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

[Delta4Embassy]

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 The Bible is an historical document that's had significant influence on mankind for centuries.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

Can be taught in public school already. Just have to present it in a neutral context along with other religions' texts. I'm all for it. Nothing cranks out atheists better than the Bible.

 

[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 The Bible is an historical document that's had significant influence on mankind for centuries.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.

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.

High Schools across the country have "elective" classes that are for information purposes only and are not mandatory. Using the logic already being used by the public school system I see no harm in allowing students to "elect" classes that are of personal interest to them. It happens all the time. What are you afraid of?

 

[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?

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.

You really dismantle your own claims to having the bibles taught as "history" in public schools when your fundamentalist beliefs demand otherwise.

Ark tales literally scream out your agenda. It's just a shame that you can't be honest about your motives for introducing biblical literalism into public schools. But that's been the history of christian fundies as they have dishonestly revised their labels of fundamentalist dogma from "biblical creation" to "creation science" to the latest fraud of ID'iot creationism".

 

[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

Can be taught in public school already. Just have to present it in a neutral context along with other religions' texts. I'm all for it. Nothing cranks out atheists better than the Bible.

True ... "broad" is the path that leads to destruction and many there be that walk that path.

 

[DriftingSand]

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.

You really dismantle your own claims to having the bibles taught as "history" in public schools when your fundamentalist beliefs demand otherwise.

Ark tales literally scream out your agenda. It's just a shame that you can't be honest about your motives for introducing biblical literalism into public schools. But that's been the history of christian fundies as they have dishonestly revised their labels of fundamentalist dogma from "biblical creation" to "creation science" to the latest fraud of ID'iot creationism".

What are you afraid of? There are classes on Greek Mythology? Are you all for removing those classes from public institutions?

 

[Delta4Embassy]

So much of what happens around the world has roots in some religion, teaching the defacto world faith is only sensible. Without such familarity, nothing going on will make any sense. But when you realize it's religious in motive it begins to.

 

[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

Can be taught in public school already. Just have to present it in a neutral context along with other religions' texts. I'm all for it. Nothing cranks out atheists better than the Bible.

True ... "broad" is the path that leads to destruction and many there be that walk that path.

The fraud of fundamentalist Christianity under the burqa of ID'iot - creationism has already suffered humiliating losses in the court.

Are you still oblivious to the constitution?

 

[DriftingSand]

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.

I could live with that as long as the actual teaching of each school of thought is presented in a truthful and unbiased. Speakers or representatives from each ideological discipline could present their cases while letting the students decide what is true or false.

 

[September]

Another interesting class might be Religious/ Spiritual Symbolism. It could help students understand not just symbols like crosses, pentagrams, sigils, circles, and their various meanings in religions, but also help them understand numerology, and possible metaphors in various religious myths and legends.
​

 

[pinqy]

Kids should at least know what it's all about before denying its veracity

And you also apply that to the Koran, the Vedas, the Tao te Ching, and a sampling of modern Wiican works?

 

[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

Can be taught in public school already. Just have to present it in a neutral context along with other religions' texts. I'm all for it. Nothing cranks out atheists better than the Bible.

True ... "broad" is the path that leads to destruction and many there be that walk that path.

The fraud of fundamentalist Christianity under the burqa of ID'iot - creationism has already suffered humiliating losses in the court.

Are you still oblivious to the constitution?

You still seem fearful for some reason. Why is that? What do you have to lose in allowing folks to make their own decisions? Why are you so controlling?

 

[Hollie]

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.

You really dismantle your own claims to having the bibles taught as "history" in public schools when your fundamentalist beliefs demand otherwise.

Ark tales literally scream out your agenda. It's just a shame that you can't be honest about your motives for introducing biblical literalism into public schools. But that's been the history of christian fundies as they have dishonestly revised their labels of fundamentalist dogma from "biblical creation" to "creation science" to the latest fraud of ID'iot creationism".

What are you afraid of? There are classes on Greek Mythology? Are you all for removing those classes from public institutions?

That is clearly not your agenda. Why is the truth so difficult for your extremists? What are you afraid of?

