Chuck Norris fact: Chuck Norris wants the Bible taught in public schools

posted at 2:43 pm on November 23, 2007 by Allahpundit

Suddenly atheist Sunday school doesn’t sound so silly. Old but gold, and likely to further burnish the coveted Norris endorsement for Mike Huckabee in the eyes of social cons. Chuck Norris fact: Church and state are separate only because sticking together would make them easier targets for Chuck Norris.

Update: Speak of the devil.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

-Are you saying Jefferson was a Dr. Jeckle and Mr. Hyde?
No.
-So do you think that I went back in time and made Jefferson say what he said?
No.
-THEN WHY ARE YOU SPENDING SO MUCH TIME SEEMINGLY TRY TO DO JUST THAT?
You addressed your comment to me, I merely answered it which is common courtesy. Since my first answer seemed unclear (as you said yourself @ 3.13 you saw no distinction) I merely elaborated.
-If I do, how do you know that you are not it?
3 reasons: First, I don’t read the comments to posts very much anymore; second, I don’t give quotes without context very much weight; third, I don’t put myself opposite you in conversation often so the conversations you are having are rarely with me.

Spirit of 1776 on November 24, 2007 at 5:34 PM

With all due respect – how stupid.

But only the weak-minded

And stupid.

Professor Blather on November 24, 2007 at 4:54 PM

Oh lord, not another name calling stalker. Tap, tap, tap. Must be something in the water.

BTW, Thor never weeps. You should know that being a professor and all.

MB4 on November 24, 2007 at 5:56 PM

You addressed your comment to me, I merely answered it which is common courtesy

Spirit of 1776 on November 24, 2007 at 5:34 PM

Funny as the first personal reference to either of us from the other that I can find was from you about me at Spirit of 1776 on November 23, 2007 at 8:29

I think I have picked up another tap, tap, tapper.

BTW, the thread is the context for quotes or anything else.

MB4 on November 24, 2007 at 6:08 PM

Did Thomas Jefferson lose his faith after writing this and then change to believe that Christianity and the belief in God had no redeeming qualities, as stated in the quote from MB4?

Heh. The point of quoting famous people is not to be correct, but rather to attempt to gather moral authority and add authority by fame to one’s argument. Don’t let the specifics and the realities get in the way of a good search by topic, cut and paste quotes marathon.

Spirit of 1776 on November 23, 2007 at 8:29 PM

See that one where you tried to act like some school nanny and “shoot the messenger” rather than address the ideas.

MB4 on November 24, 2007 at 6:18 PM

Funny as the first personal reference to either of us from the other that I can find was from you about me at Spirit of 1776 on November 23, 2007 at 8:29

That’s correct you were referenced in the quote I was responding to. Since my point was in essence about style, not personal commentary, perhaps I should have taken your name out, but I didn’t.

I think I have picked up another tap, tap, tapper.

I don’t know what that means. If it is merely an eloquent negative commentary statement on me personally, you can save me the explanation, I’m not desirous to call you names or to encourage you to do so either.

BTW, the thread is the context for quotes or anything else.

Precisely my point. You assign the context for the quotes by where you insert them, not from where they were derived. (This is why I said projection, you place meaning on the words by where you chose to place the words). This is consistent, in my opinion, with Twain and also Franklin as they spoke/wrote with that intention of quotability/wordplay. Not so for others, Jefferson among them.

Spirit of 1776 on November 24, 2007 at 6:30 PM

Spirit of 1776

I will read the article when I have time, but the first paragraph seems to be in line with my view of the cult of personality that grew around Lincoln so quickly after his death.

If you are making the assertion that Fort Sumter was sent troops from the north (the Fort was considered Federal property), I ask you to support that statement. As I understand it the numerical change was a factor of a complete withdraw of a sister fort due to supply and security necessities, not from reinforcements from Lincoln. I grant you they were discussed, but disagree on your premise because they were not sent so as to not provoke war. I’m not sure how you equilibrate the offensive action on Ft. Sumter as a defensive measure especially if taken in the light of Buchanan’s Sec/War shuttling military equipment to the South previous to Lincoln’s inaugural. If you consider the blow struck by the South to be the cause to label the war as Lincoln’s war, then I doubt we can reconcile our views.

