- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
I would like to go back to having all education be paid for by the parents, with it being their choice where to have their children attend and what curriculum they were going to learn! No Common Core. No false standards. Religion or not according to your choice.
We would have less reason to be angry with our neighbors over religion.
I don't get what all this is about.
children are fathered "in absentia" by non-objectivist
males who often "beat their chests" with evidence
of their prowess -- car keys, beer cans and emmies,
not PhDs -- and also that we people guard our borders
like territorial apes.
I happen to like borders, myself. it's a family's privilege
to admit others selectively. -- j
I have no issue teaching the bible as a great book, along with the qur'an and others, as long as it is not taught as fact. However, a whole class dedicated to just the bible (which one by the way?) does not belong in public secondary education. Perhaps in college.
This is just another example of a grab for power and influence by a zealot.
I'm amazed!
Actually, if you were to attempt to strip out any passages that are important to one denomination or another, there would not be much left. However it simply must be taught as historical fact at some level or you are cutting out a lot of the history of western civilization.
A few years ago I was fortunate to attend a class on the history of western civ taught by a professor who did not make it his life's mission to cut any reference to religion out of these courses. A class I suffered through in the 70's was one such and I heard that this professor taught history as it was. I found it incredibly educating.
This subject is really supposed to be a class that opens the history of our civilization and unifies it with political history. This professor was successful.
Stripping the religious relevance had removed all the meaning of the subject for me for years. It was so enlightening that I taught the class, in a compressed format at our church a few years back. Reviewing my notes and his textbook (authored by him and self published through the university) rekindled the love of history I've had my entire life.
Now back to your suggestion that the class book, The Bible, be taught as it's written, without interpretation. Actually, that's exactly as our church uses the bible. What the words say is what they mean. We use the King James Bible and without hours of one on one, I can't go into here, so just allow me to choose one so that we eliminate interpretation. As for not being allowed to condemn atheism - do you just not teach those verses? Isn't that censorship?
Honestly, and this is going to surprise you, I don't encourage teaching the bible at public schools at lower than a college level. It can far too easily turn into something that neither you or I want. But the exclusion of the history that intersects with the bible is wrong. Pretending that religion does not exist by the schools is wrong. Teaching that the earth can and should be worshiped as some holy relic as you proclaim that you will not mention God or allow a bible in the library is fundamentally wrong and intellectually dishonest.
We may not agree but we don't have to be enemies just because I'm a Christian and you elect to not be. It's a choice.
The truth is that we do. There are two lines of text available to bible scholars today, the Vaticanius and the textus receptious. As might be determined by their name, the Vaticanius text is the path followed by the catholic church and the textus receptious is used by everybody else including Martin Luther and the 54 men involved in the translation of the KJV. This is also why we use it.
The Vaticanious was used by almost all the translators who have developed the other versions you see on the market.
There is far more background to this than I'm going to list here, but in the true spirit of the gulch, lets follow the money for a moment. The King James Bible is not copyrighted. You can print it and copy it and pay nobody for the rights to it. It is truly in the public domain. You can make money by printing it and selling copies and you can add notes to it that may be copywritted, but not the text. Nobody "owns" the word of God.
Here's the key difference - ALL of the newer versions are copywritted and some of that fee goes back to the Catholic Church for use of it's text.
I agree. With all our knowledge and ability, scholars ought to be able to come up with a reasonably good translation. It won't be 100% prefect, but clearly people read works in translation all the time.
My personal incontrovertible heartfelt faith is that each of us comes to know Truth once before we die - if we are lucky (or blessed). Short of that, I am an atheist.
Always keep in mind "Deep Thought" my friend :) That's me with these questions - The answer is "4".
Be Well!
I am completely fine with that as long as you don't state is like that as if God were particularly focused on that one rule. You'd have to teach the dietary restrictions, the binding of Issac, Lot and his daughters, and so on.
Look guys, I know you aren't buying anything I say about it so it really doesn't matter anyway. It's my belief and I don't demand you follow it or study it. Just respect that I have as much right to it as you do to reject it.
