The Bible in Idaho Public Schools-- Split From "Duke of Bullshit" Thread

[Nam]

I read in the news today Idaho is legislating to put the Bible in Science classes for public schools. My first thought was, "Trump's America". Second thought was, "Trump puts self into public schools". Granted the former has been tried (and succeeded) where ever Conservative Christians are, no matter the party, or sect. But do they realize that 1. If they do this it's not only invalid based on Constitutionality, 2. Inviting other religions (like Islam) to be invited into the curriculum, and 3. a war they will inevitably lose based on 1 and 2 and make their religion into the dictatorship in which many of them wish it was?

It's called "Freedom of Religion" not "Freedom only for Christianity".

Also, what Bible will it be? It will not only be a fight against them and non-Christians and the US government but other Christians, too.

We've been through that already. It didn't work.

-Nam

[Recusant]

Here's a reference: "Senator Pushes Bill for Bible in Schools" | IdahoEdNews

Idaho school teachers can already use the Bible as a reference, but Sen. Sheryl Nuxoll wants a state law to underscore the point.

The Cottonwood Republican is pushing a bill to that effect, and the Senate Education Committee gave the idea its preliminary approval.

"A lot of teachers are scared to use the Bible," Nuxoll said.

The one-paragraph bill says the Bible would be expressly permitted for use as a reference for "literature, comparative religion, English and foreign languages, United States and world history, comparative government, law, philosophy, ethics, astronomy, biology, geology, world geography, archaeology, music, sociology and other topics of study."

No student would be required to study the Bible, if the student or parent objected.

Nuxoll said her bill is modeled after legislation in 10 other states.

[Continues . . .]

[Davin]

These uses for the bible are fine: literature, comparative religion

These uses are borderline: English and foreign languages, United States and world history

And these uses are fucked up and should absolutely be denied: comparative government, law, philosophy, ethics, astronomy, biology, geology, world geography, archaeology, music, sociology and other topics of study

[Firebird]

There's a story or two like this every week if you read the Friendly Atheist blog, or even just the Atheism subreddit. It's a constant battle to smack these things down in the US, mostly in the south of course, but also parts of the midwest. It will be a long time before this ceases to be a problem here, though I'm cautiously optimistic about how secular the younger generations have become.

[Nam]

Is this whàt happens here? You relate one topic to another and it gets split to a separate topic? No relating and/or comparing, huh?

I can read my future here: banned within the month.

-Nam

[Nam]

Here's a reference: "Senator Pushes Bill for Bible in Schools" | IdahoEdNews

Idaho school teachers can already use the Bible as a reference, but Sen. Sheryl Nuxoll wants a state law to underscore the point.

The Cottonwood Republican is pushing a bill to that effect, and the Senate Education Committee gave the idea its preliminary approval.

"A lot of teachers are scared to use the Bible," Nuxoll said.

The one-paragraph bill says the Bible would be expressly permitted for use as a reference for "literature, comparative religion, English and foreign languages, United States and world history, comparative government, law, philosophy, ethics, astronomy, biology, geology, world geography, archaeology, music, sociology and other topics of study."

No student would be required to study the Bible, if the student or parent objected.

Nuxoll said her bill is modeled after legislation in 10 other states.

[Continues . . .]

This is where the topic split.

-Nam

[Recusant]

Is this whàt happens here? You relate one topic to another and it gets split to a separate topic? No relating and/or comparing, huh?

I can read my future here: banned within the month.

-Nam

It was a judgment call on my part; I think this topic is important enough to merit its own thread, rather than being buried in references to the continuous flow of shit that comes out of Trump's vile piehole.

Sorry that you feel slighted by this. I understand your feeling of discomfort, and I sympathize, but the reason I split the topic is the one stated above, and had nothing to do with the fact that you related it to Trump, which in itself is not at all problematic. Threads here often take a winding course and stray far from the original topic, and that's fine. However, I believe this avulsion was warranted, and I stand by it.

[Nam]

I accept that. I retract the other.

-Nam