After SC seceded, their secession would mean little if they allowed a military presence of the US to remain their soil. To call it still federal property is an excuse and poor reasoning. Lincoln sent a ship to reprovision the fort, did he not? And when the ship sent was fired upon, Lincoln jumped to war. Was the ship sunk and were there any casualties? From what I have read, no one died. So why was Lincoln so eager to commit to war?

Taking Lincoln’s statement into account, it appears that his ego would simply not allow him to go down in history as the president that oversaw the break-up of the union. Would his violations of freedoms at the time also add to his status? Did he not also order the arrest of reporters and people at a paper?

There is also so much more to consider regarding the times. Like I stated before, the simplistic outlook invariable written by the victors does not portray the complexities of the times or the war.

Gene Splicer on November 24, 2007 at 6:35 PM

Defense Guy on November 24, 2007 at 5:03 PM
This confuses me, because I am not sure what other range of subjects is included. To my mind creationism only addresses how the earth was created and how life began on earth, and is spelled out only in the first few chapters of Genesis. If you are using some other source than that, I would be interested in taking a look at it.

And the creation of the universe and all of existence as well. That covers quite a range of scientific theories.

As to the CW argument – think about it this way. If the southern states won the war, or better yet, never had to fight it to begin with, what shape do you think the government be in today? Would we have such centralized power and election for senators and congressmen or would we still have decentralized power, the people voting for congressmen and the states appointing senators as it should be?

Gene Splicer on November 24, 2007 at 6:47 PM

There is also so much more to consider regarding the times. Like I stated before, the simplistic outlook invariable written by the victors does not portray the complexities of the times or the war.

Gene Splicer on November 24, 2007 at 6:35 PM

Those who freed the slaves were the victors, as is most fitting and proper.

Seems pretty simple to me that no man should be anothers slave.

Not a whole lot of complexity there.

All else is just fluff in somebody’s craw.

MB4 on November 24, 2007 at 6:51 PM

Gene Splicer on November 24, 2007 at 6:35 PM

Thanks for the answer. Let me first say, I agree with this statement completely. “There is also so much more to consider regarding the times. Like I stated before, the simplistic outlook invariable written by the victors does not portray the complexities of the times or the war.”

-To call it still federal property is an excuse and poor reasoning.
I didn’t mean it as an excuse. If compromised had been reached, then the property would have been given over to the respective states I’m sure. That doesn’t change the state in which Lincoln found it though, nor does it make the aggression not aggression.
-Lincoln sent a ship to reprovision the fort, did he not?
Yes, he did. But not with military reinforcements.
-Was the ship sunk and were there any casualties?
No it wasn’t sunk; there was one casualty, but that was by accident.
-So why was Lincoln so eager to commit to war?
I don’t think that he was. And I think his behavior in the interim from his election and taking the office indicates that. He also spoke predominately against violence (which is what catapulted his popularity) against the South as seen in his Cooper Institute speech of ’60.
-Taking Lincoln’s statement into account, it appears that his ego would simply not allow him to go down in history as the president that oversaw the break-up of the union.
I think this is an interesting statement, but I don’t attribute his actions to ego. Allow me two comments on this point. In Lincoln’s political career he was a master of compromise and he was a master of understanding the political climate in terms of the views of the people. At worst, one could say he was not a Unionist by conviction, but rather because that is what the people wanted. If you suggest his election percentage indicates that is not what the people wanted, I would point out that when it became apparent that Douglas would not win, he went to campaign in the South to assure the South that Lincoln (who he knew well) didn’t mean them harm.
-Would his violations of freedoms at the time also add to his status?
I don’t think they add to his stature. In fact, I think he was uncomfortable with some, but did them out of what he perceived as necessity.
-Did he not also order the arrest of reporters and people at a paper?
Yes. His root argument was that it was unjust to shoot a soldier for desertion and leave the man who stirred him up untouched.

