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.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#109613 Aug 4, 2013
SistaNoneYaBiz wrote:
<quoted text>
Between 8 and 3 PM, they are learning the secular subject.
HOWEVER should a few choose to sit and quietly discuss OTHER subjects in a study hall, INCLUDING what ever books they might be discussing-- not harming themselves or others--leave them kids alone!!
and they all got along JUST fine..of a learned respect OF and For others beliefs and differences, humanely and decently (usually) bless their little hearts.
Do you know what "proselytizing" means? It has nothing to do with students in study hall discussing among themselves.
This debate is about the state proselytizing, not students. Public schools are the state.

Yiago wrote:
<quoted text>
College religion courses are critical in nature, not devotional. That's the key difference.
Critical religion courses in high schools would be fine and dandy if teachers understood the material well enough to tackle it and were not too drunk on Christ to actually teach it *critically*.
The purpose of the First Amendment is to prevent the state from hammering religion down your throat or preventing you from practicing your religion. It is not meant to allow you to, y'know, hammer your religion down peoples' throats.
I love how Christianity rules the nation but because people aren't allowed to proselytize to kids between 8 and 3 PM Christians are "persecuted".
"You won't let me lead the class in 'Old Rugged Cross'....PERSECUTION! The Liberal atheists have taken over!"

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#109614 Aug 4, 2013
SistaNoneYaBiz wrote:
<quoted text>
It supports MY point NOW, just as much as it did when I(!) first presented it!
It was writ to secure the right of religious freedom of worship-EXEMPT from GOVERNMENT interference.
And ONLY an IDIOT would even presume to conclude Jefferson, as being any sot of IGNORANT atheist--ESPECIALLY after reading a letter such as this, where obviosly the man had RESPECT OF AND FOR, the varying beliefs of OTHERS.
Probably because he was FAR more intelligent than to USE the disgustingly IGNORANT excuse of "atheism" just to try exclude himself from having a code of CIVIL ETHICS of DECENCY AND Morality.
Get it yet?
Atheism is NO EXCUSE whatsoever, NONE at all...to think that anyone is "above" having to have Ethics, Decency AND Morality in a civilized society, and to ignorantly think otherwise is on par lvel as being nothing more than being of a criminal THUG Mentality, plain and simple!!
How does a state offer religious freedom? By keeping its hands out of promoting religions. This builds a wall of separation.
Danbury wished for the state to promote one religion over others. This keeps freedom of religion from flourishing.
So when someone wishes to teach the bible in public schools and no other religion, it is promoting a religion. It is respecting one religion.

And yes, Jefferson was a believers of sorts. Likely more of a deist.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#109615 Aug 4, 2013
SistaNoneYaBiz wrote:
<quoted text>
I just don't think they had the same advanced technological abilities to see "everywhere", as we do now.
I don't dispute great floods.
I believe they happened....there's too much evidence PROVING they did.
And no one is disputing floods have no occurred all throughout history and killed many men. I dispute the bibles claims about one particular flood. I think most of the claims in the Noah story are false. If it has a tiny grain of truth, does it make it a good story to tell? My opinion is no, it is a highly immoral story to tell.
SistaNoneYaBiz

London, KY

#109616 Aug 4, 2013
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.
SistaNoneYaBiz

London, KY

#109617 Aug 4, 2013
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>How does a state offer religious freedom? By keeping its hands out of promoting religions. This builds a wall of separation.
Danbury wished for the state to promote one religion over others. This keeps freedom of religion from flourishing.
So when someone wishes to teach the bible in public schools and no other religion, it is promoting a religion. It is respecting one religion.
And yes, Jefferson was a believers of sorts. Likely more of a deist.
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)
SistaNoneYaBiz

London, KY

#109618 Aug 4, 2013
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>So is this the curriculum of the Kentucky bible classes? I highly doubt it. Cite your sources please?\
And where is the part about a holy ghost helping you interpret the meanings?
Read the post before it...there's about four no brainer links if you need to check them out.

