Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bible Course Becomes a Test for Public Schools in Texas
NY Times ^ | 8/1/05 | Ralph Blumenthal and Barbara Novovitch

Posted on 08/01/2005 7:12:16 AM PDT by Crackingham

When the school board in Odessa, the West Texas oil town, voted unanimously in April to add an elective Bible study course to the 2006 high school curriculum, some parents dropped to their knees in prayerful thanks that God would be returned to the classroom, while others assailed it as an effort to instill religious training in the public schools.

Hundreds of miles away, leaders of the National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools notched another victory. A religious advocacy group based in Greensboro, N.C., the council has been pressing a 12-year campaign to get school boards across the country to accept its Bible curriculum.

The council calls its course a nonsectarian historical and literary survey class within constitutional guidelines requiring the separation of church and state.

But a growing chorus of critics says the course, taught by local teachers trained by the council, conceals a religious agenda. The critics say it ignores evolution in favor of creationism and gives credence to dubious assertions that the Constitution is based on the Scriptures, and that "documented research through NASA" backs the biblical account of the sun standing still.

In the latest salvo, the Texas Freedom Network, an advocacy group for religious freedom, has called a news conference for Monday to release a study that finds the national council's course to be "an error-riddled Bible curriculum that attempts to persuade students and teachers to adopt views that are held primarily within conservative Protestant circles."

The dispute has made the curriculum, which the national council says is used by more than 175,000 students in 312 school districts in 37 states, the latest flashpoint in the continuing culture wars over religious influences in the public domain.

(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events; Philosophy; US: Texas
KEYWORDS: biblestudy; electives; odessa; publicschools; religiouseducation; schoolboard; schools
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-80 next last

1 posted on 08/01/2005 7:12:17 AM PDT by Crackingham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Crackingham

More freedom from religion.


2 posted on 08/01/2005 7:16:12 AM PDT by kharaku (G3 (http://www.cobolsoundsystem.com/mp3s/unreleased/evewasanape.mp3))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham; All
"an error-riddled Bible curriculum that attempts to persuade students and teachers to adopt views that are held primarily within conservative Protestant circles"

Yes. We must instead teach a falsehood-riddled cirriculum that attempts to pursuade students and teachers to adopts views that are held primarily within homosexual and lesbian circles.

3 posted on 08/01/2005 7:21:04 AM PDT by EUPHORIC (Right? Left? Read Ecclesiastes 10:2 for a definition. The Bible knows all about it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham

"that "documented research through NASA" backs the biblical account of the sun standing still. "


Huh? I've never heard this espoused by ANYone, conservative Christian or otherwise.


4 posted on 08/01/2005 7:26:28 AM PDT by Blzbba (For a man who does not know to which port he is sailing, no wind is favorable - Seneca)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham
...and gives credence to dubious assertions that the Constitution is based on the Scriptures, ...

"Dubious assertions"?

Are these people so ignorant of history that they think the Framers were multiculturalists?

Just what basis for the Constitution do these so called "critics" think was the basis for that document? What is the "basis" of the Constitution if not the religious outlook of the men who wrote it?

5 posted on 08/01/2005 7:26:49 AM PDT by Noachian (To Control the Judiciary The People Must First Control The Senate)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Blzbba
Huh? I've never heard this espoused by ANYone, conservative Christian or otherwise.

Otherwise well-meaning people occasionally post this famous urban legend here.

6 posted on 08/01/2005 7:33:42 AM PDT by SedVictaCatoni (<><)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: EUPHORIC

Program of SOCIAL DEMOCRATIC PARTY (SPD)
Accepted at the Heidelberg Sozialdemokratische Partei Congress on September 18, 1925.

