Duck Dynasty's, Alan Robertson - Bible in Public School

[DriftingSand]

Duck Dynasty's, Alan Robertson, says that the Bible should be taught in public schools. I agree although I think it should be an elective. The Bible is an historical document that's had significant influence on mankind for centuries. Kids should at least know what it's all about before denying its veracity based on the whims of a handful of bitter atheists (usually folks angry at God for not getting that certain toy at Christmas).

Duck Dynasty’s Alan Robertson: Bible Should Be Taught in Public Schools

(CNSNews.com) – Duck Dynasty’s beardless and eldest son, Alan Robertson, said the Bible should be taught in the public schools because it used to be required of earlier generations of students, particularly at even the higher-level Ivy League universities, and because America’s Founders believed society and its laws could function properly only when citizens had a solid “understanding of God’s truth and His Word.”

Duck Dynasty s Alan Robertson Bible Should Be Taught in Public Schools CNS News

 

[Pogo]

Apparently this Alan Robertson hasn't yet heard of the First Amendment. News must travel slow in da swamp.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Duck Dynasty's, Alan Robertson, says that the Bible should be taught in public schools. I agree although I think it should be an elective. The Bible is an historical document that's had significant influence on mankind for centuries. Kids should at least know what it's all about before denying its veracity based on the whims of a handful of bitter atheists (usually folks angry at God for not getting that certain toy at Christmas).

Duck Dynasty’s Alan Robertson: Bible Should Be Taught in Public Schools

(CNSNews.com) – Duck Dynasty’s beardless and eldest son, Alan Robertson, said the Bible should be taught in the public schools because it used to be required of earlier generations of students, particularly at even the higher-level Ivy League universities, and because America’s Founders believed society and its laws could function properly only when citizens had a solid “understanding of God’s truth and His Word.”

UOTE]
Duck Dynasty s Alan Robertson Bible Should Be Taught in Public Schools CNS News

You contradict yourself.

Religious materials in schools are appropriate provided they're not used by the state to foster religious belief, or fail to pursue a secular purpose, or otherwise do not manifest an excessive entanglement with government.

What you propose is un-Constitutional because it seeks to confirm the 'veracity' of the bible in the context of state instruction, thus 'proving' that 'bitter atheists' are 'wrong.'

As for:

'Al Robertson, who is an ordained minister, also said the “creation narrative” in the Bible should be taught alongside the theory of evolution in the public schools.'

This is as ignorant as it is un-Constitutional (see: Edwards v. Aguillard (1987)).

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Damn that pesky Constitution, huh?

 

[DriftingSand]

Apparently this Alan Robertson hasn't yet heard of the First Amendment. News must travel slow in da swamp.

Freedom of religion ... not freedom FROM religion. Freedom of speech ... not freedom FROM speech. So, yes, I'm certain that he has heard of the 1st Amendment and is simply exercising his right under that protective order.

 

[DriftingSand]

Duck Dynasty's, Alan Robertson, says that the Bible should be taught in public schools. I agree although I think it should be an elective. The Bible is an historical document that's had significant influence on mankind for centuries. Kids should at least know what it's all about before denying its veracity based on the whims of a handful of bitter atheists (usually folks angry at God for not getting that certain toy at Christmas).

Duck Dynasty’s Alan Robertson: Bible Should Be Taught in Public Schools

(CNSNews.com) – Duck Dynasty’s beardless and eldest son, Alan Robertson, said the Bible should be taught in the public schools because it used to be required of earlier generations of students, particularly at even the higher-level Ivy League universities, and because America’s Founders believed society and its laws could function properly only when citizens had a solid “understanding of God’s truth and His Word.”

UOTE]
Duck Dynasty s Alan Robertson Bible Should Be Taught in Public Schools CNS News

You contradict yourself.

Religious materials in schools are appropriate provided they're not used by the state to foster religious belief, or fail to pursue a secular purpose, or otherwise do not manifest an excessive entanglement with government.

What you propose is un-Constitutional because it seeks to confirm the 'veracity' of the bible in the context of state instruction, thus 'proving' that 'bitter atheists' are 'wrong.'

