re: Texas may become first state to mandate Bible readings in public schools

quote:

---

And I pray that you don’t have children

---

i have 2, awesome, biracial children... they excel in school as well as sports, and are brought up to be respectful, helpful, and empathetic to others... all without a religious teaching... imagine that

quote:

---

You’re being purposefully ignorant here.

---

no, i'm being truthful... i'm sorry you feel so persecuted... i really do.. i just don't feel the same way, at all...

quote:

---

I wish I was this dumb sometimes

---

we are having a discussion, i'm being respectful of you... why resort to this? is it that you have nothing better to add to the conversation, and this is your attempt to just exit it? do better...

quote:

---

The phrase weak men create hard times applies perfectly to you.

---

yet you know nothing of me... of who I truly am, and what i've actually achieved in this life... it's a shame your go to, when not winning an argument, is just insult the other person.. it's childish... i'm not sure why i expect more out of people here, but i do...

quote:

---

I get all that, I guess we just differ on modes of interpretation. If every word of the text is to be read with a 250 year old lens, they might as well just scrap it and write a new one.

---

I think we need to rewind for context. I think that post was in response to someone saying the founding and secularism weren't far apart. They were, absolutely, far apart. So I think we should separate what the EC does from what it arguably should do from what it arguably tells us about the founding, they're probably all different questions and perhaps with different answers.

The EC was 100% derived to settle disputes among Christians, I genuinely don't think intellectually honest people can dispute it. Personally, and I don't think this is some fringe position, I think the use of "religion" instead of Christianity or Protestantism was to downplay the potential for more disputes among those Christian sects who may or may not agree that all of those denominations were Christian/Protestant, etc. But I'm open to other ideas - that the founders wanted an elastic EC that could conceivably encompass no religion, other religions, etc. But it's just not realistic (and there isn't much historical support) for any idea that the adopters had Islam or ardent secularism in mind. I call it sort of a luxury of aspiration - ie, it's easy to be broad in language when your entire worldview is Christianity and you really can't fathom life where it's not the universal, default position.

But, the EC says "religion." And even if the founders never conceived of it really being applied outside of the faith, "it is what it is." So how it operates today and should be interpreted given that we're no longer a homogenous group of at minimum, cultural Christians, is a different social/cultural/legal discussion entirely.

I tend to believe the country's Christian founding can and should be visible throughout all elements of American culture - including government/schools - without violating the EC. But that's a much more entailed discussion. That would probably extend to Bible study in Texas, but I can't say I'm particularly invested in the outcome of this.

quote:

---

That doesn’t mean there isn’t a source of objective morality.

---

He and others are saying an objective morality doesnt really exist. It s subjective.

quote:

---

my point was simply on the concept of a objective morality which I do think requires a supreme judge

---

I'm glad you said "concept", because that's all it will ever be. Even with a "supreme judge", morality will differ based on societies, cultures, communities, and families.

Even within Christianity itself, there are wide differences on deeply ethical and moral questions. Presbyterians and Episcopalians are pro-choice. How's the "supreme judge" working out in that matter?

quote:

---

How's the "supreme leader" working out in that matter?

---

Thats for believers to sort out....Im agnostic

quote:

---

No, but they aren’t moving to predominantly Muslim countries. Why?

---

Government benefits.
.
But more importantly, they also know American leftists will defend their religious beliefs even when they directly conflict with the values and principles this country was founded on.

I am hoping to help you establish a pattern in your head. Let me ask it another way, why do no Muslim countries offer their lands as refuge for other Muslim migrants?

quote:

---

They forbade any religious test to hold public office. Along with the establishment and free exercise clause. There are flashing red lights of their clear intent on this topic

---

You'll need to be specific about what you mean by clear intent. Because the clear intent of the prohibition on religious tests was to avoid/reconcile disputes among the states and the Christian denominations that dominated specific states at the time.

Notable that those states continued to employ their own religious tests for public office after the adoption of Article VI.

quote:

---

I’ll not be taking any criticism from the likes of you. You have repeatedly demonstrated you are a moron in many aspects. Go give your opinions on something more in line with who you are.

---