Stop Talking About The Bible

Discussion in 'Faith and Religion' started by Yard Dart, Jan 15, 2014.

  1. Yard Dart

    Yard Dart Vigilant Monkey Moderator

    First grader told to stop talking about Bible | Fox News

    Un-American no doubt...hatefull and intolerant...and just flat wrong. Another component of what is wrong today in our schools around the country.... They are attempting to mandate the removal of religion from our children's upbringing and many kids are growing up with no belief system, respect for God or their parents. And this is being done nationally, all in the guise of not hurting others sensitivities. If the government/school districts/unions can strip away our children's bond with God and faith... we are easier to suppress as a nation to the whim of tyrant's. Look at how divisive the nation is today, there is a weakening of a common denominator in our society....God. Parents need to be engaged with their children, involved in school governance and never silent on this issue as a voter and as a citizen of this nation.
    Tracy, Sapper John and Gunny Highway like this.
  2. Pax Mentis

    Pax Mentis Philosopher King |RIP 11-4-2017

    I agree...IF other students were allowed to "share" regarding other religions or their feelings that religions as a whole are ridiculous.

    Otherwise I don't see the discrimination.
  3. limpingbear

    limpingbear future cancer survivor....

    She was supposed to share something from home that represented her families CHRISTMAS tradition. I don't know where these idiots went to school, but Christmas is a Christian holiday, so some families are bound to have religion as their "reason for the season". I think that if you are not allowed to site religious beliefs in school then they should not have assigned this assignment. Morons....
    Sapper John and Yard Dart like this.
  4. tulianr

    tulianr Don Quixote de la Monkey

    The problem, I think, lies solely with the teacher. If students aren't allowed to discuss religion, then the teacher shouldn't have assigned the children a project to discuss what is at its heart a religious holiday. She was at fault, and she was in contravention of the school district's regulations; not the child.

    If the event went down exactly as reported, the teacher should apologize to the student, in front of the class; apologize to the class as a whole; and to the parents of the child in question.
  5. kellory

    kellory An unemployed Jester, is nobody's fool. Banned

    We are too worried about "offending" other people. We even worry about offending our own Immunity system, to the point of ainti- bacterial everything. It's supposed to make things cleaner and healthier, but what it really does is weaken our immunity system, because it is never tested. It doesn't get worked, so it weakens.
    People need to get worked by rubbing up against differences, other beliefs, and other cultures. They are losing their ability to deal with anything that does not fit the mold. They are forgetting how to work and play well with others. You can't learn to compromise, if you never do, nor can you learn polite behavior, if everything that might offend someone were regulated away.
    In the intrest of polite society, we are destroying the ability toLEARN HOW to BE a polite society.
    ColtCarbine, Tracy, VHestin and 3 others like this.
  6. oldawg

    oldawg Monkey+++

    In my opinion, for what it's worth, it isn't about offending another. That is just the bull hockey the tyrants use. Tyranny can only succeed if NOTHING is placed above the rulers. The child is being taught to just shut up and obey. It's still OK,for the time being, for her to have her beliefs in private but in public it's all about bowing to her masters. Not all re education camps use a physical fence just yet.
    Yard Dart likes this.
  7. Dont

    Dont Just another old gray Jarhead Monkey

    Creates the fear to OPENLY express ones beliefs, let them be political or religious. They use the weapon of fear! The all children have of public humiliation. A fear that will be carried over into adulthood. They are creating a society of ignorant and fearful citizen's that will be complacent and controleble through fear.. This is the same tactic that has been used in all socialist societies. Fear of loosing their "freedom", what little they have, the fear of starvation, the fear for their childrens well being.. Our gov. has been doing this for years. The fear that someone will take your guns, the fear that they will take their income, fear of losing your health.. That is what God is about, the removal of fear!
    "Fear is the mind killer"...Taken from Dune..
    ColtCarbine and Yard Dart like this.
  8. chelloveck

    chelloveck Diabolus Causidicus

    I'm inclined to agree with Tulian...the teacher handled the situation badly by......

    1. Initiating a class project that could reasonably be anticipated may result in the introduction of religious content by students into the classroom. Particularly as students would be within their rights to do so.

    2. Not dealing with the situation with some sensitivity and common sense as the situation unfolded.

    3. Not having a clear idea of the application of the US Constitution's 1st Ammendment and the Constitutional case law that applies to it.

    As a secularist, I have no problem with a student doing their 5 minute presentation as the girl intended to do...provided that all students in that class and on that occasion were free to an equal opportunity to present their faith position; be it Islam, Secular Humanism, Wicca or Satanism. Where the issue becomes of interest is where the Teacher, The School, The School Board or any other public official uses the resources of the State to establish or endorse or give advantage to a particular religion or faith position over others. Unfortunately there have been a number of theist teachers, administrators, and educational leaders who have fallen foul of the 1st Ammendment, resulting in litigation, which the proponents of religious faiths (mainly Christianity) have in more than a few cases lost humiliatingly. Often when pedagogic theists lose such cases, it's the students that suffer due to schools and school districts having to spend financial resources in unsuccessfully defending such cases. All due to some teachers' infernal inclination towards evangelising their charges.