As for:

'Al Robertson, who is an ordained minister, also said the “creation narrative” in the Bible should be taught alongside the theory of evolution in the public schools.'

This is as ignorant as it is un-Constitutional (see: Edwards v. Aguillard (1987)).

You are incorrect! I'm suggesting that a class on the Bible be made an "elective" class for anyone and everyone interested in the formation and structure of the Bible and to understand its historical significance. That's not "teaching religion" so you FAIL yet again. I also suggest that a class on Creation Science be included as an elective to give folks another perspective concerning the origins of the universe and life, itself. What are you afraid of?

 

[Hollie]

Duck Dynasty's, Alan Robertson, says that the Bible should be taught in public schools. I agree although I think it should be an elective. The Bible is an historical document that's had significant influence on mankind for centuries. Kids should at least know what it's all about before denying its veracity based on the whims of a handful of bitter atheists (usually folks angry at God for not getting that certain toy at Christmas).

Duck Dynasty’s Alan Robertson: Bible Should Be Taught in Public Schools

(CNSNews.com) – Duck Dynasty’s beardless and eldest son, Alan Robertson, said the Bible should be taught in the public schools because it used to be required of earlier generations of students, particularly at even the higher-level Ivy League universities, and because America’s Founders believed society and its laws could function properly only when citizens had a solid “understanding of God’s truth and His Word.”

UOTE]
Duck Dynasty s Alan Robertson Bible Should Be Taught in Public Schools CNS News

You contradict yourself.

Religious materials in schools are appropriate provided they're not used by the state to foster religious belief, or fail to pursue a secular purpose, or otherwise do not manifest an excessive entanglement with government.

What you propose is un-Constitutional because it seeks to confirm the 'veracity' of the bible in the context of state instruction, thus 'proving' that 'bitter atheists' are 'wrong.'

As for:

'Al Robertson, who is an ordained minister, also said the “creation narrative” in the Bible should be taught alongside the theory of evolution in the public schools.'

This is as ignorant as it is un-Constitutional (see: Edwards v. Aguillard (1987)).

You are incorrect! I'm suggesting that a class on the Bible be made an "elective" class for anyone and everyone interested in the formation and structure of the Bible and to understand its historical significance. That's not "teaching religion" so you FAIL yet again. I also suggest that a class on Creation Science be included as an elective to give folks another perspective concerning the origins of the universe and life, itself. What are you afraid of?

There’s nothing to be afraid of in connection with Christian creationism being taught as bible classes regarding the origins of the universe and life. That can be done at Sunday school along with lectures on talking snakes and a flat earth.

In an academic, public classroom setting, teaching Christian dogma is a violation of law. Beyond that, what is truly laughable about creationists is the lack of any affirmative description of what “creationist doctrine” really is, other than mindless reiteration of biblical tales. As an example, nowhere in the creationist ministry literature is there an explanation of how the gawds achieved their “creation”. There is no doctrinal literature such as "The Creation Scenario is described as..." Similarly, there is no literature to be found with the phrase: "The Creator gawds used the following mean, methods and creative processes in making living organisms..." And ultimately, we will never hear the creation ministries announce: "We have just published evidence in peer reviewed scientific journal of physical evidence which reveals the means and methods by which the creator gawds established life on this planet." Instead, all we get is simpleton creationist drivel that supernatural means and supermagical causes define their gawds.

Creationists can offer no explanations of how life developed on the planet. They have found no physical evidence for any of their gawds. Very simply, creationism is nothing more than a window dressing for fundamentalist christianity.

 

[DriftingSand]

Duck Dynasty's, Alan Robertson, says that the Bible should be taught in public schools. I agree although I think it should be an elective. The Bible is an historical document that's had significant influence on mankind for centuries. Kids should at least know what it's all about before denying its veracity based on the whims of a handful of bitter atheists (usually folks angry at God for not getting that certain toy at Christmas).

