Bible study rules for public schools ...

Bible study rules for public schools proposed

There are 164595 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.

“pervinco per logica”

Since: Feb 12

Eradicate willful ignorance.

#103843 May 17, 2013
do whut wrote:
<quoted text>
A living organism = life. Even if you consider a fetus a parasite, fleas and ticks are still living things.
Why do you try to separate a human from a potential human. Do you consider an infant a potential adult? Or a living thing?
Can you not read or something? I think I was pretty straight forward in telling you what you need to clarify. To be even MORE unambiguous, you cannot define a word using another form of the same word (i.e. life/living), so you haven't clarified a single thing yet.

Anyway, why do you try to dodge my request for clarification by asking multiple questions of your own? If you'd waste less time and energy trying to go down some stupid road about what you think I'm thinking, you might have enough brain cells free to actually respond to me. Please make an attempt. Trying to get you to clarify your statements shouldn't be an irritating exercise in futility.

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#103844 May 17, 2013
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>So the Holy Ghost is refusing to answer the hard questions? How convenient.
If you want my opinion: God allows us to choose, but He knows us so well, He knows which Mother will more than likely abort.

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#103845 May 17, 2013
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>It could naturally abort (miscarriage).
As I said, I have evidence to the sample size of over 6 billion that if a fetus is not aborted or miscarried, it becomes a human.
Miscarriage and abortion are hardly the same thing unless the miscarriage was intentional.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#103846 May 17, 2013
So true wrote:
Years ago a French infidel strutted and bragged that infidels would tear down the churches and destroy everything that reminded the people of God. A poor peasant replied," But you leave us the sun the moon, and the stars, and as long as they shine , we shall have a reminder of God."
Some Spaniards destroyed the gods of the Americas, it can be done again. Not that I am promoting force to end religions as Christians have done many times around the world. I am for religious freedom, unlike your god.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#103847 May 17, 2013
curious wrote:
<quoted text>
In your rush to judgement,along with Chrome and Hummm,you assumed that I was referring to Atheists.
I am calling the judgement of all 3 of you into question..
Obviously,for whatever reason,you felt that what I posted applied to you,as Atheists.....
Did you not read this part
"These considerations necessitate discerning the character of others and, in particular, that of a fool. Not only will we be able to see foolishness in others as a result of our study in
Proverbs, we will also see a greater measure of it in ourselves. May God enable us to be honest with ourselves,
to confess our foolishness,
2 and to forsake it as sinful and destructive, both to ourselves and to others.
Yesterday you flatly accused us of being foolish. No need to assume what you think when you make such statements.

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#103848 May 17, 2013
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>Many abortions are due to potential health problems if the mother, so if you force the mother to carry and bear, you could be forcing the death if the mother. Keep I'm mind this woman might already have children she is trying to raise. So you are potentially jeopardizing the well being of her other children.
Very weak argument.
85% of abortions are from unwed mothers.
25% unmarried women
36% of abortions are on women whom it is not their first abortion
13% had more than 2 children already
33% are women 20-24 in age
24% were 25-29

50% are less than 25 years old
Abortion rate of women on Medicaid is three times that of other women.

For reasons given: 75% say a baby would interfere with their work, school, or other responsibilities. 50% say they are single or having trouble with a spouse.

Only 12% say it was health related with the mother.
Under 1% was due to rape.

So between 1973 to 2008, 50 million abortions took place. And only 13% were due to health or rape. Almost all the others boil down to irresponsible behavior.

Average cost of an abortion is $451.

Your argument is weak to support murder.

“Question, Explore, Discover”

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#103849 May 17, 2013
do whut wrote:
<quoted text>
Whether viruses alive or not it's totally irrelevant. We are talking about a human being. You guys talk about evidence all the time, we have all the evidence we need to know that fetus will become human being if not aborted or miscarried.
Sure. If I knock up a girl and nothing bad happens she will pop out a kid that will grow into an adult and eventually die.

