Oklahoma To Require Public Schools To Teach the Bible
"Every teacher, every classroom in the state will have a Bible in the classroom and will be teaching from the Bible in the classroom," state Superintendent Ryan Walters announced last week.

Last week, Oklahoma state Superintendent Ryan Walters announced that the state could soon require public schools to teach the Bible and the Ten Commandments, including requiring religious text be included in all classrooms.
"Every teacher, every classroom in the state will have a Bible in the classroom and will be teaching from the Bible in the classroom," Walters said last Thursday, "to ensure that this historical understanding is there for every student in the state of Oklahoma."
The statement came just days after the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled that the state could not approve a religious charter school.
"Effective immediately, all Oklahoma schools are required to incorporate the Bible, which includes the Ten Commandments, as an instructional support into the curriculum," reads Walters' memo. "The Bible is one of the most historically significant books and a cornerstone of Western civilization, along with the Ten Commandments. They will be referenced as an appropriate study of history, civilization, ethics, comparative religion, or the like, as well as for their substantial influence on our nation's founders and the foundational principles of our Constitution."
It's not exactly clear how this memo will affect school curriculums. Most public schools already reference the Bible—and other religious texts—where appropriate as part of instruction on world religions, world history, or other classes. However, Walters' memo did leave open the possibility that Oklahoma's Education Department would develop curricula giving schools specific instructions for how to teach from or about the Bible.
Walters provided some context to his remarks on Monday, telling PBS News that the memo was motivated by the perception that teachers "are not talking about in their classroom the role that the Bible played in American history" and that he would soon "be offering additional guidance to districts that they will have to comply with."
The current lack of clarity makes it difficult to conclusively say whether Walters' memo is unconstitutional. It's been well established that public schools can use religious texts in some contexts, like a comparative religions course or to provide context for a piece of literature.
However, Walters' directive is at "the edge of the envelope," Andrew C. Spiropoulos, a constitutional law professor at the Oklahoma City University School of Law, told The New York Times. "By singling it out as a proposal standing alone, that could be legally problematic."
Walters, on the other hand, is confident that his directive will pass legal muster.
"If we get sued and we get challenged, we will be victorious, because the Supreme Court justices [Donald Trump] appointed actually are originalists that look at the Constitution and not what some left-wing professor said about the Constitution," he told PBS News. "The separation of church and state appears nowhere in the Declaration of Independence or Constitution."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Can someone red pill me on this one? Because I have a tendency not to believe Emma’s narratives.
Don't bother with it. She cites PBS and NYT.
Yeah, same here. On its face, it sounds outrageous. But this is Emma. She lies by omission in every single fine article. Her reputation precedes her.
Did she ever get that beer?
Since ENB never got us our sandwiches,Little Emma better get on it.
PBS..NYT..cultural marxist rags...don't see many Catholics at either do you? Telling.
The current pope is steeped in Liberation Theology. So there’s that.
What exactly are you questioning? The article here contains a link to the Superintendent announcing the policy publicly. It contains a link to the memo that was sent to school districts.
Most "political" movements are really religions. DIE is a religion...Climate change is a religion...Gender affirming is a religion...so if they are going to teach those...why not Christianity? At least it doesn't promote killing your neighbors and taking their land or sexually mutilating little mentally ill kids.
Because the Rainbow Sex Cult deals in hard scientific realities like 93 genders, whereas those icky X-tians believe in a sky fairy.
Expand the definition of religion so widely it becomes meaningless, why don't you?
He didn’t, and he’s right.
Climate change is fact. And it doesn't care what you think.
Yes, the climate changes all by itself, and nothing a bunch of retarded faggot democrats will do alters natural climate change.
LOL:
Most public schools already reference the Bible—and other religious texts—where appropriate as part of instruction on world religions, world history, or other classes.
You know, because the Quran, the I-Ching, The Holy Piby, Dianetics... are all just religious texts of approximately equal importance to Western Civilization and the modern world. It's all just a bunch of historical religious mumbo jumbo anyway.
Anyone want to lay down odds that, In Emma's mind, it's called "Western Civilization" because, you know, America is west of Europe and the Middle East?
As a teacher in Oklahoma...
Thus guy is the real-deal nutjob.
I am fine with him being against wokism. I have seen too much of it in classrooms.
But he is the wet dream Christian idiot (he isn't smart enough to be a Christian Fascist or Nationalist... he is too inconsistent) the left loves to be able to bandi about as a proxy for anyone not named Mao.
He will most likely lose this. And I hope he does. There is an element of appropriateness... social studies and history class absolutely should teach the ethics of Christianity and their impact on US political philosophy and culture.
This has no place in a 6th grade history class, much less a 1st grade lesson about the letter B.
The Founding Fathers rejected the ethics of Christianity whose intolerance had literally killed millions of people in Europe. Instead they created a secular state that didn't allow minority religions to be persecuted.
Many Republicans seem to prefer the Early Modern European model. 🙁
The Founders were soon quarreling among themselves over what side to take in a bloody European military conflict suffused with religious and culture-war issues.
Thomas Jefferson, 1793: "rather than [the French Revolution] should have failed, I would have seen half the earth desolated. Were there but an Adam and an Eve left in every country, and left free, it would be better than as it now is."
https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/01-25-02-0016
Just about every major work of culture before the modern age contains major references to the Bible, Greek, and Roman mythology. Even the more prominent works of the modern age have references, though not as many or central. While I’m not huge on lumping my religious text in with ancient pagan mythology (shut up, atheist ass hats, no one asked your opinion), bringing back this shared foundation through public education isn’t baseless. It could actually serve in giving us at least something in common again to facilitate communication as a country/nation.
But regardless, a state should have the right to make such a decision regardless of what CA and MD have to say on the subject. It’s their state, if the people don’t like it, they can vote in different legislators.
"The separation of church and state appears nowhere in the Declaration of Independence or Constitution."
And then they tore my chest out and threw it over there.
https://youtu.be/ARNq1TxkYaU?si=I8nVDolpKamKmiPS&t=50
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;…”
It was Jefferson who first used the phrase “separation of church and state”. Regardless, any attempt to study and portray the Bible as “the word of God”, or as a true work that should be believed like a physics text, or anything other than an object of objective study as part of an objective comparative religions or history course would constitute an attempt at establishment of religion. Any attempt to inaccurately or exaggeratedly portray the Bible’s influence on American history or politics would also constitute an attempt to establish religion. After all, the Bible IS a religious document. Any attempt to promote it, or any religious doctrine associated with it, would constitute an attempt to establish religion.
Now let’s talk about the religion of putting drag queens, and other freaks in classrooms.
Now according to the degenerate Reason writers..that hardly exists. Come on now haven't you figured out how Nick and Matt just are uncomfortable with any morality? Hell sexually mutilating confused kids seems to be just fine for the Reason crowd.