Duck Dynasty’s Alan Robertson: Bible Should Be Taught in Public Schools

(CNSNews.com) – Duck Dynasty’s beardless and eldest son, Alan Robertson, said the Bible should be taught in the public schools because it used to be required of earlier generations of students, particularly at even the higher-level Ivy League universities, and because America’s Founders believed society and its laws could function properly only when citizens had a solid “understanding of God’s truth and His Word.”

UOTE]
Duck Dynasty s Alan Robertson Bible Should Be Taught in Public Schools CNS News

You contradict yourself.

Religious materials in schools are appropriate provided they're not used by the state to foster religious belief, or fail to pursue a secular purpose, or otherwise do not manifest an excessive entanglement with government.

What you propose is un-Constitutional because it seeks to confirm the 'veracity' of the bible in the context of state instruction, thus 'proving' that 'bitter atheists' are 'wrong.'

As for:

'Al Robertson, who is an ordained minister, also said the “creation narrative” in the Bible should be taught alongside the theory of evolution in the public schools.'

This is as ignorant as it is un-Constitutional (see: Edwards v. Aguillard (1987)).

You are incorrect! I'm suggesting that a class on the Bible be made an "elective" class for anyone and everyone interested in the formation and structure of the Bible and to understand its historical significance. That's not "teaching religion" so you FAIL yet again. I also suggest that a class on Creation Science be included as an elective to give folks another perspective concerning the origins of the universe and life, itself. What are you afraid of?

There’s nothing to be afraid of in connection with Christian creationism being taught as bible classes regarding the origins of the universe and life. That can be done at Sunday school along with lectures on talking snakes and a flat earth.

In an academic, public classroom setting, teaching Christian dogma is a violation of law. Beyond that, what is truly laughable about creationists is the lack of any affirmative description of what “creationist doctrine” really is, other than mindless reiteration of biblical tales. As an example, nowhere in the creationist ministry literature is there an explanation of how the gawds achieved their “creation”. There is no doctrinal literature such as "The Creation Scenario is described as..." Similarly, there is no literature to be found with the phrase: "The Creator gawds used the following mean, methods and creative processes in making living organisms..." And ultimately, we will never hear the creation ministries announce: "We have just published evidence in peer reviewed scientific journal of physical evidence which reveals the means and methods by which the creator gawds established life on this planet." Instead, all we get is simpleton creationist drivel that supernatural means and supermagical causes define their gawds.

Creationists can offer no explanations of how life developed on the planet. They have found no physical evidence for any of their gawds. Very simply, creationism is nothing more than a window dressing for fundamentalist christianity.

Who said anything about teaching "Christian dogma?" Not me, certainly. I'm saying that the Bible and Creation Science can be taught from an historical perspective and as a means to show it's influence on mankind. Why do you fear that so much?

 

[Hollie]

Duck Dynasty's, Alan Robertson, says that the Bible should be taught in public schools. I agree although I think it should be an elective. The Bible is an historical document that's had significant influence on mankind for centuries. Kids should at least know what it's all about before denying its veracity based on the whims of a handful of bitter atheists (usually folks angry at God for not getting that certain toy at Christmas).

UOTE]
Duck Dynasty s Alan Robertson Bible Should Be Taught in Public Schools CNS News

You contradict yourself.

Religious materials in schools are appropriate provided they're not used by the state to foster religious belief, or fail to pursue a secular purpose, or otherwise do not manifest an excessive entanglement with government.

What you propose is un-Constitutional because it seeks to confirm the 'veracity' of the bible in the context of state instruction, thus 'proving' that 'bitter atheists' are 'wrong.'

As for:

'Al Robertson, who is an ordained minister, also said the “creation narrative” in the Bible should be taught alongside the theory of evolution in the public schools.'

This is as ignorant as it is un-Constitutional (see: Edwards v. Aguillard (1987)).

You are incorrect! I'm suggesting that a class on the Bible be made an "elective" class for anyone and everyone interested in the formation and structure of the Bible and to understand its historical significance. That's not "teaching religion" so you FAIL yet again. I also suggest that a class on Creation Science be included as an elective to give folks another perspective concerning the origins of the universe and life, itself. What are you afraid of?

There’s nothing to be afraid of in connection with Christian creationism being taught as bible classes regarding the origins of the universe and life. That can be done at Sunday school along with lectures on talking snakes and a flat earth.

