Kneel!

[PoliticalChic]

"It is a great irony of communism that those who did not believe in God believed that godlike knowledge could be concentrated at a central point. It was believed that government could be omnipotent and omniscient. And in order to justify the idea that all lives should be determined by a single plan, the concomitant tendency of communist regimes was to deify the leader- whether Lenin, Stalin, Mao, or Kim Il-sung."
Tom Bethell, "The Noblest Triumph," p. 144


Kneel to the great god, government!!!!!

 

[Hollie]

Although they were victims of religious persecution in Europe, the Puritans supported the Old World theory that sanctioned it, the need for uniformity of religion in the state. Once in control in New England, they sought to break "the very neck of Schism and vile opinions." The "business" of the first settlers, a Puritan minister recalled in 1681, "was not Toleration, but [they] were professed enemies of it." Puritans expelled dissenters from their colonies, a fate that in 1636 befell Roger Williams and in 1638 Anne Hutchinson, America's first major female religious leader. Those who defied the Puritans by persistently returning to their jurisdictions risked capital punishment, a penalty imposed on four Quakers between 1659 and 1661. Reflecting on the seventeenth century's intolerance, Thomas Jefferson was unwilling to concede to Virginians any moral superiority to the Puritans. Beginning in 1659 Virginia enacted anti-Quaker laws, including the death penalty for refractory Quakers. Jefferson surmised that "if no capital execution took place here, as did in New England, it was not owing to the moderation of the church, or the spirit of the legislature."

America as a Religious Refuge: The Seventeenth Century, Part 2 - Religion and the Founding of the American Republic | Exhibitions (Library of Congress)

Puritans expelled dissenters from their colonies, including Roger Williams and Anne Hutchinson. Although they were victims of religious persecution in Europe, the Puritans supported the theory that sanctioned it, the need for uniformity of religion in the state.

www.loc.gov

 

[Meriweather]

Suggesting the Bible needs to be taught in public school suggests a need to impose your beliefs on others.

No, it doesn't. It suggests that before the Protestant Reformation that people studied the Bible with people of knowledge of the original language, history, and culture. The Protestant Reformation informed people that everyone could figure the Bible out for themselves. What other subject would anyone recommend figuring it out for oneself"? The Bible, taught properly, would be discussing history, original language, and culture--what the original authors were attempting to convey to the original audience. As students today are not that original audience, it is conveying knowledge, not imposing my beliefs, which are my own, not anyone elses. All others can figure out their own beliefs on their own, outside classroom time.

 

[Meriweather]

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?

Consider how schools currently handle subjects. We do not separate the Asians from the Europeans from the Americans when teaching world history, so why separate students for Bible, Quran, Buddhist lessons? Just as teachers of other topics are selected based on their training and experience, this topic would have teachers based on the same criteria as used for teachers of any other subject.

 

[Hollie]

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?

Consider how schools currently handle subjects. We do not separate the Asians from the Europeans from the Americans when teaching world history, so why separate students for Bible, Quran, Buddhist lessons? Just as teachers of other topics are selected based on their training and experience, this topic would have teachers based on the same criteria as used for teachers of any other subject.

Not true at all. The topic of religious teaching for hundreds of competing religions could not happen because, as we know, that would be a violation of the Constitution.

Ten Major Court Cases about Evolution and Creationism | National Center for Science Education

1. In 1968, in Epperson v. Arkansas, the United States Supreme Court invalidated an Arkansas statute that prohibited the teaching of evolution. The Court held the statute unconstitutional on the grounds that the First Amendment to the U.S.

ncse.ngo

We separate religious indoctrination from the teaching of world history in the public schools because religious indoctrination is disallowed in public schools.

Are there any other portions of the Constitution you would prefer be violated so as to accommodate your religious wishes?

 

[Hollie]

Suggesting the Bible needs to be taught in public school suggests a need to impose your beliefs on others.

No, it doesn't. It suggests that before the Protestant Reformation that people studied the Bible with people of knowledge of the original language, history, and culture. The Protestant Reformation informed people that everyone could figure the Bible out for themselves. What other subject would anyone recommend figuring it out for oneself"? The Bible, taught properly, would be discussing history, original language, and culture--what the original authors were attempting to convey to the original audience. As students today are not that original audience, it is conveying knowledge, not imposing my beliefs, which are my own, not anyone elses. All others can figure out their own beliefs on their own, outside classroom time.

It certainly does. You have this notion, shared by many believers, that they and they alone have some “proper” understanding of the Bible, that they alone are the arbiters of the “correct” interpretation.

The Bible, taught correctly or incorrectly, teaches religious doctrine. I can’t accept that the Bible be used for history lessons as a 6,000 year old earth or a global flood just a few thousand years ago are not accurate, historical renderings of history.

Are you suggesting that the Koran be used as a science text? What science supports the idea of men riding winged horses and ascending to heaven on on a golden staircase.

Stop the madness.

The issue is already resolved by an amendment to the founding document of this nation. If you want your children to learn Christian theology, send them to Sunday school.

