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

[Pogo]

I suppose that depends on how the classes is presented. If people want to use this class as an excuse to extol the virtues of one Holy Book over another them no, I am opposed to such a class. Do we really want the government teaching children faith? That is best left to the parents and members of the clergy that the parents wish.

On the other side of the coin, do we want the government prohibiting children from learning about anything that touches on faith? The Bible (or any religious book) as History, Culture, and Literature--or, comparative religion classes isn't anything the government should prohibit as an elective course.

The Suprem Court has long ruled that teaching the Bible as literature or in context of history or culture is fine. I have heard of cases, though where the teacher turns such a class into proselytizing.

Atheists NEVER proselytize though, do they! They never pontificate in such a manner as to belittle religion while elevating their personal philosophy.

I think you're just incensed that anyone should be allowed to challenge your religious beliefs and the imposition of those beliefs into the public schools. While you may presume your religious beliefs require a status of privileged involubility, you need to accept the fact that the world doesn't revolve around your religious beliefs.

I'm not the one being challenged ... you are. I'm not fearful of books I don't like making their way into schools if the end goal is learning something previously unknown. You, on the other hand, are wetting your knickers at the very thought of the Bible finding itself in a classroom. You're literally petrified of the idea. Kinda proves just how powerful the Bible really is -- wouldn't ya say?

Why do you keep trying to shift the central theme from a question about the Law to a question about the Babble?

 

[Pogo]

for me the potential for abuse (i.e. becoming an indoctrination class) far outweighs the benefits of a well taught class

While I cannot say for sure how every school district acts, the ones I have worked for set the guidelines and curriculum, as well as approve the teaching materials. They hire the teachers. Further, it is pretty difficult to brainwash a high school student as they tend to want to think for themselves.

Finally, one of my daughters, while in high school, had a Wiccan English teacher. This teacher was a fine English teacher, but she was also throwing in Wiccan doctrine whenever she could. So what? My daughter had her beliefs and we had many interesting dinner conversations of why we believe as we do--and why she probably believes as she does. I cannot imagine panicking over a high school student being taught/exposed to Wiccan doctrine. High school students do not live in a vacuum--and for the most part they also have good heads on their shoulders.

I think the greater majority of school districts and teachers would do well with presenting the material. Of course, we would never hear about them, as the news media is more interested in finding the few that will mess up. Besides, I have doubts that there is enough student interest to support such electives in many places. All I am saying is where there is such interest, have at it.

I am a risk manager and I deal with a large school district. I can tell you from experience that if a class as you propose was placed in the curriculum, we would find ourselves in litigation over it. Win or lose, the money I had to spend for litigation would be money not going into the classroom. There is one school district I know of which dealt with litigation because they were teaching yoga in gym, and a parent saw that as religious indoctrination. If you skirt the line of legality you are going to end up in court and that takes both time and money away from the students.

That's absolutely absurd. There's nothing whatsoever "religious" about yoga.

Question to the previous poster though --
--- what exactly is "Wiccan doctrine"? I wasn't aware such existed. I think doctrine requires some kind of an organization, does it not?

 

[Meriweather]

That's absolutely absurd. There's nothing whatsoever "religious" about yoga.

Question to the previous poster though --
--- what exactly is "Wiccan doctrine"? I wasn't aware such existed. I think doctrine requires some kind of an organization, does it not?

Yoga is often associated/used for Eastern meditation practices. In P.E. of course, we use it to stretch muscle groups. I've led P.E. classes in this myself (minus the meditation, of course!).

Doctrine: Particular principles or positions. Nothing sinister.

 

[Pogo]

That's absolutely absurd. There's nothing whatsoever "religious" about yoga.

Question to the previous poster though --
--- what exactly is "Wiccan doctrine"? I wasn't aware such existed. I think doctrine requires some kind of an organization, does it not?

Yoga is often associated/used for Eastern meditation practices. In P.E. of course, we use it to stretch muscle groups. I've led P.E. classes in this myself (minus the meditation, of course!).

Yeah I know all about yoga -- been doing it since I was a kid. There ain't no "religion" in it. Meditation is not religion -- was that her position? Because that's Anyway you can't engage in yoga without a modicum of self-awareness in tune with one's own energies, which is tantamout to "meditation". It's part and parcel of the physical experience. If it isn't, you ain't doing it right, you're just stretching.

Doctrine: Particular principles or positions. Nothing sinister.

Nothing sinister inferred; I'm just curious what these particular principles may have been, because I know a few things about Wicca as well. And I know what doctrine means, thank you very much. I'm asking for details.

 

[Meriweather]

Yeah I know all about yoga -- been doing it since I was a kid. There ain't no "religion" in it. Meditation is not religion -- was that her position? Because that's Anyway you can't engage in yoga without a modicum of self-awareness in tune with one's own energies, which is tantamout to "meditation". It's part and parcel of the physical experience. If it isn't, you ain't doing it right, you're just stretching.

