# Second grade student says teacher took away her Bible during rea



## Ambereyes (Sep 6, 2004)

If this is true there is a large problem with this teacher. I am not Christian but find this inexcusable.

CYPRESS, Texas -- The family of a 2nd grade student at Hamilton Elementary says their daughterâs book of choice â the Bible â was an issue of concern for her teacher, and that two weeks ago, during a âread to myselfâ time, the girlâs teacher took her Bible away.

âSo if itâs appropriate for their own library, why on Earth would it not be appropriate for their own students,â said Berry.

http://www.khou.com/community/Secon...-her-Bible-during-reading-time-256266631.html


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

Welcome to the brave new world.


----------



## wy_white_wolf (Oct 14, 2004)

Looks like the problem teacher will be corrected.



> ...
> In a statement to Click2Houston.com, the Cypress Fairbanks Independent School District said while it hasn't confirmed the allegations, the Bible meets guidelines for books that students are allowed to read during independent reading sessions.
> "Religious material, including the Bible, that meets these guidelines would be permissible for a classroom assignment and/or independent reading," the statement read.


http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/04/2...cher-took-away-her-bible-during-reading-time/


----------



## Ambereyes (Sep 6, 2004)

wy_white_wolf said:


> Looks like the problem teacher will be corrected.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/04/2...cher-took-away-her-bible-during-reading-time/



Just have to wonder what the teacher was thinking? If she thought it was questionable why didn't she go to the principal before making the child uncomfortable.


----------



## wy_white_wolf (Oct 14, 2004)

Ambereyes said:


> Just have to wonder what the teacher was thinking? If she thought it was questionable why didn't she go to the principal before making the child uncomfortable.


Maybe she did and the principal was mistaken. Hard to draw any conclusion without details.

WWW


----------



## joseph97297 (Nov 20, 2007)

Snippet:

"âThey are letting them read the Hunger Games, thatâs kids killing kids, why canât she read the Bible," said Muse."

I agree. If they can read about kids killing kids, then certainly the Bible wouldn't shock them, they may even learn a few things that would be surprising to people........ Even to people on this here site......


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

Note this is a generalization!

Note this is a generalization of the situation.

You've been warned!


I would hazard a guess that the teacher is afraid of Christianity and thus harbors a hatred towards it. While at the same time likes the Islamic religion. I would hazard a guess that the teacher would state the Christianity has been "forced" on us in the USA.

The reality is they are a bigot and socialist/communist who hates anything that the "majority" deems bad.. If tomorrow the Government says that honey is actually poison, then a vast majority of people would believe it and promote it. They would file suit against the honey produces and then outlaw honey bees..

It is the nature of the sheep to be led...

I find that those who protest the most against Christianity are also the most afraid of religion in general. They aren't secure in their own beliefs, thus they attack others beliefs..


----------



## plowhand (Aug 14, 2005)

Betcha if it'd been the Koran, that was taken away, all you know what would a broke loose....and the teacher on leave!


----------



## Ann-NWIowa (Sep 28, 2002)

Same old, same old attack on Christianity in public schools. I have a friend that teaches. His office is never accessed by students, but the school made him take down a plaque with a Bible verse on it.


----------



## sss3 (Jul 15, 2007)

Many years ago, I was watching one of those panel type shows. As they were questioned, every single one of them said, taking prayer out of schools was the cause of problems in schools today. I agree. Overload of violence doesn't help.


----------



## wharton (Oct 9, 2011)

beowoulf90 said:


> Note this is a generalization!
> 
> Note this is a generalization of the situation.
> 
> ...


 
Wow, you really are heading down a twisted road, whist formulating hate filled assumptions like that. How about another guess for you. The parents are extreme in their beliefs, and push the kid into being a big bible fan in order to please them. That's a lot more believable, since a typical 2nd grader is much more concerned about things like, wait for it, since this is deep....... reading children's books. Wow, who knew? 

Now, how about another guess? The kid was encouraged to wave that bible around in hopes of generating exactly that response. Now the parents are delighted, Faux news is involved and adding their twisted half truths, and propaganda spewing bile, and you have your panties in a twist over a non-event, since that's how you are trained to respond by the media. 

It's simple, it's a public school. Leave the religious materials at home where they belong, and stop using young children as pawns to pummel the public with your agenda. Problem solved. If the kid was dressed in a burka, and wanted to face Mecca 5X a day to pray. Faux news and all the knuckle draggers would have a fit. So drop the games and keep religion in the home where it belongs, or put the kid in an educational environment that suits your needs, and exposes them to YOUR beliefs.


----------



## Nate_in_IN (Apr 5, 2013)

I think it is way too early to assume anything in this case. Here are some snippets from the article.


> The family did not go to the school&#8217;s principal, instead, reaching out to the Liberty Institute, to convey its concerns to Cy-Fair ISD.


So we have no first hand information as to _why_ the bible was confiscated.



> But one parent KHOU spoke with, says the teacher did the right thing, adding &#8220;there should be a definite separation.&#8221;


Oh boy, they were able to find *a parent* who believes in removing the bible from school. This parents feeling is totally irrelevant (other than predicting their selection of members of the school board). I wonder why the author even includes this at all unless it's to attempt to trick readers into thinking this is somehow school policy.



> Cy-Fair ISD is still trying to figure out if the alleged incident happened


Oh, so this is a totally unsubstantiated claim, which *Cy-Fair ISD can't even confirm happened*.

So in the end we have the word of a 2nd grader that her bible was taken by a teacher. This may or may not have happened, and the reason behind the confiscation is totally unknown. It may have been the girl threw the bible at a class mate and the teacher took it away. Frankly the article is totally conjecture with essentially no facts.


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

wharton said:


> Wow, you really are heading down a twisted road, whist formulating hate filled assumptions like that. How about another guess for you. The parents are extreme in their beliefs, and push the kid into being a big bible fan in order to please them. That's a lot more believable, since a typical 2nd grader is much more concerned about things like, wait for it, since this is deep....... reading children's books. Wow, who knew?
> 
> Now, how about another guess? The kid was encouraged to wave that bible around in hopes of generating exactly that response. Now the parents are delighted, Faux news is involved and adding their twisted half truths, and propaganda spewing bile, and you have your panties in a twist over a non-event, since that's how you are trained to respond by the media.
> 
> It's simple, it's a public school. Leave the religious materials at home where they belong, and stop using young children as pawns to pummel the public with your agenda. Problem solved. If the kid was dressed in a burka, and wanted to face Mecca 5X a day to pray. Faux news and all the knuckle draggers would have a fit. So drop the games and keep religion in the home where it belongs, or put the kid in an educational environment that suits your needs, and exposes them to YOUR beliefs.



Hate filled? :umno:

You truly don't know this PAGAN.. I know the hatred from all religions because of my beliefs. Yet I find that it is those who are not secure in their own beliefs who attack mine/others.. I've set other Pagans straight when they constantly bash others religion, be it Christianity, Islam, etc I don't care. I've also set Christians straight when they bash other denominations of their beliefs.. 

It truly does show who truly believes what they spout/preach.

I don't care how extreme the parents are.. If the teacher had said that the child was proselytizing others, then I can agree it shouldn't be allow. But the teacher has given no reason for their actions.. As noted what I said was a generalization since there are few facts/little information..

I've also seen first hand how teachers react to certain things (such as religious books or even history books) I've even had a "fight" with a certain teacher who taught their students that the American Civil War started in Fort Sumter, VA. I had to take it to the School Board to correct their mistake, because that is what the book said and that is what the teacher was going to teach.. Funny how you want to tell someone who has been living the history for well over 20 years and teaching it what the facts are.

Right now I have 2 Pastors who are members of our Civil War Reenacting Unit. Others members find it funny, because I am a devout Pagan, but I don't flaunt it, because it is my business, not others. Both these Pastors know that the wife and I are Pagans. It makes no difference to me what the religion of one is unless they are trying to harm others. In our Unit we have Pagans, Mormons, Baptists, Lutherans, Methodists and others. 

So your "hate Filled" garbage is just that, garbage.

Also please go back and re-read my first two lines!

ETA: Oh as it being a Public School, that just means that the parents can't afford to pay for a private school and still pay the taxes for the Public school too. Here in PA if you don't send your child to Public School, you have to prove that you are schooling them and you get to pay for both your Private school and the public school at the same time. If you don't send your child to school you are fined and then jailed. Which means it is "forced" upon you.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

I wonder if it was something as simple as that the kids were supposed to be reading something at their level in the Accelerated Reading Program and the Bible wasn't appropriate because of where it was leveled. Might not have had anything at all to do with religion at all.
When my youngest was in elementary school and they had that kind of reading time, they were expected to be reading books at their appropriate level to improve reading and comprehension.

If the teacher DID take away the child's Bible simply because she didn't agree with it or in a misguided application of separation of church and state...that would be ridiculous.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

wharton said:


> Wow, you really are heading down a twisted road, whist formulating hate filled assumptions like that. How about another guess for you. The parents are extreme in their beliefs, and push the kid into being a big bible fan in order to please them. That's a lot more believable, since a typical 2nd grader is much more concerned about things like, wait for it, since this is deep....... reading children's books. Wow, who knew?
> 
> Now, how about another guess? The kid was encouraged to wave that bible around in hopes of generating exactly that response. Now the parents are delighted, Faux news is involved and adding their twisted half truths, and propaganda spewing bile, and you have your panties in a twist over a non-event, since that's how you are trained to respond by the media.
> 
> It's simple, it's a public school. Leave the religious materials at home where they belong, and stop using young children as pawns to pummel the public with your agenda. Problem solved. If the kid was dressed in a burka, and wanted to face Mecca 5X a day to pray. Faux news and all the knuckle draggers would have a fit. So drop the games and keep religion in the home where it belongs, or put the kid in an educational environment that suits your needs, and exposes them to YOUR beliefs.


Wow, what a conclusion.

Its pretty simple. Those who are working so diligently at taking Christ out of everything, the "secularists" they tend to call themselves, along w/bunch of others who are terribly ignorant on the Constitution, think that it says "freedom FROM religion" not "freedom OF religion".
That Kid has a right to read the bible...ANYWHERE!


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

I have been a public school teacher for 20 years in an extremely conservative part of the world. 
I have _never_ seen a kid younger than junior high bring a Bible to school with the intent of reading it during free-read time. 
(I have seen a few show up because AWANA was right after school, or a kid had to show off the snazzy new cover she got for Christmas, etc.)

