Kneel!

[Hollie]

I don’t see belief in Arks, talking snakes, people ascending to heaven on golden staircases or animal sacrifice per Santeria as necessarily the best thing to inundate schools with.

And that is precisely why the Bible needs to be taught in school: To move people beyond such a shallow view of the Bible and people of faith.

Suggesting the Bible needs to be taught in public school suggests a need to impose your beliefs on others. Would you propose that schools segregate Christians from non-Christians for Bible lessons? Who would teach the lessons? A Catholic Priest? A Minister? A Chaplain, Pastor?

They should do as they did in the past. There should be a daily reading from the Psalms and or Proverbs. The reading was done by any student who wished to volunteer, as was the flag held and/or the Pledge of Allegiance lead by any student who wished to volunteer. All one needs to read is a McGuffey Reader from the 19th century to see that there was an influence upon students that GOD was someone of consideration and not to simply ignore or never be exposed to... One could certainly come to one's own conclusions; however, such conclusions were not the indoctrinated end result of ignorance or exclusion for "political/legal" reasons on a part of a governmental failure at attempting to keep a wall of separation between education and religious freedom. In essence, science, mathematics, language, religion, philosophy, and art ----- are all a very important part of education that is being undermined and neglected --- because of a very fickle and narrow-minded society, who believe it's money that makes a difference and not character. The government has no business dictating educational practices or the manipulation of funding in order to promote its own humanistic scientological agenda.

Nothing in what you wrote suggests that public schools are not a place for academics while Sunday school is a place for religion.

As to religious freedom, the Constitution guarantees me freedom of religion which is by default, freedom from religion.

No, the Constitution guarantees you only freedom of worship. Which means that you get to choose the way you wish to worship GOD. And since there is freedom of worship, that means that you cannot stifle one's desire to proselytize, anymore then you can stifle one's freedom of speech. And I submit to you that it is impossible to philosophize without expressing moral attitudes that are directly influenced religiously. And so basically, freedom of speech, religion, and thought are stifled in public education because of people like yourself who wrongly feel that expression, thought, and presentation must be limited to only secular humanistic logic/rhetoric publicly.

You can worship your gods as you wish. What you can't do is expect the public school system to become a religious institution.

Prayer in School: 6 Cases Supreme Court Has Ruled On

The court cases challenging prayer in schools have been ongoing since the 1950s and '60s when the U.S. Supreme Court first ruled in favor of maintaining separation between church and state.

www.newsmax.com

I'm not asking public education to be religious. I do expect public education to be considerate and not hostile to religious thought. There have always been people who didn't wish the Bible to be read in school, because they felt to doing such might cause a student to come away with a different idea than what was expressed at home or at a religious institution where they attended. HOWEVER, that said, the truth is what education should strive to influence students to pursue and not to hide truth that some might find offensive. Education should NEVER teach what is unknown as known, and that goes especially for science. To claim the earth is billions of years old is not entirely correct. What should be expressed is that the makeup of various minerals, etc., seem to indicate vast age, but what might such also express, and is such plausible or inexcusable?

The atheistic approach is to believe that nature always existed and that problems are due to a belief in some god. The Christian approach is to believe GOD established nature and that problems are in some way due to a lack of trust in GOD. The honest scientific approach is to accept only as fact what can be observed and repeated. The truth be told, is that there is no possible way to prove that nature always existed, and certainly all problems are not the fault of GOD --- especially, if He doesn't exist ---- but certainly more likely the result of man's beliefs in general (whether "secular" or "religious") can bring about terrible consequences if they contradict nature. So, if GOD established nature, then to do that which contradicts GOD's law, will in fact be harmful to nature as well, and reveal itself in diseases, insufficient food, violence, wars, floods, earthquakes, and every sort of pestilence.

What I've just expressed doesn't seem the sort of thing that should be banned from any logically thinking institution of learning. However, for educators to insist to teach that the earth must be billions of years old, while not allowing consideration of extenuating circumstances ----- is establishing a false perception that everything that can be know is known and that there is nothing unknown which would upset the apple cart.