Doctrine: Particular principles or positions. Nothing sinister.

Nothing sinister inferred; I'm just curious what these particular principles may have been, because I know a few things about Wicca as well. And I know what doctrine means, thank you very much. I'm asking for details.

It was ten years ago, Pogo, so no, I don't remember the particulars. That year there were more than a few dinners where, "Guess what Mrs. English Teacher told us today!" Because she knew I also taught at the school sometimes, another mother asked me my opinion of what was going on, and I was of the opinion it was no big deal and provided a jumping off spot to talk about the family's religious beliefs. I thought it more important that she was a good, enthusiastic English teacher.

My point is that I don't think there is any need to panic if high school students hear something of a religious nature from one of their teachers.

 

[Ravi]

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 CNS News

Sure, why not. We all know teachers are liberals and they would have a great time pointing out that the bible is a fairy tale.

That wouldn't be proper teaching methodology. Millions don't believe it's a fairy tale so a good teacher would approach the subject in a neutral manner.

I took bible as literature in high school. A good teacher wouldn't claim it is truth, which is what duck boy seems to be aiming for.

Well ... it is the truth but if I were a teacher I wouldn't approach it from that perspective in a high school atmosphere. I would simply present it in a purely neutral manner and let the kids decide for themselves. I believe we owe the next generation every opportunity to decide things for themselves without the biased influence of haters.

Be careful, your bias is showing.

 

[PratchettFan]

for me the potential for abuse (i.e. becoming an indoctrination class) far outweighs the benefits of a well taught class

While I cannot say for sure how every school district acts, the ones I have worked for set the guidelines and curriculum, as well as approve the teaching materials. They hire the teachers. Further, it is pretty difficult to brainwash a high school student as they tend to want to think for themselves.

Finally, one of my daughters, while in high school, had a Wiccan English teacher. This teacher was a fine English teacher, but she was also throwing in Wiccan doctrine whenever she could. So what? My daughter had her beliefs and we had many interesting dinner conversations of why we believe as we do--and why she probably believes as she does. I cannot imagine panicking over a high school student being taught/exposed to Wiccan doctrine. High school students do not live in a vacuum--and for the most part they also have good heads on their shoulders.

I think the greater majority of school districts and teachers would do well with presenting the material. Of course, we would never hear about them, as the news media is more interested in finding the few that will mess up. Besides, I have doubts that there is enough student interest to support such electives in many places. All I am saying is where there is such interest, have at it.

I am a risk manager and I deal with a large school district. I can tell you from experience that if a class as you propose was placed in the curriculum, we would find ourselves in litigation over it. Win or lose, the money I had to spend for litigation would be money not going into the classroom. There is one school district I know of which dealt with litigation because they were teaching yoga in gym, and a parent saw that as religious indoctrination. If you skirt the line of legality you are going to end up in court and that takes both time and money away from the students.

That's absolutely absurd. There's nothing whatsoever "religious" about yoga.

Question to the previous poster though --
--- what exactly is "Wiccan doctrine"? I wasn't aware such existed. I think doctrine requires some kind of an organization, does it not?

In Washington DC a judge filed a multi-million dollar law suit against a dry cleaner because he claimed they didn't do a good job on his suit. It took years for it to work its way through the courts before it was finally dismissed. The dry cleaner won, and lost the business because of the crushing legal expense of defending themselves. "Absurdity" has nothing to do with it.

 

[Pogo]

for me the potential for abuse (i.e. becoming an indoctrination class) far outweighs the benefits of a well taught class

While I cannot say for sure how every school district acts, the ones I have worked for set the guidelines and curriculum, as well as approve the teaching materials. They hire the teachers. Further, it is pretty difficult to brainwash a high school student as they tend to want to think for themselves.

Finally, one of my daughters, while in high school, had a Wiccan English teacher. This teacher was a fine English teacher, but she was also throwing in Wiccan doctrine whenever she could. So what? My daughter had her beliefs and we had many interesting dinner conversations of why we believe as we do--and why she probably believes as she does. I cannot imagine panicking over a high school student being taught/exposed to Wiccan doctrine. High school students do not live in a vacuum--and for the most part they also have good heads on their shoulders.

I think the greater majority of school districts and teachers would do well with presenting the material. Of course, we would never hear about them, as the news media is more interested in finding the few that will mess up. Besides, I have doubts that there is enough student interest to support such electives in many places. All I am saying is where there is such interest, have at it.

I am a risk manager and I deal with a large school district. I can tell you from experience that if a class as you propose was placed in the curriculum, we would find ourselves in litigation over it. Win or lose, the money I had to spend for litigation would be money not going into the classroom. There is one school district I know of which dealt with litigation because they were teaching yoga in gym, and a parent saw that as religious indoctrination. If you skirt the line of legality you are going to end up in court and that takes both time and money away from the students.