But the issue is what something is in context, not what it might be someday. By your logic it would be a tragedy if I didn't have sex with the same girl I mentioned above. Because I'd be breaking a chain of events that would lead to a person.

The argument between pro and con on this topic seems to be where we draw our lines. I see no reason that a fertilized egg should have rights. The mother carrying it has rights. And one of them is to NOT carry the egg any further. Or the fetus.

And giving her that right leads to demonstrable good in society, such as reduced poverty and crime.

If we say that once you squirt your seed a baby has to be made then we INCREASE poverty and crime.

That's a fact jack. You can talk about souls and god all day long but you gotta deal with the hard reality. Goa ain't gonna lift a finger to help us out with this, just like always.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#103850 May 17, 2013
do whut wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you talking about removing a fetus from the uterus and seeing if it survives?
Do you not read? I said that without medical attention most fetuses do not live.

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#103851 May 17, 2013
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>Says who and where?
But also note, this is simply superstition and our laws are not based upon superstitions.
I was asked what the LDS church stance is on those that die before born. I answered accordingly.

“See how you are?”

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#103852 May 17, 2013
curious wrote:
<quoted text>
In your rush to judgement,along with Chrome and Hummm,you assumed that I was referring to Atheists.
I am calling the judgement of all 3 of you into question..
Obviously,for whatever reason,you felt that what I posted applied to you,as Atheists.....
Did you not read this part
"These considerations necessitate discerning the character of others and, in particular, that of a fool. Not only will we be able to see foolishness in others as a result of our study in
Proverbs, we will also see a greater measure of it in ourselves. May God enable us to be honest with ourselves,
to confess our foolishness,
2 and to forsake it as sinful and destructive, both to ourselves and to others.
LOL! You mindlessly parrot the equally mindless Bible.org and talk about fools? BTW, you are in violation of their intellectual property trust. Thief! You use scripture to damn others? Sinner! Should we have guessed that "you" were talking about the MIT faculty or the JPL staff? Maybe "you" meant Tibetan monks?
Confess you foolishness.

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#103853 May 17, 2013
_Ummm_ wrote:
<quoted text>Can you not read or something? I think I was pretty straight forward in telling you what you need to clarify. To be even MORE unambiguous, you cannot define a word using another form of the same word (i.e. life/living), so you haven't clarified a single thing yet.

Anyway, why do you try to dodge my request for clarification by asking multiple questions of your own? If you'd waste less time and energy trying to go down some stupid road about what you think I'm thinking, you might have enough brain cells free to actually respond to me. Please make an attempt. Trying to get you to clarify your statements shouldn't be an irritating exercise in futility.
Life begins at conception because unless aborted or miscarried, a human will result. Any other definition was created to justify murder and make it seem less terrible.

“pervinco per logica”

Since: Feb 12

Eradicate willful ignorance.

#103854 May 17, 2013
curious wrote:
<quoted text>
In your rush to judgement,along with Chrome and Hummm,you assumed that I was referring to Atheists.
I am calling the judgement of all 3 of you into question..
Obviously,for whatever reason,you felt that what I posted applied to you,as Atheists.....
OK then, moron... why are you responding with things that don't apply? Are you just an intentionally wasting everyone else's time?

Just shut up. That was rhetorical. You're such a petulant child. And a hypocrite. You post a bunch of ambiguous Bible garbage with interspersed ranting and then try to play gotcha when the people you're "arguing" with think that you are talking to them.

Try this on for size:
In your rush to judgement, you assumed that I thought you were referring to atheists (or even cared in the slightest). I did not. I didn't even read it, because (for the millionth time) I'm not here to read your cherry picked Bible verses. If you can't be bothered to reciprocate and have a real thought (as I always do), I'm not going to bother to read what you vomit out onto the internet. All I did was make fun of your complete inability to form your own thoughts.

So, as always, I am rightfully calling your judgement into question. On every level. About everything I've seen you state an opinion on.