A few comments.
I don’t see any indication that the public school system is hostile to religion. As to people not wanting the Bible or any other religious text being read in public schools that’s only partly accurate. A student has every right to bring a religious text to school for their own use. The public has a Constitutional right to expect that public schools will not allow religious texts to form the basis of a class syllabus.

What part of the earth not being billions of years old is not correct?


I’m not aware that atheists believe “problems are due to a belief in some god”. I’m an atheist and I believe that problems in people’s lives can be due to everything from circumstances beyond our control to the decisions we make. I think that relying on the gods to fix one’s problems and blaming the gods for one’s poor choices are equally harmful.

Everyone makes mistakes and it’s often difficult to acknowledge that and to then accept responsibility for those mistakes. I don’t see religious people as any better or worse at that vs. non-religious people.

I agree, there is no way to prove that nature always existed. However, science has solid evidence that the laws of physics as we know them, and thus the form of nature, has existed since Planck time or Planck’s Wall which is an infinitesimally small fraction of time since the expansion of the universe. So, we have every reason to accept that nature has existed for nearly as long as the universe has existed, literally to within a fraction of a second.

I have no reason to accept that your god(s) or anyone else’s god(s) had anything to do with the existence of the universe. There are solid reasons to accept that intelligence and sentient biological life can emerge from the universe, as all the elements for that carbon based life are abundant in the universe. Nothing about the universe demonstrates a “need” or requirement to have come from one or more supernatural / metaphysical beings. The religionist has an added burden because you are left with having to account for life / sentient beings that have sprung up out of nature in any event. The other problem with the assertion of gods is that even if one or more gods are at the core of existence, that doesn't support a contention of your particular god(s).

The other problem to be accepted by the religionist is that if one or more gods established nature, then diseases, insufficient food, violence, wars, floods, earthquakes, and every sort of pestilence are, at least in part, a responsibility of those gods. Are the gods responsible for tornadoes? Yes. They established the rotation of the planet and convection which create twisters.

I’m not clear regarding your comment: “...educators to insist to teach that the earth must be billions of years old, while not allowing consideration of extenuating circumstances”. Outside of creation ministries, there is no doubt among the relevant science community about the age of the planet, billions (4.5 +/-) of years old. I suspect by “extenuating circumstances”, you may allude to Biblical liberalism about a 6,000 year old planet. I honestly don’t see that as any sort of argument.

If GOD exists, can HE grow a tree to 100 feet tall in one week, one day, one hour? Well, of course GOD could. And if GOD's intention was to create a hospitable place for man to enjoy, I see no unethical reason why GOD couldn't or shouldn't do such a thing. Do we know with total certainty that GOD had to take billions of years to fabricate this or any other object in the solar system? And could not a worldwide Flood not mix up materials, redistribute them, and sift them to cause some confusion? I know that studies of the Mt. St. Helen's eruption answered quite a lot of such speculation to the affirmative. There have been studies on hydraulic sorting that have proved to be very eye opening. The Grand Canyon didn't need 100's of millions of years to form. Deserts can form as the result of being inundated by silt or sand --- why not from a collection of flood eroded minerals that has been scoured away from other areas?

And since an atheist most certainly can explain his formula for how nature could have brought about things, it shouldn't be left to the "Christian" student to reveal possible issues, when there are most likely Christian educators who already have their misgivings but are unable to elude to such convictions without a serious threat to their tenure.

I agree. If gods exist they can do all the things you describe. However, the burden of proof for the existence of a god or gods is entirely on the shoulders of the person making the affirmative claim. It is possible to demonstrate the existence of something. It is not possible to demonstrate the non-existence of something.

It is a profound discomfort to traditional religions that as science has progressed, the opposite face of the coin has been the fact that gods have less and less to do. While science cannot "disprove" god, it has certainly eliminated evidences for gods one at a time.