I also have known middle elementary aged kids to have just enough of an understanding of a situation to _completely_ convolute it beyond all recognition from the actual event. 



I once had a third grader's mother call me, all in a huff, because I was teaching the kids to lie!! 
Huh? 
Yes! I had told the kids that I could wear whatever I wanted, despite the dress code, and if the principal came to our school, I'd just hide in the bathroom because I could get away with it!
.......Huh? 

It took me _two days_ to figure out this third grader had overheard part of a conversation a classmate and I were having. She wasn't lying. She just didn't understand what the whole story was.
Her classmate had been teasing me about wearing white Keds with a denim jumper. "Mrs. P, according to _What Not to Wear_, you're never supposed to wear tennis shoes with a dress. It makes you look like a kid."
And my reply had been, "Well I can get away with that. I'm a grade-school teacher. We're expected to look a little kid-like. Besides, in our school, we only have three adults in the building anyway!"  

And from there, I got a call from an irate parent with part of a story...


So you'll have to forgive me, but experience has taught me not to go off half-cocked based on nothing more than what a second-grader _thinks_ happened.
Well, unless you're looking for an excuse to start a witch-hunt, that is...


----------



## SteveD(TX) (May 14, 2002)

Sandra Spiess said:


> Many years ago, I was watching one of those panel type shows. As they were questioned, every single one of them said, taking prayer out of schools was the cause of problems in schools today. I agree. Overload of violence doesn't help.


That and corporal punishment.


----------



## SJSFarm (Jun 13, 2012)

Again, as has been said, there is too little information. And what may be out, may be inaccurate. 
Regarding the reading level- a bible can come in a variety of levels. When my kids were in the 4th, 2nd and preschool grades, their bible study classes had bible appropriate for their level. My second grader read her entire bible one WEEKEND! It's at a 4th-6th grade level!! My then-preschooler read hers the following year- she also took the first Harry Potter book to school the first day of kindergarten and could read it! Her teacher last year questioned her abilities, but after testing.... She has no issues in that respect! 

So ability coupled with the level the book is written for means a lot ! 

Additionally, there are so many issues when the bible comes into play that the school freak out the opposite way and don't want it at all for fear of complaints against the bible. Not that the teacher or principle are haters, they are often simply afraid of the complainers !


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

I think this paragraph might be key:



> In a statement, it said that during a studentâs independent reading time, kids are required to read a book that is âjust right,â meaning kids can read most of the words, comprehend the text, and that itâs appropriate for the genre that is being taught.


I'd venture that the Bible is going to be beyond the reading abilities of the average second-grader, even a modern user-friendly translation. (The King James version? No way.) 

"Independent reading time" isn't free time; it's instructional time intended to nurture students' abilities and love for reading. Propping a kid up in front of a book he or she couldn't possibly be expected to read and comprehend would be a waste of that time, IMO, and therefore it might be appropriate for the teacher to substitute a text more suited to the child's age and skill level.

I do believe the little girl should be free to peruse her Bible at recess if she so desires.


----------



## Vash (Jan 19, 2014)

willow_girl said:


> I think this paragraph might be key:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Assumptions much?


----------



## MJsLady (Aug 16, 2006)

Above her reading level? Umm depends on the child. It also would depend on what she was reading in the Bible. If her parents have been teaching her Bible since she was an infant, she may very well at 7 be able to read and comprehend at least parts of the Bible. Especially if they teach her in the old ways. Just because modernists say the Bible is an 8th grade level book does not make it so. All that means is educators have dumbed down things to make it easy as eating apple sauce instead of making kids learn to think at younger ages so at the older ones they can truly read and solve complex life problems. 

Besides there are many kid friendly stories.
Noah, Christs parables, Christ's birth, just to name 3.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Read in another article that the child read at a 5th grade level, as said there are some Bibles specifically made for children.


----------



## Tiempo (May 22, 2008)

Tricky Grama said:


> Wow, what a conclusion.
> 
> Its pretty simple. Those who are working so diligently at taking Christ out of everything, the "secularists" they tend to call themselves, along w/bunch of others who are terribly ignorant on the Constitution, think that it says "freedom FROM religion" not "freedom OF religion".
> That Kid has a right to read the bible...ANYWHERE!


No, she doesn't. 

If a class is studying Dickens a child cannot be reading The Bible, Shakespeare or Harry Potter in the Dickens class.


----------



## Belldandy (Feb 16, 2014)

wy_white_wolf said:


> Looks like the problem teacher will be corrected.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/04/2...cher-took-away-her-bible-during-reading-time/


Thank God.


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

And we wonder why there are spoiled brats in school these days. 
It's not because teachers aren't allowed to paddle, or school prayer is gone or whatever else I see floating around. 

It's because PARENTS _LOOK_ FOR EXCUSES TO UNDERMINE TEACHERS' AUTHORITY. 
There is an adversarial view of education these days that is not healthy for the students. Instead of giving schools and teachers the benefit of the doubt, that they want what's best for a child's success, the assumption is too-often that they're trying to hurt my little Jimmy.



We still don't know what the whole story is, but look at how many people are willing to hang this teacher over nothing more than what a 2nd grader said. :facepalm:
And the fact that the family contacted the Liberty Institute _instead of the school board_, tells us a lot...


----------



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

ErinP said:


> And we wonder why there are spoiled brats in school these days.
> It's not because teachers aren't allowed to paddle, or school prayer is gone or whatever else I see floating around.
> 
> It's because PARENTS _LOOK_ FOR EXCUSES TO UNDERMINE TEACHERS' AUTHORITY.
> ...


 
That's because some teachers go too far. When my daughter was in the 1st grade she wanted to grow long bangs so we got her hair clips and kept her hair pulled back. Her teacher took it upon herself to cut my daughters bangs! I guess I should have let it go and not undermined her teachers authority. No teacher has the right to decide what my child should or shouldn't be reading, that's my call.


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

Of course not. 

But what was your course of action? 
Did you retain a lawyer immediately? Call Fox news?

Or did you talk to the teacher first? (Because this is what logic would dictate; that you talk to the other party first.) 
Or, if you're positive the teacher did this maliciously, rather than just trying to be helpful, the principal? 
Perhaps the superintendant or the Board?



At what point DID you call a liberties organization and contact the press?


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

ErinP said:


> And we wonder why there are spoiled brats in school these days.
> It's not because teachers aren't allowed to paddle, or school prayer is gone or whatever else I see floating around.
> 
> It's because PARENTS _LOOK_ FOR EXCUSES TO UNDERMINE TEACHERS' AUTHORITY.
> ...


:goodjob: And why not go even to the principal or speak to the teacher herself? Completely ridiculous. These parents are showboating.Even if they HAVE a legitimate complaint they could have talked to the school first.


----------



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

ErinP said:


> Of course not.
> 
> But what was your course of action?
> Did you retain a lawyer immediately? Call Fox news?
> ...


Of course I didn't call the press but if it had involved my daughters religious freedom I probably would have.


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

Even BEFORE talking to the teacher, principal or board?? 
:huh:


If the parents had done the RIGHT thing, and spoken to the teacher first, there's probably a perfectly good explanation for this. 
If not, they next go to the principal who would have dealt with an over-zealous teacher who didn't understand the law, as well as school policy, by just explaining it to her. 

Teacher would have told Little Susie she was sorry, she misunderstood and she is free to read her Bible if she wishes. 



But that doesn't generate conflict, so we'd better call a lawyer first, and Fox News second!


----------



## Nate_in_IN (Apr 5, 2013)

ErinP said:


> And the fact that the family contacted the Liberty Institute _instead of the school board_, tells us a lot...


Don't forget the Liberty Institute took the time to interview parents of other children who attend the school, but did not yet speak with the principle or superintendent before writing the article.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

dixiegal62 said:


> Of course I didn't call the press but if it had involved my daughters religious freedom I probably would have.


How would you have known if it involved your daughter's religious freedom if you didn't talk to the school first?


----------



## tiffnzacsmom (Jan 26, 2006)

My daughter was marked illegally absent when she attended an event with members of our faith. The school was notified in advance and the note after included phone numbers for our clergy if there were questions. I spoke to the school secretary to have it corrected but she wouldn't, said she had never heard of our faith and that was that. I went to the assistant principal and got it fixed. I thought I followed the proper channels I guess I should have went to an outside source to make a stink. Maybe next year...


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

> I thought I followed the proper channels I guess I should have went to an outside source to make a stink. Maybe next year...


Why? 



You just told us you got it fixed by a mere _assistant_ principal. :shrug:
(Or are you being facetious and it went over my head. lol)


----------



## wharton (Oct 9, 2011)

Wow, there are more than a few times that I disagree with Erin, but she is spot on here. This is nothing more than a game played to incite the low information, religious extremist crowd, like the resident pagan here. After all it has to be true, Faux news told me so...... 

Once again, if you don't want your kids exposed to things like secular education, science, diversity and everything else you rally against, send them to a private school.

As for the Pagan's silly comment about education in PA. after thirty years of being married to a public school teacher, all I can say is nice try. Your opinions and hatred are one thing, your own version of the facts is another. If you don't like to pay for public education, move to a southern state that places little value in it, and see your taxes drop to a small percentage of your current amount. As for the claim that homeschooling is somehow going to land you in jail, right...... Our district supports well over 100 home schooled kids.


----------



## tiffnzacsmom (Jan 26, 2006)

Erin, I was being sarcastic, sorry.


----------



## MJsLady (Aug 16, 2006)

wharton said:


> ..
> 
> Once again, if you don't want your kids exposed to things like secular education, science, diversity and everything else you rally against, send them to a private school.
> 
> .


There is no diversity here, only one way to go.
Diversity would mean the Bible views would get equal and fair time to the "secular" stuff. Diversity means ALL parties get a say not just the pc ones at the moment.


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

Do you really mean _ALL_ parties?? 
Muslims (and their various sects), all Christian denominations, Jews (and their various levels), all varieties of Buddhists, Shinto, Hindu, naturalists, Wiccan... 


Good heavens!! :shocked:
How will they have time to do that silly little stuff like math and reading?!?!

(And what does this have to do with the issue at hand? Kids _are_ allowed to read their Bibles in school...)


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

ErinP said:


> And we wonder why there are spoiled brats in school these days.
> It's not because teachers aren't allowed to paddle, or school prayer is gone or whatever else I see floating around.
> 
> It's because PARENTS _LOOK_ FOR EXCUSES TO UNDERMINE TEACHERS' AUTHORITY.
> ...