The Reason staff apparently doesn’t have any issues with the mutilation, molestation, or murder of minors if not doing so iight inconvenience an adult, or even possibly offend them.
Now according to the degenerate Reason writers..that hardly exists.
Exactly how widespread is it? Except for pundits pointing out a lot of isolated incidents, I don't see evidence that it's widespread.
...Nick and Matt just are uncomfortable with any morality?
Morality? You mean like individual rights, the non-aggression principle and consent? Or do you mean social conservative sexual preferences?
the religion of putting drag queens, and other freaks in classrooms.
Is that a belief in a supernatural or supernatural being of any sort? If not, how is it religion? Maybe because they accept on faith without rational proof that their freakiness is psychologically healthy. I think the only legitimate purpose for drag queens and freaks in the classroom is as objects of study in an abnormal psychology class, not as salesqueers to sell drag and freakiness to kids. Everything is a legitimate object of objective study, not propagandizing. That includes drag queens, freaks as well as the Bible.
If it was up to me, every kid would have voluntary elective time. The religious kids could voluntarily go to bible study hour, and the freaky kids (or kids of freaky parents) could voluntarily go to drag queen story hour, whatever the kids and parents want. If it's voluntary, then it's a case of free exercise, not establishment, of religion.
Religion is what informs morality. It isn’t always deistic. Taoism, Buddhism, and Confucianism are not deistic religions, but philosophical religions that teach a moral framework.
Religion is not confined to deistic beliefs, but is a means to inculturation. It is through the religious cult that culture takes shape and communicates the values, beliefs, and morals of the people. Modern Secularism contains all the markers for inculturating religion.
Religion is what informs morality.
There’s plenty of non-religious morality – Aristotelian ethics, Platonism, various enlightenment philosophers, Ayn Rand’s Objectivist ethics, etc., etc.
That being said, there’s also Marxism which is not only atheist but anti-theist, and has been responsible for the mass murder of 10s of millions. My attitude is that Marx may have said, rightly or wrongly, that religion is the opiate of the people, but as a libertarian, I want opium (and religion) to be legal. If I had to choose between marxism and theism, I’d choose theism – it’s a lot less deadly. At least most modern religion inhibits people from murdering each other. Thing is, there’s a lot better choices than just marxism and theism.
That has nothing to do with religion.
And what do you have against drag queens?
Why do you want them in classrooms indoctrinating small children?
Queer Theory has plenty of gnostic and Hermetic baggage via Hegel and Marx and operates with heavy use of cult techniques and mechanics. Maybe when you get further into the belief system than “useful idiot internet troll initiate” they’ll clue you into what it’s all *really* about.
"Queer Theory" shouldn't be taught in the government schools any differently than religion - as theory, not necessarily fact.
I used to point out that separation is not “mutual exclusion” and the FF were intelligent enough to make that clear, even able to make sure that it shall not be infringed if they wanted to.
Then Congress passed a bill literally titled “Protection For ‘Good Samaritan’ Blocking and Screening of Offensive Material” invoking Jesus’ parable, in an inverse logical fashion of the parable, in order to end around the 1A and perform censorship by proxy across the internet.
At this point, especially apparent in 2020, is that church and state are in no way separated in this country and the illusion of separation is used by, e.g., gaiaists and
techno-optimistsscientism worshippers to exclude other religions and belief systems.At this point, especially apparent in 2020, is that church and state are in no way separated
There's still "In God We Trust" printed on currency. That was not there at the founding. It first appeared on coins in the 1860s during the Civil War, and on paper money under the Eisenhower administration in 1956. Essentially, one is forced to hand out a religious proclamation in order to use the currency one has a right to use as a citizen. Though, one may be able to erase or cross out the words so long as it doesn't affect the ability to circulate the bill or does not obscure or change the denomination, etc. One could still risk prosecution. "with intent to render such bank bill, draft, note, or other evidence of debt unfit to be reissued," It would still function as currency even if the motto was removed or obscured.
18 U.S. Code § 333 - Mutilation of national bank obligations
"Whoever mutilates, cuts, defaces, disfigures, or perforates, or unites or cements together, or does any other thing to any bank bill, draft, note, or other evidence of debt issued by any national banking association, or Federal Reserve bank, or the Federal Reserve System, with intent to render such bank bill, draft, note, or other evidence of debt unfit to be reissued, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both."
'Last week, Oklahoma state Superintendent Ryan Walters announced that the state could soon require public schools to teach the Bible and the Ten Commandments, including requiring religious text be included in all classrooms.'
Cue the "GET RELIGION OUT OF THE CLASSROOM" screechers, said on video shot in their schools, with BLM and Save the Planet posters and regalia in the background.
Seriously. One vestige of my professional career is serving on a committee that picks a science teacher of the year. Over and over we see nominees who teach "science" in the guise of recycling and community activism, or just "saving the earth". These things might be fine, and appropriate content for social studies, but I see very little science, and much religious fervor.
And in today's art class, we will paint posters venerating Gaia.....
Why, damnit, can’t we get more wingnuts to teach science? CO2 doesn’t absorb in the infrared, fruitcake liberal, or milk comes from nuts now because of the That would be so much better!
Uh, sure. Now tell us how a whole century of weather records prove we are in a climate apocalypse--as many practitioners of The Science tell us.
Just reread Broca's Brain by Carl Sagan...1979 version. He was on about entering a global ice age and how the earth was much warmer in the past..the arctic and antarctic were not iced over...Carl was the 'Science" back in 1985...
Or read the 1976 Congressional Hearings on Climate Research, which I staffed for the House Committee on Science and Technology, in which multiple experts testified that global warming due to CO2 buildup would likely be apparent within 15 years. That is exactly what happened, and the subsequent measured global rise of some 1.3° C is exactly in line with their predictions of 50 years ago. Not an apocalypse (yet), but a lot more accurate than anything the climate deniers predicted.
‘Due to CO2 buildup’
Nope.
The "consensus" of the late 00s/early 10s has been widely debunked. Moreover, your premise is that modelling and prediction hasn't essentially improved in over 50 yrs.
Why would you cast yourself as being between dishonest and retarded like that?
We do have fruitcakes teaching kids. They’re called ‘democrats’. Idiots like you.
Do you see any resistance to the teaching of evolution in biology classes?
Get your kids out of public schools
Outlaw teachers unions. Then maybe the public schools could be rehabilitated.
“Outlaw teachers unions.”
Freedom of association. One does not lose one’s right of freedom of association by working at a government school. Because we are subject to rule by the government and to taxation to support such schools, we have a right to employment there without restriction of our associations. This is unlike a private employer where we have no stake in the private company, hence no right to any part of it.
You ignore the elephant in the room, that unions can only exist when government starts by taking their side. How else can you describe making it illegal for an employer to replace a worker who is voluntarily refusing to show up to work?
