The Bible should be taught at home, not in public schools, unless of course we want atheists, Muslims and other people hostile to the Lord Jesus teaching the Bible. And why not teach the Koran?
The Bible should be taught at home, not in public schools, unless of course we want atheists, Muslims and other people hostile to the Lord Jesus teaching the Bible. And why not teach the Koran?
It's a plank in their platform, not a policy. It would never pass constitutional muster if they attempted to make it law, and they know it. It is included as, primarily, messaging; it helps get out the vote.
It's pushing the Overton window to the right. That's the goal. And it's a good strategy. As we can see from comments here, conservatives are not used to this sort of actual fighting and standing for something.
I actually don't remember it ever happening. Usually, our side starts with the status quo somewhere in the middle-left ("we want to keep it as it is!") and then "negotiates" their way to a far-left "compromise" that results in banning individuals from praying or displaying an American flag in a public school, and 9 month and beyond "abortions."
They are learning from Trump. Take a currently "extreme" position and work from there. If they even engage you in the negotiation, you've already gained ground from the status quo.
LOL. True. It's triggered a lot of people on the conservative side, but all Trump - and those who followed his lead, like Rufo - are doing is reversing this situation. Though in a way, I guess it makes sense. Conservatives are about conserving. Therefore a change to the status quo is "bad," even when that change is actually helping.
What does "conserving" mean? In political terms, it means minimizing power in the hands of federal government officials and "conserving" it for the people and the states. In economic terms it means exercising fiduciary responsibility and prudence: conserving resources. In social terms, it means, to use a cliche, "live and let live": conserving relationships between people.
In a handful of words it means: no more government than absolutely necessary.
I actually don't think it is a good strategy, but I do understand your point. I hate starting with a compromised position. My problem is that it is deeply unserious. "Congress shall make no law" is sufficiently proscriptive to know this would be overturned 9-0 by the current SCOTUS if it ever made it that far. Put that in the platform, and I believe that you are equally unserious about other planks in the platform.
I don't care what the left makes of it. They will hate if we said "Allow all humans to exchange oxygen for carbon dioxide" and denounce those who propose it as racists, or "plant phobic" or something. We need adults in the room. We live in a pluralistic society. We always have done. And the framers understood that state run religious ANYTHING leads to tyranny.
Here's a better plank that doesn't start in the center. Privatize schools and provide vouchers. Each student attending their selected school is a free market vote for that school, its quality, etc. Don't worry about standards, that will self level after an initial period of it being the wild west. That would accomplish what the TX GOP platform plank is aiming for, but in a broadly positive and culture changing way.
First... The State will never give up control of the youth. Short of a collapse of the USG, they will never give up control of education.
Second... Vouchers are just another form of control. Funding is control. Rather, eliminate all individual property taxes. That would be a big relief to all families and would defund state education. Privatize all education. Further incentivize families to have children by eliminating 20% of their income from income taxes for each child they have. Sounds fair to me but of course that will never happen.
As for the First Amendment, "Congress shall make no law respecting an ESTABLISHMENT of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." simply prohibits the Federal Gov't from "establishing" a State sanctioned church. American churches are to be free from Fed Gov't regulation: no law respecting any establishment of religion. This was something the founders were very familiar with in Britain where only one church was allowed to exist. In fact, the early Congress budgeted money for the printing and distribution of Bibles for the American people.
IMO, it's all about narrative and what is deemed "acceptable" discourse. So, I think any way we push the window open is a good thing, and ultimately a good strategy. No, this is not going to be approved by SCOTUS. That doesn't matter. That same issue has certainly not stopped the left's "long march." It's considered a minor obstacle b/c they know it's a battle for narrative control and what society deems "acceptable" beliefs, which then leads to policy. Time to go on offense.
