This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

← Bibles in schools

Bibles in schools - Comments

Anonymous's Avatar Comment 1 by Anonymous

Comment Removed by Moderator - off topic

Mon, 09 Apr 2012 13:41:58 UTC | #933316

Zipidy's Avatar Comment 2 by Zipidy

A quote from one news source follows:

Board chairwoman, Jan Johnstone, admits the vitriolic responses -- some urging trustees to "watch your back" -- are unnerving.

"People do crazy things," Johnstone said. "They see Christianity as a fundamental part of their Canadian identity."

I've emailed my letter of support and thanks to the Bluewater District School Board and encourage my fellow Dawkinsians to do the same.

Mon, 09 Apr 2012 14:37:35 UTC | #933345

Bobwundaye's Avatar Comment 3 by Bobwundaye

The article also states that:

Trustees emphasized that most of those in favour of continuing the distribution practice have been respectful in their views.

The article also that:

Kelvin Warkentin, a spokesman for the Gideons International in Canada, acknowledged times have changed.

“Over time, due to the religious fabric of our country being re-woven, school boards have begun to re-evaluate their policies on this tradition,” Mr. Warkentin said.

“The Gideons' response to the school boards' decisions to discontinue the distributions has always been complete acceptance.”

A good response by the majority of religious folk, including the Gideons.

Mon, 09 Apr 2012 15:52:12 UTC | #933365

Bobwundaye's Avatar Comment 4 by Bobwundaye

I've taught at a school (with religious foundations) where the Gideons handed out the Bibles and they always delivered an uplifting message of hope.

I've also seen the bibles land up in trash cans right outside the chapel as some students decided to protest that way, and seen other students pore over their bibles sucking up every word as they try to make sense of the world and find meaning in life. And I've seen the rebellious kids become evangelical, and the religious ones, cynical almost-atheists (not strictly atheists yet).

By and large, we underestimate children's ability to express themselves and make their own decisions and revisit them.

The version of the Bible that the Gideons gave out where I worked was a fairly accessible translation of the New Testament which in my opinion should probably be required reading anyway (or at least parts of it), even in a secular education.

Mon, 09 Apr 2012 16:14:15 UTC | #933370

Daisy Skipper's Avatar Comment 5 by Daisy Skipper

Thanks for posting this. My email is on the way.

Incidentally, so far 55% of people on this Huffpost article have voted that bibles should not be handed out.

I'm actually a little surprised that the number isn't higher - though this poll is by no means representative of the Ontario population - since Ontarians in general are against religious schools.

Mon, 09 Apr 2012 17:48:48 UTC | #933390

Shannon1981's Avatar Comment 6 by Shannon1981

Of course Bibles don't belong in schools. What if someone is Jewish, Muslim, Pagan, agnostic, atheist, or anything other than Christian? The handing out of those Bibles is patently offensive.

Ah, theists. The idea that someone doesn't believe what they believe and that the government doesn't push their particular beliefs= oppression and discrimination...must be nice to live in such a small world with such a small mind.

Tue, 10 Apr 2012 05:25:10 UTC | #933542

caseyg5's Avatar Comment 7 by caseyg5

I'm not sure "read this or I'll kill you" is the proper way to educate children!

Tue, 10 Apr 2012 20:35:07 UTC | #933743

Thank Evolution's Avatar Comment 8 by Thank Evolution

Comment Removed by Author

Wed, 11 Apr 2012 00:47:30 UTC | #933790

Thank Evolution's Avatar Comment 9 by Thank Evolution

Which is it, should be required? Or probably be required? And you're saying that, it is your opinion that my child, and all children should be required to read this mythology? Mythology, that in the eyes of the many emotionally deluded, take as real?...... WRONG..... Until any bible, or koran, or any other superstitious material is literally referred to as mythology by society, no child below the age of 17 anywhere, should be required to read the irrational absurdities of religion. It is a form of indoctrination, and because of that, no child should be subjected to it by force. >

Comment 4 by Spiritual Atheist :

The version of the Bible that the Gideons gave out where I worked was a fairly accessible translation of the New Testament which in my opinion should probably be required reading anyway (or at least parts of it), even in a secular education.

Wed, 11 Apr 2012 00:50:23 UTC | #933792

xmaseveeve's Avatar Comment 10 by xmaseveeve

Bibles belong in school libraries but must not be promoted against any other book.