CULTURAL AND EDUCATIONAL POLICY

The Social Democratic Party is striving for the abolition of the educational privileges of the propertied classes.
Education, schooling, and research are public matters; their operation is to be secured through public institutions and the expenditure of public funds. The provision of instruction and instructional materials free of charge. Economic support for pupils and students.
The public institutions of education, schooling, culture and research are secular. All legally grounded interference in these institutions by churches and religious or ideological communities is to be opposed. Separation of church and state. Separation of church and schools. Secular technical and occupational schools and institutions of higher education. No expenditure of public monies for ecclesiastical or religious purposes.
The unified structuring of the school system. The creation of the closest possible relations between practical and intellectual labor on all levels.
The common education of both sexes by both sexes.
Standardized training of teachers in colleges and universities. [...]

EWALD VON KLEIST-SCHMENZIN
National Socialism: A Menace

Der Nationalsozialismus (Berlin: Verlag Neue Gesellschaft, 1932).

"Mere mention of the word religion has caused eruptions of animalistic rage among National Socialists."


7 posted on 08/01/2005 7:33:57 AM PDT by maxsand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham
The council calls its course a nonsectarian historical and literary survey class within constitutional guidelines requiring the separation of church and state.

Well, if that is what is being taught, it seems okay to me.

But a growing chorus of critics says the course, taught by local teachers trained by the council, conceals a religious agenda. The critics say it ignores evolution in favor of creationism and gives credence to dubious assertions that the Constitution is based on the Scriptures, and that "documented research through NASA" backs the biblical account of the sun standing still.

Well, if that is what is actually being taught, then I'm not okay with it.

I imagine the truth lies somewhere in the middle, as usual.

8 posted on 08/01/2005 7:36:40 AM PDT by Modernman ("A conservative government is an organized hypocrisy." -Disraeli)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Noachian
Just what basis for the Constitution do these so called "critics" think was the basis for that document? What is the "basis" of the Constitution if not the religious outlook of the men who wrote it?
If it had a religious basis, why wasn't God, Jesus, or the Bible mentioned even once?

Actually, this class is quite constitutional if it's an elective and does not claim that the Bible is the revealed word of God. If it was a "not for credit" class paid for privately, it wouldn't even matter, Constitutionally speaking, if it did teach that the Bible was divinely inspired...as long as dissenters were allowed to set up, conduct, and pay for their own class.

-Eric

9 posted on 08/01/2005 7:39:28 AM PDT by E Rocc (If we're all God's Children, what does that say about marriage?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham

How dare they offer elective courses that add to the diversity of the curriculum!!!


10 posted on 08/01/2005 7:43:44 AM PDT by trebb ("I am the way... no one comes to the Father, but by me..." - Jesus in John 14:6 (RSV))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Noachian

"Just what basis for the Constitution do these so called "critics" think was the basis for that document? What is the "basis" of the Constitution if not the religious outlook of the men who wrote it?"


DEISM?


11 posted on 08/01/2005 7:49:09 AM PDT by Mylo ("Those without a sword should sell their cloak and buy one" Jesus of Nazareth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: trebb

I've heard the woman who started this curriculum on the radio and she says it is not a religion course, and so far no one has been able to challenge it. Good.

I heard several scientists on the radio this morning who believe in Intelligent Design (not necessarily Creationism, but science based upon constantly uncovered facts that the earth and universe had a designer). One secular science editor got in extreme trouble for even putting forth the hypothesis in his science magazine, and other scientists who are interested in taking the facts before them and conducting research are being ostracized and ridiculed. And they're not pushing a religious agenda of any sort. They just say, here are the facts...let's do some research. The science community, for the most part, is seeing red. Now...who is not being scientific? Their dread fear, I suspect, is that they might find out there really is someone greater than man.

Psssst...there is.


12 posted on 08/01/2005 7:51:57 AM PDT by freepertoo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: E Rocc
If it had a religious basis, why wasn't God, Jesus, or the Bible mentioned even once?

There you go, muddying the waters with facts....    ; )

13 posted on 08/01/2005 7:53:43 AM PDT by highball ("I find that the harder I work, the more luck I seem to have." -- Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Blzbba
Huh? I've never heard this espoused by ANYone, conservative Christian or otherwise.