 

[DriftingSand]

Another interesting class might be Religious/ Spiritual Symbolism. It could help students understand not just symbols like crosses, pentagrams, sigils, circles, and their various meanings in religions, but also help them understand numerology, and possible metaphors in various religious myths and legends.
​

I wouldn't have a problem with that. A class on the Bible as one elective and a class on religious symbolism as a different elective.

 

[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

Can be taught in public school already. Just have to present it in a neutral context along with other religions' texts. I'm all for it. Nothing cranks out atheists better than the Bible.

True ... "broad" is the path that leads to destruction and many there be that walk that path.

The fraud of fundamentalist Christianity under the burqa of ID'iot - creationism has already suffered humiliating losses in the court.

Are you still oblivious to the constitution?

You still seem fearful for some reason. Why is that? What do you have to lose in allowing folks to make their own decisions? Why are you so controlling?

There's nothing controlling about your fundamentalist beliefs taught in Sunday school. Religious indoctrination is a violation of law in public schools. Why do feel such a need to force your extremist beliefs on others?

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Damn that pesky Constitution, huh?

Damn those pesky reading comprehension skills.....

 

[Hollie]

Another interesting class might be Religious/ Spiritual Symbolism. It could help students understand not just symbols like crosses, pentagrams, sigils, circles, and their various meanings in religions, but also help them understand numerology, and possible metaphors in various religious myths and legends.
​

I wouldn't have a problem with that. A class on the Bible as one elective and a class on religious symbolism as a different elective.

"A class on the bible"? You are utterly oblivious to what has been presented to you regarding the Establishment Clause, right?

Maybe a class on hewing Arks out of cubits of gopherwood?

 

[Pogo]

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

Can be taught in public school already. Just have to present it in a neutral context along with other religions' texts. I'm all for it. Nothing cranks out atheists better than the Bible.

True ... "broad" is the path that leads to destruction and many there be that walk that path.

The fraud of fundamentalist Christianity under the burqa of ID'iot - creationism has already suffered humiliating losses in the court.

Are you still oblivious to the constitution?

You still seem fearful for some reason. Why is that? What do you have to lose in allowing folks to make their own decisions? Why are you so controlling?

There's nothing controlling about your fundamentalist beliefs taught in Sunday school. Religious indoctrination is a violation of law in public schools. Why do feel such a need to force your extremist beliefs on others?

I agree with Hollie. A guy who's advocating a theocracy should be circumspect about using the word "controlling".

 

[Meriweather]

I could live with that as long as the actual teaching of each school of thought is presented in a truthful and unbiased. Speakers or representatives from each ideological discipline could present their cases while letting the students decide what is true or false.

Speakers and representatives from each ideological discipline may not be needed; in fact, might get in the way. For example, if I taught such a class, I would teach the Bible from the historical and literature perspective, and then break the students into small groups where they could discuss any religious facets or implications among themselves.

I wouldn't mix the Koran, Buddhism, and other religious texts in the same class, because that would be rather like mixing history and English in the same class. Yes, it could be done, but each has enough material that mixing them all together wouldn't do justice to any of them. Offer each as an elective. If the interest is there, have the class. If its not, don't.

 

[Meriweather]

"A class on the bible"? You are utterly oblivious to what has been presented to you regarding the Establishment Clause, right?

Maybe a class on hewing Arks out of cubits of gopherwood?

Holding an elective class does not "establish" a religion.

 

[Hollie]

I could live with that as long as the actual teaching of each school of thought is presented in a truthful and unbiased. Speakers or representatives from each ideological discipline could present their cases while letting the students decide what is true or false.

Speakers and representatives from each ideological discipline may not be needed; in fact, might get in the way. For example, if I taught such a class, I would teach the Bible from the historical and literature perspective, and then break the students into small groups where they could discuss any religious facets or implications among themselves.

I wouldn't mix the Koran, Buddhism, and other religious texts in the same class, because that would be rather like mixing history and English in the same class. Yes, it could be done, but each has enough material that mixing them all together wouldn't do justice to any of them. Offer each as an elective. If the interest is there, have the class. If its not, don't.

We seem to be having a problem associating teaching the bibles in public schools with a host of court rulings detailing why that's illegal.