You see what I’m saying? The article is about some Oklahoma Taliban member and Team Trump dick-in-his-mouth here spins the conversation around to teacher’s unions.
Makes you uncomfortable, doesn’t it? You leftist scum have no business teaching kids. Look where that’s gotten us.
Wrong. Unions can exist because of freedom of association.
Some libertarian you are.
We’re infinitely better than Marxist filth like you.
They can freely associate all they want, but it should be illegal for governments to contract with them.
Governments can contract with whomever they wish.
No, but people who work for government should lose the right to vote, at least for that level of government (fed, state, city, county).
That would also take care of their unions.
So our military doesn't get to vote for President.
The Republicans tried that in 1944.
Yeah, no. You don’t get to work for the government then from a group to collectively bargain with the people you elect (and whom the union financially supports). If you don’t see the inherent conflict of interest there, I don’t know what to tell you.
You don’t get to work for the government then from a group to collectively bargain with the people you elect (and whom the union financially supports).
The question here is not freedom of association, rather compulsory collective bargaining, which I oppose. They are two separate issues. No employer, private or government, should be forced to negotiate vs. hiring strikebreakers. Doesn’t mean the government can fire you for being a union member in itself, rather for not showing up for work.
whom the union financially supports
So what? Even in the private sector, union members can buy stock in the company and vote for union-friendly directors. Of course, if a government employee union member offers a bribe, he or she can still be prosecuted as it is now.
Silly child. Teacher's Unions don't give bribes to politicians. Those are called "campaign contributions". I can see why you make the mistake though. It's kinda like bribery except that it's not a crime.
It's nothing like doing that at a company though, because businesses run out of money and go bankrupt when they operate wastefully. Governments can run a three ring clown circus of patronage and corruption and never run out of money.
Silly child. Teacher’s Unions don’t give bribes to politicians. Those are called “campaign contributions”. I can see why you make the mistake though. It’s kinda like bribery except that it’s not a crime.
The difference is a campaign contribution is given so as to elect someone naturally favorable to one's position without the need of a bribe. A bribe is money given to change a politician's previous position to a favorable one. Plenty of organizations , left or right, like the NRA or the AFT, give money to elect favorable candidates without bribing them.
Such an arrangement specifically grants the union a government-recognized power that no individual, especially individuals outside the union, have.
If a bunch of teachers want to walk out together, that's their free-association right. No one, who isn't a slave, owes them any wages or a job if or when they decide to come back. Even in a situation like this, where the government is arguably infringing on their religious rights, libertarians, market-oriented individuals, agnostics/atheists... pretty much anyone except socialists, panderers, and rent-seekers should *want* them to take their superior curriculum and go somewhere else.
If a bunch of teachers want to walk out together, that’s their free-association right. No one, who isn’t a slave, owes them any wages or a job if or when they decide to come back.
I agree. The issue here is compulsory collective bargaining (which I oppose for both private and government employers and unions) vs. freedom of association. One should not be fired or denied government employment because of one's associations (except for national security reasons). But, if one fails to show up for work, the employer, private or government, has a right to fire for cause.
Even if collective bargaining weren't compulsory, who would public sector unions bargain with? Teacher Unions can't actually bargain with city hall because city hall doesn't write the checks, the taxpayers do. Bargaining with taxpayers is just bog standard political campaigning, which doesn't require a union at all.
Collective bargaining with public entities is just mob crime; not even mob crime in disguise, just right out there in the open. It's plain jane bribery, coercion, and corruption of public officials in broad daylight. It's absolutely indefensible.
Well, can we at least require that the proposed contract be approved by the group that will have to bear the cost, the taxpayers?
You know, an up or down vote.
As long as the ones "negotiating" have no skin in the game, it is not really negotiating. Maybe we should approve a single amount for both the schools and the politicians' pay. Then see how much the union gets.
We aren't Switzerland which has referenda on everything. Our elected representatives are responsible for these decisions.
"The separation of church and state appears nowhere in the Declaration of Independence or Constitution."
This is true.
There is a proscription on the state--the government may not establish a national religion and the government may not proscribe religious practices.
This has been twisted into what we have today where the government proscribes religious practices endlessly, unconstitutionally and with the aim of forcing a secularity upon the people that is expressly forbidden in the Constitution --and all in the guise of not 'establishing a religion'.
Government is not ALLOWED to keep religion out of the public square.
the government proscribes religious practices endlessly, unconstitutionally and with the aim of forcing a secularity upon the people
No, it doesn't. Show a reference to where some religious practice has been proscribed.
No, it doesn’t. Show a reference to where some religious practice has been proscribed.
I'm expecting, "Something, something, gender theory" as their response to this.
Show a reference to where some religious practice has been proscribed.
I could understand having head trauma resulting in short term memory loss such that you can’t remember 2020 (to say nothing of complete lack of awareness of both modern and classic Progressivism, including medical care, birth control, abortion, discrimination, Malcolm X, MLK Jr., The Branch Davidians, The Peoples Temple, The Mormon Wars, etc.). I can’t understand how you would just assume everyone else would be similarly retarded or intentionally inflict your retardation on them like it’s their fault.
medical care, birth control, abortion,
Last I remember, religious people tended to oppose abortion and birth control (tended). How is the government proscribing any religious practice? How is the government wrongfully forcing anyone to get or not get an abortion or birth control.
Malcolm X, MLK Jr.,
How did their deaths have anything to do with religion?
The Branch Davidians, The Peoples Temple, The Mormon Wars, etc.).
The Branch Davidians were targetted by the BATF for possession of unregistered fully-automatics. One could argue that they were targetted for investigation because of their religion, but there's not much evidence for that, and Texas authorities also suspected them of molesting their kids.
The Peoples Temple
Show me where the government took any action or proscribed anything about The People's Temple - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peoples_Temple
The Mormon Wars, etc.).
The Mormon Wars were not a result of oppression by the authorities on high, rather due to friction between Mormon settlers and locals - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1838_Mormon_War
The Mormons massacred 120 settlers headed to California and engaged the U.S. Army - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah_War
I can’t understand how you would just assume everyone else would be similarly retarded or intentionally inflict your retardation on them like it’s their fault.
Dude, I don't have to insult you to make my point. I've given you references and argumentation. Enjoy.
Dude, I don’t have to insult you to make my point.
I didn't insult you to make mine and you didn't make an argument. You rather matter-of-factly ignored (everything that was done in 2020 and...) the persecution and repression of minority religious leaders and cited the US military and other branches putting down of religious movements by force.
And this is after, above where you cite "In God We Trust" merely being printed on the money as some sort of requisite personal religious affirmation.
Your retardation is not a leap of faith on behalf of any given reader. Your courtesy and/or honesty, despite your own assertion about a lack of insults, is.
“Your retardation”
Why the fuck would you even care about me to insult me? What makes me so important? One would think you would care about arguments, evidence and logic – not the person.