I did not include any from Ky colleges, although.........I could, but I won't...you can search them out yourself, and ask for guidance along the way if you should need to, or not...as that would be your Personal choice of introspective thought.
SistaNoneYaBiz

London, KY

#109619 Aug 4, 2013
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>I found nothing in your argument that shows favoring a religion in a public government run school is constitutional.
There are many different ways in which to word the same concept.
So tell me just what you think this part of the constitution means?
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"?
That the forefathers didn't have quite a hold on creating as perfectly an oiled running nation as they thought they did.
SistaNoneYaBiz

London, KY

#109620 Aug 4, 2013
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>Do you know what "proselytizing" means? It has nothing to do with students in study hall discussing among themselves.
This debate is about the state proselytizing, not students. Public schools are the state.
Yiago wrote:
<quoted text>
College religion courses are critical in nature, not devotional. That's the key difference.
Critical religion courses in high schools would be fine and dandy if teachers understood the material well enough to tackle it and were not too drunk on Christ to actually teach it *critically*.
The purpose of the First Amendment is to prevent the state from hammering religion down your throat or preventing you from practicing your religion. It is not meant to allow you to, y'know, hammer your religion down peoples' throats.
I love how Christianity rules the nation but because people aren't allowed to proselytize to kids between 8 and 3 PM Christians are "persecuted".
"You won't let me lead the class in 'Old Rugged Cross'....PERSECUTION! The Liberal atheists have taken over!"
Could ya ban some of those stations proselytizing some of that earache awful, incoherant and inconhesive mouth full of marbles metal and rap by the decibals DAILY, in and around and on public school grounds while yer trying? Thx in advance lol.
SistaNoneYaBiz

London, KY

#109621 Aug 4, 2013
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>I found nothing in your argument that shows favoring a religion in a public government run school is constitutional.
There are many different ways in which to word the same concept.
So tell me just what you think this part of the constitution means?
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"?
OR it may be in reference to these answers? Which would make sense too.

Answer
A group of orangutans is known as a congress. They are large apes that are prevalent in Southeast Asia, particularly on the Borneo and Sumatra islands. They are omnivorous, but lean more towards the herbaceous side and they are about 2/3 the size of a gorilla.

(Or even an) Additional Answer...

A group of orangutans is also known as a buffoonery.

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#109622 Aug 4, 2013
Yes and Amen wrote:
<quoted text>Wrong there!
I guess you don't have kids...
They're lil see-n-says...
Repeat everything you say!
you can say anything you want ... action speaks louder than words.

“Topix Idiotae plena estut tibi”

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#109623 Aug 4, 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)
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.

“Question, Explore, Discover”

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#109624 Aug 5, 2013
SistaNoneYaBiz wrote:
<quoted text>
From the actions of some on here-they have absolutely NO regard OR respect for the beliefs of others, and THAT IGNORANCE is NO excuse either-NO matter the race, CREED or color.
(and anyone that's read any US history realizes what a grand plantation lord Jefferson was as well. SO there.)
I have no respect for the beliefs of others. I have respect for OTHERS. I have respect for ideas that are well-reasoned. But I have no respect for ideas that flagrantly dismiss reality and reason and hide behind "faith" as a defense.

Your beliefs are not sacred. You're free to have them, of course. But I'm free to laugh at them when they are dumb.

“Question, Explore, Discover”