In an academic, public classroom setting, teaching Christian dogma is a violation of law. Beyond that, what is truly laughable about creationists is the lack of any affirmative description of what “creationist doctrine” really is, other than mindless reiteration of biblical tales. As an example, nowhere in the creationist ministry literature is there an explanation of how the gawds achieved their “creation”. There is no doctrinal literature such as "The Creation Scenario is described as..." Similarly, there is no literature to be found with the phrase: "The Creator gawds used the following mean, methods and creative processes in making living organisms..." And ultimately, we will never hear the creation ministries announce: "We have just published evidence in peer reviewed scientific journal of physical evidence which reveals the means and methods by which the creator gawds established life on this planet." Instead, all we get is simpleton creationist drivel that supernatural means and supermagical causes define their gawds.

Creationists can offer no explanations of how life developed on the planet. They have found no physical evidence for any of their gawds. Very simply, creationism is nothing more than a window dressing for fundamentalist christianity.

Who said anything about teaching "Christian dogma?" Not me, certainly. I'm saying that the Bible and Creation Science can be taught from an historical perspective and as a means to show it's influence on mankind. Why do you fear that so much?

This was addressed in my prior post.

Creation science is not science. It is window dressing for christian fundamentalism. This has been addressed in my prior post. The courts have ruled on this matter.

Why do you presume that your religion should be granted a special excemption from the law?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

“I'm suggesting that a class on the Bible be made an "elective" class...”

No, you didn't.

You clearly stated the intent of the class was to teach the 'truth' of the bible in spite of 'atheists.'

Otherwise there's nothing to 'fear,' as we have the First Amendment to protect citizens' civil liberties from you and other theists such as Robertson who seek to conjoin church and state in violation of the Constitution.

 

[DriftingSand]

Duck Dynasty's, Alan Robertson, says that the Bible should be taught in public schools. I agree although I think it should be an elective. The Bible is an historical document that's had significant influence on mankind for centuries. Kids should at least know what it's all about before denying its veracity based on the whims of a handful of bitter atheists (usually folks angry at God for not getting that certain toy at Christmas).

You contradict yourself.

Religious materials in schools are appropriate provided they're not used by the state to foster religious belief, or fail to pursue a secular purpose, or otherwise do not manifest an excessive entanglement with government.

What you propose is un-Constitutional because it seeks to confirm the 'veracity' of the bible in the context of state instruction, thus 'proving' that 'bitter atheists' are 'wrong.'

As for:

'Al Robertson, who is an ordained minister, also said the “creation narrative” in the Bible should be taught alongside the theory of evolution in the public schools.'

This is as ignorant as it is un-Constitutional (see: Edwards v. Aguillard (1987)).

You are incorrect! I'm suggesting that a class on the Bible be made an "elective" class for anyone and everyone interested in the formation and structure of the Bible and to understand its historical significance. That's not "teaching religion" so you FAIL yet again. I also suggest that a class on Creation Science be included as an elective to give folks another perspective concerning the origins of the universe and life, itself. What are you afraid of?

There’s nothing to be afraid of in connection with Christian creationism being taught as bible classes regarding the origins of the universe and life. That can be done at Sunday school along with lectures on talking snakes and a flat earth.

In an academic, public classroom setting, teaching Christian dogma is a violation of law. Beyond that, what is truly laughable about creationists is the lack of any affirmative description of what “creationist doctrine” really is, other than mindless reiteration of biblical tales. As an example, nowhere in the creationist ministry literature is there an explanation of how the gawds achieved their “creation”. There is no doctrinal literature such as "The Creation Scenario is described as..." Similarly, there is no literature to be found with the phrase: "The Creator gawds used the following mean, methods and creative processes in making living organisms..." And ultimately, we will never hear the creation ministries announce: "We have just published evidence in peer reviewed scientific journal of physical evidence which reveals the means and methods by which the creator gawds established life on this planet." Instead, all we get is simpleton creationist drivel that supernatural means and supermagical causes define their gawds.