What if the teacher is wrong, such as the American Civil War starting in Fort Sumter, VA. When I corrected the teacher (in private) I was treated with disdain and threatened to be ejected from the school. I took it to the principal and got no results other than the mantra that the Teacher is Right.. Funny when I took it to the School Board they had all kinds of excuses why the text book was wrong, but they did correct it eventually.. 

Anyway, I think I should have gone to some other Org/ Group/media.. Then maybe they would get rid of these indoctrinators and hire teachers.

I also wonder how many of the folks at Fort Sumter, SC actually know that they are Virginians, at least according to some teachers.. Also funny is every time I visit Fort Sumter, I always seen more SC license plates than any other plates.. I can only assume that South Carolinian's value Civil War history more than others.


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

wharton said:


> Wow, there are more than a few times that I disagree with Erin, but she is spot on here. This is nothing more than a game played to incite the low information, religious extremist crowd, like the resident pagan here. After all it has to be true, Faux news told me so......
> 
> Once again, if you don't want your kids exposed to things like secular education, science, diversity and everything else you rally against, send them to a private school.
> 
> As for the Pagan's silly comment about education in PA. after thirty years of being married to a public school teacher, all I can say is nice try. Your opinions and hatred are one thing, your own version of the facts is another. If you don't like to pay for public education, move to a southern state that places little value in it, and see your taxes drop to a small percentage of your current amount. As for the claim that homeschooling is somehow going to land you in jail, right...... Our district supports well over 100 home schooled kids.


You really don't read well do you?

My very first comment/sentence was 

This is a generalization.

Simply because we don't have all the facts.

You took it as hatred..

When I showed you were wrong, you now want to say my comments are silly.. Fine enjoy yourself!

As to the facts here in PA.. You haven't lost your home for Public school taxes or don't know anyone who has.. I do.. They (the taxes) are never enough. Even if you pay for private school you still have to pay the taxes for Public school.. So you have to pay twice.. Oh and they (the Government) decide what your Home and property are worth and that value continually goes up even during the market decline..


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

It's entirely possible the teacher WAS wrong. But the parents don't know because so far as we know, they never even talked to her. 
It's possible the principal WOULD side with her. But again, we don't know because again, that person was not spoken to. 
So far as the board...
well, surely you can see where this is going...

So, what we have is a Fox news report about nothing but a bunch of possibilities. :shrug:


----------



## BadFordRanger (Apr 26, 2014)

Tricky Grama said:


> Wow, what a conclusion.
> 
> Its pretty simple. Those who are working so diligently at taking Christ out of everything, the "secularists" they tend to call themselves, along w/bunch of others who are terribly ignorant on the Constitution, think that it says "freedom FROM religion" not "freedom OF religion".
> That Kid has a right to read the bible...ANYWHERE!


Amendment I: (1791)
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof: or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press: or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. 

What I'd like to know is exactly how the courts can tell anyone that they haven't the right to pray, or read a bible, or even the Koran anywhere in the United States that they care too, period! 

"Congress shall make no law"!! 
Don't tell me that I can't read the bible or anything else I care to, or print whatever I care to, whenever or where ever I wish to! gre:
I can't for the life of me figure out how they have legally taken God out of schools!


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

"they" haven't.


----------



## Nate_in_IN (Apr 5, 2013)

BadFordRanger said:


> Amendment I: (1791)
> What I'd like to know is exactly how the courts can tell anyone that they haven't the right to pray, or read a bible, or even the Koran anywhere in the United States that they care too, period!


Where have the courts said this? To my understanding all this is allowed, just cannot be _mandated_ in the public school system.

I'm sure it cannot be used to preemptively neglect other studies. For instance if I choose to sit and read my bible during PE class I should probably expect to fail the class.


----------



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

ErinP said:


> Even BEFORE talking to the teacher, principal or board??
> :huh:
> 
> 
> ...


 
If the teacher had done the right thing in the beginning it would be a non-issue.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Vash said:


> Assumptions much?


Would her teacher not be the most likely person to know exactly what this child's reading comprehension level is and whether the book is pertinent to what they are studying? I don't see anything other than perfectly valid reasoning in Willow-girl's post.


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

dixiegal62 said:


> If the teacher had done the right thing in the beginning it would be a non-issue.


But WE DON'T KNOW if it was right or wrong. We have _nothing_ from her side. 

All we have for this witch hunt is the perspective of a 7 year old!


----------



## MJsLady (Aug 16, 2006)

Patchouli said:


> Would her teacher not be the most likely person to know exactly what this child's reading comprehension level is and whether the book is pertinent to what they are studying? I don't see anything other than perfectly valid reasoning in Willow-girl's post.


1) No the teacher is not necessarily the best judge of a student's abilities. My oldest son in 4th grade was sent to be tested because he "couldn't read" according to his teacher. I admit he didn't like to read. However the person administering the test came out confused and asked why we were there. I told him his teacher requested it because he couldn't read. The guy looked at me and said "ma'am your son is reading at a 10th grade comprehension level. It isn't that he can't read it is that he is bored by what he reads." 


2) Free time is time not devoted to reading course material.


----------



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

ErinP said:


> But WE DON'T KNOW if it was right or wrong. We have _nothing_ from her side.
> 
> All we have for this witch hunt is the perspective of a 7 year old!


 The teacher could have sent a note home with the child. My grand kids teacher's even send parents texts when problems arise. She could have explained herself and her reasons. For all we know the parents could have tried talking to her before with bad results and decided to go another way this time. Most 7 year olds I know are able to tell their side of the story truthfully.


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

Who's to say the teacher even thought this was an issue? WE DON'T KNOW WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED. 
And see my story about the third grader on page one. She also was being completely honest....with the pieces of information she had. But she had no idea what she was talking about. Add in a mom itching for an excuse to throw a fit and _voila_! "problems" at school where none actually existed.

And "free reading time" often DOES have parameters of some sort. 
It's not necessarily "free."


----------



## Vash (Jan 19, 2014)

Patchouli said:


> Would her teacher not be the most likely person to know exactly what this child's reading comprehension level is


No, the parents should. Which is probably why the child was given the book in the first place and chose to read it.



Patchouli said:


> and whether the book is pertinent to what they are studying?


Was there any indication that this was 'study' time or 'free reading' time? If the former, it probably wouldn't have been a big deal. If the latter then what they were studying is irrelevant.


----------



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

ErinP said:


> Who's to say the teacher even thought this was an issue? WE DON'T KNOW WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED.
> And see my story about the third grader on page one. She also was being completely honest....with the pieces of information she had. But she had no idea what she was talking about. Add in a mom itching for an excuse to throw a fit and _voila_! "problems" at school where none actually existed.
> 
> And "free reading time" often DOES have parameters of some sort.
> It's not necessarily "free."


The article said the parents feared retaliation and wished to remain anonymous.. perhaps they know more about that school, principle, teachers and community than we do... for all we know they have reason to fear :shrug:


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

Yeah, or they've already established themselves as those people who like to make trouble and no one listens to them anymore 
But again, that's nothing more than speculation.


----------



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

ErinP said:


> Yeah, or they've already established themselves as those people who like to make trouble and no one listens to them anymore
> But again, that's nothing more than speculation.


Didn't you post earlier accusing people of wanting to hang the teacher before all the facts where out? Seems like your bent on blaming the parents and even the child without knowing what they are afraid of.


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

Oh good. I was hoping you'd be able to see that.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Vash said:


> No, the parents should. Which is probably why the child was given the book in the first place and chose to read it.
> 
> 
> 
> Was there any indication that this was 'study' time or 'free reading' time? If the former, it probably wouldn't have been a big deal. If the latter then what they were studying is irrelevant.


And who is making assumptions now?  I think it is far more likely that the parents sent her to school with a bible in order to make a point, stir up trouble or evangelise. I have yet to have met the 2nd grader whose favorite book was the bible. 

From the school's statement the reading time was structured and there were parameters for what could and could not be read.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

The Bible wasn't my favorite book but I read and understood most of it when I was in 2nd grade. So could my son. And I knew several kids who read a Bible during free reading time in elementary school. Some of our literature revolved around Bible stories in our little public school. 

As for the teacher knowing what level the child could read and comprehend, baloney!!!! I have yet to meet a teacher who could accurately access a child's reading level without extensive testing at progressive levels. When they have to keep the whole class on the same page there is no way of accessing individual levels.


----------



## Andrewhill (Jul 2, 2013)

Taking a bible away from a young child is wrong. If there was a issue with it being inappropriate then the teacher should have let it slide that first day then explain to the parents in a note or phone call why it doesn't fit with the particular class. But any form of telling a child reading the bible is wrong is inexcusable.

For those who say a teacher is best to decide what the child can understand I have this to say, I almost failed kindergarten because I "couldn't read". I read as good as anyone else but the teacher did not know that because she never tried to see if I could besides asking me to read in front of the class. That's how she taught. Nevermind the fact that I'm extremely shy and was just too scared to read to the class. I still remember the look on Her face when she tried to prove to my mom I couldn't read and I did without issue when I wasn't being forced to do it in front of a large group of people.

What made no sense is how the stupid teacher could think I could write but not read. Explain that one because there were plenty of (basic) written assignments I completed. ( not actually asking for an explanation)


----------



## Nate_in_IN (Apr 5, 2013)

Ok since we are enjoying conjecture let me throw this hypothetical out there.

What is the student had thrown her bible and struck another student. Should the teacher take it away then or is the bible somehow protected from confiscation? There is as much supportive evidence for this scenario as any of the others.


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

Nate_in_IN said:


> Ok since we are enjoying conjecture let me throw this hypothetical out there.
> 
> What is the student had thrown her bible and struck another student. Should the teacher take it away then or is the bible somehow protected from confiscation? There is as much supportive evidence for this scenario as any of the others.



Would you take away pens and pencils if they were used as a weapon?

What if the book was the Poetic Edda?
Would you ban that book if used as a weapon?
Would you take it from the child?


----------



## Nate_in_IN (Apr 5, 2013)

beowoulf90 said:


> Would you take away pens and pencils if they were used as a weapon?
> 
> What if the book was the Poetic Edda?
> Would you ban that book if used as a weapon?
> Would you take it from the child?


Yes to all but banning, and I wouldn't feel it was restricting the child's choice nor participation in their religion.


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

Nate_in_IN said:


> Yes to all but banning, and I wouldn't feel it was restricting the child's choice nor participation in their religion.


:banana::happy2:

My questions were more rhetorical than anything.. 
Of course you would remove the item being used as a weapon from the culprit, no matter what it is..