“You rather matter-of-factly ignored (everything that was done in 2020 and…) the persecution and repression of minority religious leaders and cited the US military and other branches putting down of religious movements by force.”
Read the references or do web search. I’m not saying there hasn’t been religious persecution in this country. But simply because there has been religious persecution, how does that justify any government establishment of religion by issuing religious proclamations (on the currency) or mandating religious proclamations – the Ten Commandments – be posted in government school classrooms regarded as statements of fact? The Ten Commandments has reference to gods and “the Lord”. In that case, it’s establishing of religious belief.
I opposed the government shutting down churches during the virus scare.
I opposed the BATF going after the Davidians – full-autos should be legal, and prosecuting child abuse is a local matter.
If the Mormons want to practice bigamy or child marriage, I’d say OK, just not without parental permission and not younger than 14. Legal ages were about 14 or younger back then. Very few “clean hands” in the Mormon wars.
Polygamy.
Human sacrifice is illegal.
More importantly, some medically necessary abortions which are required in Judaism are now effectively prohibited in some states.
Plural marriage is proscribed.
Blood sacrifice is proscribed
Homosexuality is legal
These are all things mentioned as part of religious practice. As such, government should not take any position on them whatsoever.
But they do.
Additionally, in 2020, government forbade church attendance.
All of these things are issues they have been forbidden to act upon.
Plural marriage is proscribed.
As a libertarian I believe on freedom to contract and would make plural marriage legal. But I don’t think it was made illegal on religious grounds or with the intent of inhibiting religion, rather they didn’t like the practice independent of religion.
“Blood sacrifice is proscribed”
Blood sacrifice is a violation of individual rights and is an initiation of force and is anti-libertarian. It was outlawed independent of religion. One does not have the right to practice anything that violates individual rights.
Homosexuality is legal
As it should be. Individual rights.
“These are all things mentioned as part of religious practice. As such, government should not take any position on them whatsoever.”
But they do.”
Just because they may be part of some religious practice does not shield them from prohibition on non-religious grounds. They're not being proscribed because they are religious practices, rather because they’re violations of individual rights. The free exercise of religion does not include violation of individual rights. One has an individual right to practice any religion so long as one respects the individual rights of others.
“Additionally, in 2020, government forbade church attendance.”
“All of these things are issues they have been forbidden to act upon.”
I opposed the government shutting down churches, but I opposed them shutting down anything. The churches weren’t shut down because they were churches rather because they were public gathering places independent of their purpose.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
Not as-if it wasn't the very 1st Amendment on the List.
Not that I want the government presenting any religion (and considering their track record, not teaching or implementing it either), but the amendment pretty clearly forbids Congress from establishing a state religion, not from there being any recognition of any particular religion at all levels of government.
Pretty sure "no law respecting" gets violated in all sensible interpretations. Having it teacher imposed without political demand would be a much stronger argument on that front.
It says "an establishment of religion" not "an establishment of a religion". From the wording, it is not clear that they meant a specific religion or specific church, or religion in general. But from the wording, it seems most reasonable to interpret it as religion in general, thus government becoming a church in itself.
And government is not allowed to award any and all religion, and their practitioners, special privilege or status, right?
What's next? Certain school districts in Michigan "teaching the Koran"?
“in every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. he is always in alliance with the Despot abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own. it is easier to acquire wealth and power by this combination than by deserving them: and to effect this they have perverted the purest religion ever preached to man, into mystery & jargon unintelligible to all mankind & therefore the safer engine for their purposes.”
-Thomas Jefferson
and the cultural marxist is anti human and anti liberty..and we teach cultural marxism..hell the Feds push it on everyone..
Cultural Marxism isn't a thing.
And Jefferson died when Marx was eight years old.
Cultural Marxism is totally a thing you lying cultural Marxist cunt. It must be great for for you that a pathological liar and sociopathic parasite, such as yourself, found a home that really fits with your lack of humanity, decency and integrity.
Basically, you’re evil. Just like your fellow travelers.
“..and we teach cultural marxism..”
It should be taught the same as religion – as an object of objective study, without advocacy, and as an ideology without conclusions as to its truth. Ha, ha, "object of objective".
"Could soon", "will have", and then all of a sudden "effective immediately... are required".
Somebody's telling porkies.
The Socialist Education system going religious?
Maybe the 'Socialist' should've never been part of the USA.
Agreed.
This seems to be walking dangerously close to the establishment of religion in schools. But there is an argument to teach the impact of the Bible on US history and western literature, since the USA was founded primarily as a Judeo-Christian nation. Since much of the old testament and the ten commandments are common to Jewish, Christian and Muslim faiths, it’s not picking favorites, although atheists will surely object (and likely win).
Even my liberal university taught the Bible as part of Western Literature, but this was before the woke virus took hold. Our professors were still allowed to accept reality and point out the benefits and accomplishments of western civilization.
I hear all the time people saying that the US was founded on Judeo-Christian values. That is incorrect. Nations founded (depending on how you define “founded”) on Christian values were not uncommon. Most of Europe were considered Christian nations. The difference came with the Great Enlightenment. That is what I argue the nation was founded on, Enlightenment ideas, such as “life, liberty, and property” (changed by Jefferson to the pursuit of happiness). Consent of the governed, property rights, restrictions on power, and checks and balances are what made the US unique. That was the difference. Were many (but certainly not all) of the founding fathers Christian. Yes. But what made the U.S. so different was incorporating the values of the Great Enlightenment into a system of government.
Yup. I think most of us would be horrified living under Judeo-Christian values instead of enlightenment ideals, mostly about the sanctity and status of the individual (and individual rights) vs. submission to any type of arbitrary, vengeful theological authority.
Is eugenics an Enlightenment value or no? Marxism? Manifest Destiny? Or is this the sort of thing where The Enlightenment sprang into being wholly formed, once and forever immaculate, and we blame things like Jim Jones, Roy Cohn, Roe v. Wade, Buck v. Bell, the 18th Am., etc., etc. on Christianity because it would be unfair to blame it on homosexuality or The Enlightenment or hyper-puritanical secular reaction/reinterpretation?
To an extent, the Enlightenment was a return to pre-Christian Pagan values.
But there is an argument to teach the impact of the Bible on US history and western literature, since the USA was founded primarily as a Judeo-Christian nation.
Would you need to be "taught" the Quran to understand the history of the Middle East? I can't think of anything a K-12 student learns about U.S. history that would require reading the Bible. Maybe you can give us an example of what you think would be an appropriate topic where reading substantial amounts of the text of the Bible would help to understand that topic in U.S. history.
As for the U.S. being "founded primarily as a Judeo-Christian nation," perhaps you've never read that line from the Treaty of Tripoli:
Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen (Muslims); and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan (Mohammedan) nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
The treaty was ratified in 1797 unanimously by the Senate.
You’re a Marxist atheist. I doubt you can imagine much of anything outside of that.