The whole mentality of Objectivism is that it is a PHILOSOPHY. It is going to have obvious differences with other religions and philosophies. That's okay. That's where we use our gray matter, powers of reasoning, and common civility to discuss all the possibilities, from which we all choose.
"Like-minded" does not mean promoting religion and does not mean that all philosophies are equal like choosing from a Chinese menu, let alone equal to religion among "all possibilities". You can believe whatever your want, but "discussion" does not mean promoting false ideas contrary to the purpose of the forum, which is inappropriate.
And I'm not sure how long you've been on this forum, but the participants post a very wide range of topics. Don't like some of the threads? Don't participate in them. But it is "inappropriate" to attempt to limit what may be posted. That's why the feedback arrows are there - so that EVERYONE in aggregate votes on the merits of a particular post.
As for promoting false ideas, I'm again not sure where you're coming from. Everything we talk about on these forums are ideas each individual picks and chooses from based on their experiences, knowledge, rational deduction, etc. We each - individually - choose what we want to believe in. The only "inappropriate" actions are demeaning others for their beliefs - whether you happen to share them or not.
Spend some time on the forum and you'll find out that LetsShrug is a staunch Objectivist, as are dbhalling and khalling. stargeezer is an older, Christian gentleman. Robbie is a Catholic. Mephaesdus is pro-homosexual. We've got a nice melting pot here of non-conformity that encourages thorough debate and the topics range far and wide.
You do not have the privilege to discriminate against me for my exercise of this right and just as it's very poor form to verbally (or via written word) to engage in discrimination on the basis of race, sex, color it's also discrimination to accuse one of engaging in "mystical primitivism from thousands of years ago" in the exercise of that religion, just as any would consider it great discrimination (and very poor taste) to accuse a Native American of being racially lacking in intellectual acuity.
There are certain protected classes recognized by law and those who choose to engage in religion ARE one such class.
In the common parlance of today, "Get over it".
Your premise that no one has a right to "discriminate" against you through denouncing and rejecting false ideas is wrong and morally reprehensible. It contradicts the freedom of speech you disingenuously claim as your defense. Your irrational and false characterization as 'racist' an open rejection of your mysticism is equally disgusting. Rational people _are_ discriminating in what they accept or tolerate. "Judge and be prepared to be judged."
Your obnoxious "get over it" attempt to shove your religion down our throats in a new militant dhimmitude under the force of law and collectivist notion of a "protected class" demanding obsequious respect is disgusting. And it illustrates the inevitable use of brute force by those following faith, i.e., anti-reason.
You have a political right to believe what you want, and for _government_ to not suppress your expression of ideas where someone wants to listen to you or will tolerate it. You have no right in the name of "exercise" of religion to demand that others submit to your nonsense, respect you for it, or refrain from rejecting or denouncing it.
The attempt to stifle the free speech of somebody just because you don't like it, are challenged by it or just plain reject it is NOT in keeping with ANY of the tenants that Ayn Rand escaped communist Russia to partake.
As for the clear language of the first amendment, there's no question that the supreme court HAS found that religious speech is protected speech in ANY venue opened to the public. I.E., the Gulch, where, unlike you evw, I AM a paying member. I could care less for your respect, but you must understand that discrimination against a person for their exercising religious speech is a violation of that persons civil rights.
"Like-minded" does not mean promoting religion and does not mean your trashing those who reject it, which are the opposite of Atlas Shrugged, and are not "promoting the movie". You post here at the discretion of the owners, not by "right".
You are very confused about freedom of speech, "exercise of religion", and the Supreme Court. It pertains to freedom from government suppression, not a "right" to impose yourself anywhere you want on others' property and not a "right" to suppress the freedom of speech of others to reject your belligerent militant mysticism as a supposed "protected class" from "discrimination". Rejection of your belligerent nonsense and threats of legal liability is not a violation of your "civil rights", not "racism", and not contrary to Ayn Rand's principles, which also emphatically reject your pronouncements. It has nothing to do with escaping from communist Russia, which had more in common with your own statism and collectivism.
The Bible and teaching about the Bible belongs in the home or the church as well as a person's religious proclivity or non- belief no differently than someone's sexuality. IMHO
For example, the entire nation of Israel spent around 300 years living in Egypt. This began as an amicable arrangement during a bad drought in their homeland and degraded to the point where the nation was in complete servitude.