Our question should be: what's the furthest "right" position we can seed into society, to set the right boundary of the window as far right as possible? (But also, because we live in a pluralist society, the "extreme" voices on the right also need to be heard and considered. They've been silenced my entire life.) We certainly hear enough from those on the left, which is why our window currently extends from center-left (big gov't and high taxes) to far-left (institutionalized anti-white racism and calls for "socialized" everything).
As for serious or not - that is within the minds of those putting it forward. I suspect they are serious. (As it turned out the leftists chanting "defund the police" were actually serious.) I know us attacking them from our own side doesn't help move society's mental model rightward.
School choice is a good example of what I'm trying (poorly) to say: we've been trying for decades to get choice and vouchers, but it hasn't worked. Why? IMO, because there was nothing to the right of it being offered. So, it has been taken as the "right-most" starting point - the view of the "right wingers" - which means any society-wide negotiation by definition moves to the left from that position. That is why it's gained little-to-no traction despite 60+ years of costly, abject failure of the public school system.
The way I see it, societal level arguments aren't won with reason and logic and seriousness. People are emotional and moral animals, not rational animals. So, we have to make bold, sometimes ridiculous claims - or at least support the right to be heard for those who do - in order to shake up the status quo. We need the people furthest to the right to have a voice or we will always be arguing from the center, at best. Then, negotiate to the solution we actually want.
Final example: 8 years ago Trump said "close the border and build a wall," and people gasped in horror. The avg person said things like: we're not China or Berlin! That's racist! We should have an open border and offer asylum! And so on. He opened the window to an "extreme" view. His opposition overreacted to that. Now, 8 years later, 73% of the country wants the border closed.
I love your comments, RU, and I agree with virtually everything you say, but thanks to the nutty leftists and their trans ideology, and also to Grandma Garland and his Stasi calling angry parents attending school board meetings domestic terrorists, the school choice movement is doing much better these days. Imho far too few families take advantage of the possibilities provided by laws such as Florida's and other states', but I do think Covid helped open people's minds to the notion of other modes of schooling; one of its many silver linings, for those not killed or maimed in the interim.
It's a good point, and you know I always appreciate your views! I guess that I would read that as some parents voicing an "extreme" and "unacceptable" view, the Establishment PTB overreacting and freaking out, resulting in a societal move to the "right." (Similar to the dynamic with Trump and the border.)
So, in a way, it was those emotional and sort of Quixotic actions that led to some traction finally being gained, not rational policy / economics arguments that defined past efforts to push choice. They forced the window open with an emotional appeal. I think having someone to the right of them can only help them, even if only as the new "unacceptable" position.
Yes; it was "it's gained little-to-no traction despite 60+ years of costly, abject failure of the public school system" to which I was responding. It hadn't, I agree; but now it has. I have often thought that MLK Jr's, positions were more acceptable to people because there was a Malcolm X (though his views changed not long before his untimely death).
I'm a Christian, and I agree with you. Although I think the Bible can and should be taught as an important religious text and foundation of Western civilization, nothing more than that unless it's a private Christian school. The provision for trying to make it impossible for Democrats to be elected seems pretty sus too. I guess election fixing is only bad if the other side does it.
The 'majority of counties' idea is simply an extension of our Electoral College at the national level, ensuring that the big city in a state doesn't so dominate elections that the rest of the state isn't actually represented, as the Electoral College does for big states vs. smaller ones.
There is no answer for this. EVERY society/culture is based on a commonly-held faith, a set of presuppositions that cannot be proven that inform all of life. In other words, a religion. A belief that disavows all religions is itself a religion. Humanism is the most prominent example. It disavows a "God" yet it is still a religion based on a set of presuppositions. Instead of a "God", humanism sets up "Man" as the arbiter of all "Truth", ie, Man is "God".
America was founded as a Christian culture whose faith was informed by the Bible and was explicitly the presuppositional basis for the Declaration of Independence. Early Congressional actions budgeted money for the printing and dissemination of the Bible.