Creationists can offer no explanations of how life developed on the planet. They have found no physical evidence for any of their gawds. Very simply, creationism is nothing more than a window dressing for fundamentalist christianity.

Who said anything about teaching "Christian dogma?" Not me, certainly. I'm saying that the Bible and Creation Science can be taught from an historical perspective and as a means to show it's influence on mankind. Why do you fear that so much?

This was addressed in my prior post.

Creation science is not science. It is window dressing for christian fundamentalism. This has been addressed in my prior post. The courts have ruled on this matter.

Why do you presume that your religion should be granted a special excemption from the law?

Science is science whether it's facilitated by a Christian or a non-Christian. It's the study of all facets of the world around us in an attempt to find the truth. The ICR is made up of accredited, degreed, University-trained scientists. What are you afraid of?

 

[DriftingSand]

“I'm suggesting that a class on the Bible be made an "elective" class...”

No, you didn't.

You clearly stated the intent of the class was to teach the 'truth' of the bible in spite of 'atheists.'

Otherwise there's nothing to 'fear,' as we have the First Amendment to protect citizens' civil liberties from you and other theists such as Robertson who seek to conjoin church and state in violation of the Constitution.

Where did I "clearly state" what you said I did? Here's what I said:

"... I think it should be an elective. The Bible is an historical document that's had significant influence on mankind for centuries.Kids should at least know what it's all about before denying its veracity based on the whims of a handful of bitter atheists (usually folks angry at God for not getting that certain toy at Christmas)."

Don't put words into my mouth!

 

[Hollie]

You are incorrect! I'm suggesting that a class on the Bible be made an "elective" class for anyone and everyone interested in the formation and structure of the Bible and to understand its historical significance. That's not "teaching religion" so you FAIL yet again. I also suggest that a class on Creation Science be included as an elective to give folks another perspective concerning the origins of the universe and life, itself. What are you afraid of?

There’s nothing to be afraid of in connection with Christian creationism being taught as bible classes regarding the origins of the universe and life. That can be done at Sunday school along with lectures on talking snakes and a flat earth.

In an academic, public classroom setting, teaching Christian dogma is a violation of law. Beyond that, what is truly laughable about creationists is the lack of any affirmative description of what “creationist doctrine” really is, other than mindless reiteration of biblical tales. As an example, nowhere in the creationist ministry literature is there an explanation of how the gawds achieved their “creation”. There is no doctrinal literature such as "The Creation Scenario is described as..." Similarly, there is no literature to be found with the phrase: "The Creator gawds used the following mean, methods and creative processes in making living organisms..." And ultimately, we will never hear the creation ministries announce: "We have just published evidence in peer reviewed scientific journal of physical evidence which reveals the means and methods by which the creator gawds established life on this planet." Instead, all we get is simpleton creationist drivel that supernatural means and supermagical causes define their gawds.

Creationists can offer no explanations of how life developed on the planet. They have found no physical evidence for any of their gawds. Very simply, creationism is nothing more than a window dressing for fundamentalist christianity.

Who said anything about teaching "Christian dogma?" Not me, certainly. I'm saying that the Bible and Creation Science can be taught from an historical perspective and as a means to show it's influence on mankind. Why do you fear that so much?

This was addressed in my prior post.

Creation science is not science. It is window dressing for christian fundamentalism. This has been addressed in my prior post. The courts have ruled on this matter.

Why do you presume that your religion should be granted a special excemption from the law?

Science is science whether it's facilitated by a Christian or a non-Christian. It's the study of all facets of the world around us in an attempt to find the truth. The ICR is made up of accredited, degreed, University-trained scientists. What are you afraid of?

The ICR is possibly the worst example of the various christian fundamentalist organizations that falsely and dishonestly label themselves as "science" related. They do no research that is peer reviewed because they announce their bias in favor of christian fundamentalist dogma.

Christian creationism is not science.

All of your teaching in connection with christian fundamentalist dogma can be done at your Sunday schools.

You're just not understanding that the agenda of you christian extremists regarding your attempts to force your religion into the public schools is a violation of law.