Spiritualatheist,

students pore over their bibles sucking up every word as they try to make sense of the world and find meaning in life. And I've seen the rebellious kids become evangelical, and the religious ones, cynical almost-atheists (not strictly atheists yet).

You make it sound like a srum of young boys around a porn mag. If it's that good, they can borrow it from the library. For an atheist, you sound like no atheist. Maybe in a year's time, you'll look back on your posts and see how illogical they are, but you seem still caught up in being a preacher - I mean, evangelical teacher. Let go of the presumption that religion is 'a good thing'.

And I beg your pardon, but I am a moral person, and I never had any religion taught to me, so I don't buy your moral grounding argument (on another thread, I think).

Wed, 11 Apr 2012 01:42:09 UTC | #933808

Kiwi's Avatar Comment 11 by Kiwi

It's really parts of bibles in schools. They remove the nasty bits, perhaps they could call it "cherry picked bibles in schools".

Wed, 11 Apr 2012 11:37:49 UTC | #933860

Zeuglodon's Avatar Comment 12 by Zeuglodon

seen other students pore over their bibles sucking up every word as they try to make sense of the world and find meaning in life.

Should've read a science book if they want to make sense of the world. As for meaning in life, I'd recommend a good psychology introduction, some lessons on future career prospects, some helpful factual information on domestic life, moral philosophy, philosophy in general...

Wed, 11 Apr 2012 11:43:58 UTC | #933862

Bobwundaye's Avatar Comment 13 by Bobwundaye

Comment 9 by Thank Evolution Which is it, should be required? Or probably be required? And you're saying that, it is your opinion that my child, and all children should be required to read this mythology? Mythology, that in the eyes of the many emotionally deluded, take as real?

I would have nothing against parts of the Bible being prescribed literature at some stage of a schooling career in most western countries, especially since the Judeo-Christian religio-culture forms such a strong part of its heritage: you might not like it, but its a fact. (Also, I'm not saying it's always been a positive heritage, but it's part of the west's heritage.)

Comment 10 by xmaseveeve

For an atheist, you sound like no atheist.

O, I didn't realize there was a checklist of beliefs I had to stand behind and recite in order to be called atheist.

As far as I understood it, an atheist does not believe in the supernatural. I did not realize I have to hate religion and denounce all religion as evil.

Let go of the presumption that religion is 'a good thing'.

I don't see all of religion as a good thing. Nor do I see all of it as evil. I see it as, if not a necessary inconvenience, an existing inconvenience in that whether we like it or not, it has formed an integral part of our society since the dawn of written history (as far as I know). As such, I am hesitant to take on the arrogant position that all religion of the past served no purpose, had no good, and was evil manifest; and that the evil of the past, pales in comparrisson with the evil religion of the present.

And I beg your pardon, but I am a moral person, and I never had any religion taught to me, so I don't buy your moral grounding argument (on another thread, I think).

Well, I wasn't selling it. I was stating my personal experience, much like you stating yours. I have no doubt that I have acted more morally in some circumstances than in others because of my religion. I know that in certain circumstances I followed the example of Jesus (assuming he was a historical person) who taught to forgive, not to fuel anger but to make your peace with another quickly - even before bringing an offering to God, to admit to wrong doing, and (yes, even) to not steal.

I am glad that you obtained your morality from a non-religious source, but I didn't. I have no doubt that morality can be achieved a-religiously, but I didn't get my introduction to it in that way. I think that is all that I was stating.

Maybe in a year's time, you'll look back on your posts and see how illogical they are

Maybe. And if I am wrong, I certainly hope I do. And as religion taught me, I'll admit to my wrongs. However, I can also say that I certainly hope I am not wrong in many instances.

Wed, 11 Apr 2012 14:01:31 UTC | #933874

Zeuglodon's Avatar Comment 14 by Zeuglodon

I would have nothing against parts of the Bible being prescribed literature at some stage of a schooling career in most western countries, especially since the Judeo-Christian religio-culture forms such a strong part of its heritage: you might not like it, but its a fact. (Also, I'm not saying it's always been a positive heritage, but it's part of the west's heritage.)

That seems fair to me. We study Shakespeare and the writings of Charles Dickens for the same reasons, and there's no denying your point about its historical significance. It has to be a literature, history, or comparative religion lesson, though.

As far as I understood it, an atheist does not believe in the supernatural. I did not realize I have to hate religion and denounce all religion as evil.

