KY Bill allowing Bible literacy classes in public schools

[BmorePat87]

(03-15-2016, 02:51 PM)bfine32 Wrote: When was the Constitution composed? Word for Word...

May 25th 1787 to September 17th 1787. Sad that I know that off the top of my head.

[fredtoast]

(03-15-2016, 02:51 PM)bfine32 Wrote: When was the Constitution composed? Word for Word...

How tall is the Eiffel Tower?

[*bfine32*]

(03-15-2016, 02:52 PM)SteelCitySouth Wrote: Nope...It's not even the same year.  Try again.

 Oh, i just thought you got the year wrong. i should have known better.

[*bfine32*]

(03-15-2016, 02:54 PM)fredtoast Wrote: How tall is the Eiffel Tower?

I thought you were looking for reference to Christianity in the Constitution:

Article VII reads, "done in Convention … the Seventeenth Day of September in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America."

But to answer your other question: 984 ft

[SteelCitySouth]

(03-15-2016, 02:54 PM)bfine32 Wrote:  Oh, i just thought you got the year wrong. i should have known better.

You probably should have.  Since, you know, as I stated before, your question was put to rest by Adams (and unanimously in the Senate) in 1797.

[BmorePat87]

I assumed this thread was for serious discussion of the philosophical and religious influences on the Constitution.

Apparently I was wrong. I guess this is why Matt checked out.

[fredtoast]

(03-15-2016, 02:53 PM)bfine32 Wrote: That's just a bumper sticker you read once and it stuck with you. No one is suggesting anyone's religious freedoms be infringed upon.

You are trying to argue that the religious freedoms guaranteed in the Constitution only apply to Christianity because that is the only religion the Founding Fathers would ever talk about.  So if the protections don't apply these other religions are going to be subject to all sorts of discrimination.

(03-15-2016, 02:53 PM)bfine32 Wrote: The discussion is about teaching the Bible in school. I was taught Evolution in school; were my religious beliefs infringed upon?

Were you treated any differently from any other person based on your religion?  If not then "No" your religious beliefs were not infringed upon.  Evolution is taught based on scientific principle, not religion.

[*bfine32*]

(03-15-2016, 03:00 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Were you treated any differently from any other person based on your religion?  If not then "No" your religious beliefs were not infringed upon.  Evolution is taught based on scientific principle, not religion.

...and the discussion in the OP before it got derailed was should the Bible be used as a learning tool in schools in a non-relgious capacity. No one will be treated differently because of their religion; they may just disagree with the content.

[*bfine32*]

(03-15-2016, 02:58 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: I assumed this thread was for serious discussion of the philosophical and religious influences on the Constitution.

Apparently I was wrong. I guess this is why Matt checked out.

Pretty sure it was to discuss using the bible as a teaching tool in schools.

But as to the current discussion I offer this:

Quote:Some claim that the Declaration is not really a founding document since it was not designed to establish a new nation but only to establish a legal argument of separation from British rule. But the Constitution does not see it this way. In the same sentence that references 'in the Year of Our Lord,' we find 'and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth.' 'The Twelfth' is a reference to the Declaration of Independence which was written twelve years earlier and uses non-neutral religious terms like 'endowed by their Creator,' 'the laws of nature and of nature's God,' 'with a firm reliance on DIVINE PROVIDENCE', and 'the Supreme Judge of the world.' While these are not specifically Christian phrases, they certainly aren't religiously neutral."

As to why matt ask, you'll have to ask him, as I have found this thread to be refreshingly free of personal insults. Given there are a few, but they are cleverly veiled and not of the overt variety

[Belsnickel]

(03-15-2016, 03:08 PM)bfine32 Wrote: As to why matt ask, you'll have to ask him, as I have found this thread to be refreshingly free of personal insults. Given there are a few, but they are cleverly veiled and not of the overt variety

Actually, as frustrated as I am with the education related to history exhibited, this has been rather refreshing. But my frustrations are more related to being a Virginian than anything. It's a point of pride with us.

[Nebuchadnezzar]

http://www.csnradio.com/tema/links/SmithsonianLetter.pdf

The start of paragraph three is rather interesting.

Quote:In short, it is impossible to verify the actual events recorded in the Biblical account of the flood. On the other hand, much of the Bible, in particular the historical books of the Old Testament are as accurate historical documents as any that we have found from antiquity and are more accurate than many of the Egyptian, Mesopotamian or Greek histories.

Is the Bible a historical document?

I would say it is, you may not and that's ok, it's your choice.

[Belsnickel]

(03-15-2016, 03:27 PM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: http://www.csnradio.com/tema/links/SmithsonianLetter.pdf
The start of paragraph three is rather interesting.
Is the Bible a historical document?

I would say it is, you may not and that's ok, it's your choice.

I would make the argument that it can be used as a historical text, but what should be used is what can be corroborated with other texts. The problem with using the Bible alone is that it is a narrative for a specific purpose, preserving the history of a certain group of people based on their oral traditions up to that point. What becomes problematic is that there are biases with this, just like with pretty much any historical text we come across. What is important to do in order to provide a solid foundation for the history is to use all of the sources and find common ground in them. This helps provide a more accurate representation of historical events from times before meticulous record keeping and other forms of media were available.

[fredtoast]

(03-15-2016, 03:27 PM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: http://www.csnradio.com/tema/links/SmithsonianLetter.pdf



On the other hand, much of the Bible, in particular the historical books of the Old Testament are as accurate historical documents as any that we have found from antiquity and are more accurate than many of the Egyptian, Mesopotamian or Greek histories.

This just is not true at all.

I don't know of a single Old Testament Story that has any historical proof behind it.  Some of the cities mentioned actually existed, but there is no historical proof of any of the stories.

[BmorePat87]

(03-15-2016, 03:08 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Pretty sure it was to discuss using the bible as a teaching tool in schools.

But as to the current discussion I offer this:



As to why matt ask, you'll have to ask him, as I have found this thread to be refreshingly free of personal insults. Given there are a few, but they are cleverly veiled and not of the overt variety

The concept of our country being founded on religious principles was introduced fairly early and became a central talking point in this discussion. It was pretty good, but as Matt pointed out, the facts were a bit wrong. That's fine, but the last page and a half then became a snarky pissing match without any intelligent thought. 

Certainly better than some threads, but this one had some good potential. 

As for your comments, I get where you're coming from, but I reject it idea that they are not religiously neutral terms. Jefferson himself was a fairly religiously neutral man. While he a lot from Locke, who was influenced by Calvinism and enlightenment interpretations of faith, he still adapted it into his own thought. Some want to label him deist, some just call his beliefs highly unorthodox, but it's safe to say that he viewed Jesus as merely a man and religion as something that can be developed by the individual apart from conventional Christian thought. 

If we were to make a list of the founding principles of the United States, would they mirror Christianity or Enlightenment thought?Sure, the  majority of these men were baptized Christian, but did that have the influence in our foundation that many make it out to have had?

[BFritz21]

(03-14-2016, 10:28 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: If there is enough interest, then I could see it being a problem, but I don't think that there would be enough interest.

I don't see any problem with this if they're teaching it as historical connotation and not as religious connotation.  

They're not saying "this is true," but rather "this is what it says."

To anyone that has a problem with this, let me ask you this one question:  Do you have a problem with the Crusades being taught in public schools?  More specifically, do you have a problem with teaching kids the reason the Muslims wanted the city?  Wouldn't teaching that Muslims believe that Jerusalem is where Muhammed ascended into Heaven be violating the separation of Church and state in the same way that teaching the Bible would be violating the separation?


What's the difference?

Why has no one argued against the highlighted part?

[GMDino]

(03-15-2016, 05:15 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: Why has no one argued against the highlighted part?

Studying how religions killed each other over their respective fantasies beliefs is history...not religious instruction.

Do you know how many Jewish people were killed by crusaders?

[*bfine32*]

(03-15-2016, 04:05 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: The concept of our country being founded on religious principles was introduced fairly early and became a central talking point in this discussion. It was pretty good, but as Matt pointed out, the facts were a bit wrong. That's fine, but the last page and a half then became a snarky pissing match without any intelligent thought. 

Certainly better than some threads, but this one had some good potential. 

As for your comments, I get where you're coming from, but I reject it idea that they are not religiously neutral terms. Jefferson himself was a fairly religiously neutral man. While he a lot from Locke, who was influenced by Calvinism and enlightenment interpretations of faith, he still adapted it into his own thought. Some want to label him deist, some just call his beliefs highly unorthodox, but it's safe to say that he viewed Jesus as merely a man and religion as something that can be developed by the individual apart from conventional Christian thought. 

If we were to make a list of the founding principles of the United States, would they mirror Christianity or Enlightenment thought?Sure, the  majority of these men were baptized Christian, but did that have the influence in our foundation that many make it out to have had?

I completely understand what you are saying and that's why I suggested that all major religions should be taught and done so proportionate to the society. The only counter to that was: "What if they go somewhere else it the world when they grow up?" My answer to that, like everything else relevant to the new society is expatriate training and familiarization.

[Belsnickel]

(03-15-2016, 05:15 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: Why has no one argued against the highlighted part?

Truthfully? Because the answer I would type out would be wasted energy exerted.

[SteelCitySouth]

(03-15-2016, 05:22 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I completely understand what you are saying and that's why I suggested that all major religions should be taught and done so proportionate to the society. The only counter to that was: "What if they go somewhere else it the world when they grow up?" My answer to that, like everything else relevant to the new society is expatriate training and familiarization.

I have no problem with a world religions class as an elective in high school.  I think however it should be inversely proportionate to the society.  You should be learning new things in school not reviewing what you leaned in Bible study.

[Bengalzona]

(03-15-2016, 03:59 PM)fredtoast Wrote: This just is not true at all.

I don't know of a single Old Testament Story that has any historical proof behind it.  Some of the cities mentioned actually existed, but there is no historical proof of any of the stories.

I would agree that there is no proof for individual stories in the old testament. But, the existence of the cities, nations, peoples, cultures, etc. are and have been useful in historic research, just has it has with other cultures and religions.