 

[PratchettFan]

Duck Dynasty's, Alan Robertson, says that the Bible should be taught in public schools. I agree although I think it should be an elective. The Bible is an historical document that's had significant influence on mankind for centuries. Kids should at least know what it's all about before denying its veracity based on the whims of a handful of bitter atheists (usually folks angry at God for not getting that certain toy at Christmas).

Duck Dynasty’s Alan Robertson: Bible Should Be Taught in Public Schools

(CNSNews.com) – Duck Dynasty’s beardless and eldest son, Alan Robertson, said the Bible should be taught in the public schools because it used to be required of earlier generations of students, particularly at even the higher-level Ivy League universities, and because America’s Founders believed society and its laws could function properly only when citizens had a solid “understanding of God’s truth and His Word.”

Duck Dynasty s Alan Robertson Bible Should Be Taught in Public Schools CNS News

As a high school class, with other religious texts included, such as the Talmud, Qur'an, Vedas, etc.... sure. The problem I would see is that it would have to be done neutrally, not indicating a preference for one over the other. Otherwise, you have the establishment of religion. Could be tricky.

 

[PratchettFan]

Duck Dynasty's, Alan Robertson, says that the Bible should be taught in public schools. I agree although I think it should be an elective. The Bible is an historical document that's had significant influence on mankind for centuries. Kids should at least know what it's all about before denying its veracity based on the whims of a handful of bitter atheists (usually folks angry at God for not getting that certain toy at Christmas).

UOTE]
Duck Dynasty s Alan Robertson Bible Should Be Taught in Public Schools CNS News

You contradict yourself.

Religious materials in schools are appropriate provided they're not used by the state to foster religious belief, or fail to pursue a secular purpose, or otherwise do not manifest an excessive entanglement with government.

What you propose is un-Constitutional because it seeks to confirm the 'veracity' of the bible in the context of state instruction, thus 'proving' that 'bitter atheists' are 'wrong.'

As for:

'Al Robertson, who is an ordained minister, also said the “creation narrative” in the Bible should be taught alongside the theory of evolution in the public schools.'

This is as ignorant as it is un-Constitutional (see: Edwards v. Aguillard (1987)).

You are incorrect! I'm suggesting that a class on the Bible be made an "elective" class for anyone and everyone interested in the formation and structure of the Bible and to understand its historical significance. That's not "teaching religion" so you FAIL yet again. I also suggest that a class on Creation Science be included as an elective to give folks another perspective concerning the origins of the universe and life, itself. What are you afraid of?

There’s nothing to be afraid of in connection with Christian creationism being taught as bible classes regarding the origins of the universe and life. That can be done at Sunday school along with lectures on talking snakes and a flat earth.

In an academic, public classroom setting, teaching Christian dogma is a violation of law. Beyond that, what is truly laughable about creationists is the lack of any affirmative description of what “creationist doctrine” really is, other than mindless reiteration of biblical tales. As an example, nowhere in the creationist ministry literature is there an explanation of how the gawds achieved their “creation”. There is no doctrinal literature such as "The Creation Scenario is described as..." Similarly, there is no literature to be found with the phrase: "The Creator gawds used the following mean, methods and creative processes in making living organisms..." And ultimately, we will never hear the creation ministries announce: "We have just published evidence in peer reviewed scientific journal of physical evidence which reveals the means and methods by which the creator gawds established life on this planet." Instead, all we get is simpleton creationist drivel that supernatural means and supermagical causes define their gawds.

Creationists can offer no explanations of how life developed on the planet. They have found no physical evidence for any of their gawds. Very simply, creationism is nothing more than a window dressing for fundamentalist christianity.

Who said anything about teaching "Christian dogma?" Not me, certainly. I'm saying that the Bible and Creation Science can be taught from an historical perspective and as a means to show it's influence on mankind. Why do you fear that so much?

Now you are tossing in "Creation Science". That is not historical and would not belong in a class about religion. Personally, I am in favor of it in a general science class, if only to give an excellent example of how a theory falls apart. But not in the class you are proposing.