You're correct, though strictly speaking an atheist does not believe in theism rather than the supernatural generally (that's usually implied). The stance of hating or of disagreeing with religion is miso-religionism or anti-religionism respectively, from miso- "to hate" and anti- "against". These are very different concepts from atheism and often the distinction is not recognized.

I don't see all of religion as a good thing. Nor do I see all of it as evil. I see it as, if not a necessary inconvenience, an existing inconvenience in that whether we like it or not, it has formed an integral part of our society since the dawn of written history (as far as I know). As such, I am hesitant to take on the arrogant position that all religion of the past served no purpose, had no good, and was evil manifest; and that the evil of the past, pales in comparrisson with the evil religion of the present.

This is an admirable stance. I don't like to oversimplify the matter in this way either.

I hate to sound like a pedant, but since religion is usually an amalgamation of many things, I tend to take the card tower view when someone claims they don't agree or disagree wholly with religion. Religion is made up of cosmological views, moral teaching, ceremony and ritual, cultural artefacts, and many other things. If you're separating them into their component parts and then picking only a few, whatever else you get it is not technically religion. Take the moral teachings of Jesus, for instance, or those of Buddha. You can endorse their moral philosophies or practical suggestions (like meditation), but that's the domain you want. If you reject the cosmological views and fantastical stories, you're not following the religion.

I think you've got my point when you said:

I am glad that you obtained your morality from a non-religious source, but I didn't. I have no doubt that morality can be achieved a-religiously, but I didn't get my introduction to it in that way. I think that is all that I was stating.

.

Maybe. And if I am wrong, I certainly hope I do. And as religion taught me, I'll admit to my wrongs. However, I can also say that I certainly hope I am not wrong in many instances.

Same here, minus the "religion taught me" part.

Wed, 11 Apr 2012 14:31:31 UTC | #933885

Ignorant Amos's Avatar Comment 15 by Ignorant Amos

Comment 13 by Spiritual Atheist

I would have nothing against parts of the Bible being prescribed literature at some stage of a schooling career in most western countries, especially since the Judeo-Christian religio-culture forms such a strong part of its heritage: you might not like it, but its a fact. (Also, I'm not saying it's always been a positive heritage, but it's part of the west's heritage.)

There is your problem right there.....who gets to choose, what bits and why? Isn't it just a tad disingenuous and hypocritical to cherry pick the wicked bits out and I'm assuming that's what you mean by allowing parts as prescribed reading. So what about all the other literature that is banned in school for considerably less offensive text than the Bible? Mark Twain's, The 'Adventures of Huckleberry Finn' because of the 'N' word over usage? Books with sexual references? We don't want to live in a 'Fahrenheit 451' existence for sure, but as long as people are going to take offence, there will be censorship.

I've no problem with the Bible being taught in schools, in fact I'd condone it, but to the right age group and with nothing omitted. I would prescribe a warts and all approach. It should also not be taught as a work of fact. Now you tell me that there is any chance of that happening? So, it should not be taught at all if it is to be taught erroneously, there is enough of that nonsense going on outside school.

The problem with the Bible is the numerous people that adhere to it that are ignorant of all its contents. Even those that have read it seem to lack any understanding of what it is saying.

Wed, 11 Apr 2012 14:50:57 UTC | #933892

Sample's Avatar Comment 16 by Sample

The problem with the Bible is the numerous people that adhere to it that are ignorant of all its contents. Even those that have read it seem to lack any understanding of what it is saying.

It's like playing a guitar by strumming piano keys, eh?

Mike

Wed, 11 Apr 2012 15:22:29 UTC | #933898

Ignorant Amos's Avatar Comment 17 by Ignorant Amos

Comment 13 by Spiritual Atheist

Comment 10 by xmaseveeve

For an atheist, you sound like no atheist.

O, I didn't realize there was a checklist of beliefs I had to stand behind and recite in order to be called atheist.

As far as I understood it, an atheist does not believe in the supernatural. I did not realize I have to hate religion and denounce all religion as evil.

No perhaps not, but for someone who would consider themselves an apathetic Atheist, you are strangely not apathetic when it comes to the active defence of your old religion. I'm intrigued about this, I really am. I have no problem with anyone being apathetic either way, each to their own, but your posting history is contrary to the claim...just saying.

I don't see all of religion as a good thing. Nor do I see all of it as evil. I see it as, if not a necessary inconvenience, an existing inconvenience in that whether we like it or not, it has formed an integral part of our society since the dawn of written history (as far as I know). As such, I am hesitant to take on the arrogant position that all religion of the past served no purpose, had no good, and was evil manifest; and that the evil of the past, pales in comparrisson with the evil religion of the present.