I agree that a worldwide Flood could mix up materials, redistribute them. However, there being no evidence of a worldwide flood makes that argument untenable.

The Grand Canyon happened so Noah could run the rapids in his boat is not an argument. What you're referring to are youtube videos by Steve Austin representing the ICR who has some some rather "laugh till you cry" notions of geology. Austin has been an active promoter of a Noah's flood interpretation of the geology of the Grand Canyon.

It's just awful,

Consider the following: The Age of the Earth - The Grand Canyon as a Creationist Clock: Ryan McGillivray

What you presented closes with: “Religious conclusions are very rarely subject to scientific testing. Austin's model of the Grand Canyon is, at its foundation, nothing but a religious claim dressed as science.”

 

[Hollie]

Seems like something of a dilemma if you want to use the Bible in history classes in public school.

I do not wish to use the Bible in history classes. Haven't a clue where you came up with that. In public schools, history classes cover World History (Bible does not cover World History) and US History (something else the Bible does not cover.

It would be in violation of the establishment clause to use the Bible for course material in a public school. I can't think of any course not available to students that the Bible could be used for except Christian proselytizing.

LITERATURE I see no violation in using parts of the bible as LITERATURE----- -----I read the ramayana for social studies----in the ninth grade----is that ok?
actually it was a kinda juvenile translation. I do not do sanskrit. The ODYSSEY could be considered a
scriptural writing, too. I also read the DIVINE COMEDY in ninth grade--------is that ok?

I’m not the final arbiter of what you read (or have read), in school. My point has been that the courts have held consistently that Bible study in public schools (as a part of the school syllabus) is a violation of the Constitution.

 

[Meriweather]

I’m not the final arbiter of what you read (or have read), in school. My point has been that the courts have held consistently that Bible study in public schools (as a part of the school syllabus) is a violation of the Constitution.

Again, I understand your point. SCOTUS determined that some used reading the Bible to promote a certain religion. However, I have maintained from the beginning that studying the Bible CAN (and I argue should) be done without promoting ANY religion. You (and perhaps SCOTUS) don't believe this can be done, even though it would be easy enough to do. Unfortunately, it is also correct some teachers might misuse the opportunity.

Look, I understand your perspective and the concern. People were using the Bible to promote certain religions, but that is not what I want or am discussing. When a young Jewish girl asked my opinion of her joining Jews for Jesus, I told her flat out that this was a group trying to convert Jews to Christianity. If a Jew wishes to convert to Christianity, that is one thing. It is yet another for Christians to suggest Jews can be for Jesus because Christians teach Jesus, born a man, is also God. This teaching is abhorrent to the teachings of Judaism, which teaches there is no way God can also be man. Also, I am godmother to a young woman who after much reflection decided her beliefs were more aligned with the maternal side of her family (which was Jewish). She wanted my blessing to reject Christian belief in Jesus, and I readily gave it to her. I do not believe in standing in the way of the Holy Spirit, and she was clearly being called to return to her Jewish roots.

Because there is so much misunderstanding about the Bible and because these misunderstandings still affect people and society, I will always be in favor of teaching people what exactly the Bible says, not what has been interpolated in the thousands of years since. If people still want to believe the interpolations that came about a few hundred years ago, that, of course, is still their choice--but at least they will be informed who started it and when.

 

[Hollie]

I’m not the final arbiter of what you read (or have read), in school. My point has been that the courts have held consistently that Bible study in public schools (as a part of the school syllabus) is a violation of the Constitution.

Again, I understand your point. SCOTUS determined that some used reading the Bible to promote a certain religion. However, I have maintained from the beginning that studying the Bible CAN (and I argue should) be done without promoting ANY religion. You (and perhaps SCOTUS) don't believe this can be done, even though it would be easy enough to do. Unfortunately, it is also correct some teachers might misuse the opportunity.