I believe a NASA and Caltech cosmologist have a theory that Mars and the Earth were in synchronous orbits (360 and 720 day years?), at one time and every (something like) 144 years there would be a near pass by and an energy transfer would occur. And somewhere around 700BC a large transfer occurred that altered the orbits of both planets to where they are now. They supposedly used very sophisticated computer analysis that validates the possibility of this.

I have not heard anymore about it for about 5 years now, and am kind of fuzzy on the facts. I don't recall the analysis being conclusive, but then again, it is being compared to evolution. So being conclusive becomes somewhat arbitrary.

14 posted on 08/01/2005 8:23:32 AM PDT by D Rider
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: D Rider

On which subject - Mars will be at a "close approach" in about a month.


15 posted on 08/01/2005 8:38:55 AM PDT by agere_contra
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: E Rocc
If it had a religious basis, why wasn't God, Jesus, or the Bible mentioned even once?

Because the Constitution is a positive law (man-made) contract between artificial entities know as the states and the federal united states.Artificial creations, because of their artificiality, have no 'beliefs' and no 'free will'.

All the Constitution does for the People is to enumerate a few specific positive law rights, such as the right to keep and bear arms.

No one can understand the Founders intended meaning of 'Republic', or the principals of the Constitution unless they understand certain parts of the Bible, or as the Founders referred to it....'the laws of Nature and Nature's God.'

________________________________________________________

If men through fear, fraud or mistake, should in terms renounce and give up any essential natural right, the eternal law of reason and the great end of society, would absolutely vacate such renunciation; the right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of Man to alienate this gift, and voluntarily become a slave.
John Adams, Rights of the Colonists, 1772

________________________________________________________

That these are our grievances which we have thus laid before his majesty, with that freedom of language and sentiment which becomes a free people claiming their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate.
Thomas Jefferson, Rights of British America, 1774

________________________________________________________

[T]he laws of nature . . . of course presupposes the existence of a God, the moral ruler of the universe, and a rule of right and wrong, of just and unjust, binding upon man, preceding all institutions of human society and government.

John Quincy Adams

________________________________________________________

The law of nature, “which, being coeval with mankind and dictated by God Himself, is, of course, superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times. No human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this.”

Alexander Hamilton, Signer of the Constitution

16 posted on 08/01/2005 8:41:12 AM PDT by MamaTexan ( I am not a *legal entity*, nor am I a ~person~ as created by law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: freepertoo
Let's pray to God that He is in fact greater than men!!!

God Bless

17 posted on 08/01/2005 8:55:32 AM PDT by trebb ("I am the way... no one comes to the Father, but by me..." - Jesus in John 14:6 (RSV))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan
"No one can understand the Founders intended meaning of 'Republic', or the principals of the Constitution unless they understand certain parts of the Bible, or as the Founders referred to it....'the laws of Nature and Nature's God.'"

Except that many founders had some choice words for the Bible (Jefferson referred to it as a "dunghill" ) while the phrases "laws of Nature" and "Nature's God" have a lot more to do with Deism than Christianity.

Nice try though.
18 posted on 08/01/2005 8:55:34 AM PDT by Mylo ("Those without a sword should sell their cloak and buy one" Jesus of Nazareth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah; Born Conservative

Ping


19 posted on 08/01/2005 9:30:09 AM PDT by EdReform (Free Republic - helping to keep our country a free republic. Thank you for your financial support!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mylo
Except that many founders had some choice words for the Bible (Jefferson referred to it as a "dunghill" )

He said 'dunghill', but not quite in the manner in which you portray. Jefferson believed the Bible had been 'contaminated' by the early Christians in an effort to make Christianity more appealing to pagans. His desire was to glean the *pure* teachings of Jesus from the chaff of early Christian meddling.

In his letter to John Adams dated 1813, he wrote:
I have performed this operation for my own use, by cutting verse by verse out of the printed book, and arranging the matter which is evidently his, and which is as easily distinguishable as diamonds in a dunghill."