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#109625 Aug 5, 2013
SistaNoneYaBiz wrote:
<quoted text>
Northern Continental native American first, christened RC as a newborn, raised in a "biologically imperialistic" Newtonian apple orchard environment that included daily secular academics and Work M-F, And of more spiritual teachings Sat AND Sunday....when upon reaching the years of young adulthood, granted the freedom to stand of my own two feet (sans the plague of givvermint entitleMentalcase plantation shackles and chains socio-Illogical disorders).
Never had a problem sitting amongst those of the more organized churchly persuasions-- although I did find the more morose doctrines of some (or anything as Extreme along those lines for that matter) to be seemingly disturbed, and rather unbalanced-as I prefer enlightenment, to the darkness of ignorance ANY day.
And so I can assure you-- whatever deity it is YOU are merely assuming to be another's and are speaking of-is NOT my deity.
I am Not into that self exaulting, dark age, pitch fork and torch carrying witch hunting, hatred type stuff at all, and would thank you kindly, if you are, to keep your mired in darkness eye for an eye hater junk to yourself, and I will keep my scalp the top of your head off to show the empty cavity within, because I find THAT nonsense to be some really Mentally UNhealthy, and REALLLY juvenile type stuff.
:-)
Your language is extremely loaded and I'm only 50% sure of what I just read. Is "RC" Reformed Catholic or Risen Cthulhu? I'm not sure.

It could be that my eyes are mired in darkness, though. I was gonna toss in a fart joke here, but that would be juvenile.

Here's the skinny. If you promote an idea that is unreasonable and not founded on good evidence then calling you out on it is not "hate". It's called discourse. And when the ideas are particularly and egregiously stupid, as in the Noah myth, a healthy dose of ridicule might also be in order.

Beliefs are not sacred.

“Question, Explore, Discover”

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#109626 Aug 5, 2013
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>I remember someone telling me if I did not attend church for seven years, I would be excommunicated. I wonder first, how would they know, and second, do they really work to push people out like this or is it just a veiled threat.
They did send some missionaries to my house a few years back. They knew I was a member and asked if I would come to their church meetings. I did not declare my atheism or tell them I would never come, but I think they understood I was no longer into the whole bit. They have not been back.
I'm not 100% sure how they handle this stuff internally. All I really know is that I've listened to or read a dozen interviews or stories about Formons and the challenges of having your name removed from the LDS roster is a common theme. And it makes sense that they would be reluctant to remove a person. For one thing, if they actually believe in their mythology then they want to save your soul. And secondly higher numbers makes them look more legit.

“Question, Explore, Discover”

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#109628 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.
It's totally cool to read a book and be inspired by it or get ideas from it. I do it all the time. Carl Sagan can bring tears to my eyes. That sense of wonder and humility before the heavens is powerful.

But that's not how most people read their Bible. If you ask an Evangelical you will not get the impression that the Noah story is a parable. You will get the impression that Noah was real, the flood was real, and you're going to Hell if you don't think so.

And that is a really stupid idea that demands and deserves absolute and unrelenting mockery.

1) No evidence of that flood exists.

2) The story is full of obvious mythic elements. 40 is a nice round number. The seas got higher than the tallest mountains, right? Riiiight.

3) It is a virtual duplicate of a story from the Epic of Gilgamesh. If there is even a grain of truth to it then that truth is almost certainly a much, much more prosaic event in a time lost to history.
SistaNoneYaBiz

London, KY

#109629 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.
And I'll break it down phoneTically for you.

My points are legitimate, quite valid and NON contrary...and they no where assimilate the non-sensical blather that you spew.

YOUR opinion however, strikes me as being rather narrow minded and stunted iintellectually-most pointedly because you seem to not even comprehend the FACT that;

The Bible is a BOOK, like any other BOOK on the shelves in any Library--NOT a "religion".

Are you AFRAID of people learning of real world histories, the cultures and beliefs of ancients, prose, parabables etc., or just the efforts in depths of reading in general that are sometimes required to do so?

Once again-The Bible is NOT a "religion". IT is a BOOK.
And I for one, am NOT afraid of BOOKS.

"Essentially" what you are saying, is that a BOOK-an inanimate object is promoting "religion". That is one of THE most ABSURD assumptions I have ever read. Are you always that afraid of BOOKS?

The government has NO business in trying to stifle ANYONE'S knowledge should they choose to READ and perhaps LEARN, especially trying to "tell" them what or what not, they should or should not READ.

This is NOT, repeat NOT, a communisTic nation.