You’re a Marxist atheist.
You got part of that correct. I'd be surprised if you actually know much about Marxism, since you're using it as an epithet for anything you don't agree with.
I know exactly what Marxism is. You Marxists always say that to deflect from what you are. Oh, you may not seek a completely pure communist government as written by Karl Marx, but you want one that largely follows that in principle.
And it isn’t just me. Everyone here knows that. So just be honest for once in your wretched life and admit what you are. I could at least respect that.
...you want one that largely follows that in principle.
And what do you think that is?
The ten pillars/planks of Marxism……
1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c.
Which is largely the platform of your democrat party. You are the Marxists.
Well, I do think free education of children tends to benefit society.
I don't think you'll get many libertarian adherents of most of those alleged Marxist principles. You know that, right?
I don't know what his religion is but what he wrote is fact and facts are irrelevant to your slanders.
What you have written is fact too. And you wrote things that are infinitely worse than anything this guy ever will.
There is no such thing as Judeo Christian anything. The religions have been distinct for almost two thousand years. And for most of that time, the Christian has been actively trying to exterminate the Judeo.
There were zero Jews among the Founding Fathers. Jews could not live in New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maryland, or Virginia during colonial times and there were no synagogues in North Carolina, Delaware, or New Jersey. In Maryland, being a Jew was a death penalty offense and Jews couldn't vote until the 1820s. Synagogues were not allowed in Connecticut until the 1840s. I could go on and on but you get the point.
The term Judeo Christian gets some criticism, especially from Jewish thinkers, as implying Christianity superseded Judaism. This idea is explicit in fundamental Christian doctrine, and it wasn't until fairly recently (~a century) that various churches have tried to emphasize the religions' similarities rather than differences in efforts to combat antisemitism. It really started to become used as an attempt at cultural unity during the Cold War to distinguish the West from the godless communists, naturally.
Your point that Judaism had no substantial role in the Founding seems quite accurate, from what I can find and remember. It is fairly obviously used today as an attempt by conservative Christians to push everyone in the country to acknowledge their belief that Christianity should be the nation's religion.
You democrats are certainly working hard to exterminate the Jews. Your Nazi forebears didn’t get it done, so now you’re going for round two.
Presumably, you'd be feeding them into your woodchipper. Most of them being Democrats, after all.
OK, fine, it's all copacetic. But suppose, as my Religion 101 prof did, that the Bible is not the only foundational document to have greatly influenced history. The Code of Hammurabi comes to mind, along with the Talmud and (wait for it)--the Koran. And by way, we have much better historical records concerning the writing of the Koran and the Talmud than of the Bible. So why not preclude a political dogfight by requiring schools to have a copy of those two books in every classroom? I could live with that, although the Southern Baptists and the rest of the Bible belt probably cannot.
Just a couple more points. If schools must teach, and teach from the Bible, will that include the more bloodthirsty elements in the Old Testament? You know, the episodes in which God ordered the destruction of this or that city and the killing of everyone within? Or does "Bible" in this context mean "the New Testament"? If so, then I'd like to know why, if Jesus was born God Incarnate and without sin, he felt the need to be baptized? And what do these people mean exactly when they say "Judeo-Christian"?
Which Christianity are they referring to? Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Coptic? The dozens of Protestant sects that arose during and after the Reformation? The sects that regarded every other as heretical, demonic even, and burned alive or beheaded as many adherents as they could get hold of? Those that joined the Catholics in mass slaughters of soldiers and civilians and the ruination of central Europe from 1618-48? How about the Catholics who carried out the massacre of Huguenots in Paris in 1572? Or the crusaders who pillaged and destroyed Jewish settlements on their way to Jerusalem, where they slaughtered unarmed Muslims and Jews in Jerusalem in 1099? How about the Protestants who murdered or drove out my ancestors, the Anabaptists? How about Mary and Elizabeth Tudor, who more or less competed with each other in burning adherents of the other's take on Christianity? So much bloodshed over the centuries, so little to differentiate the murderers.
Finally, how about the Protestants who murdered or drove away my ancestors, the "Anabaptists" (not what they called themselves FYI)? Ironically, their surviving descendants fled bloody Europe and came to America as the Amish, the Mennonites, et al., where they established settlements all over the East and Midwest and contributed to the atmosphere of religious tolerance here even before 1776? You do understand, right, that these people were in fact Christians? Except they didn't share the love of the Protestants and Catholics for massacre and burning. And who in fact are and always have been pacifists. I am neither a Mennonite or a pacifist, so don't count on me to turn the other cheek when you come for me and my family.
Easy, the countries who's law is based on the Koran are shit places with shit people who's paragon of virtue and morality is a murdering, slave owning pedofile.
Why don’t you cal, and ask them?
Wait until they discover that the Bible makes it clear that abortion is not murder.
Genesis 2:7
New International Version
7 “Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.”
Seems like it's saying that life begins when we start breathing, which is at birth.
That statement also establishes that humans are formed from dust on the ground. Is that how babies are made? No, of course not.
Don't take this fairytale shit seriously, please.
One's brain could be dead but one's body still alive and one would not be considered a living being. In this case, one's living or non-living body could be formed of dust, but one is not a being, meaning brain is alive or animated, until the breath of life.
Point is, to make a case against abortion, the Bible doesn't help, rather hinders. To make a case against abortion requires modern science.
Christianity is the most murderous religion on the planet. You didn't even mention the Crusades. We Jews still recite prayers in memory of the victims of the Crusaders.
There is no Judeo Christian anything and for most of the past two thousand years the Christian ahs been trying to exterminate the Jew.
Man you just are full of lies. This one is just thoroughly ignorant. So is the abortion one. I know you feel threatened by people being exposed to thinking that is so contrary to your own tightly held beliefs. Cope more.
Genesis 2:7
New International Version
7 “Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.”
Seems like it’s saying that life begins, we become living beings, when we start breathing, which is at birth.
Does it seem like that?
Adam's life began when God breathed life into lifeless dust.
When humans procreate there is nothing without life. The man has life, the woman has life, the egg has life, the sperm has life.
New life is formed in the merging of the sperm and egg.
But at no point was there NO life in the human procreation process.
In very early 80's, the most popular class in my relatively large Iowa public high school was biblical literature. No problems whatsoever. I enjoyed the class.
I was in HS in the late 70's in Vermont
In my senior honors English class, we read from the bible. I remember writing a paper about Job
The King James bible is a cornerstone of western literature. There really shouldn't be a problem if it is read in that vein.
The democrats don’t want kids exposed to anything but their indoctrination. ,racists don’t like competition.
The King James Bible is irrelevant to non English speaking countries. And it is a poor translation of the Hebrew Aramaic and Greek original with a particular religious bias.
About every two days some headline comes up about how some GOP asshat wants to make the country more like Iran. And every two days I’m amazed at how Team MAGA comes up with some complete batshit reason why we should continue to support all their Team Red horseshit. I’ll admit… Trump’s cocksuckers are very imaginative. I’ll give you that.