America became a base of support for Christian missions to the rest of the world. A society that does not have a common faith in a "religion" descends into chaos and conflict. Today, the Marxists who have taken control of the USG have openly declared Christianity to be the enemy and have openly characterized Christians as terrorists.
The belief system that informed the creation of early American society and sustained the development of our culture has now been marginalized in society as an abhorrent and subversive faith. Christianity is now being explicitly and violently purged from American society and replaced with a hedonistic and relativistic humanism that has no absolute standard of morality and justice. The embodiment of this faith is the State. For them, the Ten Laws do not exist. Chaos is ensuing with the mass importation of tens of millions of immigrants who have no connection to the Christian morality that informed the building of American society. Conflict will be the inevitable result and indeed, it is at our door.
That's not the problem. The problem is public education, State funded and controlled education, should not exist. State education is simply the means for the State to indoctrinate young minds with the Statist philosophy the State wants. That is the problem. By it's very nature, "education" is presuppositionally religious.
And it's become a fund-raising and vote-buying mechanism for the political party in the US (D) that wants to make the state larger and more powerful. It's become that at the expense of the kids it's supposed to be educating. Abolish public education.
Wow! You are very good at creating a strong, logical argument. Maybe you should be writing a regular news letter, or maybe you already do. Anyway, thank you again! 😊
It doesn’t need to be “taught.” It needs to be read. In elementary school in the 50’s, we started each day with the Pledge of Allegiance and a Bible verse.
Yeah I find the unconstitutional aspect of that pretty appalling. What part of no state religion did these pukes not get. Morals, you can teach, without bringing in your savior. At least in public schools. I’m not anti Christian mind you, but whose god is best comes to mind. How many wars fought and humans dead over that shit.
I’m not denigrating Christianity. I’m a born Christian, non practicing. My point being there was reason that our founders,who were Christian, and based out government on Christianity, also made sure to mention the whole no state approved religion. Meaning to me, y’all can pray to a head of lettuce. But in public schools, because we have those now,unfortunately, if the state mandates curriculum, then religion better not be part of it. At least not mandated. I took bible lit in high school, public, it was an elective. But it wasn’t required. Because the muzzies will be right there, in two seconds, saying you better teach the Quran too. And those two religions are only 180 polar opposites. But morality? Yeah, you might bring back civics, morality, citizenship in schools.
Not to make too fine but nevertheless important point, the Constitution does not say "no state approved religion". As I commented above: 'As for the First Amendment, "Congress shall make no law respecting an ESTABLISHMENT of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." simply prohibits the Federal Gov't from "establishing" a State sanctioned church. American churches are to be free from Fed Gov't regulation: no law respecting any establishment of religion. This was something the founders were very familiar with in Britain where only one church was allowed to exist. In fact, the early Congress budgeted money for the printing and distribution of Bibles for the American people.'
Congress did in fact promote Christianity in civil society. Now we are in the unfortunate position where our own Gov't is promoting Marxism and hedonism in civil society, which is in itself a religion.
Yours is a good argument for getting rid of government schools, to toss that failed experiment, and go back to the way we were in our first many decades of national life.
One way to help bring morality back is to teach about all the good that Christianity has done.
I fully agree - no state religion.
And when anyone brings up the evils done in the name of God, I will always counter that because others seem to be afraid to do so. We CANNOT let exceptions define the rule.
The greatest phosophy of love was taught by Jesus.
If only one thing should be taught which could be life changing for society today, it is:
(quoted from internet encyclopedia of philosophy)
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” Moral philosophy has barely taken notice of the golden rule in its own terms despite the rule's prominence in commonsense ethics.
Quite frankly, it's not unConstitutional. You can't find it in there. It is not a question of keeping religion out of education. That's an impossibility. It's only a question of whose religion will be taught to your child. By definition, all education is religious. All education assumes a starting point, a set of presuppositions or beliefs that inform our interpretation of reality and human behavior. In other words, a worldview. So the only question is, whose worldview will be taught to these young minds?