Here is the actual letter if your interested in the truth instead of parroting what you've heard:

(The 'dunghill' reference can be found toward the bottom of the 2nd paragraph)
To John Adams Monticello, Oct. 12, 1813

while the phrases "laws of Nature" and "Nature's God" have a lot more to do with Deism than Christianity.

Our legal system says otherwise- From the LEGAL definition of 'natural law'

n. 1) standards of conduct derived from traditional moral principles (first mentioned by Roman jurists in the first century A.D.) and/or God's law and will. The biblical ten commandments, such as "thou shall not kill," are often included in those principles.

For giggles & grins, another Jeffersonian quote:

________________________________________________

of them, who have perverted them for the structure of a system of fancy absolutely incomprehensible, and without any foundation in his genuine words. 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 we may hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with all this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this the most venerated reformer of human errors."
Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823

________________________________________________

Nice try though.

Back at 'cha!

20 posted on 08/01/2005 9:57:24 AM PDT by MamaTexan ( I am not a *legal entity*, nor am I a ~person~ as created by law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan

I know the entire quote from Jefferson thank you.

He also said...

"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."


21 posted on 08/01/2005 10:02:45 AM PDT by Mylo ("Those without a sword should sell their cloak and buy one" Jesus of Nazareth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: D Rider
at one time and every (something like) 144 years there would be a near pass by and an energy transfer would occur. And somewhere around 700BC a large transfer occurred that altered the orbits of both planets to where they are now.

Hoo boy, this sounds straight out of Kooksville. If anyone can suggest a mechanism for this sort of "large energy transfer", I would be most interested to read about it.

22 posted on 08/01/2005 10:03:13 AM PDT by malakhi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan

http://history.hanover.edu/hhr/hhr93_1.html

Jefferson believed most aspects of the creator could not be known. He rejected revealed religion because revealed religion suggests a violation of the laws of nature. For revelation or any miracle to occur, the laws of nature would necessarily be broken. Jefferson did not accept this violation of natural laws. He attributed to God only such qualities as reason suggested. "He described God as perfect and good, but otherwise did not attempt an analysis of the nature of God."[14] Also in a letter to Adams, Jefferson said, "Of the nature of this being [God] we know nothing."[15]

Although Jefferson never gave a label to his set of beliefs, they are consistent with the ideas of deism, a general religious orientation developed during the Enlightenment. Jefferson, being a non-sectarian, did not subordinate his beliefs to any label. He once said, "I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever, in religion...or in anything else."[16]

Deism was not actually a formal religion, but rather was a label used loosely to describe certain religious views. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the word deist was used negatively during Jefferson's lifetime.[17] The label was often applied to freethinkers like Jefferson as a slander rather than as a precise description. Thus the deist label is not highly specific. Deists were characterized by a belief in God as a creator and "believed only those Christian doctrines that could meet the test of reason."[18] Deists did not believe in miracles, revealed religion, the authority of the clergy, or the divinity of Jesus. Like Jefferson they "regarded ethics, not faith, as the essence of religion."[19]

"Nature's God" was CLEARLY THE GOD OF DEISM in all important ways. That Jefferson included God in the "Declaration of Independence" is very significant because it helped lay the foundation for a civil religion in America. Paul Johnson addressed the civil religion begun by the founders in his article, "The Almost-Chosen People,"[20] saying that the United States was unique because all religious beliefs were respected. People were more concerned with "moral conduct rather than dogma." So Jefferson helped create a society in which different religions could coexist peacefully because of the emphasis on morality over specific belief.[21]


23 posted on 08/01/2005 10:09:00 AM PDT by Mylo ("Those without a sword should sell their cloak and buy one" Jesus of Nazareth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: malakhi
Hoo boy, this sounds straight out of Kooksville. If anyone can suggest a mechanism for this sort of "large energy transfer", I would be most interested to read about it.