Lincoln’s political doctrine is well summed in his comments at the Cooper Institute and then later at Independence Hall in PA (2.11.61). Instead of delving into that though to comment on the charge of hypocracy, is it fair to say that you think the states had the right to secede? And is the essence of your umbrage with Lincoln on this issue?

Spirit of 1776 on November 24, 2007 at 6:55 PM

MB4 on November 24, 2007 at 6:51 PM

Those who freed the slaves were the victors, as is most fitting and proper.

Yes, freed and yet not still free. This is a simplistic view. Tell me, how many northern states voted to end slavery prior to the war? How many abolition societies or organizations existed in the north compared to the south?
The cry of freeing ht slaves is a sophomoric cry to sum up a time and a war far more complex then it is portrayed.

Seems pretty simple to me that no man should be anothers slave.

To the modern man and a few of the time we speak of, yes, but to judge people of the past by our reasoning today is not a rational exercise. If you seek to do so and condemn the south for owning slaves and the north for freeing them, then you should seriously stop quoting the slave-owning founding fathers.

Not a whole lot of complexity there

.

In you reasoning, none at all.

All else is just fluff in somebody’s craw.

Non sequitor.

Gene Splicer on November 24, 2007 at 7:19 PM

Spirit of 1776
Lincoln’s political doctrine is well summed in his comments at the Cooper Institute and then later at Independence Hall in PA (2.11.61). Instead of delving into that though to comment on the charge of hypocracy, is it fair to say that you think the states had the right to secede? And is the essence of your umbrage with Lincoln on this issue?

Part of it. Take the entry of Virginia into the union. Virginia went to great length to be assured that if the union was not all it was promised, they had problems with it, etc, that Virginia could secede. I believe several other states also sought similar protection, but the point is moot due to the equality of right seen as a fundamental to all states. Once Virginia established this as an action it could take by right, all other states had the same right.
I think over some issues you are correct. You and I will simply disagree on some of them. I do thank you for taking the time to reply, in such detail and in an earnest manner.

Gene Splicer on November 24, 2007 at 7:26 PM

I think over some issues you are correct. You and I will simply disagree on some of them. I do thank you for taking the time to reply, in such detail and in an earnest manner.

Gene Splicer on November 24, 2007 at 7:26 PM

The same to you, I appreciate the discussion.

Your comments on Virginia are well received. Even Lee himself was an Unionist in sentiment, but esteemed VA above even that. I think history has cast this issue as one that is resolved, but I think the issue is a complicated one and not adequately answered. In my view the implication of the convention after the failure of the A.o.Confederation is that a stronger Central government was a necessity and once ratified it was a contract because there was no provision added to allow willful exit. However, some of our founding fathers did not think it would last even to Lincoln’s date, so one must assume that they expected the dissolving to be related to succession. It’s certainly is subject to interpretation.

All the best.

Spirit of 1776 on November 24, 2007 at 7:52 PM

And the creation of the universe and all of existence as well. That covers quite a range of scientific theories.

I see what you are saying. Thanks for having the patience and taking the time to discuss it with me.

I still don’t see where you think evolution fits into the equation. To my mind, it doesn’t until after everything has already been created. As for theory of evolution itself, I think Darwin was a very astute observer, but merely took his theory farther than he, or we have proof of. I’m pretty sure you disagree. To be fair, I haven’t read his books, but they are on my to do list.

Hobbes was right, of course, that failure to define terms up front on conversations like these is unwise.

Defense Guy on November 24, 2007 at 8:19 PM

muyoso on November 23, 2007 at 3:08 PM

Evolution is a theory – it has not been proven. Period. If it were proven it would be a fact, not a theory.

Neocon Peg on November 24, 2007 at 8:48 PM

Defense Guy on November 24, 2007 at 8:19 PM
Hobbes was right, of course, that failure to define terms up front on conversations like these is unwise.

True. Sorry for any confusion.