This is an interesting viewpoint. What's being tacitly taught really is a simplistic scientistic religion, isn't it? It has a set of doctrines, rituals, and sacraments. It has a one-size-fits-all solution for every problem. It has its priests and hierarchy. It cannot be challenged w/o one being considered a heretic.
No wonder the central planners, statists, socialists, commies, etc. always come after legitimate, historical religions. They're a challenger to their own pseudo-religious cult. Hmmm...thanks for sharing this.
This is exactly on point and needs no caveats. And now the Marxists/humanists are coming for us. American culture has long had a "civil religion" that is an abhorrent combination of humanist philosophy under a veneer of pious, self-justifying pseudo-Christianity that relies on the label "Judeo-Christian" society... an oxy-moron if there ever was one. Jesus made it clear in the Gospels that His Biblical religion has no truck with Judaism. Now that veneer has been shed and the evil of Marxism is fully revealing itself in control of the USG.
Christians and churches should be able to have political discussions and plead their case as a whole in our country too. I went to 2 large Iraq anti war marches and people asked why no churches were there visibly. Why? Because the government effectively silenced them because of taxes. Making overt politics a no no affecting tax status but it’s spread to other no nos as well. That should be no excuse to not step up, however IMHO. Politics has gotten us almost solely into this TOTAL disaster. But not talking about it has infected every level down to local Bible studies of most mainstream churches. The current situation has destroyed any reasonable talk. Why I don’t attend one since 2020.
Noticed. Disgusting reality. I guess they hide behind NGO status. But change often happens on the ground in the corners where good people can exchange thoughts on what they see and want to make a difference. These ngos are corrupt and often simply money launderers. I don’t give to any of those, including the Red Cross. The bending to politics during Covid drove me out. I believe in a congregational togetherness to further love and grace. It doesn’t even have to be a church or Christian if it does because love is an action. Grace is an action. Forgiveness is an action. Best, Janet
A good study of religions and history is very important. You might try looking at important difference in little lesser known Christian groups and who they say they are rather than the propaganda against them. Catholicism is just like Pharisees gone off the map. Hugganots Puritans and others are those who took proven Spiritual Biblical texts at its Word. Contradictions are ignored on one side and misunderstood historically on the other. Twists and turns by 'authorities' are for the purpose of enslaving. Truth sets one FREE. You'll know the difference when you've found it.
"...unless of course we want atheists, Muslims and other people hostile to the Lord Jesus teaching the Bible..."
Right?! How does that even make sense? It doesn't. But someone's religion is the basis for all education. The actual, obscured problem here is that the State should NOT be involved in education AT ALL.
when I was in school we had a weekly class about religion. Non christians were excused from attendance, and one of the teacher's name was fittingly "Theologian"
The Bible should be taught at home, not in public schools, unless of course we want atheists, Muslims and other people hostile to the Lord Jesus teaching the Bible. And why not teach the Koran?
Pathetic politicians are at it again.
It's a plank in their platform, not a policy. It would never pass constitutional muster if they attempted to make it law, and they know it. It is included as, primarily, messaging; it helps get out the vote.
It's pushing the Overton window to the right. That's the goal. And it's a good strategy. As we can see from comments here, conservatives are not used to this sort of actual fighting and standing for something.
I actually don't remember it ever happening. Usually, our side starts with the status quo somewhere in the middle-left ("we want to keep it as it is!") and then "negotiates" their way to a far-left "compromise" that results in banning individuals from praying or displaying an American flag in a public school, and 9 month and beyond "abortions."
They are learning from Trump. Take a currently "extreme" position and work from there. If they even engage you in the negotiation, you've already gained ground from the status quo.
Here is a simple example of Republican bipartisan negotiating:
Dems: give me $10.
Republicans: no.
Dems: ok, make it $7
Republicans: deal!
And Republicans think they made $3 on this deal...