Look, I understand your perspective and the concern. People were using the Bible to promote certain religions, but that is not what I want or am discussing. When a young Jewish girl asked my opinion of her joining Jews for Jesus, I told her flat out that this was a group trying to convert Jews to Christianity. If a Jew wishes to convert to Christianity, that is one thing. It is yet another for Christians to suggest Jews can be for Jesus because Christians teach Jesus, born a man, is also God. This teaching is abhorrent to the teachings of Judaism, which teaches there is no way God can also be man. Also, I am godmother to a young woman who after much reflection decided her beliefs were more aligned with the maternal side of her family (which was Jewish). She wanted my blessing to reject Christian belief in Jesus, and I readily gave it to her. I do not believe in standing in the way of the Holy Spirit, and she was clearly being called to return to her Jewish roots.

Because there is so much misunderstanding about the Bible and because these misunderstandings still affect people and society, I will always be in favor of teaching people what exactly the Bible says, not what has been interpolated in the thousands of years since. If people still want to believe the interpolations that came about a few hundred years ago, that, of course, is still their choice--but at least they will be informed who started it and when.

I would point out that Christian fundamentalists spent decades trying to force their religion into the public schools. They originally announced Biblical Creationism as their intended subject matter with no pretense at all. Faced with the correct legal conclusions that Biblical creationism was merely religion, they regrouped and renamed it "Scientific Creationism," making a half hearted attempt to edit out explicit Biblical references. When that met another correct legal conclusion by the courts that rebranding Christian fundamentalism fooled no one, they rebranded again with the new label becoming "Intelligent Design." The latest version of silliness was made notorious by Steven Myer of the Disco’tute with the silly “teach the controversy” scam.

Whatever misunderstanding about the Bible there may be, none of that belongs in the public schools. The Constitution is clear on the matter and courts have been consistent in upholding the Law.

 

[Leo123]

1.According to the novel “Red Sparrow,” the Russian’s intelligence services were exceptionally good at compromising, and co-opting Americans…even American agents, into working for them. And, there is some evidence for that, some spies having given up their values, heritage, upbringing for various rewards, or by certain threats.

But no nation, agency, organization is as good at it as American Leftists have been at forcing everyday Americans to, ….if I may paraphrase R.E.M., …agree to ‘losing their religion.’ …. swapping for the religion of the state, Militant Secularism.



Sometimes they’re really outspoken about it:

“Rahm Emanuel: Athletes Kneeling During National Anthem Akin to Kneeling at ‘Religious Services’ Rahm Emanuel: Athletes Kneeling During National Anthem Akin to Kneeling at ‘Religious Services’ - Non Perele - News Online



2. And lots of those who have succumbed practice ‘convert psychology, they ridicule traditional religion while bowing their head to their new religion, Militant Secularism. One denomination of MS religion is the cult of Darwinism. As much as it is trumpeted by Secularists, there is no proof of same, but, as they respond to that complaint….neither is there for God. Touché.

Faith is the mode for both traditional religion, and for Darwinism.

"Darwinism, by contrast, is an essential ingredient in secularism, that aggressive, quasi-religious faith without a deity. The Sternberg case seems, in many ways, an instance of one religion persecuting a rival, demanding loyalty from anyone who enters one of its churches -- like the National Museum of Natural History.”
The Branding of a Heretic




3. “The secularists [that The New York Times, Katherine] Stewart represents just refuse to acknowledge that their religious beliefs are in fact religious beliefs, and of a far creepier and deadlier kind than Christians’.
….the belief that it is possible to fix the world by applying government pressure? That is not a belief that can be wholly validated by research or experience. In fact, research and experience both indicate that central planning usually makes life even more nasty, brutish, and short.

So what is this unfounded, undocumented, unprovable faith in government power to correct human psyches and behavior if not a religious (metaphysical) belief? It is also an unprovable and metaphysical belief about what a human is — a thing that can be “corrected” by politics and whose “error” is not intrinsic to itself. Again, these are all metaphysical, religious beliefs with no empirical basis or possibility of being fully empirically proven.