Gene Splicer on November 24, 2007 at 8:52 PM

Neocon Peg on November 24, 2007 at 8:48 PM

Evolution is a theory – it has not been proven. Period. If it were proven it would be a fact, not a theory.

There is no such a thing as law in science, technically speaking. Even the theory of gravity is “just a theory” as you put it.

The value of the theory is how much supportive evidence for the theory there is. Evolution has quite a bit form varied scientific disciplines.

To put it in terms used by a creationist who understood the matter, calling evolution just a theory is like calling the Christian bible just a story.

Gene Splicer on November 24, 2007 at 8:57 PM

Gene Splicer on November 24, 2007 at 8:57 PM

I disagree. I do agree that evolution exists, as species do evolve within themselves. However, I do not believe in the big bang theory that everything was created out of a vacuum. Nothing can be created out of a vacuum. Take a jar or a bag and suck all the air out of it and just watch and wait for something to be created out of it. You will wait for eternity. If in the beginning there was an atom, something must have created that atom. It simply did not come into existance from a vacuum.

Neocon Peg on November 24, 2007 at 9:31 PM

P.S. No, there is the Law of Gravity, not the Theory of Gravity. It is proven. It is fact.

Neocon Peg on November 24, 2007 at 9:32 PM

Neocon Peg on November 24, 2007 at 9:32 PM

Peg, even when accepted as ‘fact’ science holds the label of theory. Science can’t test every possibility so cannot label as law (even when so widely accepted as to be referred to as such). Therefore an infinite amount of supporting evidence, is merely that – supporting evidence, when a single example (if repeatable) of non-compliance can disprove.

Spirit of 1776 on November 24, 2007 at 9:40 PM

Spirit of 1776 on November 24, 2007 at 9:40 PM

Thanks, I’m not a scientist, but I just assumed that the law of gravity was just that. So according to your comment, evolution is, like I said, theory and has not been proven.

If that is the case, then both evolution and creationism should be taught, since both are theories, no?

Neocon Peg on November 24, 2007 at 9:52 PM

Neocon Peg on November 24, 2007 at 9:52 PM

Yeah, it’s correctly labeled a theory. As to your question, I can’t answer it. I have no familiarity with what determines the composition of educational guidelines. My guess it that it would be boards of education at the state level, so voters might be able to affect the curriculum via ballot box, but after NCLB maybe all from the Fed level. Frankly I don’t know, not my field of expertise :)

Spirit of 1776 on November 24, 2007 at 9:59 PM

If that is the case, then both evolution and creationism should be taught, since both are theories, no?

Creationism isn’t a scientific theory. In 1987 the Supreme Court in Edwards v Aguillard ruled that the teaching of creationism in science class violated the establishment clause of the Constitution.

dedalus on November 24, 2007 at 10:11 PM

The cry of freeing ht slaves is a sophomoric cry to sum up a time and a war far more complex then it is portrayed.

Gene Splicer on November 24, 2007 at 7:19 PM

There is nothing “sophomoric” about thinking that no one should have slaves. Period.
Nothing “simplistic” about it either.
At least you substituted “sophomoric” for your over used “simplistic” this time anyway.
You need to come up with another word to substitute for “complex” now.
Then move on to something other than trying to re-fight the Civil War that freed the slaves from their tyrants.

MB4 on November 24, 2007 at 11:13 PM

As the great day drew nearer, there was more singing in the slave quarters than usual. It was bolder, had more ring, and lasted later into the night. Most of the verses of the plantation songs had some reference to freedom…. Some man who seemed to be a stranger (a United States officer, I presume) made a little speech and then read a rather long paper—the Emancipation Proclamation, I think. After the reading we were told that we were all free, and could go when and where we pleased. My mother, who was standing by my side, leaned over and kissed her children, while tears of joy ran down her cheeks. She explained to us what it all meant, that this was the day for which she had been so long praying, but fearing that she would never live to see.
– Booker T. Washington

MB4 on November 24, 2007 at 11:29 PM

All else is just fluff in somebody’s craw.

Non sequitor.