The written history of Egypt only records references to the Israeli man who rose to became a leader in Egypt and his wisdom and then it references the slave revolt where Israel left Egypt. We know the leader that lead Israel out of Egypt as Moses and without the Bible all of this history would have been lost.
These histories and many more can be taught without interjecting specific doctrines. And I believe that pretending that it does not exist does our children a great disservice. This campaign to extract religion that's being directed to remove any vestige of religion or that there is a part of religious life in this world that's going to be left out of school is not offering education, it's programming. To not teach a thing is to pretend it does not exist.
What do you tell kids about the building some people go to on sunday? What about the section at a library where there are books under key that require special permission to read? Will we soon have public book burnings, but they will be OK since they are religious books?
You may abhor proselytizing, but is it only for religion that it's "evil"? I seem to recall a recent correction (that I was right about) :) dealing with homosexuals - THAT class which is not mentioned in the "bill of rights" is "good", but religion, which is a protected class expressly laid out, first point in the first amendment is "bad"?
I understand that you don't like religion and I'm not going to even wonder why you feel so, it's your "right". But I have rights too. I can mention God in public places and forums such as this. I can even hand out pamphlets and flyers about special services like one we had a couple weeks back - the speaker was a historian who taught us about the revolution - pretty heady stuff there - we even opened with a prayer. And if some businessman were to refuse to sell flowers to me because of my faith, I won't sue, but I will be looking for a flag with a swastika or even the hammer and sickle. And like Ayn Rand, I'll be looking for a boat out - except if America falls, where do we turn for freedom?
I do not understand religion, but I don't like the way some atheists think it's okay to belittled and disrespect it. We should stick to refuting it when it ventures into scientific claims. I'm guilty of calling it talking to your imaginary friends, which isn't nice, but I feel that way when people of one religion think they're superior to people of another religion.
Did you just say the whole Old Testament was thrown out by the New Testament? That's a question probably best answered in theology class, not a short post.
First the old testament is around 70% historical record, so that's not affected in any way, just like some historical update because some archeological dig found some revolutionary data.
Then there are the 10% of the verses which are poetry - they're not effected except the verses that predicted Christ's coming were answered by his arrival.
Which brings up the prophetical verses which were, to us gentiles, fulfilled.
Lastly there were the verses that specifically dealt with the Jewish law. That accounted for around 1/2 of the book of Exodus and the retelling of the law in Deuteronomy. That is in essence a retelling of the law (there are reasons for it but it's not pertinent right now).
When Christ arrived, lived his life and was crucified, that ended a age called a dispensation. There have been a few such dispensations such as the dispensation of Law which was what the Jewish age was named. By definition a dispensation describes how God interacts with man. Under The law, Jewish man was justified before Gos by obeying all of the law. The law is also called the schoolmaster since it was supposed to teach mankind how to reach God and his sins against God were corrected, or covered by sacrifices.
The dispensation of Grace is what we live under today. Jesus, through his death on the cross paid the debt of sacrifice for believers for this dispensation of time. In short we say that the OT Law was fulfilled. There are no longer s need for all that because Jesus paid our debt for all time. All we need to do to have that debt of guilt covered is to just accept what he did for us. Sin debt paid in full. without our ever doing anything to earn it.
That's why it's called the age of grace. And that's why I say "the law" (and only the law portion) of the OT was fulfilled.
BTW, when you said the OT law fulfilled, I thought for a sec you meant Jesus paid time-and-a-half. j/k. Thanks for the explanation.
Why is it necessary "... for the material ..."?
A statement is a statement. One one may agree with it or not.
I just wish we could all send our kids to schools of our choice, even if they demean humanist/atheists (i.e. me). I am confident that a rational scientific view of the world delivers the goods, i.e. predicts the results of experiments, lets people make iPhones and jet planes and so on, so I don't need to tax people's money and then offer them free secular education.
I agree. Historically people learned to read and write in public schools with Biblical tracts. I think that was approaching establishing a religion b/c they focused on one religion. Now it's easier just to ignore it, even though it's a big part of history.