    In this particular case....conservative Christian advocates and the ACLU could conceivably be co counsel for the plaintiff against the school...yes...the students will still lose though.
    Last edited: Jan 21, 2014
    ColtCarbine, Yard Dart and tulianr like this.
  9. VHestin

    VHestin Farm Chick

    Well I'm of the mind that 'public education' is nothing but a system to create a bunch of...zombies, puppets, whatever term you wanna use. It's not for intellectual growth that's for sure. I've always found it ironic that society keeps trying to fit people into certain molds, yet humanity's innovations/acheivements have all come from those who didn't play by the rules.
    D2wing, Dont, ColtCarbine and 2 others like this.
  10. Minuteman

    Minuteman Chaplain Moderator Founding Member

    As well as many cases of others of atheistic leanings who ran afoul of the constitution by abusing the separation of church and state doctrine to silence those of faith. The sword cuts both ways.Schools should be an environment of open ideas, no one position should be either espoused or repressed.
    Tracy, Yard Dart, Sapper John and 3 others like this.
  11. tulianr

    tulianr Don Quixote de la Monkey

    Very true. The intent of the founding fathers was not, in my opinion, to silence Christianity, or religion in general. I think their intent had way more to do with politics than theology. I think it was another of their attempts to limit the power of any one particular branch of the government, and to ensure that you didn't have the situation that had existed in most European nations at one time or another - that resistance to the government was not only treason, but was heresy, and an affront to God. I think they recognized all too clearly the danger represented by a monarch, or other executive, who claimed to be speaking in the name of God, and carrying out God's wishes here on earth.

    They were all about freedom, and I think most of them would be horrified to learn that their attempt to build a wall of separation between church and state was later used to silence religious belief in any place. However, the topic of religious belief is a slippery slope once introduced into a classroom. I think it is a discussion best left to tired old men on an internet forum. ;)

    I'd be happier if our schools would stick to teaching reading, writing, and arithmetic; and teach our children how to think, not what to think. Until they do, I'll keep on homeschooling.
  12. Minuteman

    Minuteman Chaplain Moderator Founding Member

    Actually the so called "separation of church and state" is not found in the constitution. It was mentioned in a letter from Thomas Jefferson to a Baptist church organization that was concerned about possible religious restrictions and interference from the newly established government. TJ reassures them that the constitution creates a "wall of separation between church and state" . The relevant wording is in the 1st amendment stating that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." TJ used the phrase in paraphrasing a quote by a leading Baptist preacher of the time, Rodger Williams, who had been warning of the evils to befall the church if there were to be a " gap in the wall of separation" between the church and state. The Baptists were concerned over rumors that another denomination was going to be made the official religion of the new nation. TJ was assuring them that the constitution forbade government from imposing itself on any religion.
    This phrase and the twisting of the meaning in the constitution has led to most of these frivolous lawsuits against people for practicing the "free exercise thereof" of their religion. I agree that no one belief should be taught or promoted in a public school but the 1st amendment does not address that, it is left up to the relevant jurisdiction to regulate themselves. The separation of church and state is and always was a guarantee that the government could never force a religion on it's people. It has nothing to do with a child that wants to do a book report on the bible or a town that wants a statue of the ten commandments (upon which our legal system is founded) on it's court house lawn, or a cross in a park memorializing lost soldiers.
    Our founding fathers wrote the constitution in such a way as to give freedom to people to make up their own minds, to live their own lives, with very little interference from government. Unfortunately people, especially today, simply cannot live in a free society, they need a big brother, or a nanny to make sure everyone is treated fairly, and no one gets their feelings hurt, and that everyone is taken care of. Our founding fathers would not believe the way people have taken the freedom they gave us and clamored and demanded that more and more chains be put on us, so that we would feel safe and protected. We are afraid to be free.
  13. BTPost

    BTPost Stumpy Old Fart,Deadman Walking, Snow Monkey Moderator

    Well said, there Minuteman.....
    Minuteman likes this.
  14. DarkLight

    DarkLight Live Long and Prosper - On Hiatus

    This reminds me of Christine O'Donnell (don't live in the state, not pushing a former candidate) and her debate at...Harvard or Yale, can't remember which, where she said that "separation of Church and State isn't in the Constitution or the First Amendment." She was laughed at by a bunch of supposedly educated (or getting there) grad students. She tried to make the point MM just made but they wouldn't listen and instead kept drowning her out.

    The text is as follows:
    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

    It applies to CONGRESS ONLY, and prevents that august body from:
    1) Make (or pass) ANY law pertaining to the establishment of a religion. "State" religion or otherwise. I'm Bob and I want to start a religion called Bobism. Congress has NO SAY in that. If I want to have human sacrifices...they can't single them out and say that "I" can't do human sacrifices, they can only say that Human Sacrifice is considered murder and ANYONE doing will be held accountable. Hence...Pastafarianism (The Flying Spaghetti Monster).
    2) Make ANY law prohibiting the free exercise thereof (religion). They cannot pass a law that makes a religion illegal or prevents you from exercising said religion or faith. Hence...Pastafarianism.
    3) Make ANY law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press. No laws that say a person or group of people or the press cannot say whatever they want. This does NOT prevent them from establishing consequences for certain actions, such as yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theater. In fact, it doesn't prevent ANYONE ELSE from passing a law, as many States, Counties, Cities, Towns and Villages have done.
    4) Make ANY law regarding the right of the people to peaceably assemble and petition the Government for a redress of grievances. CONGRESS cannot pass a law preventing us from peaceable assembly but States, Counties, Cities, Towns and Villages actually DO have the right to pass laws along those lines. They also cannot create a law that prevents us from suing the government (petition for redress of grievance).