Gravitational, due to close pass-by. (It doesn't have to be all that close with bodies as large as Mars and Earth.) Anyway, it was a model, with a naturalistic approach, attempting to explain events described in historical records from many cultures around the earth.

24 posted on 08/01/2005 10:37:11 AM PDT by D Rider
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham

I don't know enough about this particular course to speak to its validity, but I see no problem with offering courses on the bible in schools. After all, the schools have been making the kids study the Quran for awhile. Turn about is fair play.


25 posted on 08/01/2005 10:38:45 AM PDT by MEGoody (Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mylo
"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."

I'd be interested in reading this in context. Got a link?

26 posted on 08/01/2005 10:43:04 AM PDT by MEGoody (Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: EUPHORIC

False dichotomy. This is not an either-or situation.


27 posted on 08/01/2005 10:45:32 AM PDT by Junior (Just because the voices in your head tell you to do things doesn't mean you have to listen to them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: MEGoody

"The truth is that the greatest enemies to the doctrines of Jesus are those calling themselves the expositors of them, who have perverted them for the structure of a system of fancy absolutely incomprehensible, and without any foundation in his genuine words. And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter. But we may hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with all this artificial scaffolding, and restore us to the primitive and genuine doctrines of this the most venerated reformer of human errors."

-- letter to John Adams, 11 April 1823


28 posted on 08/01/2005 10:47:36 AM PDT by Mylo ("Those without a sword should sell their cloak and buy one" Jesus of Nazareth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Noachian
Just what basis for the Constitution do these so called "critics" think was the basis for that document? What is the "basis" of the Constitution if not the religious outlook of the men who wrote it?

The Bible does not describe a government in any way remotely similar to that created in the Constitution. Nothing listed in the Bill of Rights could be squared with the Bible, either. There is no "Freedom of Religion or Speech" in the Bible. Indeed, much of the OT preaches against such concepts.

Methinks you really didn't put a lot of effort into your response, but simply reacted in a knee-jerk fashion.

29 posted on 08/01/2005 10:49:56 AM PDT by Junior (Just because the voices in your head tell you to do things doesn't mean you have to listen to them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: D Rider; RadioAstronomer
I believe a NASA and Caltech cosmologist have a theory that Mars and the Earth were in synchronous orbits (360 and 720 day years?), at one time and every (something like) 144 years there would be a near pass by and an energy transfer would occur. And somewhere around 700BC a large transfer occurred that altered the orbits of both planets to where they are now. They supposedly used very sophisticated computer analysis that validates the possibility of this.

I doubt this seriously. This sounds like a lot of New Age hogwash.

30 posted on 08/01/2005 10:53:30 AM PDT by Junior (Just because the voices in your head tell you to do things doesn't mean you have to listen to them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Mylo
I know the entire quote from Jefferson thank you.

Then your misstatement pertaining to Jefferson referring to the Bible as a *dunghill* was not by accident, but by design.

He also said... "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."

Ahem...obviously, you're one of those FReepers who do not desire discourse, but only to say the same thing over and over hoping someone will believe it.

If you'll notice, my last post contains the ENTIRE quote the above was excerpted from, which ends:

But we may hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with all this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this the most venerated reformer of human errors

Also, who is David J. Voelker, and what makes him an authority on Jefferson?

Wouldn't it follow the laws of 'logic and reason' for someone who was interested in the truth to read the writings of Jefferson for themselves instead of giving credence to someone else's interpretation?

31 posted on 08/01/2005 10:58:34 AM PDT by MamaTexan ( I am not a *legal entity*, nor am I a ~person~ as created by law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham

Now we're talking.

With the schools hire Episcopalian teachers?


32 posted on 08/01/2005 11:01:46 AM PDT by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mylo
The truth is that the greatest enemies to the doctrines of Jesus

Obviously, a 'deist' wouldn't care about 'enemies to the doctrines of Jesus'.

33 posted on 08/01/2005 11:02:49 AM PDT by MEGoody (Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Junior
I doubt this seriously. This sounds like a lot of New Age hogwash.