 

[DriftingSand]

Duck Dynasty's, Alan Robertson, says that the Bible should be taught in public schools. I agree although I think it should be an elective. The Bible is an historical document that's had significant influence on mankind for centuries. Kids should at least know what it's all about before denying its veracity based on the whims of a handful of bitter atheists (usually folks angry at God for not getting that certain toy at Christmas).

Duck Dynasty’s Alan Robertson: Bible Should Be Taught in Public Schools

(CNSNews.com) – Duck Dynasty’s beardless and eldest son, Alan Robertson, said the Bible should be taught in the public schools because it used to be required of earlier generations of students, particularly at even the higher-level Ivy League universities, and because America’s Founders believed society and its laws could function properly only when citizens had a solid “understanding of God’s truth and His Word.”

Duck Dynasty s Alan Robertson Bible Should Be Taught in Public Schools CNS News

As a high school class, with other religious texts included, such as the Talmud, Qur'an, Vedas, etc.... sure. The problem I would see is that it would have to be done neutrally, not indicating a preference for one over the other. Otherwise, you have the establishment of religion. Could be tricky.

Each class could/would be a separate elective. I may want to learn about the Buddhism but lack interest in Wicca, Athesim, Islam or the history of other religions.

 

[DriftingSand]

Duck Dynasty's, Alan Robertson, says that the Bible should be taught in public schools. I agree although I think it should be an elective. The Bible is an historical document that's had significant influence on mankind for centuries. Kids should at least know what it's all about before denying its veracity based on the whims of a handful of bitter atheists (usually folks angry at God for not getting that certain toy at Christmas).

You contradict yourself.

Religious materials in schools are appropriate provided they're not used by the state to foster religious belief, or fail to pursue a secular purpose, or otherwise do not manifest an excessive entanglement with government.

What you propose is un-Constitutional because it seeks to confirm the 'veracity' of the bible in the context of state instruction, thus 'proving' that 'bitter atheists' are 'wrong.'

As for:

'Al Robertson, who is an ordained minister, also said the “creation narrative” in the Bible should be taught alongside the theory of evolution in the public schools.'

This is as ignorant as it is un-Constitutional (see: Edwards v. Aguillard (1987)).

You are incorrect! I'm suggesting that a class on the Bible be made an "elective" class for anyone and everyone interested in the formation and structure of the Bible and to understand its historical significance. That's not "teaching religion" so you FAIL yet again. I also suggest that a class on Creation Science be included as an elective to give folks another perspective concerning the origins of the universe and life, itself. What are you afraid of?

There’s nothing to be afraid of in connection with Christian creationism being taught as bible classes regarding the origins of the universe and life. That can be done at Sunday school along with lectures on talking snakes and a flat earth.

In an academic, public classroom setting, teaching Christian dogma is a violation of law. Beyond that, what is truly laughable about creationists is the lack of any affirmative description of what “creationist doctrine” really is, other than mindless reiteration of biblical tales. As an example, nowhere in the creationist ministry literature is there an explanation of how the gawds achieved their “creation”. There is no doctrinal literature such as "The Creation Scenario is described as..." Similarly, there is no literature to be found with the phrase: "The Creator gawds used the following mean, methods and creative processes in making living organisms..." And ultimately, we will never hear the creation ministries announce: "We have just published evidence in peer reviewed scientific journal of physical evidence which reveals the means and methods by which the creator gawds established life on this planet." Instead, all we get is simpleton creationist drivel that supernatural means and supermagical causes define their gawds.

Creationists can offer no explanations of how life developed on the planet. They have found no physical evidence for any of their gawds. Very simply, creationism is nothing more than a window dressing for fundamentalist christianity.

Who said anything about teaching "Christian dogma?" Not me, certainly. I'm saying that the Bible and Creation Science can be taught from an historical perspective and as a means to show it's influence on mankind. Why do you fear that so much?

Now you are tossing in "Creation Science". That is not historical and would not belong in a class about religion. Personally, I am in favor of it in a general science class, if only to give an excellent example of how a theory falls apart. But not in the class you are proposing.

It is historical. Science simply means "knowledge." Folks back in biblical times sought knowledge. Noah built an ark so he would have to know something about engineering. Buildings were being built. Health was a concern. Metallurgy had been discovered. Etc.