Oh, wait... establishment of religion.... nm.
Moreover, you cannot ban an idea - not truly and effectively. Christians endure. Atlas Shrugged also endures. If you go here - http://aynrandnovels.org/essay-contests.... - you can see that kids in CATHOLIC schools enter and win these Ayn Rand Essay contests.
Like other ancient texts, the Bible is full of data that can be of use for archeologists. (Both the Bible and the Viking Sagas have pointed to places where excavations have been rewarding, for example.) Like other ancient texts, the Bible is full of inaccuracies and is not scientifically true - for instance, there were apparently a series of 4 or 5 'King Solomons'...the last of the set was given a camel (which had not yet been domesticated when the first of the set reigned).
I do not worship Odin because of the Sagas nor Zeus because of the Iliad; I do not worship Yahweh because of the Bible. But it is an interesting ancient text and I am enthused about it being taught as such.
Jan
I'd just like to make a note that Noah's daughter's were committing a huge sin and a violation when they acted as they did. In no place are there any scriptural orders "that you should get your father drunk and have sex with him". This was a historical event that took place and is a key representation of where some error by not understanding the areas of the bible that are historical, poetic or prophetic in nature. A common error, just as the order to drag the body of the Philistine King around that city you referred to. History, not a commandment of some religious act.
I recall that there were some horrific acts carried out on both side in our "Indian Wars" that are historical facts but are not standing orders for the US Army. Correct?
I will be delighted to look up the Solomons of the bible and the puzzle of the camel and send you the links or info...but please give me a bit of time to do this. And thank you, this is the type of discussion I enjoy.
Jan
I forgot to commit about Lot's daughters. Lot was the spiritual leader of his family in those days and while he, like any father was troubled about his daughters chances for marriage after the cities were overturned.
The daughters, outside of their father's knowledge got him drunk and proceeded as you outlined. All of this including the daughters conversation and collusion between themselves was OUTSIDE of God's path for them or Lot. They had no secret orders from God or their father. They acted alone.
This also led to the birth son's who become two nations which were big thorns in Israel's side since the event, Ammon and Moab. Take a look at what nations these two become. The biblical lesson is that by acting outside of God's plan, you bring on shame and ruin. Again you might need to know these two in a thousand years AND today. Yes they are still around and still making problems for Israel.
If it's the case with Solomon that I know of, it's a historical problem. The camel MAY be about the level of domesticity. Many would argue that they are not domesticated today - a view my personal experience would have no problem with. :) But they were used as beasts of burden far longer ago than even 7,00BC.
I await. (I so appreciate respectful discourse. Thank you)
The intentional misuse of the so called "Exclusion Clause" makes me apoplectic,
principally because those people who are using it to deny the existence of God, prevent those of us who do, from worshiping or observing as we might chose to do.
It is the Tyranny of the Minority! Imposing their will on others.
And in so far as the Un-Constitutional U.S. Department of Education goes, we need to sue them, along with all the other progressive alpha-numeric farm in Washington, out of existence in the Courts.
and self-righteousness. For that reason, until kids are of college maturity and thus able (at least from a physical standpoint) to study a religious tract intellectually, I feel that the Bible should be banned from public schools. Parochial schools are fine:) As others have pointed out here, if there were no publicly funded schools in the first place, this controversy would not exist.
corrected....
The Immortal Bard?
Sauce for the gander....
There is absolutely no way to have a Bible class what will not be slanted to one side or another, Even in a setting that views all sides as ignorant primitives ("SECULAR" included)..
in-oklahoma#vy1UfhC2vI5ptRl1.99
Past tense of the verb "fahren" (to travel) as I recall. And it does sound funny -- chuckle.
There is no record of the ancient Church referencing the "apocryphal" books. Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Polycarp, etc... none of them in their writings ever reference those books or letters. That's why protestants don't include them, the "Church" never did until the middle of the dark ages.
"LGBT are sexes, not sexual appetites".
I don't know if I can show you a military without homosexuals without going back to WWII.
Just because you get turned on by football players (btw, those "tight uniforms" are tight because of the foam padding under them), doesn't mean that the uniforms or the actions are "homo-erotic":
A psychiatrist gives a man a Rorschach test. To every inkblot, the man replies that the image makes him think of sex. Image after image, "sex", "sex", "sex".