Maybeeeee..., But it sounded pretty cool at the time, accounting for a bunch of unexplained events around the world, that happened periodically. I really don't remember much of the details about either the natural solution for events that it provided or the cosmological model that it used. But it seemed very credible at the time, so don't just blow it off. See if you can find more on it and give us a post.

34 posted on 08/01/2005 11:03:52 AM PDT by D Rider
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: agere_contra
Mars will be at a "close approach" in about a month.

Urban Legend/Hoax/out-of-date info.

November 2005 is the next upcoming closest approach of Mars, not August.

35 posted on 08/01/2005 11:11:54 AM PDT by longshadow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: MEGoody
I'd be interested in reading this in context. Got a link?

Here's a link to all the: Jeffersonian letters

Here's the letter on CALVIN AND COSMOLOGY, which begins:

The wishes expressed, in your last favor, that I may continue in life and health until I become a Calvinist, at least in his exclamation of `_mon Dieu!_ jusque a quand'! would make me immortal. I can never join Calvin in addressing _his god._ He was indeed an Atheist, which I can never be; or rather his religion was Daemonism. If ever man worshipped a false god, he did._

36 posted on 08/01/2005 11:13:55 AM PDT by MamaTexan ( I am not a *legal entity*, nor am I a ~person~ as created by law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: D Rider
Gravitational, due to close pass-by. (It doesn't have to be all that close with bodies as large as Mars and Earth.)

Mars and Earth never get that close; the gravitational influence between the two planets is negligible.

37 posted on 08/01/2005 11:41:39 AM PDT by malakhi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Junior; D Rider; malakhi; All
This sounds like a lot of New Age hogwash.

Indeed it is hogwash.

38 posted on 08/01/2005 12:04:00 PM PDT by RadioAstronomer (Senior member of Darwin Central)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan
Hoping someone will believe it? They had better believe that Jefferson said..."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."

because he did.

And it is not a misstatement to say Jefferson referred to the Bible as a dunghill, it is just slightly out of context as he thought it was a dunghill with diamonds in it. Paine had even choicer words for the Bible.

I have read the letters and writings of Jefferson himself, so I don't need to rely on anyone else's interpretation of his writings.

Jefferson was NOT a Christian, he denied the divinity of Jesus.
39 posted on 08/01/2005 12:08:41 PM PDT by Mylo ("Those without a sword should sell their cloak and buy one" Jesus of Nazareth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Mylo
it is not a misstatement to say Jefferson referred to the Bible as a dunghill, it is just slightly out of context

LOL! Not a misstatement, just slightly out of context??
Kinda like 'six of one and half a dozen of the other'...oookay.

Jefferson was NOT a Christian, he denied the divinity of Jesus.

Please show me ANYWHERE I said *Jefferson was a Christian*

From my original post-

No one can understand the Founders intended meaning of 'Republic', or the principals of the Constitution unless they understand certain parts of the Bible, or as the Founders referred to it....'the laws of Nature and Nature's God.'

(Psst!...prohibitions against theft, murder, lying ARE in the Bible, you know)

You're so busy running around trying to put out the 'Jefferson was a Christian' fires, you don't even realize I never struck a match.

_________________________________

If it were up to me, school kids would also read all 4 volumes of Montesquieu, a wonderful treatise comparing different forms of governments, and one of the most quoted sources of the Founders:

Of the Simplicity of Criminal Laws in different Governments
In republican governments, men are all equal;
equal they are also in despotic governments:
in the former, because they are everything;
in the latter, because they are nothing.

THE SPIRIT OF LAWS Book VI By Charles de Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu

40 posted on 08/01/2005 12:31:08 PM PDT by MamaTexan ( I am not a *legal entity*, nor am I a ~person~ as created by law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan
Jefferson was not a Christian; so by "Nature's God" and "natural law" he meant....


what exactly?