The secular, pagan, atheist types are the ones who claim religious assumptions are evil. They do so because they erroneously believe they are free from such assumptions. But in truth, no one is.””
Barr: The People Trying To 'Impose Their Values' Are 'Militant Secularists'



Call them atheists, or Militant Secularists..... they teach their religion in government school, don’t they.

When I see those players kneeling they are adopting the same position that Chauvin used to kill Floyd. Stupid fucks.

 

[Meriweather]

I would point out that Christian fundamentalists spent decades trying to force their religion into the public schools. They originally announced Biblical Creationism as their intended subject matter with no pretense at all. Faced with the correct legal conclusions that Biblical creationism was merely religion, they regrouped and renamed it "Scientific Creationism," making a half hearted attempt to edit out explicit Biblical references. When that met another correct legal conclusion by the courts that rebranding Christian fundamentalism fooled no one, they rebranded again with the new label becoming "Intelligent Design." The latest version of silliness was made notorious by Steven Myer of the Disco’tute with the silly “teach the controversy” scam.

Whatever misunderstanding about the Bible there may be, none of that belongs in the public schools. The Constitution is clear on the matter and courts have been consistent in upholding the Law.

I am hearing you want the Bible contents to continue being incorrectly taught and spread.

 

[Hollie]

I would point out that Christian fundamentalists spent decades trying to force their religion into the public schools. They originally announced Biblical Creationism as their intended subject matter with no pretense at all. Faced with the correct legal conclusions that Biblical creationism was merely religion, they regrouped and renamed it "Scientific Creationism," making a half hearted attempt to edit out explicit Biblical references. When that met another correct legal conclusion by the courts that rebranding Christian fundamentalism fooled no one, they rebranded again with the new label becoming "Intelligent Design." The latest version of silliness was made notorious by Steven Myer of the Disco’tute with the silly “teach the controversy” scam.

Whatever misunderstanding about the Bible there may be, none of that belongs in the public schools. The Constitution is clear on the matter and courts have been consistent in upholding the Law.

I am hearing you want the Bible contents to continue being incorrectly taught and spread.

I'm hearing you have been blessed with exclusive insight into the one and only true reading of the Bible.

 

[Meriweather]

I'm hearing you have been blessed with exclusive insight into the one and only true reading of the Bible.

As I have said before, decades of study, not insight. That amount of study is usually what we want of our instructors before teaching almost any subject. I'm hearing you want to remain ignorant and that everyone else should remain ignorant as well?

 

[Hollie]

I'm hearing you have been blessed with exclusive insight into the one and only true reading of the Bible.

As I have said before, decades of study, not insight. That amount of study is usually what we want of our instructors before teaching almost any subject. I'm hearing you want to remain ignorant and that everyone else should remain ignorant as well?

I'm not convinced that I or anyone else is going to suffer in the darkness of ignorance without your Bible teaching. I'm a bit uncomfortable in the sense that your proclamation as to an authority on the true reading of the Bible has some overtones of cult leaders who describe themselves as leaders of the "true way".

Would you make your Bible study mandatory in the public school system or would there be an allowance to opt out?

 

[Meriweather]

I'm not convinced that I or anyone else is going to suffer in the darkness of ignorance without your Bible teaching. I'm a bit uncomfortable in the sense that your proclamation as to an authority on the true reading of the Bible has some overtones of cult leaders who describe themselves as leaders of the "true way".

Would you make your Bible study mandatory in the public school system or would there be an allowance to opt out?

I am speaking of ignorance of the Bible, which should not come as a surprise to anyone. How long did you study, and who were your sources? Passing on what I have learned without pushing any religion does not make me an authority, merely an interested student of the Bible, an interest most do not have the time and some the inclination to pursue. Your conclusions about me remain unfounded and are becoming nasty.

