feel entitled to. If that free education was not available to those people, they would be content to work at their natural level in the socio-economic pyramid.
What your ideas here fail to take into account is what most any psychologist will agree upon. We are all basically equal in ability, but our environment changes our motive to achieve higher success. If our environment is not conducive to education, then we have an extremely small chance at being out of the norm. And your statements as of yet proves this point. You cite a tiny minority who did fall away from the norm. Well today the chances are so much higher for someone from a poor background to achieve success. Your system will put it back where it was back pre-civil war.
A poor parent that has no education will likely produce offspring of the same sort. Well the system America put in place is slowly changing that paradigm. It is slowly educating the masses. Even in my lifetime, many folks were without education. It will take a few more generations to really see the full results of the system.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#128509 Apr 17, 2014
Libertarian wrote:
<quoted text>
No. There may have been people who had as much of what my grandmother called "book sense" as Isaac Newton did, but they did not have his innate ability, what in the 19th century was called "moral virtue." Moral virtue is a misleading term today because it had nothing to do with today's religious "moral" ideas, but with the work ethic and doggedness in pursuit of a goal. If those people had been Newton's equals, then they too would have succeeded as he did.
Free public education is NOT a MUST for a civilized world. It is the cancer that will ultimately destroy civilization. Because, REPEAT, it produces too many people with expectations that exceed their ability to attain.
A book that may help you understand the situation is "The genius in all of us" by David Shenk. It agrees with some of your points, but strongly disagrees with some of them.
It claims that "innate" abilities are basically equal. The moral virtue you speak of is claimed to be learned. Well if the parent is not educated, learning that virtue can be limited.
If the -parent or the child's environmental influences are conducive to promoting he succeed and be good at what he does, he has a much greater chance at being a success than his counterparts.
He shows how a child with educated parents have a much larger vocabulary, for instance. These sort of things go a long way to becoming successful.
If you read about what the likes of the greats say about their success, you will see it tells of how they were lead to strive. Well if the child does not have a parent that can pay for his basic early education, do you think the chances are high the child will break from the norm of his poverty and education? If education is not free, just how do you think such a child would learn?

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#128510 Apr 17, 2014
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton#Ear...
Unless Wiki is shown wrong here, I challenge the claims made about Newton. He clearly came from a family with the means to have his early education paid for. So that theory seems to be blown out of the water already. Yes, he worked to pay for his higher education, which most do today in the America the libertarian thinks will be our demise.
It leads me to believe the libertarian is believing some propaganda that is less than truthful. As we see here, one claim is proved false. How many more are to come?

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#128511 Apr 17, 2014
curious wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, in all your attempts to disprove God's existence have ended in futile failure.
If I am not mistaken , have not you and other atheists on this forum admitted to the pssibility that a God or Gods exists?
It seems that your faith is shaking and on unstable ground..........
I try to stay open minded, unlike yourself. So I leave myself open to any new information that may show a god exists. You have yet to show any. So at this time, I do not believe there are any gods.
I have shown time and time again that your god seems implausible.
Why would a god demand you put women to death for having sex outside of marriage, only to have his son say you should not judge a woman in this way? It is the sort of contradiction that shows your god is not real. So I feel I have proved your god does not exist. Now if you could produce a real god, go for it. As of yet, you have failed in this task.
But of course it is clearly your main agenda to focus on atheism, not god.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#128512 Apr 17, 2014
The_Box wrote:
<quoted text>
Look at curious attempt to put a spotlight on individual atheists who condone bad things while ignoring the fact that his religion explicitly condoned rape, slavery, and genocide.
I don't follow any other atheists. You follow your religion.
I must correct this, Curious does not follow the bibles commands. He follows the some of the ideas that are in parts of the bible, but clearly not all the commands in all of the bible, as they clearly contradict each other. So it is virtually impossible to follow all the bibles commands.
It is the main reason I dispute the bible is of a god, as it clearly has at minimum, two very different ideals.
Curious does not stone adulterers to death, as the bible commands, because some other person in the bible says that is wrong to do.
The strange part is, Curious claims the old commandment was so darned good. He went on and on about how wonderful that commandment was for a day or two, then he turned a 180 and cited how Jesus said this was the wrong way to do things.
And of course they will always claim god does not change his mind.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#128513 Apr 17, 2014
curious wrote:
<quoted text>
My faith is based on the Teachings of my Lord,Jesus Christ.
His mission was to fulfill the Old testament and provide us with a new covenant.
Your unbelief has blinded your eyes and you are incapable of understanding the difference.
Individual or not , they are still atheists who look to justify their immoral behaviour by any means possible . That is one of the many problems of atheism , each person is left to decide for themselves , based on their human nature's desires, what is moral and what is not.
......
It is clear you feel you know what atheists base their moral code upon, yet it sure does not sound like anything I do. If I based my morality upon desire without thought for what it may cause, I would surely be in jail today. Yet I am not, and I am sure it is due to thoughts of what my actions cause in a long term and not just my desires.
But maybe my desires are part of the situation. My desire is not to be in jail. My desire is to live with a good reputation in society. So I live by societal rules. And these rules often make sense for a good life. I feel many of the biblical rules are not good for a good society. And even you have jettisoned many biblical rules.
Fact is, we all go by what we want in some part. But we must follow the societal rules to a degree. It is what you and I both do.

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
tara 40 min Heard 3
Liquor License to locals only 1 hr Monopoly 7
chinese restaurant RUDE 1 hr Calli Anna 9
Liquor sales or kids welfare ? CHOICE ! 2 hr STFU 10
Shawntaea and curt Brown? 3 hr mom 15
Bonita you Promised Kids First ! 4 hr Not liquor first 7
School board member chooses liquor over KIDS ! 4 hr Granny 10
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Barbourville Mortgages