https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/texas-approves-allowing-bible-based-teachings-in-public-grade-schools/ar-AA1uA1cr?ocid=msedgntp&pc=HCTS&cvid=d2afd9508da548edb34c15a23b7b5774&ei=22#comments
This country will be turned in the right direction.
I wonder if this means the disappearance of Evolution from the curriculum there ... something which arouses bemusement and ridicule in equal measure elsewhere - and has done ever since back when, with The Scopes Monkey Trial.
shareI hope not. We already had this debate 20 years ago, and the Evolutionists won decisively. As someone who isn’t religious but respects religion and tradition, I think the Right would do well to accept evolution and find a way to reconcile it with their faith.
A great example of how this can be done is Chris Hedges. He’s a deeply religious Christian and also highly informed and scientifically literate. He’s one of the best journalists out there right now, and the way he talks about faith offers a smart and thoughtful path forward for Christians who want to stay true to their beliefs while embracing science.
God created evolution.
Fixed it for you. 😁
It’s truly awe-inspiring when you think about it. From the simplest of processes, God, in His wisdom, has given rise to an incredible diversity and complexity of life. The elegance of this design, both profound and breathtaking, speaks to his greatness.
shareBut the right HATE diversity (especially the equity part) therefore goes against God's creation.
shareThe (far) right HATES both race mixing and the woke obsession with 'diversity,' precisely because they undermine the true diversity of cultures. Whites have their own culture, and that culture deserves to be preserved, not diluted by the influences of other races or cultures. The same principle applies to blacks and Asians. I wouldn't want to see Whites migrating into China, replacing the Chinese people, and eroding their millennia-old culture. Likewise, for the same reason, I don't want to see blacks or Muslim immigrants from the Middle East replacing White Europeans in Europe
shareThis is all so obvious to anyone who has followed the train of thought towards the logical conclusion.
shareIt’s remarkable, isn’t it, how the Woke left has manipulated our minds? Not so long ago, what I’ve said would have been seen as obvious and uncontroversial. Yet the Woke left has so thoroughly reshaped our thinking with their corrosive ideology that now it’s the normal people who feel like radicals, as if we’re the ones saying something outrageous.
What’s even more troubling is how deeply their influence has seeped into all of us — even those on the right, or even the far right. We’ve internalized their framework to such a degree that, even when we vehemently disagree, we’re still speaking within their terms.
Look at me, for instance. I’m a far-right social conservative and an unapologetic advocate for White people and their culture, and yet I had to transgress every social norm, take all the slings and arrows, and even invent a “Nazi” persona on here just to make my arguments. I had to embody the ultimate outcast, the irredeemable pariah, just to say what, twenty years ago, would have been considered the status quo.
Hi glad to see you back with more humorous provocation, though this is not one of your better ones.
shareI actually quite liked it. I think it's a perfectly adequate and uncontroversial argument for preserving our cultures, as well as a valid critique of Woke diversity. The only reason this idea seems so controversial and radical today is the extent to which Woke ideology has poisoned our minds — mine included. I had to actively deprogram myself just to express what would have been considered a mainstream opinion merely 20 years ago.
shareThat's better, much more interesting, and as said before I always enjoy your Nazi persona. But I am sorry to hear about your 'poisoned mind'. How did you go about deprogramming yourself? Did it involve press ups, opioids and joining the NRA?
shareIt was largely a process of self-reflection, coupled with spending time in left-wing spaces and witnessing their gradual corruption by the Woke agenda. I watched as groups once focused on fostering class consciousness devolved into identity politics and endless complaints about pronouns. Deprogramming myself was surprisingly easy — primarily because of how repulsive the Wokes are. Hate, after all, is a powerful force — it sharpens perspective and cuts through the noise. So, give hate a chance, my friend! You might find it surprisingly liberating.
shareNo we hate the woke-created version of those things...God didn't create them, man did.
shareCurious: The chief hindrance to small-minded people like you coming to terms with the story of life on earth is a lack of knowledge (basic concepts of evolutionary theory) and inability to comprehend the vast amount of time that has elapsed since organisms started replicating. There is no proof of god, there's enough proof of evolution to fill university libraries.