I would not "make" anything. I have not the authority nor frankly the interest. My comments are simple observations of what comes from generations believing that each individual can accurately interpret the Bible for him or herself, no teacher necessary. I believe society would benefit from knowing the original intent of Biblical stories and when, where, why, and how modern interpretations entered into the picture. I believe that to be an interesting study as well.
I believe students have more than enough requirements, and not only do I favor more electives, I favor students being able to study the specific topics that most interest them in the current requirements of history and science. You may not see that as practical, either, but I am looking at it from a student's viewpoint, not the from the viewpoint of practicality. Why can't we have our young students, if they wish, spend their time gaining expertise in say Asian history or marine biology rather than just the smidgen of this, that, and the other also known as a broad spectrum of history and the sciences.

So stop trying to pigeon hole me into you own narrow mindedness. That bores me and I am tired of it. I don't expect people to agree with me, but I do expect them to avoid deliberately misunderstanding my points, especially when they have been made and stated directly to them several times.

 

[Hollie]

I'm not convinced that I or anyone else is going to suffer in the darkness of ignorance without your Bible teaching. I'm a bit uncomfortable in the sense that your proclamation as to an authority on the true reading of the Bible has some overtones of cult leaders who describe themselves as leaders of the "true way".

Would you make your Bible study mandatory in the public school system or would there be an allowance to opt out?

I am speaking of ignorance of the Bible, which should not come as a surprise to anyone. How long did you study, and who were your sources? Passing on what I have learned without pushing any religion does not make me an authority, merely an interested student of the Bible, an interest most do not have the time and some the inclination to pursue. Your conclusions about me remain unfounded and are becoming nasty.

I would not "make" anything. I have not the authority nor frankly the interest. My comments are simple observations of what comes from generations believing that each individual can accurately interpret the Bible for him or herself, no teacher necessary. I believe society would benefit from knowing the original intent of Biblical stories and when, where, why, and how modern interpretations entered into the picture. I believe that to be an interesting study as well.
I believe students have more than enough requirements, and not only do I favor more electives, I favor students being able to study the specific topics that most interest them in the current requirements of history and science. You may not see that as practical, either, but I am looking at it from a student's viewpoint, not the from the viewpoint of practicality. Why can't we have our young students, if they wish, spend their time gaining expertise in say Asian history or marine biology rather than just the smidgen of this, that, and the other also known as a broad spectrum of history and the sciences.

So stop trying to pigeon hole me into you own narrow mindedness. That bores me and I am tired of it. I don't expect people to agree with me, but I do expect them to avoid deliberately misunderstanding my points, especially when they have been made and stated directly to them several times.

No one is being nasty. Lets just be honest and acknowledge that you are claiming decades of study of the Bible provides you with the means to pass on to students a comprehensive understanding of the Bible. That claim is not unique to you. I'm trying to understand by what metric do we determine that your knowledge is the true knowledge? How do we determine that you possess the original intent of Biblical stories? If your teaching program is proposed to be the nationwide standard, is there a Board or committee that has endorsed your program?

I see a contradiction in your comments. On the one hand you write: "each individual can accurately interpret the Bible for him or herself, no teacher necessary.''

On the other hand you write: "society would benefit from knowing the original intent of Biblical stories and when, where, why, and how modern interpretations entered into the picture. I believe that to be an interesting study as well.''

It seems we have inevitably circled back to the problem of Bible study in public schools which the courts have ruled consistently is a violation of law.

I think it is impossible to ''study'' the Bible, Biblical religious figures, gods, alleged creations of specific gods, events that are specific to one region of the planet yet allegedly brought an end to most life in the planet without teaching religion. When you bring specific gods into a discussion you are clearly discussion religion.

You cannot teach a Bible study course, allegedly to teach Bible history, and ignore the central character of the Bible.

If I missed it before, teaching religion in the public schools is a violation of law.

 

[JoeB131]

I am hearing you want the Bible contents to continue being incorrectly taught and spread.