The Constitution provides for freedom from religion and protects students in public school from religious indoctrination promoted by any and all religions.

 

[Meriweather]

Not true at all. The topic of religious teaching for hundreds of competing religions could not happen because, as we know, that would be a violation of the Constitution.

We are talking past each other. You keep talking religion. I am talking about studying what the Bible actually said and meant for the time in which it was written. Let's try this: Can someone study the Quran without any interest at all of converting to the Muslim religion? Of course!

 

[Meriweather]

We separate religious indoctrination from the teaching of world history in the public schools because religious indoctrination is disallowed in public schools.

Are there any other portions of the Constitution you would prefer be violated so as to accommodate your religious wishes?

Yet when I am teaching World History we talk about the religion(s) which each part of the world followed and how it affected that culture and their history. I have yet to hear the SCOTUS insist that all mention of any religion be deleted from our history books or even suggest it is indoctrination.

Religion is worship of God. Studying the Bible, the Quran, or Buddhist and Hindu writings has nothing to do with teaching a child to worship God or instruction in practicing religion. It provides information. Is there a reason for prohibiting imparting information to our students?

 

[Meriweather]

I can’t accept that the Bible be used for history lessons as a 6,000 year old earth or a global flood just a few thousand years ago are not accurate, historical renderings of history.

This is precisely why the Bible should be taught. The idea of a six thousand year old earth is not in the Bible. It was the brainchild of a Protestant bishop who lived in the late 1880s. Nor does the Bible teach a global flood. The original language clearly states it was 'earth/dirt' that was covered--not The Earth/Planet.

Going back to the intent of the original author and what he was conveying to his original audience would help to clear up this ignorance. Also, understanding how the original language was used would clarify that 'son of' often meant 'descendant of' or even 'student of'.

I take it no one ever taught you any of this?

 

[Meriweather]

Are you suggesting that the Koran be used as a science text? What science supports the idea of men riding winged horses and ascending to heaven on on a golden staircase.

This is the same as asking me if I am suggesting The Lord of the Flies be used as a science text. We have good science texts, and I propose we use them in science class. This does not mean we have to abolish all mention of the Bible, Quran, or The Lord of the Flies, etc. in another class.

 

[Hollie]

Not true at all. The topic of religious teaching for hundreds of competing religions could not happen because, as we know, that would be a violation of the Constitution.

We are talking past each other. You keep talking religion. I am talking about studying what the Bible actually said and meant for the time in which it was written. Let's try this: Can someone study the Quran without any interest at all of converting to the Muslim religion? Of course!

Other than for the purpose of proselytizing, Bible study has no place in public schools. History, as delineated in the Bible is within the context of Christianity, Christian theology and a skewed version of natural history: global floods and a young earth.

I think we need to be honest and willing to be objective. There is no corroboration that any of the gospels were authored by Luke, Matthew, Mark or John. Christians are simply accepting they were. This is suggesting we study history written by unknown authors within the context of the creation of existence through supernatural means at the hands of partisan gods.

Once again we return to the US Constitution and the First Amendment.

 

[JoeB131]

Consider how schools currently handle subjects. We do not separate the Asians from the Europeans from the Americans when teaching world history, so why separate students for Bible, Quran, Buddhist lessons? Just as teachers of other topics are selected based on their training and experience, this topic would have teachers based on the same criteria as used for teachers of any other subject.

Actually, most history at the High-School level is taught from a Eurocentric viewpoint... from the lie that Columbus "Discovered" America onwards. Children know all about the Roman Empire and very little about Han China...

 

[Meriweather]

Other than for the purpose of proselytizing, Bible study has no place in public schools. History, as delineated in the Bible is within the context of Christianity, Christian theology and a skewed version of natural history: global floods and a young earth.

Are you considering that is your own version of the Bible? I am not speaking of presenting your version or the version from any other person for that matter. I sincerely doubt you would have a problem with the Bible had it been taught properly to you. What I see is a rebellion against what was taught to you, and frankly, I don't blame you for that rebellion. I am saying you--and everyone--deserve better.

 

[Hollie]

I can’t accept that the Bible be used for history lessons as a 6,000 year old earth or a global flood just a few thousand years ago are not accurate, historical renderings of history.

This is precisely why the Bible should be taught. The idea of a six thousand year old earth is not in the Bible. It was the brainchild of a Protestant bishop who lived in the late 1880s. Nor does the Bible teach a global flood. The original language clearly states it was 'earth/dirt' that was covered--not The Earth/Planet.

Going back to the intent of the original author and what he was conveying to his original audience would help to clear up this ignorance. Also, understanding how the original language was used would clarify that 'son of' often meant 'descendant of' or even 'student of'.

I take it no one ever taught you any of this?

What is remarkable is that you actually identified several reasons why the Bible should not be used as a history text in public schools. The Biblical age of the earth, for example, is a fudged number when adding up the various begats of ancestry. Are we to teach of Men living to be 900 years old as reliable history?

Who decides as to the historical (or hysterical), accuracy of Arks and floods? The Genesis fable speaks to mountains being covered, all living things perishing and everything on dry land dying. None of that is within the historical record. It is a part of Christian theology

Here we are again in that Cul de sac where the Constitution disallows religion taught in the public schools.

 

[Meriweather]

here is no corroboration that any of the gospels were authored by Luke, Matthew, Mark or John.

Duh. Something else you apparently weren't taught. Back in that day often the person writing the book was noting right up front where he got the information. Think Bibliography or Footnotes which are now located at the end. Further, the author may not have gotten the information, but a whole community--i.e., Matthew's community. This is very obvious in John's writings where our finished version has been at least edited by someone who knew Greek.

By the way, we can see the same thing taking place in the Book of Isaiah as well. Futher, not all Psalms were written by David. Hope this doesn't shock you overly much.

 

[Hollie]

Other than for the purpose of proselytizing, Bible study has no place in public schools. History, as delineated in the Bible is within the context of Christianity, Christian theology and a skewed version of natural history: global floods and a young earth.

Are you considering that is your own version of the Bible? I am not speaking of presenting your version or the version from any other person for that matter. I sincerely doubt you would have a problem with the Bible had it been taught properly to you. What I see is a rebellion against what was taught to you, and frankly, I don't blame you for that rebellion. I am saying you--and everyone--deserve better.

I acknowledge there are many versions of Bibles. In terms of the version to be properly taught in the public school system do we default to the NIV? Who determines if that will become the official public school version? Who determines what the correct teaching of Biblical history will be?

 

[Meriweather]

What is remarkable is that you actually identified several reasons why the Bible should not be used as a history text in public schools. The Biblical age of the earth, for example, is a fudged number when adding up the various begats of ancestry. Are we to teach of Men living to be 900 years old as reliable history?

Again, you are not hearing me. I am not saying the study of Bible be used instead of. I keep harping on that the Bible should be taught along with Reading, Writing, Arithmetic, Science, History, PE, etc.

As for 900 years...are you aware in the original Hebrew often times an extra zero was added for a variety of other reasons. One is that it indicated a person of importance. Second, it might indicate how long his descendants were important to the community. Third, age may not have been counted in the same time frame we have today. Keep in mind 'begat' does not necessarily mean the next generation, but a much later descendancy.

All this can be cleared up by properly teaching the Bible.

 

[Meriweather]

I acknowledge there are many versions of Bibles. In terms of the version to be properly taught in the public school system do we default to the NIV? Who determines if that will become the official public school version? Who determines what the correct teaching of Biblical history will be?

Already answered. We go back to the original language--and that was not modern English. In other words, we teach that back in the day 'begat' was used much more broadly than it is today.

 

[Hollie]

here is no corroboration that any of the gospels were authored by Luke, Matthew, Mark or John.

Duh. Something else you apparently weren't taught. Back in that day often the person writing the book was noting right up front where he got the information. Think Bibliography or Footnotes which are now located at the end. Further, the author may not have gotten the information, but a whole community--i.e., Matthew's community. This is very obvious in John's writings where our finished version has been at least edited by someone who knew Greek.

By the way, we can see the same thing taking place in the Book of Isaiah as well. Futher, not all Psalms were written by David. Hope this doesn't shock you overly much.

I'm not so sure that hearsay information is the best source data for a history class.

Teaching Biblical history in connection with the gods wiping most of humanity from the planet is problematic when Biblical history conflicts with complimentary sciences of geology, paleontology, etc. In connection with the Biblical flood, how do you propose to address the history of incestuous and familial relations with Noah and his immediate family left to repopulate the planet?

How do you propose to resolve the contradiction of a Biblical young earth, Genesis vs. fossil / geologic evidence of life that existed on the planet millions upon millions of years ago and a planet billions of years old?

 

[Hollie]

What is remarkable is that you actually identified several reasons why the Bible should not be used as a history text in public schools. The Biblical age of the earth, for example, is a fudged number when adding up the various begats of ancestry. Are we to teach of Men living to be 900 years old as reliable history?

Again, you are not hearing me. I am not saying the study of Bible be used instead of. I keep harping on that the Bible should be taught along with Reading, Writing, Arithmetic, Science, History, PE, etc.

As for 900 years...are you aware in the original Hebrew often times an extra zero was added for a variety of other reasons. One is that it indicated a person of importance. Second, it might indicate how long his descendants were important to the community. Third, age may not have been counted in the same time frame we have today. Keep in mind 'begat' does not necessarily mean the next generation, but a much later descendancy.

All this can be cleared up by properly teaching the Bible.

I can only reiterate to you that Bible study in public schools is disallowed by the constitution.

As for 900 year old humans, that suggests a problem to be resolved. Are you suggesting that Biblical teaching should include a disclaimer that portions of the Bible are not historically accurate so students, please pick up your Torah for this portion of your Bible history?

Is the country to look to you for the proper teaching of Biblical history? Where can we find your syllabus?