Or lets just say I would.


----------



## MJsLady (Aug 16, 2006)

Many folks feel the Bible is a weapon against them even when it is not physically used to hit them.


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

So? Many people feel global warming is a serious threat to human civilization. 
But what on earth does it have to do with the conversation at hand??


----------



## kendall j (Mar 30, 2007)

wharton said:


> Wow, you really are heading down a twisted road, whist formulating hate filled assumptions like that. How about another guess for you. The parents are extreme in their beliefs, and push the kid into being a big bible fan in order to please them. That's a lot more believable, since a typical 2nd grader is much more concerned about things like, wait for it, since this is deep....... reading children's books. Wow, who knew?
> 
> Now, how about another guess? The kid was encouraged to wave that bible around in hopes of generating exactly that response. Now the parents are delighted, Faux news is involved and adding their twisted half truths, and propaganda spewing bile, and you have your panties in a twist over a non-event, since that's how you are trained to respond by the media.
> 
> It's simple, it's a public school. Leave the religious materials at home where they belong, and stop using young children as pawns to pummel the public with your agenda. Problem solved. If the kid was dressed in a burka, and wanted to face Mecca 5X a day to pray. Faux news and all the knuckle draggers would have a fit. So drop the games and keep religion in the home where it belongs, or put the kid in an educational environment that suits your needs, and exposes them to YOUR beliefs.


That's right. Take away the constitutional rights of students so everyone in the public schools can be comfortable and unoffended.

I couldn't care less what the kid was reading. If it was a Koran, a Bible, or whatever. Their rights are protected by the First Amendment. 

Your statement is so wrong, it boggles the mind. Talk about knuckle dragging........


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Tiempo said:


> No, she doesn't.
> 
> If a class is studying Dickens a child cannot be reading The Bible, Shakespeare or Harry Potter in the Dickens class.


It was 'free time'. Not regular class.


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

We really don't know that, either.

The statement from the school (after they found out about this via the media  ):



> &#8220;If the incident did in fact happen as the parents explained it, then the second grade child would certainly be allowed to read the Bible during the personal reading time. During a student&#8217;s independent reading time, students are required to read a book that is &#8216;Just Right.&#8217; A &#8216;Just Right&#8217; book is when the student can read most of the words, comprehend the text *and that the book is appropriate for the type of text or genre that is being taught.* As such religious material, including the Bible, which meets these guidelines, would be permissible for a classroom assignment and/or independent reading.&#8221;


It's not at all unusual that there are parameters for "free" reading time.

Do we have any updates on this? 
Have we heard from anyone other than the second grader, yet?


----------



## Tiempo (May 22, 2008)

Tricky Grama said:


> It was 'free time'. Not regular class.


I was addressing this specific remark in your comment



> That Kid has a right to read the bible...ANYWHERE!


And my answer remains the same


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

ErinP said:


> We really don't know that, either.
> 
> The statement from the school (after they found out about this via the media  ):
> 
> ...


Exactly. In my kids classrooms, "free" reading time was within the parameters of the AR program.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> Besides there are many kid friendly stories.
> Noah, Christs parables, Christ's birth, just to name 3.


And some not-so-kid-friendly ones too! Ezekiel 23:20 is definitely PG-13 or maybe R .. my favorite verse BTW. ound:


----------



## Andrewhill (Jul 2, 2013)

Nate_in_IN said:


> Ok since we are enjoying conjecture let me throw this hypothetical out there.
> 
> What if the student had thrown her bible and struck another student. Should the teacher take it away then or is the bible somehow protected from confiscation? There is as much supportive evidence for this scenario as any of the others.


Any book can be thrown so should every kid lose their book? If books are so bad what should kids be learning from? Hands can be weapons should kids have them cut off? Feet? Knees? Elbows? Kids can head-but should heads be cut off?

Where does the paranoia end?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Andrewhill said:


> Any book can be thrown so should every kid lose their book? If books are so bad what should kids be learning from? Hands can be weapons should kids have them cut off? Feet? Knees? Elbows? Kids can head-but should heads be cut off?
> 
> Where does the paranoia end?


It's paranoia to fear all books. It's painful when a book hits your head.


----------



## Nate_in_IN (Apr 5, 2013)

Andrewhill said:


> Any book can be thrown so should every kid lose their book? If books are so bad what should kids be learning from? Hands can be weapons should kids have them cut off? Feet? Knees? Elbows? Kids can head-but should heads be cut off?
> 
> Where does the paranoia end?


Not every kid should lose their book, just the ones who don't use it properly.

I think the book was just taken away, not banned.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

LisaInN.Idaho said:


> Exactly. In my kids classrooms, "free" reading time was within the parameters of the AR program.



It's been a while since my kids were that young but the free reading time based on guideline or parameters which were based on age appropriate themes that may be classroom related (often associated the social studies), seasonal but always established by the teacher. It's always been a program intended to encourage literacy and teaches children about library borrowing. 

The parents did not handle this situation in a way that allows people to make many informed opinions but if the bible was borrowed from the library and fit the criteria of the parameters established for the reading program, there should have been no problem but I have a feeling the parents may have misunderstood the free reading program.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> Many folks feel the Bible is a weapon against them even when it is not physically used to hit them.


I can't imagine why anyone would object to a book that proclaims society ought to execute them for no greater crime than loving someone of the same gender.


----------



## Vash (Jan 19, 2014)

willow_girl said:


> I can't imagine why anyone would object to a book that proclaims society ought to execute them for no greater crime than loving someone of the same gender.


You're speaking of the Quran, right?


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Vash said:


> You're speaking of the Quran, right?


Folks get different meanings from the bible. Some see hate and some see peace and love. Those that see the hate like to use it to spread their own, but blame it on the book itself.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

wharton said:


> It's simple, it's a public school. Leave the religious materials at home where they belong, and stop using young children as pawns to pummel the public with your agenda. Problem solved. If the kid was dressed in a burka, and wanted to face Mecca 5X a day to pray. Faux news and all the knuckle draggers would have a fit. So drop the games and keep religion in the home where it belongs, or put the kid in an educational environment that suits your needs, and exposes them to YOUR beliefs.


Oh I can tell that you don't live anywhere near New Somalia. There are prayer rooms in most public schools around here just for Muslim use while Christians are not allowed to say grace before lunch or organize a moment of silence before school starts.

And it's really pitiful that an employer allows certain religions to have prayer breaks but tells others that they are required to work on religious holydays.


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

wharton said:


> Wow, you really are heading down a twisted road, whist formulating hate filled assumptions like that. How about another guess for you.* The parents are extreme in their beliefs, and push the kid into being a big bible fan in order to please them. That's a lot more believable, since a typical 2nd grader is much more concerned about things like, wait for it, since this is deep....... reading children's books. Wow, who knew? *
> 
> *Now, how about another guess? The kid was encouraged to wave that bible around in hopes of generating exactly that response. Now the parents are delighted, Faux news is involved and adding their twisted half truths, and propaganda spewing bile, and you have your panties in a twist over a non-event, since that's how you are trained to respond by the media.*
> 
> It's simple, it's a public school. Leave the religious materials at home where they belong, and stop using young children as pawns to pummel the public with your agenda. Problem solved. If the kid was dressed in a burka, and wanted to face Mecca 5X a day to pray. Faux news and all the knuckle draggers would have a fit. So drop the games and keep religion in the home where it belongs, or put the kid in an educational environment that suits your needs, and exposes them to YOUR beliefs.


You nailed it dead on and the agenda is so obvious it just jumps up and slaps one in the face. The thing that disturbs me is that so many other people would either deny themselves from recognizing the extreme agenda of the parents for what it is or else condone it because of their own like-minded extremism.

How can these people not see what they are becoming and how much harm they are causing to society?

I feel sorry for that 2nd grader. I hate to see people getting brainwashed into mindless Borg but it's so much worse when you see it happening to young children.


----------



## Work horse (Apr 7, 2012)

Maybe the teacher has been taking away books from other students that are very violent? Or does anyone here deny that there is a lot of violence in the bible?


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Paumon said:


> You nailed it dead on and the agenda is so obvious it just jumps up and slaps one in the face. The thing that disturbs me is that so many other people would either deny themselves from recognizing the extreme agenda of the parents for what it is or else condone it because of their own like-minded extremism.
> 
> How can these people not see what they are becoming and how much harm they are causing to society?
> 
> I feel sorry for that 2nd grader. I hate to see people getting brainwashed into mindless Borg but it's so much worse when you see it happening to young children.


Since you seem to know all the facts about this, how about you enlighten us on just exactly what those facts are? If you don't know ALL that facts, why spew your hatred for Christianity?
Did you teach your children your own values? If you did, why was it ok for you to instill YOUR values in them, but not ok for other parents to do likewise?


----------



## Paumon (Jul 12, 2007)

JeffreyD said:


> Since you seem to know all the facts about this, how about you enlighten us on just exactly what those facts are? If you don't know ALL that facts, why spew your hatred for Christianity?
> Did you teach your children your own values? If you did, why was it ok for you to instill YOUR values in them, but not ok for other parents to do likewise?


I never singled out Christianity and I don't hate Christianity so cool your jets there son. Quit getting personal about something that isn't personal and don't ask me questions about my family because my family is none of your business. 

I'm talking about religious extremism and I think we all know that extremism can be found in any religion. I think we also all know that religious extremism is more than alive and well living in America. The above story is a prime example of the kind of religious extremism that America has a notorious reputation for and this example just happens to be Christian extremism.

If you don't recognize it then maybe you should ask yourself why.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Paumon said:


> I never singled out Christianity and I don't hate Christianity so cool your jets there son. Quit getting personal about something that isn't personal and don't ask me questions about my family because my family is none of your business.
> 
> I'm talking about religious extremism and I think we all know that extremism can be found in any religion. I think we also all know that religious extremism is more than alive and well living in America. The above story is a prime example of the kind of religious extremism that America has a notorious reputation for and this example just happens to be Christian extremism.
> 
> If you don't recognize it then maybe you should ask yourself why.


I recognize hatred when I see it. So, how about them facts? You can cast judgement from your chair about how others raise their kids, but get offended when asked about how you raised your own! Yeah, I didn't think YOU would like it if someone else suggested your raising your kids wrong. Next!!


----------



## gweny (Feb 10, 2014)

ErinP said:


> It's entirely possible the teacher WAS wrong. But the parents don't know because so far as we know, they never even talked to her.
> It's possible the principal WOULD side with her. But again, we don't know because again, that person was not spoken to.
> So far as the board...
> well, surely you can see where this is going...
> ...