What would ones like you want to "ban" next? Crayola crayons, for fear someone might color a nicer picture than yourself?

Too bad...get used to it-that's the REAL world. People will READ what they want to, LEARN what they want to and so long as they are not harming others or themselves with such-there is NOTHING commieTic types like you can do about it.

THAT is what our CONSTITUTION stands for and is about! Freedom OF,OF,OF religion, whether we like all that THAT encompasses or not.

Perhaps YOU like living in a dark, unlightened world, but do NOT expect everyone to, because that won't ever happen.

This is AMERICA-OF THE PEOPLE, BY the PEOPLE and FOR the People-Not Against them, Not some stone age, craggy rock, despot, rogue hater, marxist/commie, corrupt power hungry Dictatorville!

GOD BLESS AMERICA, and thank you Jesus!

(don't like THAT-TOO BAD, stick your finger in your earwax filled ears!)
SistaNoneYaBiz

London, KY

#109630 Aug 5, 2013
Yiago wrote:
<quoted text>
I have no respect for the beliefs of others. I have respect for OTHERS. I have respect for ideas that are well-reasoned. But I have no respect for ideas that flagrantly dismiss reality and reason and hide behind "faith" as a defense.
Your beliefs are not sacred. You're free to have them, of course. But I'm free to laugh at them when they are dumb.
You're Ignorance and lack of respect of others is showing.

I could care less what you believe or don't believe-NOT my business.

And some how,I don't think you'd last long in a consulate in the middle east with that brainless type of low level mentality, dude.
SistaNoneYaBiz

London, KY

#109631 Aug 5, 2013
Yiago wrote:
<quoted text>
Your language is extremely loaded and I'm only 50% sure of what I just read. Is "RC" Reformed Catholic or Risen Cthulhu? I'm not sure.
It could be that my eyes are mired in darkness, though. I was gonna toss in a fart joke here, but that would be juvenile.
Here's the skinny. If you promote an idea that is unreasonable and not founded on good evidence then calling you out on it is not "hate". It's called discourse. And when the ideas are particularly and egregiously stupid, as in the Noah myth, a healthy dose of ridicule might also be in order.
Beliefs are not sacred.
Thank you for proving the point and posting a classic example of ignorance in action, and why actual ENLIGHTENMENT, is far greater than dark age, juvenile ignorance. Had you actually had some education in "religions of the world", you possibly might know better.
But since you'd obviously rather remain ignorant, and merely hate on that which you obviously have no idea on what you're even hating on--I'll be glad to humor you at your level some, but after that, please excuse those of us who are Unafraid to LEARN beyond the little narrow sandbox you (and others like you) stand in frothing from, because tehre is FAR greater things to glean, so here --have a nice box of crayola crayons, and DO try and color within the lines, t makes for a neater apperance. Hope THAT'S not too complicated for you (and ones like you)!!!

“Topix Idiotae plena estut tibi”