LOL. True. It's triggered a lot of people on the conservative side, but all Trump - and those who followed his lead, like Rufo - are doing is reversing this situation. Though in a way, I guess it makes sense. Conservatives are about conserving. Therefore a change to the status quo is "bad," even when that change is actually helping.
What does "conserving" mean? In political terms, it means minimizing power in the hands of federal government officials and "conserving" it for the people and the states. In economic terms it means exercising fiduciary responsibility and prudence: conserving resources. In social terms, it means, to use a cliche, "live and let live": conserving relationships between people.
In a handful of words it means: no more government than absolutely necessary.
😂 😂 😂 Deal! Hahahaha
I actually don't think it is a good strategy, but I do understand your point. I hate starting with a compromised position. My problem is that it is deeply unserious. "Congress shall make no law" is sufficiently proscriptive to know this would be overturned 9-0 by the current SCOTUS if it ever made it that far. Put that in the platform, and I believe that you are equally unserious about other planks in the platform.
I don't care what the left makes of it. They will hate if we said "Allow all humans to exchange oxygen for carbon dioxide" and denounce those who propose it as racists, or "plant phobic" or something. We need adults in the room. We live in a pluralistic society. We always have done. And the framers understood that state run religious ANYTHING leads to tyranny.
Here's a better plank that doesn't start in the center. Privatize schools and provide vouchers. Each student attending their selected school is a free market vote for that school, its quality, etc. Don't worry about standards, that will self level after an initial period of it being the wild west. That would accomplish what the TX GOP platform plank is aiming for, but in a broadly positive and culture changing way.
First... The State will never give up control of the youth. Short of a collapse of the USG, they will never give up control of education.
Second... Vouchers are just another form of control. Funding is control. Rather, eliminate all individual property taxes. That would be a big relief to all families and would defund state education. Privatize all education. Further incentivize families to have children by eliminating 20% of their income from income taxes for each child they have. Sounds fair to me but of course that will never happen.
As for the First Amendment, "Congress shall make no law respecting an ESTABLISHMENT of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." simply prohibits the Federal Gov't from "establishing" a State sanctioned church. American churches are to be free from Fed Gov't regulation: no law respecting any establishment of religion. This was something the founders were very familiar with in Britain where only one church was allowed to exist. In fact, the early Congress budgeted money for the printing and distribution of Bibles for the American people.
IMO, it's all about narrative and what is deemed "acceptable" discourse. So, I think any way we push the window open is a good thing, and ultimately a good strategy. No, this is not going to be approved by SCOTUS. That doesn't matter. That same issue has certainly not stopped the left's "long march." It's considered a minor obstacle b/c they know it's a battle for narrative control and what society deems "acceptable" beliefs, which then leads to policy. Time to go on offense.
Our question should be: what's the furthest "right" position we can seed into society, to set the right boundary of the window as far right as possible? (But also, because we live in a pluralist society, the "extreme" voices on the right also need to be heard and considered. They've been silenced my entire life.) We certainly hear enough from those on the left, which is why our window currently extends from center-left (big gov't and high taxes) to far-left (institutionalized anti-white racism and calls for "socialized" everything).
As for serious or not - that is within the minds of those putting it forward. I suspect they are serious. (As it turned out the leftists chanting "defund the police" were actually serious.) I know us attacking them from our own side doesn't help move society's mental model rightward.
School choice is a good example of what I'm trying (poorly) to say: we've been trying for decades to get choice and vouchers, but it hasn't worked. Why? IMO, because there was nothing to the right of it being offered. So, it has been taken as the "right-most" starting point - the view of the "right wingers" - which means any society-wide negotiation by definition moves to the left from that position. That is why it's gained little-to-no traction despite 60+ years of costly, abject failure of the public school system.
The way I see it, societal level arguments aren't won with reason and logic and seriousness. People are emotional and moral animals, not rational animals. So, we have to make bold, sometimes ridiculous claims - or at least support the right to be heard for those who do - in order to shake up the status quo. We need the people furthest to the right to have a voice or we will always be arguing from the center, at best. Then, negotiate to the solution we actually want.