You Christians have been murdering each other for hundreds of years over teaching the Bible "Correctly".

"TRANSUBSTANTIATION!!!"
"NO, IT'S JUST SYMBOLIC!"
"DIE, HERETIC!!!"

 

[Meriweather]

I see a contradiction in your comments. On the one hand you write: "each individual can accurately interpret the Bible for him or herself, no teacher necessary.''

Obviously you are not paying attention. I am saying that the Protestant Reformation came up with that gem. I said that no other subject suggests that a student can read and figure things out for him or herself. The individual interpreting of him or herself is what has produced so much division and misinformation.

 

[Meriweather]

I'm trying to understand by what metric do we determine that your knowledge is the true knowledge?

Primary sources. Learning the culture and history of ancient times. Dating what interpretation appeared when. I have said this several times as well. No one would be coming to me for any course outline. The information I have learned is out there for any who have the time and inclination to investigate rather than relying solely on what they have taught themselves. Most do not do the research/investigation. They have not the time and inclination, or they believe they can receive their own knowledge by using their own individual interpretation.

 

[Meriweather]

It seems we have inevitably circled back to the problem of Bible study in public schools which the courts have ruled consistently is a violation of law.

Then stop focusing on teaching religion. Time and again I've said teaching the Bible can be done without teaching religion. It is the sneaking in the teaching of a religion that prompted the Supreme Court decision. This will prevent turning in circles.

 

[Meriweather]

If your teaching program is proposed to be the nationwide standard, is there a Board or committee that has endorsed your program?

Asked and answered. Elective. Last night's post should have made it clear I am no fan of "Common Core."

 

[Meriweather]

I think it is impossible to ''study'' the Bible, Biblical religious figures, gods, alleged creations of specific gods, events that are specific to one region of the planet yet allegedly brought an end to most life in the planet without teaching religion. When you bring specific gods into a discussion you are clearly discussion religion.

Then we should stop teaching history. We talk about the Gods a people believed in when we teach world history. I'll bet you are just worried sick that should the stories of Hebrew neighbors sacrificing young children to their God(s) that students will all run out and find a young child to sacrifice? If your theory is correct, then the study of the Bible and other accounts of Gods should have you concluding I practice thousands of religions. And, since you have no belief in God(s) you haven't read anything at all?

 

[JoeB131]

Obviously you are not paying attention. I am saying that the Protestant Reformation came up with that gem. I said that no other subject suggests that a student can read and figure things out for him or herself. The individual interpreting of him or herself is what has produced so much division and misinformation.

Right. Because when the Catholic Church was out there doing the Statues of Saints (Forget that "No Graven Images" thing the bible clearly says) and selling indulgences, those silly Protestants pointing out "Hey, the Bible doesn't say that!!!"

Then stop focusing on teaching religion. Time and again I've said teaching the Bible can be done without teaching religion. It is the sneaking in the teaching of a religion that prompted the Supreme Court decision. This will prevent turning in circles.

You can't teach the bible without teaching religion. Again, who decides the course study. I tell you, after 12 years of Catholic schools and one too many rulers over the knuckles, I'm not hopeful.

 

[Meriweather]

You cannot teach a Bible study course, allegedly to teach Bible history, and ignore the central character of the Bible.

Yes I can. Quite easily.

 

[Hollie]

I see a contradiction in your comments. On the one hand you write: "each individual can accurately interpret the Bible for him or herself, no teacher necessary.''

Obviously you are not paying attention. I am saying that the Protestant Reformation came up with that gem. I said that no other subject suggests that a student can read and figure things out for him or herself. The individual interpreting of him or herself is what has produced so much division and misinformation.

It seems we're back to making attempts to identify why your interpretation of Biblical history is correct to the exclusion of others.

I would think it's obvious that Biblical claims to supernatural events are going to lack substantiation. I have to reiterate that any Bible study course in the public school can't exclude discussion of the Biblical gods so we're left with a dilemma of violating the law by way of the establishment clause.