Judge outlaws prison group's Bible program

Ah well, it's a better fate than Cernunnos got.

Yes, yes, I know, kids will have sex anyhow, we must teach them HOW to do it more safely.

Also, kids will drive drunk, so we must teach them how to drive drunk in a safer manner.

Kids will do drugs, we must teach them proper use of a crack pipe, we all know what happened to Richard Pryor. If he had been trained how to smoke cocaine properly his face wouldn't have been so badly burned.

Yes, yes, I know, kids will have sex anyhow, we must teach them HOW to do it more safely.

Also, kids will drive drunk, so we must teach them how to drive drunk in a safer manner.

Kids will do drugs, we must teach them proper use of a crack pipe, we all know what happened to Richard Pryor. If he had been trained how to smoke cocaine properly his face wouldn't have been so badly burned.

....

By the way, Richard Pryor was freebasing.........).

Kids will do drugs, we must teach them proper use of a crack pipe, we all know what happened to Richard Pryor. If he had been trained how to smoke cocaine properly his face wouldn't have been so badly burned.

Freebasing cocaine, as I said.

Freebasing cocaine, as I said.

This is what you said.

Instead, it is much closer to the truth to state that from the matrix of ideas surrounding the end of the Second Temple era emerged two religions, Christianity and rabbinical Judaism, both of which claimed continuity with the original religion.

Similar chemical, different process. Much more dangerous. Again, you should agone to the class ;P

The fact that you've fallen to attempting to nitpick those who oppose you to attack their credibility (poorly) illustrates that we've reached the end of your ability to hold a logical argument, as the flaws in your arguments have crippled them.

....

The fact that you've fallen to attempting to nitpick........

Wrong.



For we know that the common law is that system of law which was introduced by the Saxons on their settlement in England, and altered from time to time by proper legislative authority from that time to the date of Magna Charta, which terminates the period of the common law. . . This settlement took place about the middle of the fifth century. But Christianity was not introduced till the seventh century; the conversion of the first christian king of the Heptarchy having taken place about the year 598, and that of the last about 686. Here then, was a space of two hundred years, during which the common law was in existence, and Christianity no part of it.

. . . if any one chooses to build a doctrine on any law of that period, supposed to have been lost, it is incumbent on him to prove it to have existed, and what were its contents. These were so far alterations of the common law, and became themselves a part of it. But none of these adopt Christianity as a part of the common law. If, therefore, from the settlement of the Saxons to the introduction of Christianity among them, that system of religion could not be a part of the common law, because they were not yet Christians, and if, having their laws from that period to the close of the common law, we are all able to find among them no such act of adoption, we may safely affirm (though contradicted by all the judges and writers on earth) that Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law

uh huh... then why did you bring up crack pipes?

Yep, pay attention, chill out, you are getting uptight over nothing. Read it... "we all know what happened to Richard Pryor. If he had been trained how to smoke cocaine properly his face wouldn't have been so badly burned.

Notice I said "smoke cocaine" not crack. How does one smoke cocaine without freebasing it?

If religion is a thing for the home, shouldn't something much more personal be for the home?

You don't want kids to have religion information pushed on them by the schools, as it should be with sex information.

Schools are for learning school subjects, not how to have sex.

I should have brought up every single type of paraphernalia so you wouldn't have anything to nitpick, but then again, you would have nitpicked that too.

I think it's not me nitpicking, now is it.

You are probably right since none of this has anything to do with sex education in schools.

And sex education in schools has absolutely nothing to do with the judge's ruling.

Ok Kevn, serious question for you. I hear you and other Christians talking about how the constitution only says freedom of religion not freedom from religion. Ok fine. Imagine this:

Your child comes homes from school with a paper telling parents that before each school assembly a local priest will lead the school in a prayer. These prayers are not optional and any student refusing to pray will be suspended for two weeks. I would imagine you have no problem with this and tell your child this is a good thing and to participate.

A few weeks later you ask you child about it and they tell you that yes, they have had a number of assemblies and before each one they all prayed. You are so happy about this you decide to go to the next assembly to see it for yourself.

So you go and sure enough, before the assembly the principal asks everyone to stand as a nicely dressed gentleman steps up to the mic. He then proceeds to lead the entire student body, including your child, in a prayer to Satan. After all, the school can't promote one religion over another.

So tell me, would you be upset by that? I am being serious here and would like a serious answer. A Muslim parent would feel the exact same way you did if they heard that their child was being made to pray to Jesus. This is an example of why they shouldn't have any prayer in state sponsored activities.

::waits for the "well all those other religions are fake so they don't count" argument to rear its ugly head::

Your child comes homes from school with a paper telling parents that before each school assembly a local priest will lead the school in a prayer. These prayers are not optional and any student refusing to pray will be suspended for two weeks. I would imagine you have no problem with this and tell your child this is a good thing and to participate.

Ok Kevn, serious question for you. I hear you and other Christians talking about how the constitution only says freedom of religion not freedom from religion. Ok fine. Imagine this:

Your child comes homes from school with a paper telling parents that before each school assembly a local priest will lead the school in a prayer. These prayers are not optional and any student refusing to pray will be suspended for two weeks. I would imagine you have no problem with this and tell your child this is a good thing and to participate.................................................................

Screeeeeeeeech, hold on there one second. I wouldn't permit any such thing. Amazing what you assume.