Since: Jul 13

Location hidden

#109633 Aug 5, 2013
SistaNoneYaBiz wrote:
<quoted text>
And I'll break it down phoneTically for you.
My points are legitimate, quite valid and NON contrary...and they no where assimilate the non-sensical blather that you spew.
YOUR opinion however, strikes me as being rather narrow minded and stunted iintellectually-most pointedly because you seem to not even comprehend the FACT that;
The Bible is a BOOK, like any other BOOK on the shelves in any Library--NOT a "religion".
Are you AFRAID of people learning of real world histories, the cultures and beliefs of ancients, prose, parabables etc., or just the efforts in depths of reading in general that are sometimes required to do so?
Once again-The Bible is NOT a "religion". IT is a BOOK.
And I for one, am NOT afraid of BOOKS.
"Essentially" what you are saying, is that a BOOK-an inanimate object is promoting "religion". That is one of THE most ABSURD assumptions I have ever read. Are you always that afraid of BOOKS?
The government has NO business in trying to stifle ANYONE'S knowledge should they choose to READ and perhaps LEARN, especially trying to "tell" them what or what not, they should or should not READ.
This is NOT, repeat NOT, a communisTic nation.
What would ones like you want to "ban" next? Crayola crayons, for fear someone might color a nicer picture than yourself?
Too bad...get used to it-that's the REAL world. People will READ what they want to, LEARN what they want to and so long as they are not harming others or themselves with such-there is NOTHING commieTic types like you can do about it.
THAT is what our CONSTITUTION stands for and is about! Freedom OF,OF,OF religion, whether we like all that THAT encompasses or not.
Perhaps YOU like living in a dark, unlightened world, but do NOT expect everyone to, because that won't ever happen.
This is AMERICA-OF THE PEOPLE, BY the PEOPLE and FOR the People-Not Against them, Not some stone age, craggy rock, despot, rogue hater, marxist/commie, corrupt power hungry Dictatorville!
GOD BLESS AMERICA, and thank you Jesus!
(don't like THAT-TOO BAD, stick your finger in your earwax filled ears!)
You're not even worth the effort, simply put: you're a moron. You have absolutely no grasp of the things you're talking about, pure and simple.
JustAReminder

London, KY

#109634 Aug 5, 2013
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>And no one is disputing floods have no occurred all throughout history and killed many men. I dispute the bibles claims about one particular flood. I think most of the claims in the Noah story are false. If it has a tiny grain of truth, does it make it a good story to tell? My opinion is no, it is a highly immoral story to tell.
A couple of clips ...from the realms of some OTHER SCIENTIFIC, SECULAR (actual) thought bearers.

Early Clues

The story of Noah and the great flood is one that so permeates our culture that generations of geologists have devoted their lives to looking for evidence of a prehistoric worldwide flood. But it was not until the 1990's that geologists William Ryan and Walter Pitman gathered clues pointing to an actual ancient flood in the Middle East about 7,500 years ago. Sediment core-samples the scientists took from the bottom of the Black Sea revealed sections of once-dry, sun-baked land.
Map of William Ryan and Walter Pittman
Geologists Walter Pitman and William Ryan were the first to gather evidence that the Black Sea flooded 7500 years ago


These sediments were then covered by sections of uniform mud, strongly suggesting that these plains underwent a long-ago influx of saltwater. Though not worldwide, this cataclysmic event occurred at what could have been a locus of human activity at the time.

The Black Sea: Before and After

In their 1998 book, Noah's Flood: The New Scientific Discoveries about the Event that Changed History, Ryan and Pitman suggest the Black Sea was once a much smaller, land-locked freshwater lake, fed by ancient rivers, and surrounded by fertile plains. Neolithic people, Ryan and Pitman suppose, would have flocked to farm these Eden-like plains to farm them while supplementing their diets with the lake's abundant shellfish.

At this time - about 7,500 years ago - the global climate was still rapidly warming following the last Ice Age, causing the seas to rise. Ryan and Pitman hypothesize that, when sea levels rose beyond a critical point, the Mediterranean Sea overflowed, deluging the Black Sea basin with salty water and destroying the fertile plains around the once-shallow freshwater lake.
Map of Mediterranean and Black Seas
Pitman and Ryan proposed the Mediterranean Sea surged north through the Bosporus Straits to form the larger, salty Black Sea we know today.


Any people living on those plains at the time would have witnessed what must have seemed like the wrath of an angry god....

Mitchell, J. "The Truth Behind Noahs Flood." PBS.org ; Scientific American Frontiers. Web. Last Accessed 8/5/2013.

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.

Mayking Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Tyler Dakota Newsome 7 hr Stephanie Griffith 10
Where's Kenny and creta now? 10 hr yea 6
Gutter Slutz 10 hr Tommy 22
Interesting Jim Ward Reelection Gossip!!!!! 11 hr Luther 4
Unprofessional Child Like Articles In The Press 18 hr nofuture 5
Check drawers (Oct '16) 19 hr excuses 8
m & d Thu Big Dog 15

Mayking Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Mayking Mortgages