And plenty who are not. Likely more who are not extreme than that are.
Teacher fired for giving Bible to student
- Thread starter LDB
- Start date
And plenty who are not. Likely more who are not extreme than that are.
Hence the term... "extremists."
I can't believe the outrage over a teacher getting fired for breaking the rules - if he'd responded to a question about sex by showing the kid photos & giving him a condom, would the reaction be the same?
Even though the whole zero tolerance thing can get stupid, the rules exist for a reason, and it's not to bash the Bible or Christians. The prohibition against giving kids religious literature is one many here would jump to defend if the religion in question were other than their own, I bet.
The premise of the article cited [by the most egregiously misnamed writer ever!] is just so much absolute swill that it's scary to think people actually believe that crap.
As DaveKC points out, the schools aren't supposed to be teaching kids what to think, but how. To do that, the kids need to be exposed to different thoughts, ideas, and beliefs, which they judge worthy of credit or not.
Some parents don't like that, and the list of actual books banned from schools in the US due to parents complaints is just jaw dropping:
Catcher in the Rye, JD Salinger
The Grapes of Wrath, Of Mice & Men, John Steinbeck
To Kill a Mockingbird, Harper Lee
Catch 22, Joseph Heller
A Farewell to Arms, Ernest Hemingway
Brave New World, Aldous Huxley
Animal Farm, 1984, George Orwell
Gone With the Wind, Margaret Mitchell
Beloved, Toni Morrisson
The Lord of the Rings, JRR Tolkien
Harry Potter, JK Dowling
Slaughterhouse 5, Kurt Vonnegut
I've read every single one of the books listed, and the reasons cited by parents for forbidding their own [and their neighbors'] children from discussing the books in class are just incredible: language, violence, sex, incest, immorality, - as if none of those appear in the Bible! Personally, I made it a point to read what my kids read, and discuss it with them, but these parents want to keep their kids from even reading Harry Potter, for cryin out loud!
Religion is an important part of education, same as history - I want my kids to learn to compare and contrast, and to choose what they believe to be true.
That's not what many parents want from religion in the school, though - they want their own religion promoted, period.
As noted, we unfortunately allow parents to abuse their power in frightening ways, and what we get for it is ignorant adults like the one who wrote the article cited.
Even though the whole zero tolerance thing can get stupid, the rules exist for a reason, and it's not to bash the Bible or Christians. The prohibition against giving kids religious literature is one many here would jump to defend if the religion in question were other than their own, I bet.
The premise of the article cited [by the most egregiously misnamed writer ever!] is just so much absolute swill that it's scary to think people actually believe that crap.
As DaveKC points out, the schools aren't supposed to be teaching kids what to think, but how. To do that, the kids need to be exposed to different thoughts, ideas, and beliefs, which they judge worthy of credit or not.
Some parents don't like that, and the list of actual books banned from schools in the US due to parents complaints is just jaw dropping:
Catcher in the Rye, JD Salinger
The Grapes of Wrath, Of Mice & Men, John Steinbeck
To Kill a Mockingbird, Harper Lee
Catch 22, Joseph Heller
A Farewell to Arms, Ernest Hemingway
Brave New World, Aldous Huxley
Animal Farm, 1984, George Orwell
Gone With the Wind, Margaret Mitchell
Beloved, Toni Morrisson
The Lord of the Rings, JRR Tolkien
Harry Potter, JK Dowling
Slaughterhouse 5, Kurt Vonnegut
I've read every single one of the books listed, and the reasons cited by parents for forbidding their own [and their neighbors'] children from discussing the books in class are just incredible: language, violence, sex, incest, immorality, - as if none of those appear in the Bible! Personally, I made it a point to read what my kids read, and discuss it with them, but these parents want to keep their kids from even reading Harry Potter, for cryin out loud!
Religion is an important part of education, same as history - I want my kids to learn to compare and contrast, and to choose what they believe to be true.
That's not what many parents want from religion in the school, though - they want their own religion promoted, period.