You’re the spineless faggoty always exalting the virtues of Islam. It will be good when you’re finally gone.
You think he's "exalting the virtues of Islam" by deriding someone for wanting to "make the country more like Iran"?
At least they are open about making the US like Iran today.
What is fascinating is how it exposes the supposed libertarians here as complete hypocrites.
No one thinks they're libertarian.
It is interesting that after 60+ years of banning “prayer in school” the Christian faith is still alive and (annoyingly) well in the USA while countries like Germany and Australia where religious instruction is mandatory in public schools are full of atheists.
If God wants to kill off Christianity He will give the Christian Right what it wants.
Already Christians have been exposed as total hypocrites through their support of a moral degenerate who violates every religious teaching they claim their religion has.
So instead these Christians you speak of should support a man who showered with his 10-year old daughter and takes bribes to sell out his country?
I'm with Charliehall. You Christians need to support the paragon of virtue that is Biden, as he continues to fuck over America. Makes total sense. (Or, charliehall is full of shit and will use any tactic to get the political end he desires.)
It’s always hilarious to read this shit. You democrats are absolute amoral filth, yet you pontificate about Christianity and what Christian’s should do. All while you’re wronging round the clock to destroy Christianity.
So really, fuck off. You’re pure evil.
Which bible?
There are two. The Old Testament is written in Hebrew with a fee passages in Aramaic. The New Testament was independently written in Greek.
If they really wanted to teach Bible they would start teaching Greek and Hebrew.
Almost all the right-wingers here have arguments that fall into one or more of the following categories:
1. “I don’t believe the report”
2. “Plenty of other things are religions as well”
3. “It’s a legitimate reaction to wokeism, cultural Marxism, and the contamination of our precious bodily fluids.”
Obviously you lot feel that parents and churches aren’t up to the job of inculcating religious values in children, and want to leave it to the state.
1 the people saying they don't believe the report have said they are holding their outrage until further information is necessary, because Emma camp is a known liar.
2. Dei, climate change, Marxism, and gender theory all fall under the supreme court litmus test for religion
DEI, climate change, Marxism, gender theory, CRT, are not religions. Saying they are makes you look silly.
They are to leftist filth like you, and your fellow travelers. Many of your mid have even turned atheism into a religion. So stop with your lying bullshit. No one is buying.
They aren't filth and I am no atheist.
They are absolutely filth. And your God is government.
1. Emma Camp may or may not be a liar but she provided an actual link to the actual speech from the actual Superintendent, so pretending that people are waiting for confirmation is moronic.
2. Dei, climate change, Marxism, and gender theory all fall under the supreme court litmus test for religion
Liar. I would ask for a cite but none would be forthcoming in any event.
When MAGA is confronted with facts they retreat into their alternative reality.
Next they will be convinced they can fly and will.be jumping off buildings. Their level of denial is this great.
You leftists defend promoting the woke crap in schools, and many Republicans defend promoting religion in public schools. Why not take the libertarian position of not promoting either the woke shit or religion in public schools?
(the more libertarian position is not to have public schools, but until then, see my position above.)
We tried that, but nature abhors a vacuum. You are better off allowing disparate views compete with each other than removing one and another allowed to grow without competition because it doesn’t meet the arbitrary definition of “religion”.
4. It's a violation of the separation between State & Religion.
5. It's a consequence of Commie-Indoctrination systems.
Of which the majority of right-wing arguments fall into.
But don't let reality get in the way of your cherry-picking needles in a haystack to de-stain right-wingers. After all; That's all the left is about - [WE] gangster building RULES! /s Not as-if party loyalty differences between the two isn't well established.
But our Purity of Essence is in danger!
"The Bible is one of the most historically significant books and a cornerstone of Western civilization
"One of?" It's THE most historically significant book, and it DEFINES Western civilization. Why do you think Christianity was the ONLY thing to survive, and bring us out of the Dark Ages?
Plus, it's a positive message 100% the way through it. It teaches people to be their best, and to reject their worst. The only reason anyone - mystical or secular - might have a problem with it is that it openly defies their singular commandment: if it feels good, do it.
THAT'S what people these days have against the Bible in schools. It's the anathema to the rotten core of progressivism.
You don't have to be a Judeo-Christian to find educational value in the Bible. There's plenty of it there for everyone.
Plus, it’s a positive message 100% the way through it.
Tell me you've not read the Bible without telling me you've not read the Bible.
Tell me you've not read the Bible without telling me you've not read the Bible.
It's a roadmap dude. What could you possibly regard as negative about it?
Its approval or permitting of slavery, of rape (in certain circumstances), of polygamy, of murder, nay, genocide, in the name of God - and support for the death penalty for mere religious violations.
Tell me you’ve not read the Bible without telling me you’ve not read the Bible.
There are no laws against slavery in either OT or NT. There are limits on what one can do to slaves. St Paul, in Ephesias 6:5 "Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear". There is no criticism of slavery itself.
Dt 21 allows you to seize a woman from a defeated enemy and taker her as your wife. The woman has no right to refuse.
Many of the men in the OT, from Jacob to Solomon, have multiple wives. This is nowhere stated as wrong and they are not punished for it.
Let me also refer you to Lev. 20.
Do I need to list the approved genocides?
Why can't you be honest about this? This is what the Bible actually contains.
See, this is just you banging your head against the same wall. Tell me you’ve not read the Bible without telling me you’ve not read the Bible.
This is a problem with secularists in general when it comes to Judeo-Christianity. Granted, some Christians have a habit of it as well (see: Westboro Baptist Church - who are the direct counterpart to secularists), because you zero in on a tree in order to ignore the forest. This is a perfect example:
There is no criticism of slavery itself.
Actually, there's criticism all over the place. Let's go ahead and finish that first verse of yours:
"Slaves, be obedient to your human masters with fear and trembling, in sincerity of heart, as to Christ, not only when being watched, as currying favor, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart, willingly serving the Lord and not human beings, knowing that each will be requited from the Lord for whatever good he does, whether he is slave or free. Masters, act in the same way toward them, and stop bullying, knowing that both they and you have a Master in heaven and that with him there is no partiality."
This is flat out saying that there is NO difference between Slaves and Masters before God. They are the same. And if you're in bondage, then serve God and not your Master - and be rewarded for it in a far greater way than you were denied it by your Master. And to the Masters, the dire warning: FAFO. It's not an advocating for slavery - it's simply recognizing its existence, and providing instruction to both Slave and Master on how to address the subject.
(Also, were you planning to ignore the entire book of Exodus? You know, the one where God - real early on - was raining down Holy fury on the slavers of Egypt? Which, let's go right back to: Tell me you’ve not read the Bible without telling me you’ve not read the Bible.)