I second that conclusion but have to wonder about the parents agenda... Who calls the news before calling the teacher or principle first? All I can figure is the whole "parent pushing religious agenda through their child" theory fits.


----------



## Nate_in_IN (Apr 5, 2013)

gweny said:


> I second that conclusion but have to wonder about the parents agenda... Who calls the news before calling the teacher or principle first? All I can figure is the whole "parent pushing religious agenda through their child" theory fits.


Couple that with the "investigation" done by the reporting agency. They interview other parents and quote their feelings on the matter but do not bother to get a statement from the teacher, principal, or superintendent.

The article is clearly written to further a certain view of the events.


----------



## LonelyNorthwind (Mar 6, 2010)

I am not a certified teacher but I have been substituting in our elementary school nearly 25 years - been through grands and now great grands.

I imagine it's pretty much the same everywhere: "free-choice" reading time means free choice books selected for that level of expertise. I have never seen a second grader with enough advanced reading skills to read the bible. Unless it was a collection of bible stories written for second-grade level I would have done the same thing. Same as I would if that child chose to "read" the Wall Street Journal during free time.
Would everybody be this upset if that child was attempting to read "Crime & Punishment" and given a more age-appropriate choice?


----------



## Nate_in_IN (Apr 5, 2013)

GrammasCabin said:


> I am not a certified teacher but I have been substituting in our elementary school nearly 25 years - been through grands and now great grands.
> 
> I imagine it's pretty much the same everywhere: "free-choice" reading time means free choice books selected for that level of expertise. I have never seen a second grader with enough advanced reading skills to read the bible. Unless it was a collection of bible stories written for second-grade level I would have done the same thing. Same as I would if that child chose to "read" the Wall Street Journal during free time.
> Would everybody be this upset if that child was attempting to read "Crime & Punishment" and given a more age-appropriate choice?


If this is the reason the book was taken away then I disagree. If a teacher feels a book is above a students grade level they should inform the parents, and make a suggestion as to a better suited book. It should be the parents decision what level to challenge their children. The teacher is there to assist in the students learning. If the teacher wishes to control which books are selected they should publish a list and have the student select from that list.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Nate_in_IN said:


> If this is the reason the book was taken away then I disagree. If a teacher feels a book is above a students grade level they should inform the parents, and make a suggestion as to a better suited book. It should be the parents decision what level to challenge their children. The teacher is there to assist in the students learning. If the teacher wishes to control which books are selected they should publish a list and have the student select from that list.


They do, in a manner of speaking.


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

> If a teacher feels a book is above a students grade level they should inform the parents, and make a suggestion as to a better suited book.


Seriously??
Do you have any idea how _often_ this happens? 

Obviously there are some kids who ARE reading well above grade level, but more often, their eyes are often bigger than their stomachs. Second grade is an age at which most kids are really getting the hang of this reading thing and it's not at all unusual for librarians to suggest they go back to the shelves after they've grabbed Harry Potter, book 6, because they're fairly sure they've got a handle on this. lol
Same thing if Little Susie has made it into the classroom with big brother's copy of _Lord of the Flies_. "Kiddo, I think we're going to try something a _little_ less challenging, OK?" and send her over to pick something a bit more surmountable. 

But why would she send a note home? 
It's just not a big deal. :shrug:
(Of course, this goes back to the assumption that it was simply a reading-level issue)


----------



## Nate_in_IN (Apr 5, 2013)

ErinP said:


> Seriously??
> Do you have any idea how _often_ this happens?
> 
> Obviously there are some kids who ARE reading well above grade level, but more often, their eyes are often bigger than their stomachs. Second grade is an age at which most kids are really getting the hang of this reading thing and it's not at all unusual for librarians to suggest they go back to the shelves after they've grabbed Harry Potter, book 6, because they're fairly sure they've got a handle on this. lol
> ...


Yes I was being serious. I think we may be crossing up words because there is no substance to the original cited article. Here is the case I'm describing:

As part of the curriculum the teacher decides to have the students choose a book from the school library. From this book they are going to have to identify various things such as the time-period the book was written, whether first-person view point, who is the protagonist, what conflicts do they face, etc. Now let's say they go to the library and my daughter picks a biography on Harriet Tubman (my daughter love biographies for some reason). The teacher feels this book can address some potentially more mature subject matters and may be hard for my daughter to pick up on the mature themes the book will present.

Now at this point I'm sure the teacher will attempt to explain this to my daughter and maybe she will change her mind and select another book. However if my daughter wishes to study this book as her coursework I would not want the teacher to say "nope sorry" and remove it as a possibility. It is at that point I would expect the teacher to present the information to me and we can work out how best to proceed. But if both myself and my daughter think she can handle it the teacher shouldn't have a problem with it.

Now, as is typical I'm sure I see the world through my own rose colored glasses. I have had very wonderful experiences with my childs teachers in school. I frequently communicate with them, mainly just status checks. There have been several times the teacher will email saying my daughter struggled a little with some topic, say fractions. It allows me to supplement what they are providing in the classroom. From my viewpoint the teachers are there to provide services to help my child learn, but in the end it is _MY_ responsibility that she is educated and ready to proceed in life. This could be where people have different past experiences which result in different decisions.


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

And I think you've made this far more difficult than it probably was. 

Little Susie shows up with her challenging book. The teacher brings her _Caddie Woodlawn_, _Sarah Plain and Tall_ and _Hatchet_ and says, "Let's try one of these instead. Or maybe over here on the shelf?" 
Susie says OK and puts her book back in her bag. No big deal at school. 
I literally can not guess how many times I've seen exactly this happen.


She then goes home with _Sarah Plain and Tall_ and Mom asks why she's reading this instead of her Bible. 
Teacher took it away... 
And off we go.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

JeffreyD said:


> Folks get different meanings from the bible. Some see hate and some see peace and love. Those that see the hate like to use it to spread their own, but blame it on the book itself.


Weirdly enough the same thing happens when people read other holy books too like for example the Qur'an.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

OK, MAYBE the second grader misunderstood and the teacher is wonderful. How about this one? This time it is a Fifth grader, and they played the teacher's voice mail message to the father, &#8220;I noticed that he has a book &#8211; a religious book &#8211; in the classroom,&#8221; she said on the recording. &#8220;He&#8217;s not permitted to read those books in my classroom.&#8221; 

http://townhall.com/columnists/toddstarnes/2014/05/05/teacher-tells-student-he-cant-read-the-bible-in-classroom-n1833661 

There seems to be no dispute that this was a free reading time. So who wants to defend this teacher? Who wants to defend this principal who did not clearly come out and state that free reading time does not exclude "a religious book?"


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

Again the question becomes: Have they had a chance to handle this _within_ the district first? 
Have you been following the entire thread?

I also floated the theory that she might _have_ asked the student to put it away because of content, not knowing either school policy or the law. A polite, simple call to the principal to have the teacher reminded of both would have been the end of it. 

The same applies to this. 


Lisa is right. Calling a lawyer and a political group FIRST, before following channels at school, is showboating pure and simple. 
In the case of the older student, reminding the school of US Dept. of Ed's policy should have been the end of it. If the principal still needed a better understanding, you go to the superintendant. S/he doesn't get it either?, you take your lawyer with you to the next board meeting. 

End of story. True, not nearly as exciting as getting on national news, but that's the way most of us handle this.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

ErinP said:


> Again the question becomes: Have they had a chance to handle this _within_ the district first?
> Have you been following the entire thread?
> 
> I also floated the theory that she might _have_ asked the student to put it away because of content, not knowing either school policy or the law. A polite, simple call to the principal to have the teacher reminded of both would have been the end of it.
> ...


I did read this thread a few days ago. I don't recall, are you a teacher? A member of the teacher's union? Is that why you want to blame the parents first and are afraid to expose the stupid and illegal act of the teacher? 

Often times reporters get things wrong, but from the article,...

"_After he received the teacherâs message, Rubeo contacted the school. He said the principal said she would have to turn the matter over to their legal department. Rubeo then wrote a letter to the school ordering them to cease and desist the harassment of his son."_

So it sounds like the father tried to go thru the principal first. It also sounds like the principal punted. I have a rule I've had to use a few times as a business owner, once you say you are calling your lawyer, you and I don't talk directly any further because it is more likely to be used against me rather than resolve the issue. 

I know some folks love to blame the parents first, but it sounds like the father tried a reasonable local approach and the principal went to legal, so the father did as well. And I still would not fault the father if he went to the press as a first step, because in this case, where the teacher is clearly taking an anti-religious stance, it is an egregious violation of 1A rights. In today's day and age, you should not have to remind any gov't official that the Constitution, the US DoEd, and the Florida DoEd all guarantee that gov't employed bullies can not violate 1A rights. Once the teacher made clear this wasn't an issue of free reading time but rather an out right ban on the Bible in the classroom, there was no gray area. The best way to prevent 
further abuses is to bring public condemnation against the teacher and principal, both of whom deserve to be fired.


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

This has nothing to do with blaming the parents. 

There is a chain of command that is spelled out in every school handbook, large and small. Parents usually have to sign something at the end of the handbook indicating they have read it and understand the rules, procedures and protocols spelled out therin.

If people are not doing so, that indicates they did not understand what they read, or they didn't read it.
Either way, the onus is on the one who is not following the agreed upon procedure. 

In this case, that does indeed seem to be the parents. :shrug:
Like I said, this is how most of us resolve issues within the school system. Though I'll agree, it's not nearly as sexy as calling the news.


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

Funny how the first thing a School does is go to / for legal counsel, but if a parent does that they are doing it for the notoriety/ spot light..


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

ErinP said:


> This has nothing to do with blaming the parents.
> 
> There is a chain of command that is spelled out in every school handbook, large and small. Parents usually have to sign something at the end of the handbook indicating they have read it and understand the rules, procedures and protocols spelled out therin.
> 
> ...


Ohhhhh....the Sheeple theory of appropriate acquiescence to gov't dictate. No parent has an obligation to follow the self serving mandates of petty gov't bureaucrats. What makes you believe a parent has that obligation? 

Are you a teacher?


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

DEKE01 said:


> Ohhhhh....the Sheeple theory of appropriate acquiescence to gov't dictate. No parent has an obligation to follow the self serving mandates of petty gov't bureaucrats. What makes you believe a parent has that obligation?
> 
> Are you a teacher?


Nope, they don't. They can take their kids out of school and homeschool them.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

LisaInN.Idaho said:


> Nope, they don't. They can take their kids out of school and homeschool them.