Final example: 8 years ago Trump said "close the border and build a wall," and people gasped in horror. The avg person said things like: we're not China or Berlin! That's racist! We should have an open border and offer asylum! And so on. He opened the window to an "extreme" view. His opposition overreacted to that. Now, 8 years later, 73% of the country wants the border closed.
I love your comments, RU, and I agree with virtually everything you say, but thanks to the nutty leftists and their trans ideology, and also to Grandma Garland and his Stasi calling angry parents attending school board meetings domestic terrorists, the school choice movement is doing much better these days. Imho far too few families take advantage of the possibilities provided by laws such as Florida's and other states', but I do think Covid helped open people's minds to the notion of other modes of schooling; one of its many silver linings, for those not killed or maimed in the interim.
It's a good point, and you know I always appreciate your views! I guess that I would read that as some parents voicing an "extreme" and "unacceptable" view, the Establishment PTB overreacting and freaking out, resulting in a societal move to the "right." (Similar to the dynamic with Trump and the border.)
So, in a way, it was those emotional and sort of Quixotic actions that led to some traction finally being gained, not rational policy / economics arguments that defined past efforts to push choice. They forced the window open with an emotional appeal. I think having someone to the right of them can only help them, even if only as the new "unacceptable" position.
Yes; it was "it's gained little-to-no traction despite 60+ years of costly, abject failure of the public school system" to which I was responding. It hadn't, I agree; but now it has. I have often thought that MLK Jr's, positions were more acceptable to people because there was a Malcolm X (though his views changed not long before his untimely death).
But promoting unconstitutional stances will also backfire, much like the zero provisions for abortions (and I acknowledge, not a fair comparison).
time will tell...
I'm a Christian, and I agree with you. Although I think the Bible can and should be taught as an important religious text and foundation of Western civilization, nothing more than that unless it's a private Christian school. The provision for trying to make it impossible for Democrats to be elected seems pretty sus too. I guess election fixing is only bad if the other side does it.
The 'majority of counties' idea is simply an extension of our Electoral College at the national level, ensuring that the big city in a state doesn't so dominate elections that the rest of the state isn't actually represented, as the Electoral College does for big states vs. smaller ones.
Then that implies teaching other religious books and history...which would be great only...they are... But without Bible, so they aren't.
There is no answer for this. EVERY society/culture is based on a commonly-held faith, a set of presuppositions that cannot be proven that inform all of life. In other words, a religion. A belief that disavows all religions is itself a religion. Humanism is the most prominent example. It disavows a "God" yet it is still a religion based on a set of presuppositions. Instead of a "God", humanism sets up "Man" as the arbiter of all "Truth", ie, Man is "God".
America was founded as a Christian culture whose faith was informed by the Bible and was explicitly the presuppositional basis for the Declaration of Independence. Early Congressional actions budgeted money for the printing and dissemination of the Bible.
America became a base of support for Christian missions to the rest of the world. A society that does not have a common faith in a "religion" descends into chaos and conflict. Today, the Marxists who have taken control of the USG have openly declared Christianity to be the enemy and have openly characterized Christians as terrorists.
The belief system that informed the creation of early American society and sustained the development of our culture has now been marginalized in society as an abhorrent and subversive faith. Christianity is now being explicitly and violently purged from American society and replaced with a hedonistic and relativistic humanism that has no absolute standard of morality and justice. The embodiment of this faith is the State. For them, the Ten Laws do not exist. Chaos is ensuing with the mass importation of tens of millions of immigrants who have no connection to the Christian morality that informed the building of American society. Conflict will be the inevitable result and indeed, it is at our door.
They war against a God they say cannot exist. They run when no one is chasing them. 🤣😑 They fight against a non existing enemy... but they KNOW.
This is a well-stated, logical, thought-provoking comment. Thank you! ❣
Sorry but I don't understand this comment? Wondering if maybe there's a typo or two in there.