And how would reading the Bible inform one as to this person's non-Christian views on the Constitution and natural law?
41 posted on 08/01/2005 12:40:58 PM PDT by Mylo ("Those without a sword should sell their cloak and buy one" Jesus of Nazareth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan
And if I said that I thought Bill Clinton was "an immoral man but a great politician" it would be out of context but not a misstatement to say that I thought he was "an immoral man".

Just as Jefferson quote is out of context, but not incorrect; he did call the Bible a dunghill, albeit with diamonds in it.
42 posted on 08/01/2005 12:44:34 PM PDT by Mylo ("Those without a sword should sell their cloak and buy one" Jesus of Nazareth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Mylo
And how would reading the Bible inform one as to this person's non-Christian views on the Constitution and natural law?

Well, if you want the *nutshell* version-

Noah Webster, the man personally responsible for Art. I, Sec. 8, ¶ 8, of the U. S. Constitution, explained two centuries ago:
The duties of men are summarily comprised in the Ten Commandments, consisting of two tables; one comprehending the duties which we owe immediately to God-the other, the duties we owe to our fellow men.

The Ten Commandments are two sets of laws. Enforcement of the first 5 remains only in God's purview. The LAST 5 Commandments were laws between God and men AND punishable BY man. Breaking one of these 5 Commandments is what defines *crime* for ALL of the people.

These moral laws were already well known by Americans. When a person murdered (not to be confused with self defense), failed to live up to a contractual obligation (adultery), stole, lied, or conspired (covet) to do any of the above, that person committed a crime because they negatively and directly affected another human being.

______________________________________________________

If your interested in the fuller version, try:

e-Law books

Scroll down to the Liberty Library section

James McClellan, Liberty, Order, and Justice: An Introduction to the Constitutional Principles of American Government SectionC The Rule of Law

BTW If you try to take moral, Christian principles completely out of government, you've pulled 'the principals for which it stands' right out from under the Constitution.

'Cause it's not about God....it's about Freedom :)

43 posted on 08/01/2005 2:51:43 PM PDT by MamaTexan ( I am not a *legal entity*, nor am I a ~person~ as created by law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham

Too bad evolution class isn't an 'elective'.


44 posted on 08/01/2005 3:02:56 PM PDT by BenLurkin (O beautiful for patriot dream - that sees beyond the years)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Junior
The Bible does not describe a government in any way remotely similar to that created in the Constitution.

Of course it doesn't. The period of time that the bible encompasses was a time of kings and emperors. At the time that the Constitution was created monarchy was the chief form of government. The Constitution was, at its creation, a unique form of government. To think that a constitutional form of government would be described in a 2000 year old bible is ludicrous.

Nothing listed in the Bill of Rights could be squared with the Bible, either. There is no "Freedom of Religion or Speech" in the Bible. Indeed, much of the OT preaches against such concepts.

Again, you're taking a unique form of government (an 18th century form of government) and trying to apply it to the first century. That's apples and oranges.

Methinks you really didn't put a lot of effort into your response, but simply reacted in a knee-jerk fashion.

Methinks you haven't done your homework. Read about the 56 men who risked their lives when they signed that declaration to be independent of King George, and think about why the first "right" in the Bill of Rights is the "free exercise of religion".

These were religious men who took their religion seriously, and had a firm belief that the Ten Commandments was the basis of natural law. These men built a constitutional government on the concept of men being equally endowed by their "Creator" with unalienable rights.

So, before you go through the Bible looking for rights, freedoms, and constitutional governments remember that the men who wrote, signed, and died for our Constitution, used their Christian faith to build a unique form of government that bibical peoples never knew. No other faith in the world has inspired such a document as ours.

45 posted on 08/01/2005 3:07:31 PM PDT by Noachian (To Control the Judiciary The People Must First Control The Senate)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan
Yet when Thomas Jefferson said "natural law" do you think he was referring to the laws of the Bible that he called a dunghill?

