- Joined
- Oct 24, 2009
- Messages
- 3,969
- Reaction score
- 1,209
- Location
- Dallas TEXAS
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
He wrote the letter in 1802 when he was President, and the explanation of the letter was written to his attorney general, not to the church.
I think the class should be "world religions" instead of just the Bible.
Also the government giving money to faith based groups is BS. I don't want my tax dollars going into tax exempt institutions.
He wrote the letter in 1802 when he was President, and the explanation of the letter was written to his attorney general, not to the church.
Religion hasn't been wiped from anything. There are plenty of religious people in government, and their individual religious beliefs are not interfered with.
Heaven forbid that we actually teach what the influences of our Founding Fathers were...
"And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter. But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors." –Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823
All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian, or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit. - Thomas Paine
The christian religion is a parody on the worship of the Sun, in which they put a man whom they call Christ, in the place of the Sun, and pay him the same adoration which was originally paid to the Sun. - Thomas Paine, An Essay on the Origin of Free-Masonry (1803-1805)
--
Want more? :doh
Jefferson wrote a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802 to answer a letter from them written in October 1801. So why would he send it to his attorney?
Basically the letter says he did not want to offend the baptist even though the language mite condemn an "alliance" of church and state, which would have been unconstitutional.
You are reading far more into it than it actually says, just like the Constitution.
An elective class on the history of the Bible is not an "alliance" of church and state.
Dude, finally you read the letter. Very good.
And I agree an elective class on the history of the Bible is fine, as long as they review the books of the other important religions too.
If the elective class only studies the Bible, then the agenda is obviously promotion of the Bible.
So why doesn't the Left want American children to learn about the fist black speaker of the house or the first black senators? Why don't they want children learning about blacks who escaped slavery and became prominent public officers?
Just my theory: It doesn't feed the victim mentality the Left needs in order to sustain political power.
Right, right, and any class on European history must also cover South African and Mongolian history as well :roll: A chemistry class must go over mechanical physics and political science, also. According to tryreading, a collision repair class MUST also cover desil mechanics and automotive electronics. According to tryreading, a basic first aid class must also cover pera-rescue and animal husbandry. If you want to take a wood shop class, then that wood shop class had better give equal time to welding.
The law clearly states that if enough people want to form the same class about any other religious text that they can, so your requirement is already met...there's just no demand for that product.
The analogies don't apply.
None of those areas is specifically mentioned in the Constitution concerning promotion/non-promotion by the state.
You can see the direction in which the Texas board is going, that they are pushing a socially conservative agenda.
They are Christian people that want to further their religion through kids in school.
These are selfish, controlling people who want their religion promoted using public money.
A portion of Texas's public school money comes from the federal government, and none of this should be used to push a religion, or any religion.
I know, it's elective, right?
And ID isn't creationism...
It's funny and strange to me that in Texas, in some straightforward subjects like history (McCarthy, Jefferson), they want to teach fiction.
These people are not honest folks. They are underhanded, sneaking in addenda/language at the last minute. They need to be watched.
Accept that they apply.
Oh, you will enjoy learning that the class is an elective and is not oriented around students practicing any religion.
Right, I fully acknowledge this. Texas is pushing a Conservative agenda, and that's a good thing because Conservatism is a good thing.
The law clearly states that other classes regarding other religious texts are just as permissible so long as the minimum enrollment number required for any class is met. Personally I would love a class on Hebrew which used the Torah and a class on the Rig Veda. Here in SD I would be open to sending my sons to a class on the oral traditions of the Lakota and/or Suix.
:rofl
No one is pushing any religion. The Bible is not a religion :lol:
Oh, then why do speak as though you didn't know that?
Young Earth Creationism isn't in the Bile. It's an interpretation which I, a Christian, argue against.
So any fictional text should be left out of the curriculum regardless of it's cultural significance? I confess I didn't enjoy Shakespeare...
You have that right, they need to be watched, and you need to learn from them. Conservatives know better than liberals, categorically. Whether Conservative Democrat or Conservative Republican, our rendering of history is accurate, and our economic and social policies have been proven to help a people flourish when implemented. Liberal policies fail every single time their tried; take Social Security and Segregation as examples of failed Liberal policies.
Most of the people who volunteer to serve in the military which protects you are Christians, so you might want to curb your bias against the book their ideals are recorded in.
So any fictional text should be left out of the curriculum regardless of it's cultural significance? I confess I didn't enjoy Shakespeare...
Most of the people who volunteer to serve in the military which protects you are Christians, so you might want to curb your bias against the book their ideals are recorded in
Dude, finally you read the letter. Very good.
And I agree an elective class on the history of the Bible is fine, as long as they review the books of the other important religions too.
If the elective class only studies the Bible, then the agenda is obviously promotion of the Bible.
My point was that the board is directing adding text to some books that is historically inaccurate. Those books are not supposed to be fiction.
OK for the last time (not directed at you in particular) the class according to the law is a study of the history OF THE BIBLE and it's INFLUENCE ON WESTERN CIVILIZATION. Not the history IN the Bible.
The problem is not the class, it is the improper or non existent training for the teachers.
No reason to cover anything else in this class. Jerry pretty much covered that.
I don't really get the purpose behind changing the abbreviations in the first place. I mean, it's still the same calendar, still counting from the same year 0-point. Do people have similar misgivings about using the days of the week (Norse mythology) or names of planets (Roman mythology)?
Yep. And Texas still won its independence from Mexico.
It's only innacuret because you need it to innacuret.
You aren't giveng any examples, so we have to take the word of whomever has more authority on the matter, which is either you, some no-name anon from teh interwbs, or officials who's credentials can be independantly verified.
When you place your word against theirs, you lose every time.
According to tryreading if you teach about the history of slavery you are therefore endorsing slavery.
Not a proper analogy (again). The promotion/non-promotion of religion is a 1st Amendment concern.
And the border according to the treaty that ended that war is still the Rio Grande, I presume?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?