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#103855 May 17, 2013
Yiago wrote:
<quoted text>Sure. If I knock up a girl and nothing bad happens she will pop out a kid that will grow into an adult and eventually die.

But the issue is what something is in context, not what it might be someday. By your logic it would be a tragedy if I didn't have sex with the same girl I mentioned above. Because I'd be breaking a chain of events that would lead to a person.

The argument between pro and con on this topic seems to be where we draw our lines. I see no reason that a fertilized egg should have rights. The mother carrying it has rights. And one of them is to NOT carry the egg any further. Or the fetus.

And giving her that right leads to demonstrable good in society, such as reduced poverty and crime.

If we say that once you squirt your seed a baby has to be made then we INCREASE poverty and crime.

That's a fact jack. You can talk about souls and god all day long but you gotta deal with the hard reality. Goa ain't gonna lift a finger to help us out with this, just like always.
So you blame born children for crime?
And you think a parent has the right to kill their own children?

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#103856 May 17, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>Do you not read? I said that without medical attention most fetuses do not live.
With or without medical attention, a fetus thrives in a uterus and is born. I can read, you just can't make your point clear. Nor can you address the questions I asked.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#103857 May 17, 2013
do whut wrote:
<quoted text>
Life begins at conception because unless aborted or miscarried, a human will result. Any other definition was created to justify murder and make it seem less terrible.
Again, patently false. Without medical attention most fetuses never live, even with medical attention many do not live anyway.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#103858 May 17, 2013
do whut wrote:
<quoted text>
Why does the government care if a man punches a woman in the stomach and causes her to lose the child? It seems the will of the mother is the only variable.
In that case, what is the difference between a woman deciding in month 6 of a pregnancy that she doesn't want a kid vs. deciding she doesn't want her 6 month old child?
Once birth occurs, the mother is no longer at a health risk.
Forcing someone to carry to birth is against a persons right to freedom of their bodies. Once birth occurs, that child is then protected by the same constitutional rights.

“There is no god.”

Since: Jan 12

USA

#103859 May 17, 2013
Ahhhh, the old should abortion be legal discussion has returned. In the holyhatebible god killed lots of kids. From what one reads in the holyhatebible it can be said god still kills kids. I would go as far as to say god likes killing the bible shows us this. Just one of the many reasons the holyhatebible should not be around our children in public schools with all the bad moral lessons the holyhatebible contains no wonder crime is on the rise. 98% of prison populations are religies. Go figure.

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#103860 May 17, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>Again, patently false. Without medical attention most fetuses never live, even with medical attention many do not live anyway.
What are you talking about? A fetus that is left alone, or one extracted from the mother?

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

Since: May 13

London, KY

#103861 May 17, 2013
just my opinion, the state, as the article reads, is trying to make guidelines on Biblical courses that are already electives. Now, I've never seen a school grade 1-8 that has electives. But I'm as old as the dinosaurs! So, essentially, they are spending our money on something that already exists. They are simply fine tuning it--in their minds.

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

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#103862 May 17, 2013
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>Once birth occurs, the mother is no longer at a health risk.
Forcing someone to carry to birth is against a persons right to freedom of their bodies. Once birth occurs, that child is then protected by the same constitutional rights.
No it is a failure to hold someone accountable for the misuse of their bodies. It is a failure to recognize that another life form is now dependent on what they do with their body. You favor granting people the right to be irresponsible at the expense of another life.

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.

Columbia Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Actress Wanted 11 hr Actor 9
Baseball 12 hr Dillon 7
Election Who do you support for U.S. House in Kentucky (... (Oct '10) 14 hr Rattlesnake Pete 901
Tabs 14 hr Pill headz 7
Flex Appeal 15 hr Suck it up 5
Goat tied up in town 22 hr Lay it down 8
Young man looking for experienced woman Wed Curious 8

Columbia Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Columbia Mortgages