And when Thomas Jefferson said "nature's god" do you think he meant Jesus Christ, who he thought of as not being the son of God, and openly scoffed at the idea of him being god himself (the trinity)?
46 posted on 08/01/2005 3:08:14 PM PDT by Mylo ("Those without a sword should sell their cloak and buy one" Jesus of Nazareth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Mylo
Oh, good grief.

You are still hung up on the *Jefferson was not a Christian thing?*

Do you think Jefferson was the ONLY Founder? There were FIFTY-FIVE men who attended the first Continental Convention, and THIRTY-NINE signed the Constitution.

Do you think Jefferson's admiration for the moral teachings of the Bible (FROM THE LINK IN YOUR PREVIOUS POST) NEGATED the most basic principals of the Decalogue?

Have you even BOTHERED to read anything that falls outside your personal views, or do your eyes slam shut when you see the word *Christian*??

Why don't you stop beating your anti Christian drum, Mylo....

and just run along and find Otis, okay?

47 posted on 08/01/2005 3:32:15 PM PDT by MamaTexan ( I am not a *legal entity*, nor am I a ~person~ as created by law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: MamaTexan
I am not anti-Christian. I am anti "this is a Christian nation, founded only by Christians and based upon the Christian faith" historical revisionism.

Many of the founders were Deists. Many were also Christian.

Why can't you answer two simple questions?

Did Jefferson mean the laws of the Bible when he said 'natural law'?

Did Jefferson mean the God of the Bible when he said 'nature's god'?
48 posted on 08/01/2005 3:36:57 PM PDT by Mylo ("Those without a sword should sell their cloak and buy one" Jesus of Nazareth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Noachian

Your the one who claimed the Constitution is based on the Bible.


49 posted on 08/01/2005 4:11:58 PM PDT by Junior (Just because the voices in your head tell you to do things doesn't mean you have to listen to them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Mylo
I am anti "this is a Christian nation, founded only by Christians and based upon the Christian faith" historical revisionism.

Ah, yet again, you put words in my mouth (never said founded ONLY by Christians, did I?), and you do not do me the courtesy of reading the material I posted in order to back up my assertions.

See post #43 for an explanation of the correlation between the Christian faith, English common law and the rule of law in America.

__________________________________________________

ROFLMAO!

historical revisionism?

No my dear, it's a historical FACT that the laws in this country was based on the Christian faith.... so much so that the Commandments are listed in the CURRENT and LEGAL definition of natural law. (See post #20)

____________________________________________________________ Did Jefferson mean the laws of the Bible when he said 'natural law'?
Did Jefferson mean the God of the Bible when he said 'nature's god'?

Yes... He was not so foolish a man to throw away diamonds just because he'd found them in a dunghill, now was he?

In fact, he says so himself in his letter Letter To Dr. Benjamin Rush, dated April 21, 1803 :

In some of the delightful conversations with you in the evenings of 1798-99, and which served as an anodyne to the afflictions of the crisis through which our country was then laboring, the Christian religion was sometimes our topic; and I then promised you that one day or other I would give you my views of it. They are the result of a life of inquiry and reflection, and very different from that anti-Christian system imputed to me by those who know nothing of my opinions. To the corruptions of Christianity I am indeed opposed, but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian, in the only sense in which he wished anyone to be: sincerely attached to his doctrines in preference to all others, ascribing to himself every human excellence, and believing he never claimed any other.

This is the Introduction to Jefferson's Bible where it states:

Thomas Jefferson wrote in a letter to William Canby, "Of all the systems of morality, ancient or modern, which have come under my observation, none appear to me so pure as that of Jesus."

_________________________________________________

You seem erroneously convinced that any acknowledgment of the Christian faith and it's role in American government means you have to be a Christian.

In order to avoid that oh-so-horrible fate, you DENY the very thing that gives you your freedom.

I think Jefferson would be appalled!

50 posted on 08/01/2005 4:38:10 PM PDT by MamaTexan ( I am not a *legal entity*, nor am I a ~person~ as created by law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-80 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson