Oklahoma’s Superintendent of “Education” will require Bible Study in all Public schools.

You would need to go into a little more detail about what you would consider forms of social instruction.
I shouldn't need to any more than you did in your post but since I actually do have many examples here ya go...just stick to academics and, to paraphrase, "keep your beliefs on gender and race and other peoples money etc. to yourself"...lets remove all of the obstacles to academics not just the ones you don't like.
 
I shouldn't need to any more than you did in your post but since I actually do have many examples here ya go...just stick to academics and, to paraphrase, "keep your beliefs on gender and race and other peoples money etc. to yourself"...lets remove all of the obstacles to academics not just the ones you don't like.
Except gender and race are covered under science and health classes. Other people’s money is covered under economics. All legitimate academic information to be taught to students
 
Except gender and race are covered under science and health classes. Other people’s money is covered under economics. All legitimate academic information to be taught to students

No, they're all social constructs given cover by/with academic subjects, would putting bible study in history classes then satisfy your concerns as to its academic standing?
 
No, they're all social constructs given cover by/with academic subjects, would putting bible study in history classes then satisfy your concerns as to its academic standing?
Depends on how it’s used. Example: The Bible depicts a great flood and there is archaeological evidence that there have been many great floods. So using it as a reference point to show a great flood happened in ancient times is acceptable. Trying to say that the flood was some type of punishment by a sky voice is trying to establish religious doctrine in a classroom and is prohibited.
 
and it should not be, not even at home, it isn't yours nor are you entitled to it...you have less rights to other folks earnings than one does in discussing god in public places.
The constitution prevents establishing a religion but grants the government the power to tax people. So yeah teaching them about economics is more important than fairytales
 
Depends on how it’s used. Example: The Bible depicts a great flood and there is archaeological evidence that there have been many great floods. So using it as a reference point to show a great flood happened in ancient times is acceptable.
No, it doesn't depend on how it is used according to the standard you used for race, gender and other peoples money.
Trying to say that the flood was some type of punishment by a sky voice is trying to establish religious doctrine in a classroom and is prohibited.
but what does that matter if the qualifier you use is that of being taught as part of an academic class makes it legitimate? and Oklahoma does not prohibit it.
 
No, it doesn't depend on how it is used according to the standard you used for race, gender and other peoples money.

but what does that matter if the qualifier you use is that of being taught as part of an academic class makes it legitimate? and Oklahoma does not prohibit it.
What part of it needing to be constitutional did you not understand? I figured even the slow people understood that but you proved me wrong
 
The constitution prevents establishing a religion
and guarantees the free exercise thereof.
but grants the government the power to tax people.
Was that granted before or after the armed insurrection over taxes?
So yeah teaching them about economics is more important than fairytales
but not more important when it comes to teaching the importance of the three genders and men getting pregnant.
 
This thread is not about gun laws try and stay on topic
I thought it was about what is and isnt constitutional??

why is one thing unconstitutional when it doesnt go against what is written in the 1st A but another that goes directly against whats written in the 2nd A isnt unconstitutional??
 
I hought it was about what is and isnt constitutional??

why is one thing unconstitutional when it doesnt go against what is written in the 1st A but another that goes directly against whats written in the 2nd A isnt unconstitutional??
You thought wrong. Being wrong is your thing
 
or its that you know you have a dbl standard and got caught,,,

posting the 10Cs is freedom of speech and doesnt violate the constitution and all gun laws do violate the constitution,,
You can state that incorrect information as much as you want, it just shows how much of a liar you are. You need to spend less time worrying about posting the 10 commandments and more time trying to live them
 
a simple yes would have gone a long way,,

but your refusal to give a simple yes tells me you dont support the 2nd A,,,

so why the dbl standards on which parts of the constitution you support and dont support??

If you want to start another thread with the 2nd amendment as the subject, feel free.

I am a big supporter of the 2nd amendment. But I am not discussing it just to allow you to sidestep the actual topic.
 

Forum List

Back
Top