Hey, Dummy, just so we’re clear — I’m an atheist, so spare me the lecture on religion. As for evolution, this was practically my domain back in the mid-2000s. I spent countless nights debating evolution by natural selection with religious folks pushing Intelligent Design, not just arguing but educating. I’ve read The Selfish Gene, The Blind Watchmaker, and The Extended Phenotype by Dawkins, among others, and I was deeply involved in the skeptic and atheist online community during that time. I contributed regularly to the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science online forum and even managed to change the minds of many religious folks. So, don’t waste your time trying to ‘educate’ me on a topic I’ve been immersed in for years. I’ve already been there and done that, and probably know it better than you.
shareThe proof of God is all around you. You just choose to ignore it...therefore, he ignores you.
shareGod created evolution.
The proof is all around you, stop ignoring him and he will stop ignoring you.
God gave everything the ability to evolve. It's just how it is. Creationists are wrong.
The proof is all around you,
stop ignoring him and he will stop ignoring you.
"We already had this debate 20 years ago, and the Evolutionists won decisively."
What are you referring to here?
In the mid-2000s, a resurgence of atheism was ignited by Sam Harris’s The End of Faith, followed by Richard Dawkins’s The God Delusion, Christopher Hitchens’s God Is Not Great, and Daniel Dennett’s Breaking the Spell. This movement, known as New Atheism, coincided with a growing interest in skepticism and science, which often overlapped with atheism. The evolution debate was reignited, with figures like Dawkins and Dennett taking on Intelligent Design proponents.
At the same time, prominent YouTube atheists engaged in debates with creationists and Young Earth advocates, while regular individuals like me debated these topics on forums. After about five years, the consensus among the normies was that evolutionists had won, supported by stronger arguments and evidence. This period saw many people lose faith and turn away from religion — something we atheists celebrated at the time.
In hindsight, however, I view this shift with sadness. The once-charming, traditional religion of Christians has been supplanted by the poisonous ideology of Wokeness, which has become the dominant secular religion in the West.
First of all, it's not mandatory and second, they're not replacing anything with it. What's wrong with giving kids a choice?
shareNothing however Science, unlike politics, does not offer 'alternate truths' to choose between. Rather ironically, today was Evolution Day.
https://assembliesforall.org.uk/events/evolution-day/
That's cool and all. Science (which I wholeheartedly subscribe to), just like creationism has MANY unanswered questions. Closing off one in favor of the other limits discovery/knowledge.
shareI agree that science has many things yet to discover/work out - if it ever does, of course But science is not religion and it is important not to confuse the two. Creationism, er, intelligent design is just pseudo science, as the final verdict by a Federal judge in the Dover trial of a few years back, after listening for a number of days from experts on either side, made clear.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District
The fact is, "pseudo science" is just that until all the data is in. "Science" is not settled so I'll keep an open mind.
sharePseudo science is a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method. For instance the notion that everything is 'designed' by a creator is not falsifiable. The judge at Dover in his verdict said moreover
"The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory... ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980s; and (3) ID's negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community. ... It is additionally important to note that ID has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community, it has not generated peer-reviewed publications, nor has it been the subject of testing and research.... we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents."
None of that disproves ID. Like I said, I'll keep an open mind.
shareSo tell me some of the main theories of ID, and how they can be tested?
shareThat is one of the exact points I made. ID is not falsifiable, a major hallmark of what constitutes science.
shareSorry skavau. Not doing it with this iteration of you either. We're onto you.
shareI'm not Skavau. But if thinking that gives you an excuse to leave the discussion, then thank you for playing.
shareSure, buddy. I don't even know what you're hoping to accomplish with said discussion. If you think there's any chance at all of getting me to abandon my faith, you're sorely mistaken. You have your faith and I have mine.
shareI don't even know what you're hoping to accomplish with said discussion
. If you think there's any chance at all of getting me to abandon my faith, you're sorely mistaken.