"Well, sir, it appears you're obsessed with sex"
"Me? YOU'RE the one with all the dirty pictures!"
Show me a military without pedophiles; show me a military without thieves, without wife-beaters, without grifters, without murderers, without cowards.
So long as the military is taken from the general population, it will reflect the general population.
In Anthro 101, they showed us film about chimpanzees. One female chimp was mounted by 11 successive males; not one of them subsequently claimed her or her child.
But, chimps aren't humans, as it turns out. What might be forgivable in a chimp is still unacceptable in a man.
Chimpanzees can also develop cancer... does that make cancer normal or otherwise acceptable? Rhetorical question.
"Only when they make any expression whatsoever of their CHRISTIAN religious beliefs."
What the issue? No one HAS TO take the class. If no one does, then the class won't be offered.
As sacrosanct as you may find the separation of Church and State, it really is not in the constitution or the bill of rights. What IS there is the 1st amendment that establishes my right to the free exercise of my religion - and does not exclude it's presence or study of the bible within those sacred halls of learning - Learning anything except about religion??? I don't think that's what it says, do you??? Take another look and read it this time.
But maybe not.
As their names appear at the top of a selection,,,,vote for the next guy - as long as it's not a green (please!)
"God does not play dice with the universe" - Albert Einstein
There is no separation of Church and State. It is not in the Constitution. All the Constitution addresses is the creation of a national church, such as the Anglican; beyond that it specifically says that the federal government will not legislate with concern to the FREE EXERCISE of religion.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Congress shall make no law - that pretty much blows up any notion of "separation of church and state". State and church, oh yeah, keep your fingers out King George, but not ANY injunction about the church and it's members being involved in government.
Certainly the founding fathers would have found the notion that the study of the bible in school controversial at all. Almost every one of them had attended a religious college for their education.
"Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion", not where churches are built, not religious schools, not religion in the schools, certainly not the history book that is the bible.
Yet we see Libraries where the bible has been removed on the absurd notion that the so called separation of church and state demands it be removed. hogwash! There is no such fiction as the separation of church and state.
You need to understand the intent of the amendment, as the courts have interpreted it.
I'd bet real money that in a library where the Bible is banned, you can find a copy of "Dianetics"...
I understand the Amendment, and to hell with how SCOTUS "interprets" it. It says what it says, not what their politically motivated rulings say it says.
I still hope Holmes is smoking a turd in purgatory as he deserves.
"...no law respecting an establishment of religion..."
No state church.
"...prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
no banning religious practices.
"It is riddled with errors and historical innacuracies..." Apparently these people don't know their facts, because the Bible is the most accurate and attested to document in all of ancient history (and has more verifiable sources than most of modern history even).
As a matter of fact, Luke is held in the highest regard as quite possibly the most pre-eminent historically accurate author in all of ancient history.
Ancient history was often a mix of history and myth and legend in any case.
The gospels, even the earliest, were not penned until six decades after the supposed cruxifiction. They all apparently came from one common Q source.
1) There are no "clear contradictions through [the Bible]". Try me
2) The Bible in its present form has been in use since within a few centuries of Christ. All the books in it were chosen specifically because they were attested to by those who knew Christ personally, or learned from those who knew him personally. The Old Testament has been around for even longer and was quoted by Christ himself.
3) 5 or 6 different languages? Seriously? Where do you come up with this stuff?
4) The rest of your assertions, again, utter nonsense, the "Catholic Church" did not conspire to create the Bible, the Bible outdates the Catholic Church.
5) I suggest you get your facts straight. The four Gospels have all been *accurately* dated to the first century AD. If you care to look at the facts (which you don't), read even the cliffs notes of "Evidence that Demands a Verdict" by Josh McDowell. He covers this at length with reference after reference after reference that will make your head spin.
But... I very seriously doubt you care about the Truth, just soothing your own preconceptions.
Basic law of debate, it's impossible to prove a negative. It's also seen as a lame attempt that causes the other side to forfeit the match - do you really want to go there?