As noted, we unfortunately allow parents to abuse their power in frightening ways, and what we get for it is ignorant adults like the one who wrote the article cited.
Just the opposite. They're (I'm assuming that's what you meant to say) worthy precisely because you don't believe it, simply by virtue that many people do, so it's imperative that you are at least aware of it and understand it. Otherwise, you are forming opinions about people and what motivates them based on ignorance. People are constantly forming opinions of race, religion sexual orientation, pretty much everything that you're not supposed to discriminate against, based largely on prejudicial ignorance. To purposely advocate doing that very thing is a major step backwards for some of the very things you are so passionate about.
How, Chief! Me-um no god. Me-um turtle. Something wrong with Kosher Horse. Horse say you heap big silly. Sitting Bulldozer agree.
Your a devout agnostic? I believe that, The greek definition of that word means without knowledge.
Greek roots
agnosia (root: agnos, o=omega) = ignorance.
agnostikos = unintelligible.
agnosia (root: agnos, o=omega) = ignorance.
agnostikos = unintelligible.
Tennesseahawk
Veteran Expediter
You're absolutely right! Public schools are where you go to stifle the mind, not explore. How dare anyone think about anything, other than getting a high grade on "No stock boy left behind."
Most of the walking dead have PHD's. They are teaching in our colleges,imho. That way they have an audience 8 hrs a day that can't run away because if they do, they are flunked out. In many classes you are not allowed to disagree with the PHD, been there . Just the same in government, you disagree and no one listens, to much power. People get mad, tired of being sheetze on all the time, so u know what hits the fan, everyone is running around in circles. There is no foundation for decency, no manners,no rules,and an open society runs a muck. Social values, well no one can remember social values, its not allowed anymore.................religion has been explained away to a big bang theory, poof and we are here.
Between Agnostics and Atheist, and Scientology, all is well, just look around, ain't it all well joe, ain't it.?...............Our Father who are in Heaven-Look at the mess we've made.
Between Agnostics and Atheist, and Scientology, all is well, just look around, ain't it all well joe, ain't it.?...............Our Father who are in Heaven-Look at the mess we've made.
Last edited:
Your a devout agnostic? I believe that, The greek definition of that word means without knowledge.
Absolutely correct. I do not have the knowledge to make any kind of determination one way or the other as to God's existence.
An atheist states with an absolute certainty that God does not exist. A theist states with the same absolute certainty that God does, in fact, exist. Both side are quite certain about this, which can only mean one of them is absolutely one hundred percent dead wrong. I'm gonna go with whichever side can prove their claim.
snopes.com: Albert Einstein Humiliates Atheist Yes this is from snopes, it is long, but a good read,imho.
Thank you for that honest answer and for taking my question in the spirit as it was meant.
The idea that core beliefs can only come from religious convictions is pretty good for the religious leaders, but it's wrong. I know a lot of atheists and agnostics, every one of whom has strong core beliefs, including myself.
Also self serving is the idea that sex is only for procreation, and only within the bonds of holy matrimony. It works for the Church [ever increasing new membership numbers, & devoted priests and nuns], but for individuals? Not so much.
There's a whole lot of hasty and bad marriages behind that one, methinks, not to mention the parents who shouldn't be.
Also self serving is the idea that sex is only for procreation, and only within the bonds of holy matrimony. It works for the Church [ever increasing new membership numbers, & devoted priests and nuns], but for individuals? Not so much.
There's a whole lot of hasty and bad marriages behind that one, methinks, not to mention the parents who shouldn't be.
Don't think so. Religious beliefs are only a small subset of one's core beliefs. One of my core beliefs, for example, is that a free market system works, and works best without government or any other outside influence. Didn't need religion to come to believe that.
No.
However, it was the logical implication of your words in post #131, to which Turtle responded.
You didn't say he misunderstood, so why are you asking me?
No, it is not a logical implication of my words. I did not ever word it that way in the slightest.
I certainly didn't infer it that way. I stated my religious core beliefs in the reply only because I wanted to keep the reply in the context of the subject of the thread.