That's absolutely absurd. There's nothing whatsoever "religious" about yoga.

Question to the previous poster though --
--- what exactly is "Wiccan doctrine"? I wasn't aware such existed. I think doctrine requires some kind of an organization, does it not?

In Washington DC a judge filed a multi-million dollar law suit against a dry cleaner because he claimed they didn't do a good job on his suit. It took years for it to work its way through the courts before it was finally dismissed. The dry cleaner won, and lost the business because of the crushing legal expense of defending themselves. "Absurdity" has nothing to do with it.

uhhhh......

okaaayy...

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

MERIWEATHER SAID:

“My point is that I don't think there is any need to panic if high school students hear something of a religious nature from one of their teachers.”

This issue has nothing to do with a 'need to panic.'

The issue has to do with schools as government entities, and teachers as government representatives, complying with Establishment Clause jurisprudence. If teachers are not sure of the law then refrain from religious references. Or if they wish to make religions references learn what the Constitution allows and what it does not.

This isn't difficult to comprehend, for educators in particular.

 

[Meriweather]

MERIWEATHER SAID:

“My point is that I don't think there is any need to panic if high school students hear something of a religious nature from one of their teachers.”

This issue has nothing to do with a 'need to panic.'

The issue has to do with schools as government entities, and teachers as government representatives, complying with Establishment Clause jurisprudence. If teachers are not sure of the law then refrain from religious references. Or if they wish to make religions references learn what the Constitution allows and what it does not.

This isn't difficult to comprehend, for educators in particular.

We do not live in a vacuum, and I would prefer to live in a colorful world where religion is practiced freely, than a sterile one where we must keep buried the beliefs closest to our hearts. It does not hurt any student to know that their teachers also have beliefs and values that they follow. In fact, I think it may be more dangerous for students to reach the conclusion that their teachers (and most likely other adults) are completely bland about ethics, values and beliefs.

 

[Inevitable]

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

Teaching the hysterical significance is all fine and good, but why should anybody care what a professional clown says?

 

[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

Teaching the hysterical significance is all fine and good, but why should anybody care what a professional clown says?

1) I see that you aren't interested in history.
2) Alan is the serious member of the family (not usually seen on the Duck Dynasty show) so your inference that he's a "clown" is off base.
3) Who cares what a queer has to say so ... scram.

 

[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.”

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

Teaching the hysterical significance is all fine and good, but why should anybody care what a professional clown says?

1) I see that you aren't interested in history.
2) Alan is the serious member of the family (not usually seen on the Duck Dynasty show) so your inference that he's a "clown" is off base.
3) Who cares what a queer has to say so ... scram.

Oh, why didn't you make a point of that earlier. Now that we know Alan is the serious member of the family, that changes everything.

You should write a strongly worded email to congress letting them know that Alan is the serious member of the Duck Dynasty family. We should move quickly to amend the constitution because we have learned of Alan's strong convictions regarding seriousness.

Be sure to copy me on all your correspondence with congress.

 

[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

Teaching the hysterical significance is all fine and good, but why should anybody care what a professional clown says?

1) I see that you aren't interested in history.
2) Alan is the serious member of the family (not usually seen on the Duck Dynasty show) so your inference that he's a "clown" is off base.
3) Who cares what a queer has to say so ... scram.

Oh, why didn't you make a point of that earlier. Now that we know Alan is the serious member of the family, that changes everything.

You should write a strongly worded email to congress letting them know that Alan is the serious member of the Duck Dynasty family. We should move quickly to amend the constitution because we have learned of Alan's strong convictions regarding seriousness.

Be sure to copy me on all your correspondence with congress.

You're just jealous that folks take Alan seriously but take your nonsense with a small grain of salt. Get over yourself. Your entire philosophy revolves around throwing darts at Christianity while offering nothing of substance.

 

[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 CNS News

Teaching the hysterical significance is all fine and good, but why should anybody care what a professional clown says?

1) I see that you aren't interested in history.
2) Alan is the serious member of the family (not usually seen on the Duck Dynasty show) so your inference that he's a "clown" is off base.
3) Who cares what a queer has to say so ... scram.

Oh, why didn't you make a point of that earlier. Now that we know Alan is the serious member of the family, that changes everything.

You should write a strongly worded email to congress letting them know that Alan is the serious member of the Duck Dynasty family. We should move quickly to amend the constitution because we have learned of Alan's strong convictions regarding seriousness.

Be sure to copy me on all your correspondence with congress.

You're just jealous that folks take Alan seriously but take your nonsense with a small grain of salt. Get over yourself. Your entire philosophy revolves around throwing darts at Christianity while offering nothing of substance.

What folks take your Duck Dynasty hero seriously?