Ya see, here's another issue I must take up with you. No one here, as far as I can tell, correct me if I'm wrong, has taken the arrogant position that religion has served no purpose, had no good and was evil manifest. This is how your comments seem to go, constructing a straw army of things that are not the case. What is important is whether it is the pro's or it is the con's of religions that are the most prevalent. Most here would claim on hindsight that the con's of religion have far outweighed the pro's of the past. The present can only be judged when it becomes the past, but it's definitely not looking good for the track record so far of the religions of today and I'd like to see the back of them.

....and that the evil of the past, pales in comparrisson with the evil religion of the present.

That is subjective SA. If you were brought up in a happy clappy conservative evangelical religion of the U.S. of the late 20th century and it was all love and king cake parties, I'm sure that statement is true. If you were brought up in the religiously bigoted and violent hatred in late 20th century of Northern Ireland, then not so much. Child victims of the RCC will also beg to differ, as would a lot of women living in Islamic theocracies and I'm sure there are other parts of the planet with similar or even worse conditions than N.I. and would also think your remark just daft.

I have no doubt that I have acted more morally in some circumstances than in others because of my religion. I know that in certain circumstances I followed the example of Jesus (assuming he was a historical person) who taught to forgive, not to fuel anger but to make your peace with another quickly - even before bringing an offering to God, to admit to wrong doing, and (yes, even) to not steal.

You have no doubt? How can you possibly know what you may or may not have did in any given scenario if the circumstances were any different? This interests me though, you credit the example of the Jesus myth for past correct moral decisions, yes? So how will you deal with similar situations should they arise? Will you continue with the lessons of Jesus? Or have you developed a newer moral philosophy? Another point on the example of Jesus as a pinnacle of moral fortitude, millions of so called Christians don't seem to get it and commit really heinous acts on their fellow Christians, other religious and fellow humans...what's that all about if the message is so clear and you were not being a good person because that's what you are, a good person SA? Can you see where the argument for being good as inspired by scripture, really falls down?

Wed, 11 Apr 2012 15:46:47 UTC | #933905

Ignorant Amos's Avatar Comment 18 by Ignorant Amos

Comment 16 by Sample

It's like playing a guitar by strumming piano keys, eh?

I most of the folk I interact with would class themselves as Christian. Many are bigoted. I'v yet to find one that has read the Holy Bible and most only know the bit's they learned as children at Sunday School. Yet with all, they vehemently hate other Christians from a different flavour of the cult with a passion.

Playing a guitar by strumming piano keys is right, all I hear is incoherent noise.

My partner took to reading the Bible after hooking up with me, the experience is hilarious as she finds even more ridiculous nonsense after another and can't believe the crap that is in there and how after 50 years, how she was so ignorant of such debauchery and why the clerics fail to mention the details in their sermons. It's a most entertaining experience to watch.

Incidentally, the op ed isn't about teaching the Bible in the schools, it's about the distribution of free Bible's. I'm wondering what the reaction would be if other religious texts were handed out gratis. Say texts on Paganism....after all, that played a very large part of western heritage, maybe even more so than Christianity in its time. Now that secularism is the name of the game, how about some secular literature, how well would that go down with some parents do we think?

Wed, 11 Apr 2012 16:07:21 UTC | #933908

Zeuglodon's Avatar Comment 19 by Zeuglodon

Comments 15, 17, and 18 by Ignorant Amos

I've no problem with the Bible being taught in schools, in fact I'd condone it, but to the right age group and with nothing omitted. I would prescribe a warts and all approach. It should also not be taught as a work of fact.

Darn, I should have added that caveat in my own post. Ta, Ignorant Amos.

You have no doubt? How can you possibly know what you may or may not have did in any given scenario if the circumstances were any different?

Good point. Incidentally, I think he means Jesus as in a role model, kind of like a fictional heroic character or a real life achiever, but that's for him to confirm.

Incidentally, the op ed isn't about teaching the Bible in the schools, it's about the distribution of free Bible's. I'm wondering what the reaction would be if other religious texts were handed out gratis. Say texts on Paganism....after all, that played a very large part of western heritage, maybe even more so than Christianity in its time. Now that secularism is the name of the game, how about some secular literature, how well would that go down with some parents do we think?