It was me who asked the question. I am not skavau, or whoever it is that you're obsessed about. Stop diverting and provide an answer, or just admit that your belief in a superior being which created all that we see is just that-- a belief, which cannot be disproven because there are no real world correspondences. No one in the Bible has been proven to exist. Nor was there a flood which inundated all earth nor an ark in which every living creature lived, ate, slept, fucked, fought. Think about it!
shareI've never said it's not a belief, just like your unproven beliefs. If you say you "know", you're either a liar or not too smart.
shareStill can't answer about the theories of ID? Hmm. Just a brief precis will do. Please, just answer how all this life came about. That's a very important, basic question. How does your faith inform you re that?
shareI see you can't answer with specifics. Very typical of religion-addled brains. You remember that old commercial of "this is your brain on drugs?" It's even more true for religion. So sad, isn't it, to go through life with half-baked notions forged before man could think empirically, not knowing your ancestors, not having a brain formidable enough to understand the vast eons of time necessary for all these events to happen. So narrow, so ignorant, such darkness. It makes me shudder!
shareHAHAHAHAHA!! You're joke! I can, have and do think WAAAAY deeper and further than your little intellect can even fathom. Your self limitation is truly sad and I feel sorry for you.
Here's you brief precis: God, who is capable of ANYTHING, created everything including the very reality we live in.
I'm not wasting any more time on a simpleton like you so please, have your coveted last word.
You live in darkness. Watch out for that post ahead. It's a killer.
shareGod, who is capable of ANYTHING
created everything including the very reality we live in.
I'm not wasting any more time
I never heard of this Dover decision.
sharehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District
It was a landmark case, well worth reading about.
Sure...if you want a theocracy.
shareCan you imagine how many members of the Rainbow Reich working as teachers, or the atheists working in schools are gonna flip their lids over this? Pass the popcorn!
shareSorry to spoil your entertainment, but nobody's going to "flip their lid" over this. The educated people know how strong the vein of ignorance still is in this country, especially in the backward areas of the south.
shareThat's a laugh. Under the left controlled "education" system, our kids are getting worse and worse test scores.
shareYou obviously are advocating for something you are ignorant of. States control their education policies. If you look at the poorest performing states, they're all in the south, where the right is in complete control.
shareWhat a load of hooey. The education system is liberal controlled. FACT.
shareAre you denying that
school boards in the south (and Mormon states) are run by conservatives? Didn't you read just recently how you must have the ten commands in each school room in LA, and how Bible studies must be included in Texas schools? Definitely not "liberal control" eh?
Of course they are flipping their lids over the ending the DoE.... they will not be able to indoctrinate on a national level anymore.
shareAnd they hate Christianity. Oh boy do they hate it. And having to teach such values to kids instead of how to be one of them? I suspect many are either gonna quit or protest heavily.
shareLocal education should be a state's right to decide.
shareRight, so the constant moaning by the right about indoctrination of children by the left is conditional. It’s ok to brainwash kids, as long as we have control of how we are brainwashing them.
Sounds fair and just.
The left is teaching kids to be gay, showing them pornography and teaching them they could be born in the wrong body. They are also giving them hormones which makes them sterile and doing frankenstein surgeries on them. You dont see any issues with this degeneracy?
shareI have an issue with teaching children anything related to sexuality before they are mature enough to undestand it. In regards to acknowledging the real world with children and telling them the truth that some families have two fathers or two mothers, I would prefer they know that truth.
Your charged language is half the problem. Stop being hysterical and also ease off on the hypocrisy. Teach young kids the essentials but leave sex AND religion out of it.
I'm not being hysterical. Everything I listed is being taught/shown to children in U.S. schools. All of this will stop under Trump.
shareSure. Whatever you say, Donny will wave his magic wand and lgbt people won’t exist anymore and a democrat will never get in power and have the option to reverse all that. Cool.
So simplistic my head is exploding.
You also conveniently ignored the fact that you’re now celebrating indoctrination of children where you and your comrades have spent years campaigning against that. Why?
Are you even paying attention to what I'm saying? You going to keep distorting everything I say?
shareI’m not distorting anything. You my friend started this thread about mandated religion in schools, suggesting that “the country will be turned in the right direction” by these changes.
How is that any different to teaching kids about lgbt topics? It’s merely replacing one form of indoctrination with another, and you appear to have no answer as to why you think brainwashing kids is now good when before it was bad.
Because the LGBT "teaching" going on in our schools is causing harm. Learning about the bible doesn't cause harm.