Homeschooling is an option I wholly endorse, however, it is not the only option. One can simply choose to ignore the school policy in this case. There is no contract between the parent and administration that allows the school to dictate adherence to complaint procedure. The administration has limited ability to set rules and regs governing the conduct of the parent, I can't think of any except in the area of conduct on school grounds, and certainly the school has no right or ability to control a parents free speech rights to complain off of school grounds.


----------



## Tabitha (Apr 10, 2006)

Uh, was it the King James version or a pretty children's bible? I had a children's Bible that I read on my own, several times. So it could have been the child's favorite book, without being incredulous. But we do not know. My guess is, it was a children's bible. 

Not everybody can homeschool. That is easy said. 
Some simply can not afford it. 


http://foxnewsinsider.com/2014/05/06/nh-parent-arrested-protesting-book-contains-graphic-sex-scene

You can google the content. 

Ten years ago this book would not have been allowed. Now there is an uproar because a child is reading the Bible. The parents were in favor of the child reading the Bible. The teacher was not. The Father above was not in favor. The teacher was. Can't win for losing.


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

DEKE01 said:


> Are you a teacher?


And yet you claim to have read the whole thread.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

ErinP said:


> And yet you claim to have read the whole thread.


True, I did make the claim that I had read it a few days ago. You'll note I did not claim to be able to memorize every detail of every thread I've read in HT. 

Nice dodge, BTW. Why didn't you answer my other Q. Why do you believe a parent is obligated to follow the complaint procedures dictated by the school board? It amazes me how schools have this big campaign against bullying, but many teachers and principals so frequently engage in it. And what is worse is that some people not only accept it, but defend it as appropriate.


----------



## Tiempo (May 22, 2008)

DEKE01 said:


> OK, MAYBE the second grader misunderstood and the teacher is wonderful. How about this one? This time it is a Fifth grader, and they played the teacher's voice mail message to the father, âI noticed that he has a book â a religious book â in the classroom,â she said on the recording. âHeâs not permitted to read those books in my classroom.â
> 
> http://townhall.com/columnists/todd...-he-cant-read-the-bible-in-classroom-n1833661
> 
> There seems to be no dispute that this was a free reading time. So who wants to defend this teacher? Who wants to defend this principal who did not clearly come out and state that free reading time does not exclude "a religious book?"


In this case the free reading time has a book list for the kids to choose from. The kid was told he could read his bible before school, after school and during recess, but during free reading period the kids must choose from the book list. The RW outlets looking to cause outrage are conveniently skipping that part.

I do agree that the teacher's wording in her message sounded inappropriate, but the school is not banning the bible, just requiring kids to read from the book list during free reading time.

More manufactured outrage.


----------



## Nate_in_IN (Apr 5, 2013)

Tiempo said:


> In this case the free reading time has a book list for the kids to choose from. The kid was told he could read his bible before school, after school and during recess, but during free reading period the kids must choose from the book list. The RW outlets looking to cause outrage are conveniently skipping that part.
> 
> I do agree that the teacher's wording in her message sounded inappropriate, but the school is not banning the bible, just requiring kids to read from the book list during free reading time.
> 
> More manufactured outrage.


Yeah it should probably not be called "free reading time". That title makes it sound as if the only requirement is the student is to read and material selection is free choice. They should call it "selective reading time".

Can you post a link to the transcript of the teachers message? I have not been able to find it on the net.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Nate_in_IN said:


> Yeah it should probably not be called "free reading time". That title makes it sound as if the only requirement is the student is to read and material selection is free choice. They should call it "selective reading time".
> 
> Can you post a link to the transcript of the teachers message? I have not been able to find it on the net.


see the link in msg 93. If you read the article, you can click on another link where you can hear the teacher on a v-mail saying, âI noticed that he has a book â a religious book â in the classroom. Heâs not permitted to read those books in my classroom.â


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Tiempo said:


> In this case the free reading time has a book list for the kids to choose from. The kid was told he could read his bible before school, after school and during recess, but during free reading period the kids must choose from the book list. The RW outlets looking to cause outrage are conveniently skipping that part.
> 
> I do agree that the teacher's wording in her message sounded inappropriate, but the school is not banning the bible, just requiring kids to read from the book list during free reading time.
> 
> More manufactured outrage.


where did you see that there is a designated book list? if there is a designated book list, why did the teacher not mention that to the parent? Why did the teacher specifically say that religious books are not allowed in her classroom - apparently at any time? You can say the school doesn't ban the bible, but I take the teacher at her word, religious books are not allowed in her classroom.

You think the teacher's wording sounded inappropriate? Gee...ya think? I might reserve my outrage if the principal had fixed the problem. With all the teachers out there, there are going to be a few idiots among them. But the principal not only didn't come down on the side of school, state, and federal policy and the constitution, he wrote a letter dodging the issue and tacitly allowing the teacher to continue to teach children that it is OK to deny religious liberty. All this happened in front of the entire class. 

At what point would you believe that a little moral outrage is appropriate? When will you stand up for the constitution? 

My outrage is not because I want the kid to read the bible during class. I'm sure his parents will ensure the kid gets the religious education they deem appropriate. As a Libertarian, my outrage is that the kids are being taught the wrong thing about the constitution by a bully who seems more than happy to embarrass the kid in front of the entire class.


----------



## Oggie (May 29, 2003)

I'm not sure why this is still a great controversy, here.

The Liberty Institute said a parent had complained to it about a Bible-reading incident during free-reading time. The school board investigated and could not confirm that the incident even happened. The school board went further to clarify that religious materials are allowed during free-reading time.

Here's a pdf file of the school boards response to the Liberty Institute: https://s3.amazonaws.com/wwwfiles.libertyinstitute.org/files/CyFair+Response.pdf

In other words, the school board says that if a teacher told a student that he or she could not read a Bible during free-reading time, the teacher was not following school policy.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Oggie said:


> I'm not sure why this is still a great controversy, here.
> 
> The Liberty Institute said a parent had complained to it about a Bible-reading incident during free-reading time. The school board investigated and could not confirm that the incident even happened. The school board went further to clarify that religious materials are allowed during free-reading time.
> 
> ...


With the second grader in the OP, I understand your position. It is a he said/she said sort of thing where one of them is a second grader. In the fifth grader example I posted, there is proof positive that the teacher was discriminating based on religion content and the child was publicly disciplined. Where is the public discipline for the teacher and principal who defended the teacher's actions?


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

DEKE01 said:


> With the second grader in the OP, I understand your position. It is a he said/she said sort of thing where one of them is a second grader. In the fifth grader example I posted, there is proof positive that the teacher was discriminating based on religion content and the child was publicly disciplined. Where is the public discipline for the teacher and principal who defended the teacher's actions?


Public discipline? What...do you want them flogged? Maybe put them in stocks so angry villagers can pelt them with rotting vegetables?


----------



## Oggie (May 29, 2003)

DEKE01 said:


> With the second grader in the OP, I understand your position. It is a he said/she said sort of thing where one of them is a second grader. In the fifth grader example I posted, there is proof positive that the teacher was discriminating based on religion content and the child was publicly disciplined. Where is the public discipline for the teacher and principal who defended the teacher's actions?


Do you mean something such as this, for example?



> Broward Schools Superintendent Robert Runcie on Tuesday publicly apologized to a fifth-grade student who says his teacher wouldn&#8217;t let him read his Bible in class, with the superintendent saying &#8220;this is a situation that should&#8217;ve been handled differently.&#8221;
> 
> 
> &#8220;This does not represent the values of our school system,&#8221; Runcie said. &#8220;This was a isolated incident at the school.&#8221;





> In his comments on Tuesday, Runcie said administrators at Park Lakes &#8212; and schools across the district &#8212; are being reminded that the Bible is permitted during free reading sessions. Students are also allowed to read their Bibles before and after school starts, and during lunch



​
http://www.miamiherald.com/2014/05/06/4101611/broward-schools-runcie-says-bible.html


----------



## Nate_in_IN (Apr 5, 2013)

LisaInN.Idaho said:


> Public discipline? What...do you want them flogged? Maybe put them in stocks so angry villagers can pelt them with rotting vegetables?


I would think a simple "I was wrong. You may feel free to read the bible, or any other religious books of your choice, during free reading time" said in front of her class would be a good start.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

:hand:


Nate_in_IN said:


> I would think a simple "I was wrong. You may feel free to read the bible, or any other religious books of your choice, during free reading time" said in front of her class would be a good start.


The superintendents public apology wasn't good enough?


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

LisaInN.Idaho said:


> Public discipline? What...do you want them flogged? Maybe put them in stocks so angry villagers can pelt them with rotting vegetables?


Nothing short of death is good enough. :hammer:

Let me know when you want to have a serious conversation.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Oggie said:


> Do you mean something such as this, for example?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


A very good start, but not enough.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

LisaInN.Idaho said:


> :hand:
> 
> The superintendents public apology wasn't good enough?


Of course not. The teacher called out the kid in front of the class. Maybe it has already happened and we don't know about it, but the teacher should be made to give a supervised lesson to her kids on the constitution and why she was wrong. She grew up and got thru college without understanding much about the constitution. I don't want her kids to suffer the same fate. 

She and probably the principal should be fired for the civil rights violation, but I won't hold my breath.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

LisaInN.Idaho said:


> :hand:
> 
> The superintendents public apology wasn't good enough?


An analogy. Suppose I heaped abuse on you and your ancestors, said vile, nasty things to you, about you, etc, all because I find your opinion on this subject so objectionable. You could rightly report me to Angie but in this example Angie says, "I'll give it consideration" but does nothing further. Then Angie's boss (assuming there is some sort of Overlord to whom she reports) eventually posts this message, "Ad hominem attacks are not allowed and we are sorry we didn't handle this better." 

Would you be satisfied that I had not been banned, given an official warning, or something? 

For the record, no heaped abuse is intended upon you or your ancestors, I just think you lack an understanding of what it takes to protect our rights and I wish you did not resort to hyperbole.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

DEKE01 said:


> I wish you did not resort to hyperbole.


ound:


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Like I said, let me know when you want to have a serious conversation.


----------



## Nate_in_IN (Apr 5, 2013)

LisaInN.Idaho said:


> :hand:
> 
> The superintendents public apology wasn't good enough?


The superintendent has affirmed the school policy. There does need to be some confirmation that the school employees have received and understood that policy.