It shouldn't be done. If I want a bible, I'll get my own copy or look it up online. It can't even be justified on academic grounds without being blatantly hypocritical. When I was at school, they handed out copies of the texts for study each lesson, taking them back at the end of the lesson or at the end of your year (just after exams, usually), or you had to buy your own.

Wed, 11 Apr 2012 19:38:55 UTC | #933977

Ignorant Amos's Avatar Comment 20 by Ignorant Amos

Comment 19 by Zeuglodon

It shouldn't be done. If I want a bible, I'll get my own copy or look it up online. It can't even be justified on academic grounds without being blatantly hypocritical.

Agreed entirely.

When I was at school, they handed out copies of the texts for study each lesson, taking them back at the end of the lesson or at the end of your year (just after exams, usually), or you had to buy your own.

My experience also.

Wed, 11 Apr 2012 19:50:52 UTC | #933979

xmaseveeve's Avatar Comment 21 by xmaseveeve

Comment 17, Ignorant Amos (to Spiritual Atheist),

This is how your comments seem to go, constructing a straw army

I've noticed this too but could never have put it so well - brilliant phrase! It's been an advance by the Worzil Gummidge Front.

Spiritual Atheist,

I'm intrigued to know what immorality you know you would have committed without Jesus? I believe he was a fictional character, but he has no monopoly on morality, or I'd be out, committing crime. Please stop the false dichotomies.

Goodnight all.

Thu, 12 Apr 2012 04:54:01 UTC | #934069

Bobwundaye's Avatar Comment 22 by Bobwundaye

Comment 15 by Ignorant Amos

There is your problem right there.....who gets to choose, what bits and why? Isn't it just a tad disingenuous and hypocritical to cherry pick the wicked bits out and I'm assuming that's what you mean by allowing parts as prescribed reading.

If I were to put a course together, I'd certainly have the good bits outweigh the bad bits, but I wouldn't leave out all the bad bits. Sometimes, the good and bad bits are so intertwined that they are inseparable to all but those who willingly refuse to see.

Comment 17 by Ignorant Amos

but for someone who would consider themselves an apathetic Atheist, you are strangely not apathetic when it comes to the active defence of your old religion

Good point. But apathy in one area doesn't imply apathy in every other area. I get a little worked up when people misrepresent others (as religion often is here, according to how I see things). However, whether secularization becomes a hard and fast rule in every sphere of society, is an issue I could care less about. Now, if a religion wishes to paint atheists as baby eating Satan worshipers, then I'd get equally upset and throw the very Bible that I have treated with too much reverence here according to some, in their face.

I have no doubt that I have acted more morally in some circumstances than in others because of my religion. I know that in certain circumstances I followed the example of Jesus (assuming he was a historical person) who taught to forgive, not to fuel anger but to make your peace with another quickly - even before bringing an offering to God, to admit to wrong doing, and (yes, even) to not steal.

You have no doubt? How can you possibly know what you may or may not have did in any given scenario if the circumstances were any different?

hehehe. Yeah, I knew this would come back to haunt me. Of course, there is no way I could know how I would have reacted had I not been religious, since I would have obtained my morals differently - and also, perhaps a different set of morals.

This interests me though, you credit the example of the Jesus myth for past correct moral decisions, yes? So how will you deal with similar situations should they arise? Will you continue with the lessons of Jesus? Or have you developed a newer moral philosophy?

I have developed a newer moral philosophy in parts, but many of the things I do, is partly still because I was taught it is wrong, not because I have a major philosophy as the foundation for my morals.

Can you see where the argument for being good as inspired by scripture, really falls down?

Yes. Yet the personal feeling that my morality is based on my religious teaching is true is still very strong. Now, I'm not saying that personal feeling is right. But I have managed to work my mind around the feeling, and come to terms with it all. However, for a while, I had to suffer through being absolutely without a moral compass or purpose. I suppose that's not entirely true either, because I think I only really gave up the idea of God completely, once I had a slightly firmer idea of how to continue without him.

Wed, 18 Apr 2012 15:11:17 UTC | #935487

MsChelle's Avatar Comment 23 by MsChelle

Comment 4 by Bobwundaye :

I've taught at a school (with religious foundations) where the Gideons handed out the Bibles and they always delivered an uplifting message of hope.

I've also seen the bibles land up in trash cans right outside the chapel as some students decided to protest that way, and seen other students pore over their bibles sucking up every word as they try to make sense of the world and find meaning in life. And I've seen the rebellious kids become evangelical, and the religious ones, cynical almost-atheists (not strictly atheists yet).