Note: *teaching* in this discussion means all of the following: pornographic books being shown to children which include oral sex between two males with graphic illustrations. Illustrated books that teach children can be born in the wrong body, they are promoting transgenderism. These are just a few examples.
You’re seriously going to sit there and tell me organised religion has never caused harm to anyone?
I don’t believe that those things you mentioned about graphic oral sex being shown to kids is widespread or part of any education syllabus. If I’m wrong show me some evidence that this is anything more than a few random incidents. I’m sorry but it sounds like scaremongering to push an agenda that all lgbt people are freaks after children and that’s just small minded nonsense.
Clownbaby is exactly that!
shareBetter this than the Woke garbage being forced on children by the Rainbow fascists. That said, it’s clearly unconstitutional, so I doubt it will gain any traction
shareWill children be taught that if Jesus did actually exist, he wouldn't have being white?
shareHey, take your stinky brown Jesus theories to another thread, thank you very much.
Jesus was white, he hated homos (or his Dad does, at least) and he believed women should live to serve their man. We won’t have any of your woke interpretations here thanks you poor lost lamb.
Does it hurt to know that he didn't exist and even IF he did he wouldn't have been white, you pathetic snowflake🤣
shareDude, you missed my irony.
I’m not religious by any measure. My response was in the vein of some of the more virulent believers we see on this forum for time to time. In short, I was taking the piss.
Sorry. Hard to tell in tone just looking at words sometimes. My bad.
shareNo hard feelings. Anyway probably my fault for being so sarcastic 😆
To respond to your comment genuinely I think it’s unlikely that indoctrinated religion in schools will come with any modern amendments. I dare say it will be the same ancient tome the church has spun for centuries and will still be used by bigots to justify mean-spirited and discriminatory personal views.
Itchy trigger finger kemosabe?
shareI think they're just gonna be taught morals that have their roots in Christianity, and maybe a few Bible verses that relate to some lesson. In a public school setting those things make more sense than teaching the actual Bible, because that goes into the theology sphere.
shareAnother dingdong who baselessly claims Jesus didn't exist. I wish I could travel back in time so I would "know".
shareAnother dingdong who baselessly claims Jesus didn't exist
Fair enough and quite respectfully stated.
shareGive me one, just one measly piece of evidence (not frim "The Gospels") that Jesus existed.
share5 hrs. on and still waiting for that evidence for JC's historicity. You must have this evidence for such a monumental personage at your fingertips, surly!? What's the hold-up? You're not going agnostic on me, I hope. I despise agnostics, though athiests are A-OK.
shareYou seem a bit impatient when the arguments are well established, with most scholars agreeing that a man called Jesus lived. Not having an axe to grind, and after reading them, I am happy to go with the overwhelming consensus. That is not to say they are necessarily right, but less likely to be wrong on balance.
As I already said that the Gospels offer ordinary evidence enough to show (for me) the historicity of a human Jesus. Paul was a contemporary of Jesus and wrote letters that provide a detailed outline of Jesus' life; there is general agreement that, with the possible exception of Paul, we know far more about Jesus of Nazareth than about any first or second century Jewish or pagan religious teacher. ( On what ordinary basis do you so readily dismiss the Gospels as a source of ordinary evidence for a man's life, btw?)
There is also Josephus,. The Jewish historian and military leader wrote about Jesus in his 20-volume history of the Jewish people, Antiquities of the Jews, around 93 AD (with some supernatural claims interpolated by followers later, I seem to remember). Tacitus the Roman historian wrote about Jesus in his Annals around 116 AD. Pliny the Younger: The Roman governor wrote to Emperor Trajan that early Christians would “sing hymns to Christ as to a god” shortly before Tacitus wrote about Jesus. For a detailed summary of the evidence, including the two accepted facts of a historical Jesus see:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus
I am an atheist btw. And as I said above, I distinguish between believing in the Jesus of history (which I do) and the Christ of faith.(which I don't).
FACT: Parents can teach their children the Bible anyway they seem fit. The reason the people pushing this is so they can use the government to teach other people's children the Bible. Prove me wrong.
shareNo objection to this as long as religion is kept out of science lessons and other faiths are also offered as part of comparative religion. After all the Constitution guarantees freedom of religion, not just the one some like with no alternatives.
share