----------



## Molly Mckee (Jul 8, 2006)

We lived in the town north of Cypress, TX (Tomball) for 12 years. Let me say that in that area of Texas, just west of Houston, now mostly suburbia, almost everyone belongs to a church. If they don't, they belong to a synagog or another religious organization. I would guess that less than 1% of the population is unchurched. So chances are, the teacher also goes to church, synagog, or mosque.

I would guess that either the Bible was not the right level reading for the student or it was not on the list of books the kids could choose from. The only other reason might be that the kid showed up with what appeared to be a very expensive book and the teacher took it to be sure nothing happened to the book in the classroom.

As others have said, the fact that the parents went to a special interest group and the news, without talking to the teacher or principle, means to me that they were looking for a fight or a cash settlement. I don't believe they were concerned about the child, they probably had her take the bible to school to make a point that had little to do with reading.


----------



## MJsLady (Aug 16, 2006)

What I find interesting is there is, that I can find anyway, no update to this. 
What was the outcome? What really happened?


----------



## Nate_in_IN (Apr 5, 2013)

MJsLady said:


> What I find interesting is there is, that I can find anyway, no update to this.
> What was the outcome? What really happened?


Check the link in post #108

School investigated and cannot confirm the event even occurred. They say the bible is permissible for free reading time.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Nate_in_IN said:


> Check the link in post #108
> 
> School investigated and cannot confirm the event even occurred. They say the bible is permissible for free reading time.


They said it was "permissible when it was a "Just Right" book for the particular student". So if a child brought in a Bible leveled to his reading level, there would be no issues whatsoever. If indeed there ever was an issue.

https://s3.amazonaws.com/wwwfiles.l...es/CyFair+Response.pdf#page=1&zoom=auto,0,605


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Here is one way (and links to others) way that books and reading materials are leveled for beginning readers:

http://www.schrockguide.net/frys-readability-info.html


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

LisaInN.Idaho said:


> Here is one way (and links to others) way that books and reading materials are leveled for beginning readers:
> 
> http://www.schrockguide.net/frys-readability-info.html


Interesting graphs. According to them, my son was reading 11th grade books in 3rd grade! And he doesn't even like to read! But hey, nobody told him he couldn't or shouldn't.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> You're speaking of the Quran, right?


That, too. Neither religion is kind to people like me. I can only hope to live long enough to see them relegated to the dustbins of history, at least here in my country.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

willow_girl said:


> That, too. Neither religion is kind to people like me. I can only hope to live long enough to see them relegated to the dustbins of history, at least here in my country.


That comment right there speaks volumes! Wow!!! Talk about intolerant!


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

JeffreyD said:


> That comment right there speaks volumes! Wow!!! Talk about intolerant!


not seeing intolerance. If something advocates dislike or violence against certain people why wouldn't those people yearn to see that thing go away eventually?


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> That comment right there speaks volumes! Wow!!! Talk about intolerant!


I'm not saying that people shouldn't be allowed to practice their religion ... this is a free country, after all. I simply hope that one day, the human race will progress to the point where we will voluntarily discard ancient superstitions, much in the way almost no one believes in Zeus or Athena anymore. 

Wouldn't it be nice if people no longer embraced a holy book that tells them they should kill people for no greater crime than loving someone of the same gender? I think that would be a vast improvement. Your mileage may vary.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

LisaInN.Idaho said:


> not seeing intolerance. If something advocates dislike or violence against certain people why wouldn't those people yearn to see that thing go away eventually?


Of course it is! That someone is yearning for the demise of others based solely on their personal beliefs cannot be seen as anything BUT intolerant! For you not to be able to see that is shameful.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

JeffreyD said:


> Of course it is! That someone is yearning for the demise of others based solely on their personal beliefs cannot be seen as anything BUT intolerant! For you not to be able to see that is shameful.


Where in the world are you seeing someone yearning for the demise of others? Good grief, talk about reading something totally different than what is actually there.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

willow_girl said:


> I'm not saying that people shouldn't be allowed to practice their religion ... this is a free country, after all. I simply hope that one day, the human race will progress to the point where we will voluntarily discard ancient superstitions, much in the way almost no one believes in Zeus or Athena anymore.
> 
> Wouldn't it be nice if people no longer embraced a holy book that tells them they should kill people for no greater crime than loving someone of the same gender? I think that would be a vast improvement. Your mileage may vary.


Utopia doesn't exist in a mortal world, never will. And yearning for the for folks to believe in only what YOU want them to believe in is totally intolerant.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

I am not wishing for the demise of the people themselves, but merely that they voluntary relinquish beliefs that I find repugnant and damaging to the progress of the human race. (There is plenty more to find in there that's objectionable besides the treatment of LGBTs.)

Let me see if I can phrase this in a way that Jeffrey will comprehend. I'm going to go out on a limb guess that he doesn't much care for Islam, and one reason is because it treats Christians as second-class citizens, and thus he would be happy to see Islam pass away (voluntarily and peacefully, of course). Am I correct?


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

​


LisaInN.Idaho said:


> Where in the world are you seeing someone yearning for the demise of others? Good grief, talk about reading something totally different than what is actually there.


Your post. #129. "Yearn to see that thing go away"!


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

willow_girl said:


> I am not wishing for the demise of the people themselves, but merely that they voluntary relinquish beliefs that I find repugnant and damaging to the progress of the human race. (There is plenty more to find in there that's objectionable besides the treatment of LGBTs.)
> 
> Let me see if I can phrase this in a way that Jeffrey will comprehend. I'm going to go out on a limb guess that he doesn't much care for Islam, and one reason is because it treats Christians as second-class citizens, and thus he would be happy to see Islam pass away (voluntarily and peacefully, of course). Am I correct?


You are NOT correct!


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

JeffreyD said:


> Your post. #129. "Yearn to see that thing go away"!


Good grief. It was in reference to Willow's post and THAT was in reference to religions. Not people...religions. No one was hoping for anyone's death. I QUITE CLEARLY said, "that thing". Good grief.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

Yes, Lisa understood my intent there ... thanks. 

BTW, Thomas Jefferson also shared the hope that someday humans would progress beyond ancient religions/superstitions. Obviously it's been a long time since he shuffled off the mortal coil, but religion is still going strong, so perhaps I'm being overly optimistic about seeing it pass in my day. Que sera, sera ... I guess I'm just happy that they seem to have stopped killing us, for the most part.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

JeffreyD said:


> Of course it is! That someone is yearning for the demise of others based solely on their personal beliefs cannot be seen as anything BUT intolerant! For you not to be able to see that is shameful.


That wasn't intolerance she just hopes people move past religion. In her mind that would be a good thing because religions tend to be intolerant of people like her. If everybody treated everyone else according to the Golden rule she probably wouldn't care at all.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Patchouli said:


> That wasn't intolerance she just hopes people move past religion. In her mind that would be a good thing because religions tend to be intolerant of people like her. If everybody treated everyone else according to the Golden rule she probably wouldn't care at all.


I saw it as intolerant! I keep getting told how intolerant I am, so I should know the meaning. If you don't think it is, well, ok! :shrug:


----------



## joseph97297 (Nov 20, 2007)

JeffreyD said:


> Of course it is! That someone is yearning for the demise of others based solely on their personal beliefs cannot be seen as anything BUT intolerant! For you not to be able to see that is shameful.



Uh oh, all those people on this site talking about turning the middle east into a glass parking lot.....ummm..... well, I guess it speaks for itself?


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

joseph97297 said:


> Uh oh, all those people on this site talking about turning the middle east into a glass parking lot.....ummm..... well, I guess it speaks for itself?


I don't recall anyone saying that, other than liberals suggesting that that's what conservatives would like to see. I guess it does speak for itself, or at least the radical left. But that really is irrelevant to this topic.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> Utopia doesn't exist in a mortal world, never will. And yearning for the for folks to believe in only what YOU want them to believe in is totally intolerant.


I guess we'll have to disagree on this one. My idea of tolerance is to leave people in peace to live as they please, which I'm certainly willing to do. However, I reserve the right to hold my own opinions about their beliefs. 

Also, I don't expect everyone to believe as I do ... in fact, I think it would make for a pretty boring world if we all were alike! Don't you? 

But it would be nice if religious people could stop harming one another, and harming nonbelievers, in disputes over religion. No?

The only way I can envision that happening would be if religion were to go away ... 

That's not to say that people would miraculously stop harming each other; I guess it would simply give them one less excuse! ound:


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

willow_girl said:


> I guess we'll have to disagree on this one. My idea of tolerance is to leave people in peace to live as they please, which I'm certainly willing to do. However, I reserve the right to hold my own opinions about their beliefs.
> 
> Also, I don't expect everyone to believe as I do ... in fact, I think it would make for a pretty boring world if we all were alike! Don't you?
> 
> ...


Christians on the whole, have stopped harming one another and those who don't believe. So I can envision a way to a more peaceful world without religion going away. In fact, there is a lot of evidence that a world without religion would be a lot worse off...

http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_Mass_Murder

_Concerning atheism and mass murder, Christian apologist Gregory Koukl wrote that "the assertion is that religion has caused most of the killing and bloodshed in the world. There are people who make accusations and assertions that are empirically false. This is one of them."[1] Koukl details the number of people killed in various events involving theism and compares them to the much higher tens of millions of people killed under atheistic communist regimes, in which militant atheism served as the official doctrine of the state.[1] It has been estimated that in less than the past 100 years, governments under the banner of communism have caused the death of somewhere between 40,472,000 to 259,432,000 human lives.
_

Be careful what you wish for. Because from the same page...

_there have been twenty-eight countries in world history that can be confirmed to have been ruled by regimes with avowed atheists at the helm â¦ These twenty-eight historical regimes have been ruled by eighty-nine atheists, of whom more than half have engaged in democidal162 acts of the sort committed by Stalin and Mao â¦

The total body count for the ninety years between 1917 and 2007 is approximately 148 million dead at the bloody hands of fifty-two atheists, three times more than all the human beings killed by war, civil war, and individual crime in the entire twentieth century combined. 
_

It appears the world would be 100M or so people to the good if there were no atheists.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

I think that has more to do with Communism than with atheism.

Communism is predicated on people behaving in very unnatural ways. For instance, there is an expectation that a member of the collective will work hard for no reward, or no reward beyond what is given to the slacker or the person who doesn't work at all. 

It's going to take a heavy hand to keep people compliant in a system that runs so contrary to human nature. I think the solution usually boils down to, "If we just kill all the dissidents, we'll finally have our Worker's Paradise!" But dissidents, like the heads of the Hydra, seem to just keep popping up, requiring yet another purge ... sigh.