I think RJ is saying then they would have to tech other “religious” books also if they taught the Bible. Better to be none than adding all the others.
Except that the other books have no historical relevance to the history of the US and its development. Only the Bible does.
It should be taught in that context, absolutely.
Exactly.
Knowing truth is essential to recognizing a lie.
I'm sorry you can't read my mind. I realize my swype often doesn't match my thoughts, or does it? 😜 Hence my name "Rambler"
Tried to fix. Thanks for your interest. 😁
That's not the problem. The problem is public education, State funded and controlled education, should not exist. State education is simply the means for the State to indoctrinate young minds with the Statist philosophy the State wants. That is the problem. By it's very nature, "education" is presuppositionally religious.
And it's become a fund-raising and vote-buying mechanism for the political party in the US (D) that wants to make the state larger and more powerful. It's become that at the expense of the kids it's supposed to be educating. Abolish public education.
Amen.
Wow! You are very good at creating a strong, logical argument. Maybe you should be writing a regular news letter, or maybe you already do. Anyway, thank you again! 😊
What a thought. I don't know how Jeff does what he does in the limited amount of time he has. Truly amazing.
Yes, but you are exceptionally articulate and as I said, logical! If you had a Substack page I'd be reading it. 😊
Right. Time to privatize education.
It doesn’t need to be “taught.” It needs to be read. In elementary school in the 50’s, we started each day with the Pledge of Allegiance and a Bible verse.
And those ppl sent their children even after liberals sued against it.
Yeah I find the unconstitutional aspect of that pretty appalling. What part of no state religion did these pukes not get. Morals, you can teach, without bringing in your savior. At least in public schools. I’m not anti Christian mind you, but whose god is best comes to mind. How many wars fought and humans dead over that shit.
True enough. But also don't forget that enormous amount of good that has been done and lives that have been saved because of "that shit".
On balance, Christianity has been a massive benefit for humanity.
I’m not denigrating Christianity. I’m a born Christian, non practicing. My point being there was reason that our founders,who were Christian, and based out government on Christianity, also made sure to mention the whole no state approved religion. Meaning to me, y’all can pray to a head of lettuce. But in public schools, because we have those now,unfortunately, if the state mandates curriculum, then religion better not be part of it. At least not mandated. I took bible lit in high school, public, it was an elective. But it wasn’t required. Because the muzzies will be right there, in two seconds, saying you better teach the Quran too. And those two religions are only 180 polar opposites. But morality? Yeah, you might bring back civics, morality, citizenship in schools.
Not to make too fine but nevertheless important point, the Constitution does not say "no state approved religion". As I commented above: 'As for the First Amendment, "Congress shall make no law respecting an ESTABLISHMENT of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." simply prohibits the Federal Gov't from "establishing" a State sanctioned church. American churches are to be free from Fed Gov't regulation: no law respecting any establishment of religion. This was something the founders were very familiar with in Britain where only one church was allowed to exist. In fact, the early Congress budgeted money for the printing and distribution of Bibles for the American people.'
Congress did in fact promote Christianity in civil society. Now we are in the unfortunate position where our own Gov't is promoting Marxism and hedonism in civil society, which is in itself a religion.
That’s a rather fine point. As in needle sharp, Phil.
Yours is a good argument for getting rid of government schools, to toss that failed experiment, and go back to the way we were in our first many decades of national life.
One way to help bring morality back is to teach about all the good that Christianity has done.
I fully agree - no state religion.
And when anyone brings up the evils done in the name of God, I will always counter that because others seem to be afraid to do so. We CANNOT let exceptions define the rule.
I will usually counter claims about the evils done in the name of God, with...almost always done by a government pretending to speak for God.
👍
The greatest phosophy of love was taught by Jesus.
If only one thing should be taught which could be life changing for society today, it is:
(quoted from internet encyclopedia of philosophy)
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” Moral philosophy has barely taken notice of the golden rule in its own terms despite the rule's prominence in commonsense ethics.
