David Blust wants to talk about peer pressure and being forced to read this book by peers or out of respect to the teacher.
So I can’t help but wonder (on a different tangent) how all the kids who either question Christianity, no matter their faith (or lack thereof in the case of atheism) will feel every single day they see those posters on the walls. And how many will be pressured to be part of the Christian faith, or at the very least pretend to stay part of the clique out of respect so as not be ostracized by their peers. Or stand out as different, which can be the kiss of social death in high school.
Historical context? It rings a bit hollow when the intent seems less about history and more about putting god back in the classroom. And of course just your god.
That would be the freedom from religion part those of us who actually respect the Constitution believe in. Instead of paying lip service to it as Perry Yates does when he thinks being a Christian means he’s the new arbiter of morality because he finds “Spirits” offensive according to “his” belief. And freedom means people like him have to force his belief on us to protect his freedom to do so?
Some people around here really need to stop thinking their religion trumps all, including the law. While being unable to grasp that the bible and god are two very different things.
One can be easily studied as a series of morality tales and yes “put into it’s historical context” (much like Aesop’s fables for that matter, or any other holy text) The other is the focus of a belief system that the 1st amendment specifically states (like every other religion) can not be sanctioned by the state, period. You can believe anything you want, you can’t however force it on others because.
This country never was founded as a Christian nation.
This country never has been a Christian nation. Unless you count adding phrases like under god to the pledge of allegiance to do what? Set us apart from those “godless commies” As during the Mcarthy era Communism and Atheism were often considered one and the same.
Though to be honest if we use the logic of people like Mr. Yates and Mrs. Lesesne would they really want 10th graders reading stories about a brother leading his sibling to betrayal and death. Daughters seducing their drunken father to continue the family line. Or a king who gets another man’s wife pregnant, then sends that man to the front lines to have him killed. All so he can conceal his crime and take the woman as his wife.
That would be Cain and Abel, Lot’s daughters, and the story of King David and Bathsheba for those keeping score. But taken out of it’s context? Much like ohhhh I don’t know a part of a book (not just excepts, right commissioner Blust?) Is that the Bible or the season finale of Game of Thrones?
Maybe when said bible comes up to the book review board for it’s clearly offensive content Nathan Miller can site the actual law behind an “egregious violation” of the process instead of once again claiming (as he did during the sales tax change) it’s legal or not cause he says so? And maybe he could stop trying to insert himself into a process he has no part of like his fellow grandstanding BOC members?