And I suspect those statistics of Deke's, which employ the phrase "_ have caused the death of,"_ probably take into account all the deaths attributed to famine, which frequently accompanies Communism, as the hard-working sorts who normally produce abundance cease to do so once they're no longer rewarded for it.

I don't think Christian Communists would fare any better than atheistic ones; the system is simply too flawed at its core. In fact, I understand the early Church pooled its resources, although this practice obviously was discarded at some point, which begs the question why? There are rumblings of discord in some of Paul's letters -- in fact, I think in one place he states that people who don't work shouldn't expect to eat. It appears early Christianity discarded its communistic practices before it had the muscle to conduct the kinds of bloody purges of which Stalin and Mao were capable. Like the modern Chinese, perhaps Christians simply decided capitalism really wasn't so bad after all. ound:


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

WG - you make valid points about communism and atheism. The Inquisition was anathema to Christianity, but nevertheless, it happened in the name of Christianity with at least some approval of the organized church. Islam is today world leader in religion inspired death. In the 1930s and 40s, Japan, Italy, and Germany were responsible for millions of deaths without a primary goal of advancing any particular faith but rather the borders of their countries.

All this proves is that I agree with one of your earlier points. Man's inhumanity to man is boundless; we always seem to find an excuse to kill and dominate one another. So to hope for the demise of religion as a means to ending the inhumanity is a bit shortsighted. Especially when you consider the good that is done by the various Christian groups.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> So to hope for the demise of religion as a means to ending the inhumanity is a bit shortsighted.


Well, it would give us one less excuse! :hysterical:

But I acknowledge that a lot of good is done in the name of religion, too, and I respect the folks doing it even if I don't buy into their faith. 

It occurs to me if Christians stuck to their original charge -- the "taking care of widows and orphans" bit -- it would probably win a lot more hearts and minds than their present focus on abortion and gays. 

Or maybe not -- other people's sex lives tend to be a lot more juicily interesting than mere do-gooder-ism!


----------



## Molly Mckee (Jul 8, 2006)

willow_girl said:


> I'm not saying that people shouldn't be allowed to practice their religion ... this is a free country, after all. I simply hope that one day, the human race will progress to the point where we will voluntarily discard ancient superstitions, much in the way almost no one believes in Zeus or Athena anymore.
> 
> Wouldn't it be nice if people no longer embraced a holy book that tells them they should kill people for no greater crime than loving someone of the same gender? I think that would be a vast improvement. Your mileage may vary.


You might want to read and understand what Christ instructed his followers, to love God and love one another as He has loved us. All the disagreements among different Christian groups is not Biblical.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

Christianity is all about loving God and other people?

Really?

Who knew?! ound:

From an outsider's perspective, it looks to me like Christianity is mostly about stopping gay marriage, making abortion illegal, and voting Republican. :teehee:


----------



## Oggie (May 29, 2003)

You forgot pot luck suppers.


----------



## Molly Mckee (Jul 8, 2006)

willow_girl said:


> Christianity is all about loving God and other people?
> 
> Really?
> 
> ...


Then you might want to stop judging when you don't know what the vast majority of Christians believe. The Westwhatever Baptist Group is not a Christian group--just a loud one.


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

Actually the onus should be on Christians, not willow girl...

We're supposed to make being a believer look _appealing_ to non-believer, remember? 
Sharing the Gospel is supposed to be a blessing, not a threat.


----------



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

ErinP said:


> Actually the onus should be on Christians, not willow girl...
> 
> We're supposed to make being a believer look _appealing_ to non-believer, remember?
> Sharing the Gospel is supposed to be a blessing, not a threat.


 
Only when they're open to the word. When they only want to discuss it to find fault and rip apart the advice not to cast pearls to swine comes in handy.


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

Eh. 
In my experience that's usually just a handy excuse. 


We are commanded to go forth in the world, loving others as Christ first loved us. That's Scripture. 
If non-believers see us not as a faith of peace and love, but rather judgement and legalism, we're doing something very wrong.
Besides, we draw more flies with honey than vinegar.


----------



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

ErinP said:


> Eh.
> In my experience that's usually just a handy excuse.
> 
> 
> ...


 
You can't please everyone. There where people in Jesus's day who only found fault with him no matter what he did or said. Jesus didn't mince words with them. He called a spade a spade.

Besides who's judging who in this thread? I may not agree with how these parent's handled the situation but it's their child and their right to handle it as they see fit.


----------



## willow_girl (Dec 7, 2002)

> You can't please everyone. There where people in Jesus's day who only found fault with him no matter what he did or said. Jesus didn't mince words with them. He called a spade a spade.


And IIRC, his harshest words were reserved for the 'church people' of his day.

Not the harlots and tax collectors ... the self-righteous Pharisees. 

Kinda makes ya wonder, don't it?


----------



## ErinP (Aug 23, 2007)

As well, He was hanging on the cross, seeking _mercy_ for the mob, begging God to "forgive them for they know not what they do."

Something tells me if Christians genuinely loved as Christ first loved us, sacrificially and all, we wouldn't have half the problems we do today.


----------



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

willow_girl said:


> And IIRC, his harshest words were reserved for the 'church people' of his day.
> 
> Not the harlots and tax collectors ... the self-righteous Pharisees.
> 
> Kinda makes ya wonder, don't it?


What makes me wonder is here we have yet another thread that turned into ' lets bash Christians ' some even going so far as to decide ( without proof )the child must have thrown the book by people who 'claim' that they accept all walks of life. I find it hard to take y'all seriously.:shrug:


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

That's an amusing attitude given the insults hurled at liberals and democrats here every day. But let someone find the smallest fault with Christianity and it magically becomes "Christian bashing"? Please.


----------



## joseph97297 (Nov 20, 2007)

Hmm, so label it as Christian Bashing....much as the fake 'War on Christmas" as what? A reason or excuse?

Sorry, one could look at the bashing as noted on Liberals or Democrats or any other religion outside of Christianity and perhaps have a point.

And if you believe this is Christian Bashing, no one can tell you different. I just find it along the same lines as the 'mock outrage' on that 'War on Christmas'.


----------



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

LisaInN.Idaho said:


> That's an amusing attitude given the insults hurled at liberals and democrats here every day. But let someone find the smallest fault with Christianity and it magically becomes "Christian bashing"? Please.


 
How is deciding the child was at fault and must have used the book as a weapon with no proof the 'smallest fault in Christianity'?


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

dixiegal62 said:


> How is deciding the child was at fault and must have used the book as a weapon with no proof the 'smallest fault in Christianity'?


where was that "decided"? I read a bunch of theories being thrown out because so little information was given. And even if the child WAS at fault and threw the Bible at someone and gave them a black eye....even if that did happen, or someone just believed it might have happened...how in the world is that Christian bashing?
Are you saying that Christians are without fault and would never do anything wrong?


----------



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

joseph97297 said:


> Hmm, so label it as Christian Bashing....much as the fake 'War on Christmas" as what? A reason or excuse?
> 
> Sorry, one could look at the bashing as noted on Liberals or Democrats or any other religion outside of Christianity and perhaps have a point.
> 
> And if you believe this is Christian Bashing, no one can tell you different. I just find it along the same lines as the 'mock outrage' on that 'War on Christmas'.


 
I'm not outraged or offended I'm simply stating my view.


----------



## dixiegal62 (Aug 18, 2007)

LisaInN.Idaho said:


> Are you saying that Christians are without fault and would never do anything wrong?


 
Christian's being human make the same mistakes Non-Christian's do.


----------



## 36376 (Jan 24, 2009)

beowoulf90 said:


> You really don't read well do you?
> 
> My very first comment/sentence was
> 
> ...


Are you right! We have friends who moved to PA from VA. My husband tried to warn them about the taxes. They have an extra $500 a Month.. A MONTH on their mortgage for school taxes! and they don't have any children! How is that even remotely affordable or even moral for that matter? How can anyone support extortion like this?


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

Carmen Renee said:


> Are you right! We have friends who moved to PA from VA. My husband tried to warn them about the taxes. They have an extra $500 a Month.. A MONTH on their mortgage for school taxes! and they don't have any children! How is that even remotely affordable or even moral for that matter? How can anyone support extortion like this?



It's not moral or right.. But politicians don't care! In either Party!

My mortgage is roughly $400, my property taxes is roughly $500 which equates to my mortgage payment of just over $900 a month.. The Government(s) claims that it funds the school, yet they always seem to be building newer Taj Mahals with huge atrium's and bigger sports facilities and of course the teachers wages and pensions continue to go up. 


All the while the average income in the community goes down due to taxation.. Also in spite of the increase of money they always claim they need more because our kids are failing blah blah blah....

We also here in PA will be hit hard here shortly because the pensions for Government employees (which includes teacher, which may be the largest part) is about to collapse. Well that is unless they can .....

Wait for it...


Raise taxes!

Even though we the people have been paying for the pension the entire time the Government spent the money elsewhere instead of putting it in the pensions as they should of been. So now we will get hit for it AGAIN!


----------



## grandma12703 (Jan 13, 2011)

I am proud to call myself a Christian but I am also regretfully a sinful person at times. With that said I would like to say that although I wish all children and adults alike could and would enjoy reading the Bible I am going to stand up a little for possibly a very "scared" teacher.

People have removed God from school. They can no longer pray. Realistically I think maybe this teacher just got afraid for her job because of a "gray" area. If there are children in the class whom are from non-Christian homes ... do you really believe there would have not been a ton of fall-out from letting the child read the book?

Now as far as me and mine I think we would have sat and listened intently.


----------



## Oggie (May 29, 2003)

When I want to tell other folks what to do, I usually go to the Old Testament for scriptural back-up.

But, when I want other folks to cut me some slack, the New Testament seems to be a pretty good source.

That way, things sort of balance out to prove that I am not only right, but righteous.


----------



## Seth (Dec 3, 2012)

willow_girl said:


> I am not wishing for the demise of the people themselves, but merely that they voluntary relinquish beliefs that I find repugnant and damaging to the progress of the human race. (There is plenty more to find in there that's objectionable besides the treatment of LGBTs.)
> 
> Let me see if I can phrase this in a way that Jeffrey will comprehend. I'm going to go out on a limb guess that he doesn't much care for Islam, and one reason is because it treats Christians as second-class citizens, and thus he would be happy to see Islam pass away (voluntarily and peacefully, of course). Am I correct?


So, folks should quit believing what they believe and start believing what you believe? Seth


----------