And then (ngl, I laughed out loud at how hilariously ignorant this was) you then immediately refer to Deuteronomy 21. Let's follow that verse to its end. "However, if later on you lose your liking for her, you shall give her her freedom, if she wishes it; but you shall not sell her or enslave her, since she was married to under compulsion."
So - another kick in the face to your slavery claim, lol; but let's not ignore the whole "female captivity" thing. Well, here's the thing about warfare and captives in the pre-Christian world: it was pretty darned horrific.
Now, you probably don't know this, but Deuteronomy was basically a deep dive articulation of the Ten Commandments (not to be confused with Leviticus, since you mentioned it, which was basically God screaming at the Israelites to stop doing gross, disgusting, awful stuff so He wouldn't have to go all Sodom and Gomorrah again). And, using those as a basis, it started to articulate specific scenarios that fell under the overall doctrine of Mosiac Law.
Deuteronomy 21:10-14 is a specific scenario DENOUNCING the awful treatment of female captives at the time (which was usually gang rape and being killed or left for dead/to shame), and offering a better solution which went WAY against the cultural norms of that particular era. One which granted the woman a period of mourning and transition following the conquest of her former community, as well as time to assimilate to the conquering culture. And which impressed upon the conquerors some pretty strict instructions about her total freedom should the new husband decide he wasn't all that serious about his marriage.
Pretty progressive for the time, am I right?
So, I mean, you can recite unflattering verses out of context - but it's pretty clear that you've never actually read them IN context, nor made any effort to understand them even slightly. As I've now said repeatedly: Tell me you’ve not read the Bible without telling me you’ve not read the Bible.
Do I need to list the approved genocides?
Sure, go ahead. You show me the tree, I'll be happy to show you the forest.
You know perfectly well I've read the Bible - and unlike you, I can do it in Hebrew of which I understand a fair amount. And you also know that the argument "out of context" is bullshit.
For example, you cite: " “However, if later on you lose your liking for her, you shall give her her freedom, if she wishes it; but you shall not sell her or enslave her, since she was married to under compulsion.”"
So after you've raped her, she now has rights.
And sure, the Hebrew laws on slavery are more humane then elsewhere. But that's not the same as its prohibition.
Further, you made an absolutist claim that only has to be defeated by one counter-example, yet there are many.
As far as genocides go, one obvious one is the slaying of the Amalekites.
You know perfectly well I’ve read the Bible
No, I actually don’t know that. In fact, ngl, I’m kinda thinking you phoned this one in with ChatGPT. Or googled “what are reasons to hate Christianity” and were led to some very slanted websites.
So after you’ve raped her, she now has rights.
Who said anything about rape? That’s you injecting absurd prejudice into it. The Bible goes out of its way, many times, to expressly condemn rape.
If anything, Ephesias is expressly AGAINST rape. Don’t leave the conquered women to the lusts of the conquerors. Give them a better option than the one the ancient world promises otherwise, and show them a lot of respect along the way.
Tell me you’ve not read the Bible without telling me you’ve not read the Bible.
And sure, the Hebrew laws on slavery are more humane then elsewhere. But that’s not the same as its prohibition.
So, what, God can’t be real unless somewhere in the Bible it says, “No slavery!” What, did you want a commandment on the subject? And the absence of such a commandment – despite replete examples of its condemnation written into Mosiac Law – isn’t good enough for you? Such that… maybe you think you should be writing your own Bible?
As far as genocides go, one obvious one is the slaying of the Amalekites.
LOL. Yea, that’s about as much as “genocide” as Israel’s current war against Hamas. Which Hamas started. The Amalekites picked the fight with the Israelites. And they kinda did the same ancient world version of the nonsense that Hamas does today.
Israel slayed the Amalekites because the Amalekites needed slaying. Same way Hamas needs to be wiped off the face of the Earth. Same way the Nazis did. It wasn’t “genocide.” It was self-defense against a mortal enemy that was never ever going to stop trying to kill them.
You paint that as “genocide” because that’s what your hate groups TELL you to think. Trees, forest. Tell me you’ve not read the Bible without telling me you’ve not read the Bible.
Many of the men in the OT, from Jacob to Solomon, have multiple wives. This is nowhere stated as wrong and they are not punished for it.
Maybe it's not wrong. Here's from the Libertarian Party Platform: "1.4 Personal Relationships
Government does not have the authority to define, promote, license, or restrict personal relationships, regardless of the number of participants. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships." - https://www.lp.org/platform/
Were you indoctrinated by substandard parents, or are you afflicted by adult-onset superstition.
Believing in fairy tales is no way to go through life. Try to get better.
What would you rather believe in instead?
Why do I have to believe anything? Why not just go with evidence and hence think certain things are true provisionally?
What is this, if you don't believe in God, then you gotta believe in thje Aesir or sundry other pantheons or the FSM or Yog Sothoth?
Well you believe in something. Probably yourself, right? You get it. You call it evidence. You've done your homework. You know what's what.
So you believe in yourself. Your own - and only your own - understanding of reality, based on "evidence" and what you provisionally think is true?
Very malleable. Relativist, even. You are your own god, correct?
Fallacy of equivocation.
How so?
The only real statement I made was "you believe in something." The rest was idle speculation as to what. My guess was based on what most other people choose to believe in other than God.
Are you a nihilist perhaps? Believing in nothing?
Because "believe" has more than one meaning. For example, I "believe" in myself inasmuch as I have a fair measure of self-confidence. But I don't "believe" in my existence, belief in the sense of thinking that something exists in the absence of objective evidence. I know I exist. I make no claim to divinity, ability to perform miracles, etc or any of the other abilities that gods are supposed to have. I simply have no belief.
Here's a trivial example: assuming you're uninterested in and do not follow football (soccer) if I ask you "do you believe England will beat Netherlands tomorrow"? does your lack of belief in that result mean that you believe that Netherlands will beat England? No. It means you have no belief about the result at all. It is of no interest nor concern. And it does not affect you at all, though someone scream, "but if you don't believe England will win, that means you believe Netherlands will!"
I know I exist.
How?
Descartes had a pretty good explanation, but I'm curious to know yours. What makes you think you're not a figment of MY imagination? Or an NPC that's been tricked into thinking you exist?
I have no proof of your existence. Why should I believe you exist? Because you say you "know" you do? How? What proof does that provide ME?
“do you believe England will beat Netherlands tomorrow”? does your lack of belief in that result mean that you believe that Netherlands will beat England? No. It means you have no belief about the result at all.
All you did there is ask me for a conclusion in which I have no premises available to MAKE a conclusion. The same cannot be said for Christianity.
Am I going to have a slice of pizza or a hot dog tomorrow? There is a correct answer to that question. You just don't know how to answer it.
And the fact that you babble on about reason, while ignoring that very simple reality, is what makes your position ludicrous. And unreasonable.
Choose reason. Every time.