    The Constitution and the resulting Amendments were written to put a leash on the FEDERAL Government and nothing else. Yes, many State Constitutions are modeled after the US Constitution but the laws, responsibilities and restrictions placed on the States is different and separate from those at the FEDERAL level. The point was to prevent the rise of another King/Dictator at the head of the FEDERAL Government. It was left in the hands of We The People to ensure that it didn't happen at the State level.

    What the First Amendment does NOT do is guarantee that your Employer or any "local" municipal governing body won't pass a law (or have a rule on the books in the case of employer) prohibiting certain behavior, verbiage or actions. It also does NOT lay the groundwork for Atheist lawsuits because they don't like my religion, sexually oriented lawsuits because they don't like my way of life or orientation or ethnically based lawsuits because someone said the "N-Word". The only thing it covers is the Federal Government not restricting what I can say. If I drop an n-bomb or an f-bomb and you don't like it, there is literally no law against it. Punching me in the nose, however, well there is a law against that.

    This is a huge pet peeve of mine (I have to keep it outside it's so big) but most of the time I'm either talking into an echo chamber (group of like minded individuals) and getting worked up over nothing...or, I'm talking to a stump or stone wall or bowl of gravy for all the difference the words are making to the individual who "knows what they know" and is being willfully ignorant.
    ColtCarbine, Minuteman and tulianr like this.
  15. ghrit

    ghrit Bad company Administrator Founding Member

    Not really, but there are laws that detail the consequences. As long as I'm willing to take the consequences, I'm free to bop your beak. It's a tricky and fine line to separate the allowed action from the consequences, they are pretty closely related.
    RightHand likes this.
  16. DarkLight

    DarkLight Live Long and Prosper - On Hiatus

    Aaaaactually, there are in fact laws on the books making battery illegal. Not every state/municipality is the same but:

    At common law, an intentional unpermitted act causing harmful or offensive contact with the "person" of another.
    This contact doesn't have to be violent (although there is violent battery as well), it simply needs to be offensive to the one being contacted. In fact, it doesn't even need to be physical contact between two or more people. If you were to have a drink thrown in your face, technically that's battery (as is the throwing of red dye on a person wearing a fur coat, etc.)

    Idaho and Florida are two states that come up as having Assault and Battery laws on the books. Assault being "no touching" of any kind.

    We're getting far afield of the OP though...;)
    BTPost and kellory like this.
  17. Minuteman

    Minuteman Chaplain Moderator Founding Member

    We see all these lawsuits over something related to Christianity in a class room and even Libertarians support the restrictions against it as "promoting" religion.
    But what of the other side of that coin? The Supreme Court, in a list of religions that are protected under the 1st amendment cited among them "Secular Humanism". So the Supreme Court has declared SH to be an official religion. Many of the tenets of this "religion" are taught in our public classrooms everyday. Evolution is taught by the state where as the Christian tenet of creative design, is forbidden. So where are the lawsuits over this? Why is this acceptable but privately reading a bible in class is not? Isn't this the government "promoting" a religion?
    I'm pointing out the contradiction. I don't think evolution "theory" should be banned in the classroom and certainly would not support a lawsuit to ban it. But I do think that all theories should be taught, all information be presented, and let the students decide what they choose to believe. They are in fact doing exactly what these lawsuits are challenging them for, promoting one religion over another.
    ColtCarbine, Sapper John and tulianr like this.
  18. kellory

    kellory An unemployed Jester, is nobody's fool. Banned

    "....and the clouds part, a beam of light strikes him in the forehead, and a voice echo's from the mountains...BUY THE D@MN TICKET!"

    (You must do your part);)
    Minuteman and BTPost like this.
  19. Minuteman

    Minuteman Chaplain Moderator Founding Member

    I like the story of the man in the flood. The waters are rising, a guy in a truck comes by and says "Get in I'll take you to safety". The guy says no "I am a Christian and I trust the lord to take care of me". The waters rise up to the first floor, a guy in a boat comes by and says "Get in I'll take you to safety". Again the same response "I trust in the lord to save me." The waters are up to the roof line. The guy is on his roof when a helicopter comes by, again he waves it off. The flood takes his house and him with it. When he gets to heaven he runs up to the lord and says "Why didn't you save me, I trusted you!" God says "I sent a truck, a boat, and a helicopter, you have no one to blame but yourself".
  20. Yard Dart

    Yard Dart Vigilant Monkey Moderator

    Moral of the story: Some people can not be saved....even from their own stupidity.
    ColtCarbine, Minuteman and Dont like this.
survivalmonkey SSL seal warrant canary