Reread what I asked for (reputable evidence) and what was asserted ("...the Bible is the most accurate and attested to document in all of ancient history").
Is Jesus saying in John 8:7 "Let any of you who is without sin cast the first stone" an example of the bible's unfailing accuracy, because this "scripture" was added by scribes and is not present in earlier versions of the scripture.
John Mills 1707 study of the earliest copies of the scripture available then found some 30,000 disparities between various accounts in the new testament alone. The earliest versions were from the second century, over one hundred years after the events described, hand copied many times over.
I don't oppose the "evil bible". It has great lessons, just like the qu'ran, the books of Confucius, the kangyur and Mark Twain for that matter. However, like Jefferson, I oppose teachers paid by me purveying to children that it is the truth.
Furthermore, I am not fooled for a minute by the narrow intentions of those pressing for its study as a historical text.
In addition to Josh McDowell's "Evidence that Demands a Verdict"
and/or
David Otis Fuller's "Which Bible?"
Many question's on this subject will be answered by this book which goes examines the lives of the translators in great depth. The principal texts used and the quantity of agreeing evidence. Fans of Mill may want to look elsewhere.
Not that it is a real argument, but there a many people that have held religious views, objectively studied them, and discarded them. Few have not held such views, studied objectively and then adopted them (this does not mean adopting the views after recovering from X). However, many hold such views and study hard to prove that they can continue to hold them, ignoring anything contrary, which is fine. I only object to attempting to purvey these views to children (or anyone for that matter) using my money.
By the way it is not impossible (or a debate issue) to prove a negative. 1+0 does not equal 2, may be proved many ways. One way is proving that 1+0 does equal 1, which is inconsistent with it also equaling 2; therefore, 1+0 does not equal 2. What you are referring to is a negative proof or appeal to ignorance. This assertion is that X is true because there is no proof that X is false. This is where the Flying Spaghetti Monster and Invisible Pink Unicorn come in.
To specifically answer your question (which is covered by Josh McDowell in much better detail), here's a few summary quotes:
Sir William Ramsay wrote that "Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy... [he] should be placed along with the very greatest of historians."[Ramsay, The Bearing Of Recent Discovery On The Trustworthiness Of The New Testament, 222, 1915]
Professor of classics at Auckland University, E.M. Blaiklock, wrote: "For accuracy of detail, and for evocation of atmosphere, Luke stands, in fact, with Thucydides. The Acts of the Apostles is not shoddy product of pious imagining, but a trustworthy record... it was the spadework of archaeology which first revealed the truth."[Blaiklock, The Archaeology of the New Testament, page 96, Zondervan Publishing Houst, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1970]
There's numerous others.
Blaiklock was a literature professor, not an historian, and perhaps had a strong opinion on the subject being a christian apologetic.
You must forgive my cynicism at McDowell's effort in trying to disprove the bible.
These are people who believed the answer before constructing the hypothesis or argument.
Thank god for the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment!
http://irisharchaeology.ie/2014/02/some-...
A few folks here might remember how I asserted that modern people are stuck in adolescence, with the teenager's "know-it-all" attitude, assuming that he's somehow wiser than his predecessors.
And of course, we have here another "expertist".
Look up the phrase "Renaissance Man", then check your history for famous men such as Franklin, Newton, Da Vinci.
Ah, here it is...
"I’m not saying they were right back then. I’m asking how we can know we’re so much wiser than they were? Anyone who has known a teenager has experienced the impatient know-it-all attitude of the juvenile with no real life experience. It appears that recent generations have become locked in perpetual adolescence. When we place our trials against theirs, when we place our accomplishments against theirs, I do not understand how we can rationally believe we are somehow wiser and more immune to prejudices and misconceptions."
http://humanachievementinitiative.wordpr...
Read the book if you're going to complain to me about dates. Freaking act like a century-old archaeologist doesn't have a clue what he's talking about when he unearths clear evidence that proves exactly what Luke said. "old" doesn't mean "stupid".