To put it mildly, that is definitely not part of our Foreign Policy.
Quite frankly, it's not unConstitutional. You can't find it in there. It is not a question of keeping religion out of education. That's an impossibility. It's only a question of whose religion will be taught to your child. By definition, all education is religious. All education assumes a starting point, a set of presuppositions or beliefs that inform our interpretation of reality and human behavior. In other words, a worldview. So the only question is, whose worldview will be taught to these young minds?
This is an interesting viewpoint. What's being tacitly taught really is a simplistic scientistic religion, isn't it? It has a set of doctrines, rituals, and sacraments. It has a one-size-fits-all solution for every problem. It has its priests and hierarchy. It cannot be challenged w/o one being considered a heretic.
No wonder the central planners, statists, socialists, commies, etc. always come after legitimate, historical religions. They're a challenger to their own pseudo-religious cult. Hmmm...thanks for sharing this.
This is exactly on point and needs no caveats. And now the Marxists/humanists are coming for us. American culture has long had a "civil religion" that is an abhorrent combination of humanist philosophy under a veneer of pious, self-justifying pseudo-Christianity that relies on the label "Judeo-Christian" society... an oxy-moron if there ever was one. Jesus made it clear in the Gospels that His Biblical religion has no truck with Judaism. Now that veneer has been shed and the evil of Marxism is fully revealing itself in control of the USG.
Christians and churches should be able to have political discussions and plead their case as a whole in our country too. I went to 2 large Iraq anti war marches and people asked why no churches were there visibly. Why? Because the government effectively silenced them because of taxes. Making overt politics a no no affecting tax status but it’s spread to other no nos as well. That should be no excuse to not step up, however IMHO. Politics has gotten us almost solely into this TOTAL disaster. But not talking about it has infected every level down to local Bible studies of most mainstream churches. The current situation has destroyed any reasonable talk. Why I don’t attend one since 2020.
Funny how most ngos helping the illegal invasion are churches!
Noticed. Disgusting reality. I guess they hide behind NGO status. But change often happens on the ground in the corners where good people can exchange thoughts on what they see and want to make a difference. These ngos are corrupt and often simply money launderers. I don’t give to any of those, including the Red Cross. The bending to politics during Covid drove me out. I believe in a congregational togetherness to further love and grace. It doesn’t even have to be a church or Christian if it does because love is an action. Grace is an action. Forgiveness is an action. Best, Janet
The tax exemption thing turned many pastors and flocks into cowards and slaves.
The understanding of the critical role of pastors and churches in politics was well understood at our founding and has been almost lost.
👍
So true.
A good study of religions and history is very important. You might try looking at important difference in little lesser known Christian groups and who they say they are rather than the propaganda against them. Catholicism is just like Pharisees gone off the map. Hugganots Puritans and others are those who took proven Spiritual Biblical texts at its Word. Contradictions are ignored on one side and misunderstood historically on the other. Twists and turns by 'authorities' are for the purpose of enslaving. Truth sets one FREE. You'll know the difference when you've found it.
I agree. It taints some of the other things they want.
"...unless of course we want atheists, Muslims and other people hostile to the Lord Jesus teaching the Bible..."
Right?! How does that even make sense? It doesn't. But someone's religion is the basis for all education. The actual, obscured problem here is that the State should NOT be involved in education AT ALL.
Don’t forget Satanists. They’re already pushing for after school clubs.
😡😢😡
They do teach it as well as their customs
when I was in school we had a weekly class about religion. Non christians were excused from attendance, and one of the teacher's name was fittingly "Theologian"
In Utah the Mormons have seminary classes, but the buildings for kids to go to it are built off campus.
If parents want their kids reading the Bible then send them to Bible classes or teach at home.
Exactly right. If the Bible is acceptable then so should the Torah, koran and whatever Jehovah witnesses use.
Compulsory public education is the actual problem here from which everything else stems.