By and large, we underestimate children's ability to express themselves and make their own decisions and revisit them.

The version of the Bible that the Gideons gave out where I worked was a fairly accessible translation of the New Testament which in my opinion should probably be required reading anyway (or at least parts of it), even in a secular education.

I couldn't agree with you more - all of us should be required learn about all of the beliefs that are out there, even if it means reading what we don't necessarily believe in.

I personally cannot stand Sci-Fi Fantasy, but I would be laughed straight out the door if I attempted to protest its existence at my son's school the way that non-believers protest the Bible.

In reality, there is no separation of church and state here in America. It is not written in any of our legal documents. It was just something that was mentioned in one of Thomas Jefferson's personal letters - not of our legal documents, just a personal letter that others have misquoted as law. Comments written in personal letters are not laws, they are just comments written in personal letters.

The Bible doesn't hurt people unless it somehow falls and hits someone in the process. It's people who hurt people. Whether someone believes what is written or not, byy reading the Old and New Testaments of the Bible, the Qur'an, the Bhagavad Gita, the Holy Books of Thelema, etc., a person can gain a greater understanding, greater tolerance, and greater love for his/her fellow human beings.

Tue, 01 May 2012 15:16:56 UTC | #938699

Tyler Durden's Avatar Comment 24 by Tyler Durden

Comment 23 by MsChelle :

I personally cannot stand Sci-Fi Fantasy, but I would be laughed straight out the door if I attempted to protest its existence at my son's school the way that non-believers protest the Bible.

False Equivalence much?

Tue, 01 May 2012 15:25:19 UTC | #938702

Tyler Durden's Avatar Comment 25 by Tyler Durden

Comment 23 by MsChelle :

The Bible doesn't hurt people unless it somehow falls and hits someone in the process. It's people who hurt people.

Yes, right after reading their bible.

See: The St. Bartholomew’s Day massacre; The French Wars of Religion; The Thirty Years’ War; and of course, Northern Ireland.

Tue, 01 May 2012 15:29:29 UTC | #938703

Quine's Avatar Comment 26 by Quine

Comment 23 by MsChelle:

I couldn't agree with you more - all of us should be required learn about all of the beliefs that are out there, even if it means reading what we don't necessarily believe in.

Mostly with you on that.

I personally cannot stand Sci-Fi Fantasy, but I would be laughed straight out the door if I attempted to protest its existence at my son's school the way that non-believers protest the Bible.

I see Tyler called you on false equivalence, I would just add that the problem is that while Sci-Fi Fantasy is sold as fiction, the Bible is mostly fiction sold as fact.

In reality, there is no separation of church and state here in America. It is not written in any of our legal documents. It was just something that was mentioned in one of Thomas Jefferson's personal letters - not of our legal documents, just a personal letter that others have misquoted as law. Comments written in personal letters are not laws, they are just comments written in personal letters.

People confuse the lack of the phrase "separation of church and state" in the written law with lack of the corresponding principle. The principle is there, originating in the First Amendment and then developed through a couple of hundred years of case law.

The Bible doesn't hurt people unless it somehow falls and hits someone in the process. It's people who hurt people. Whether someone believes what is written or not, byy reading the Old and New Testaments of the Bible, the Qur'an, the Bhagavad Gita, the Holy Books of Thelema, etc., a person can gain a greater understanding, greater tolerance, and greater love for his/her fellow human beings.

If people read it knowing it is a text of mythology just like all the other religious texts ever written in support of the thousands of deities made up by humans, then yes, it does no harm. Oh, if only that were the case ...

Tue, 01 May 2012 15:48:35 UTC | #938713

Alan4discussion's Avatar Comment 27 by Alan4discussion

Comment 23 by MsChelle

I couldn't agree with you more - all of us should be required learn about all of the beliefs that are out there, even if it means reading what we don't necessarily believe in.

That's a bit of a tall order! How would we have time to study the numerous more important things, like science, mathematics, rational thinking, geography, morality, social cooperation, and earning a living! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deities

Wed, 02 May 2012 13:24:28 UTC | #939004

corax niveus's Avatar Comment 28 by corax niveus

Thanks to all who took the time to email this school board. I received a womderful email from them stating how they appreciated hearing from us all.

Stéphane Demers

Sat, 05 May 2012 21:31:42 UTC | #939982