Would you like to revise the subject of your original assertion, which was "...the bible is the most accurate..." to be:
1. the bible (and which one if so)
2. the new testament
3. the gospel of Luke of the new testament
No longer busy working Friday, and happy to point out the widest possible errors in your original assertion you are willing to stand by, further illustrating how you are seeking to manipulate children with others money to support your beliefs. The original subject is 1) clearly unconstitutional, and 2) no more founded in fact than people that asserting climate change from humans, or altruism is good and should therefore be institutionalized. All of these are precisely why Ayn was an atheist, and I wonder why there are so many religious arguments in her Galt's Gulch.
What part of "CONGRESS shall MAKE NO LAW respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" can't people get into their brain? It's clear as day. NO NATIONAL RELIGION SHALL BE REQUIRED. And the rest I don't think I need to explain to you.
Would you support a similar class on the qu'ran? Even better, how about a class annotating all the fundamental technical and historical failings of the bible? If not, argument over.
CLEARLY. Get it?
It's a freaking class taught by a public school teacher. Listen, I don't think they should have public schools. But if they DO, then, no, I could care less if they teach a class on the Koran if that's in demand, or a class on witchcraft if that's what's in demand. I mean, if I went to Dearborn, Michigan, I'd expect to hear an Islamic prayer at the football game, that's what the majority there believe. I wouldn't be comfortable, but it's their freaking school, not mine.
I do think there should be public schools. (not really the discussion here). Perhaps there is a good argument that there shouldn't be, or that there should be less/no interference from the USG. In my mind this Government influence and meddling pales in comparison to free healthcare, welfare, et al.
Unfortunately, none of these things you would be ok with can be supported by the Government. The NFL, NBA or Chick-fil-a and the media can do whatever they want. This is clear under the first amendment. Government support is a form of "Establishment" by precedent. Free Exercise is not inhibited by not using my taxes for someone else's Sunday school class.
In my opinion this is good, because the qu'ran, bible, witchcraft and human-induced climate change are all beliefs, not facts or science. Jefferson was wise to recognize the snowball of issues with zealotry.
Perhaps we are not as far apart as three comment iterations ago. If your issue is with USG intrusion, I sympathize with it and don't like it in general. However, just like government intrusion, I view religion as an unwanted intrusion and prefer to keep it at someone else's home or church, I prefer the precedents the USG has set and supported here.
Rent a clue....
ISLAM IS NOT EQUAL TO CHRISTIANITY.
How many Moslems signed the DoI? The Constitution? Like it or not, the U.S. has always been culturally immersed with Christianity.
"Hitler used tanks to invade France, we used tanks to liberate France. NOT the same thing" - George Will
Personally, I wouldn't have a problem with a comparative theology class in public schools. I have a problem with public schools, but that's really another issue.
As has been explained to you repeatedly, and you obtusely refuse to comprehend, the 1st Amendment only prohibits the creation of a national church, and the interference by the federal government in anyone's practice of religion.
This means a Christian, Moslem, Jewish, Buddhist kid can say a prayer before eating his lunch or before a critical test, and teach, superintendent, or any other federal employee cannot do jack to stop him.
The 1st Amendment was not written to protect you from exposure to MY religious practices and ideas, but from government coercion.
Even if that terrifies you to the point of peeing your pants.
Good job!
.
Shepherd Book: "What are we up to, sweetheart?"
River Tam: "Fixing your Bible."
Shepherd Book: "I, um..."
[alarmed]
Shepherd Book: "What?"
River Tam: "Bible's broken. Contradictions, false logistics - doesn't make sense."
[she's marked up the bible, crossed out passages and torn out pages]
Shepherd Book: "No, no. You-you-you can't..."
River Tam: "So we'll integrate non-progressional evolution theory with God's creation of Eden. Eleven inherent metaphoric parallels already there. Eleven. Important number. Prime number. One goes into the house of eleven eleven times, but always comes out one. Noah's ark is a problem."
Shepherd Book: "Really?"
River Tam: "We'll have to call it early quantum state phenomenon. Only way to fit 5000 species of mammal on the same boat."
[rips out page]
Shepherd Book: "River, you don't fix the Bible."
River: "It's broken. It doesn't make sense."
Shepherd Book: "It's not about making sense. It's about believing in something, and letting that belief be real enough to change your life. It's about faith. You don't fix faith, River. It fixes you. "