 

[PratchettFan]

Duck Dynasty's, Alan Robertson, says that the Bible should be taught in public schools. I agree although I think it should be an elective. The Bible is an historical document that's had significant influence on mankind for centuries. Kids should at least know what it's all about before denying its veracity based on the whims of a handful of bitter atheists (usually folks angry at God for not getting that certain toy at Christmas).

Duck Dynasty’s Alan Robertson: Bible Should Be Taught in Public Schools

(CNSNews.com) – Duck Dynasty’s beardless and eldest son, Alan Robertson, said the Bible should be taught in the public schools because it used to be required of earlier generations of students, particularly at even the higher-level Ivy League universities, and because America’s Founders believed society and its laws could function properly only when citizens had a solid “understanding of God’s truth and His Word.”

Duck Dynasty s Alan Robertson Bible Should Be Taught in Public Schools CNS News

As a high school class, with other religious texts included, such as the Talmud, Qur'an, Vedas, etc.... sure. The problem I would see is that it would have to be done neutrally, not indicating a preference for one over the other. Otherwise, you have the establishment of religion. Could be tricky.

Each class could/would be a separate elective. I may want to learn about the Buddhism but lack interest in Wicca, Athesim, Islam or the history of other religions.

Then I can see a major problem right off. Whether you may want to learn something as a student should not be a factor at all. The intent of the class should be to expose you to information, not let you pick and choose what information you want. If that is the nature of the class, then it needs to wait until college. If all you are going to do is deal with the history of one religion, then the state is establishing a priority to that religion.

 

[PratchettFan]

You are incorrect! I'm suggesting that a class on the Bible be made an "elective" class for anyone and everyone interested in the formation and structure of the Bible and to understand its historical significance. That's not "teaching religion" so you FAIL yet again. I also suggest that a class on Creation Science be included as an elective to give folks another perspective concerning the origins of the universe and life, itself. What are you afraid of?

There’s nothing to be afraid of in connection with Christian creationism being taught as bible classes regarding the origins of the universe and life. That can be done at Sunday school along with lectures on talking snakes and a flat earth.

In an academic, public classroom setting, teaching Christian dogma is a violation of law. Beyond that, what is truly laughable about creationists is the lack of any affirmative description of what “creationist doctrine” really is, other than mindless reiteration of biblical tales. As an example, nowhere in the creationist ministry literature is there an explanation of how the gawds achieved their “creation”. There is no doctrinal literature such as "The Creation Scenario is described as..." Similarly, there is no literature to be found with the phrase: "The Creator gawds used the following mean, methods and creative processes in making living organisms..." And ultimately, we will never hear the creation ministries announce: "We have just published evidence in peer reviewed scientific journal of physical evidence which reveals the means and methods by which the creator gawds established life on this planet." Instead, all we get is simpleton creationist drivel that supernatural means and supermagical causes define their gawds.

Creationists can offer no explanations of how life developed on the planet. They have found no physical evidence for any of their gawds. Very simply, creationism is nothing more than a window dressing for fundamentalist christianity.

Who said anything about teaching "Christian dogma?" Not me, certainly. I'm saying that the Bible and Creation Science can be taught from an historical perspective and as a means to show it's influence on mankind. Why do you fear that so much?

Now you are tossing in "Creation Science". That is not historical and would not belong in a class about religion. Personally, I am in favor of it in a general science class, if only to give an excellent example of how a theory falls apart. But not in the class you are proposing.

It is historical. Science simply means "knowledge." Folks back in biblical times sought knowledge. Noah built an ark so he would have to know something about engineering. Buildings were being built. Health was a concern. Metallurgy had been discovered. Etc.

No. That dog won't hunt. You are not proposing a history of science course. If you did and wanted to include Creationism, then you would also have to include Alchemy.

 

[September]

Many colleges offer awesome Comparitive Religion classes as electives.

I wouldn't have a problem with them offering it in High Schools, as long as they don't restrict themselves to the Abrahamic religions, and offer insight also into Hinduism, Buddhism, various Pagan religions, etc.
​