You do know that teaching the bibles in public schools is illegal, right? The reasons for that have been identified repeatedly and tediously for you.

 

[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 CNS News

Teaching the hysterical significance is all fine and good, but why should anybody care what a professional clown says?

1) I see that you aren't interested in history.
2) Alan is the serious member of the family (not usually seen on the Duck Dynasty show) so your inference that he's a "clown" is off base.
3) Who cares what a queer has to say so ... scram.

Oh, why didn't you make a point of that earlier. Now that we know Alan is the serious member of the family, that changes everything.

You should write a strongly worded email to congress letting them know that Alan is the serious member of the Duck Dynasty family. We should move quickly to amend the constitution because we have learned of Alan's strong convictions regarding seriousness.

Be sure to copy me on all your correspondence with congress.

You're just jealous that folks take Alan seriously but take your nonsense with a small grain of salt. Get over yourself. Your entire philosophy revolves around throwing darts at Christianity while offering nothing of substance.

What folks take your Duck Dynasty hero seriously?

You do know that teaching the bibles in public schools is illegal, right? The reasons for that have been identified repeatedly and tediously for you.

Apparently millions. One of the most watched shows on TV. But since he's a pastor I'm sure that his parishioners listen to him as well. I, for one, listen to the message regardless of the messenger. It's a little below me to attack a person's character just because I don't accept his/her teaching.

 

[PratchettFan]

Teaching the hysterical significance is all fine and good, but why should anybody care what a professional clown says?

1) I see that you aren't interested in history.
2) Alan is the serious member of the family (not usually seen on the Duck Dynasty show) so your inference that he's a "clown" is off base.
3) Who cares what a queer has to say so ... scram.

Oh, why didn't you make a point of that earlier. Now that we know Alan is the serious member of the family, that changes everything.

You should write a strongly worded email to congress letting them know that Alan is the serious member of the Duck Dynasty family. We should move quickly to amend the constitution because we have learned of Alan's strong convictions regarding seriousness.

Be sure to copy me on all your correspondence with congress.

You're just jealous that folks take Alan seriously but take your nonsense with a small grain of salt. Get over yourself. Your entire philosophy revolves around throwing darts at Christianity while offering nothing of substance.

What folks take your Duck Dynasty hero seriously?

You do know that teaching the bibles in public schools is illegal, right? The reasons for that have been identified repeatedly and tediously for you.

Apparently millions. One of the most watched shows on TV. But since he's a pastor I'm sure that his parishioners listen to him as well. I, for one, listen to the message regardless of the messenger. It's a little below me to attack a person's character just because I don't accept his/her teaching.

He is as entitled to expressing his belief and his opinion as much as anyone else. However, what he is proposing would be a violation of the First Amendment.

 

[Hollie]

Teaching the hysterical significance is all fine and good, but why should anybody care what a professional clown says?

1) I see that you aren't interested in history.
2) Alan is the serious member of the family (not usually seen on the Duck Dynasty show) so your inference that he's a "clown" is off base.
3) Who cares what a queer has to say so ... scram.

Oh, why didn't you make a point of that earlier. Now that we know Alan is the serious member of the family, that changes everything.

You should write a strongly worded email to congress letting them know that Alan is the serious member of the Duck Dynasty family. We should move quickly to amend the constitution because we have learned of Alan's strong convictions regarding seriousness.

Be sure to copy me on all your correspondence with congress.

You're just jealous that folks take Alan seriously but take your nonsense with a small grain of salt. Get over yourself. Your entire philosophy revolves around throwing darts at Christianity while offering nothing of substance.

What folks take your Duck Dynasty hero seriously?

You do know that teaching the bibles in public schools is illegal, right? The reasons for that have been identified repeatedly and tediously for you.

Apparently millions. One of the most watched shows on TV. But since he's a pastor I'm sure that his parishioners listen to him as well. I, for one, listen to the message regardless of the messenger. It's a little below me to attack a person's character just because I don't accept his/her teaching.

Nonsense. There's no reason to accept that millions watching the tv show necessarily agree with his wish to flaunt the law.

I guess the law is inconsequential when In conflict with your extremist religious beliefs?

 

[September]

You losers can keep your hairy, redneck, rejected hillbilly idols for all I care.

Oh wait...
​

 

[Inevitable]

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

Teaching the hysterical significance is all fine and good, but why should anybody care what a professional clown says?

1) I see that you aren't interested in history.
2) Alan is the serious member of the family (not usually seen on the Duck Dynasty show) so your inference that he's a "clown" is off base.
3) Who cares what a queer has to say so ... scram.

1) So, not agreeing with you means I don't care about history? How convenient.
2)Oh, he mooches off of his clown brothers. Some how he has a legitimate opinion because his brothers are on television? If you say so.
3) Apparently you. I am not going to leave either.