Choose reason. Every time. Especially over sacred ignorance, dogmatic intolerance, childish superstition, and nonsense.
Choose reason. Most especially if you are older than 12 or so. By then, childhood indoctrination and substandard parents fade as an excuse for ignorance, backwardness, superstition, gullibility, and bigotry. By adulthood -- this includes ostensible adulthood -- it is no excuse, not even in Oklahoma, West Virginia, or Idaho.
Choose reason. Every time. And education, freedom, inclusiveness, progress, modernity, and science. Reject superstition, ignorance, authoritarianism, insularity, bigotry, backwardness, and pining for "good old days" that never existed. Not 75 years ago. Not 175 years ago. Not 2,000 years ago, except in fairy tales suitable solely for small children and especially gullible adolescents.
Choose reason. Every time. Be an adult.
Or, at least, try. Otherwise, you could wind up a slack-jawed, superstitious, worthless culture war casualty mired n a half-educated, bigoted, can't-keep-up state such as Oklahoma.
Thank you.
Choose reason. Every time.
It's not incompatible with Christian faith. It's incompatible with any other faith - but with Christianity, it syncs up perfectly. Early Christians knew it, Renaissance Christians knew it (and continue to show it to us to this day), Modern Christians know it. In fact, you can't really have reason without faith. Or, frankly, faith without reason.
They go hand in hand, Art. They always have.
You may as well pluck one eye out, because if you're embracing one while rejecting the other - you're only ever going to see half of the whole. If you don't understand one, you can't fully understand the other. And without fully understanding both, you can't ever know anything that might ever even slightly approximate Truth.
Choose reason. Every time. And education, freedom, inclusiveness, progress, modernity, and science.
I love how you say "choose reason," but then explicitly reject reason in the following sentence.
You may as well have said, "I am my own god. These I declare my commandments."
"Choose reason. Every time.
It’s not incompatible with Christian faith
God sends his son, who is also God to be born of a virgin. The son is 100% human and 100% divine. The son performs miracles. The son is crucified in order to take on all the sins of humanity arising out of humans' original sinful nature (because a talking snake persuaded the first female to eat a fruit), but is resurrected two days later.
Anyone who thinks that any of this is compatible with reason is deluded.
Why?
Is a resurrection compatible with reason? Are miracles?
Of course they are.
We might not fully understand the premises and the argument, but that doesn’t mean they don’t exist.
Consider the resurrection of Christ. Do we know precisely how it worked? Maybe, maybe not – but what we can indisputably establish was that the historical record at the time of Christ Jesus’ death and resurrection was is one of the most – if not the single-most – recorded event in its era. And not just from a singular source. Jewish and Roman historians alike wrote of it – with staggering detail and, more importantly, consistency. And considering the attitudes on the subject at that specific point in time, that’s really saying something.
And with those hostile attitudes in mind, furthermore, consider his followers – especially the Apostles. How did Christianity spread so fast and grow so quickly – and not just in a local area, but in all the areas to which they went to evangelize upon Jesus’ instruction after His death? Before His death, they were denying and betraying Him. And soon after, they were basically just sitting around moping. But then once Jesus returned to them, suddenly they had a mission, a specific direction the travel, and a sudden knowledge of languages not exactly easily found or taught/learned regionally (if you’re unfamiliar with this, google “Pentecost”). And they went out and did that mission knowing they would probably be – and were – killed for it. Nobody does that for no reason. There wasn’t anything in it for them (in this world) except persecution and death. The fact that they did – and the fact that all this was recorded – allows us to reasonably conclude that they experienced something profound, perhaps unexplainable to this day, but still very real.
Something real happened. There would not be volume of record, with the level of consistency there is; nor the sudden and intense growth throughout all known regions – especially the ones openly hostile to it, which was most of them – if not for something real.
And if your counterargument is that the Apostles, Jews, and Romans alike were all engaged in some kind of large group con – to try and trick all of known humanity for some reason from which none of them materially profited in any way (and most of them died for it), and that it persisted in this fashion for about three centuries until Constantine came along – well then I’m sorry my friend, but Occam’s Razor.
Your problem, if I may be blunt, is that you think Reason and Faith are in competition with each other. They’re not. You seem to think that accepting one means rejecting the other. It doesn’t. Both Reason and Faith want the same exact thing: to understand Truth. And both understand the principle core of logic: if your premises are false, your conclusion will be invalid. The secular are ignoring the faithful premises; and the faithful (to a much lesser degree) sometimes ignore the secular premises.
You need both. You need to understand both halves in order to see the whole. This is reasoning at its very core.
what we can indisputably establish was that the historical record at the time of Christ Jesus’ death and resurrection was is one of the most – if not the single-most – recorded event in its era. And not just from a singular source. Jewish and Roman historians alike wrote of it – with staggering detail and, more importantly, consistency.
You're lying, and furthermore, there are no eyewitness accounts. Nor is there consistency, e.g., the resurrection of the thousands of righteous, a more remarkable event than the resurrection of Jesus is not to be found in all accounts - indeed, in any other than Matthew.
The rest is just apologetics bullshit - credible only for the credulous, convincing only for the already convinced.
And unconvincing to those who intentionally aim to deny.
Admit it, SRG - if I had absolute proof of the resurrection of Christ, you'd find a way to dismiss it out of hand, wouldn't you.
Because, as I said earlier - it would interfere with what you want to believe instead: that you are your own God and Savior. And therefore you get to define everything subjectively.
I’m an atheist. However, I care a lot more about a person’s politics than his or her religion. I’m a lot more affected by people’s politics than their religion. Though I’m an atheist, I much prefer a Christian libertarian than a collectivist atheist. At least a libertarian is not going to force his or her religion upon me, unlike the collectivist who would force his or her beliefs on me and forcibly suppress mine.
It was Marx who said that religion is the opium of the people. As a libertarian, I want opium to be legal. There's a whole lot of hard unpleasant facts in life. So long as a religious person is willing to respect my rights, I have no desire to strip away his or her religion if it brings him or her comfort,
The only good thing about the idea is it cheeses off the secularists (see directly above – though they’ll fundraise off of it for the next 100 years, so maybe they won’t hate it as much as they will let on).
Flipping open the Bible to a random page, or (worse) giving it to some secular government employee to select passages, is the worst way to learn about the Bible.
The people holding power in the secular government today – including the Catholics – will if given the opportunity try to Protestantize the Bible and use it to subserve who knows what end (randomly developed or developed by committee).
> "The separation of church and state appears nowhere in the Declaration of Independence or Constitution."
But does appear in the First Amendment.
Can we not teach religious voodoo stories in school and instead teach something useful like… “Introduction to Logic ” and " The Fundamentals of Reasoning " ?
We can't do that until we stop hiring the stupidest students to graduate from college as teachers and school administrators.
Well, GLWT when the bearded dude in a dress is trying to force kids to call him "her."