Gene Splicer on November 24, 2007 at 7:19 PM

Well maybe that is what you got stuck in your craw, a “non sequitor”. Could be that. I dunno. I suppose. It is something mighty damn big that is for sure. Probably been there for a long time too. Pretty damn old whatever it is. You should probably purge yourself of it. It would be for your own good. Might make you feel better.

MB4 on November 24, 2007 at 11:46 PM

We were told that we were all free, and could go when and where we pleased. That this was the day for which we had been so long praying, but fearing that we would never live to see.
Booker T. Washington John McCain (1973)

MB4 on November 24, 2007 at 11:54 PM

Neocon Peg on November 24, 2007 at 9:31 PM
I disagree. I do agree that evolution exists, as species do evolve within themselves. However, I do not believe in the big bang theory that everything was created out of a vacuum. Nothing can be created out of a vacuum.

Then you are confusing evolution with the origin of the universe which is a topic evolution does not seek to address, no matter what the likes of “Dr.” Kent Hovind claim.
The theory governing the origin of the universe does not even state a vacuum or nothing as has been all too often claimed.

Take a jar or a bag and suck all the air out of it and just watch and wait for something to be created out of it. You will wait for eternity. If in the beginning there was an atom, something must have created that atom. It simply did not come into existance from a vacuum.

And this is typical Discovery institute nonsense. I(f you wish to discuss science then do not try to get such theory form a religious institution.

P.S. No, there is the Law of Gravity, not the Theory of Gravity. It is proven. It is fact.

And again, you simply do not understand that of which you speak. For anything to be science, it must meet several standards. One of these standards is falsifiability or the ability to be proven wrong or replaced. Gravity, like evolution, has a huge amount of supportive proof, but will never technical be a law or fact due to this requirement.
Creationism is not backed by anything other than religion and myth. Evolution on the other hand has huge amounts of evidence form varied disciplines of science.

Gene Splicer on November 25, 2007 at 1:33 AM

There is nothing “sophomoric” about thinking that no one should have slaves. Period.
Nothing “simplistic” about it either.

This has been addressed before. You are judging people of the past with a modern morality. This is a simplistic outlook and sophomoric. Again, using the same rules, you would also have to find the founders similarly condemnable.

At least you substituted “sophomoric” for your over used “simplistic” this time anyway.

No, I included it. Your view of history is simplistic and does not take into account the complexity of any time period. History is never as cut and dry as you present it.

You need to come up with another word to substitute for “complex” now.

Why? You ignore this reality of history.

Then move on to something other than trying to re-fight the Civil War that freed the slaves from their tyrants.

Perhaps if you actually read anything other than simplistic quotes and history, you could address the actual topic with some substance rather than more bloviating.

Gene Splicer on November 25, 2007 at 1:38 AM

MB4 on November 24, 2007 at 11:46 PM
Well maybe that is what you got stuck in your craw, a “non sequitor”. Could be that. I dunno. I suppose. It is something mighty damn big that is for sure. Probably been there for a long time too. Pretty damn old whatever it is. You should probably purge yourself of it. It would be for your own good. Might make you feel better.

You have yet to explain your odd “hereditary jihad comment.” Care to explain that odd and personal slight or should I just let you skip off to the next tangent?

Perhaps you can actually address the topic rather than make one odd and unsubstantiated personal comment after another. If not, then by all means, rant on.

Gene Splicer on November 25, 2007 at 1:42 AM

Gene Splicer, are you getting paid by the number of times you use the word “simplistic”? How much? 5 cents each time?

How about “complex” and “complexity”? How much? 2 cents each time?

And now “bloviating” and “rant”? How much? 1 cent each time?

Is that the best you can do? Apparently it is or otherwise you would not likely be doing it, and so much of it. But then what you are trying, although not well at all, to defend, is indefensible.

Speaking of indefensible, you could use your sorry excuse for argument to defend 9/11.

You could say “Well 9/11 was not Al Qaeda’s fault, it was really mostly Americas fault.”

Then after someone else responds you could say, “That’s simplistic and sophomoric, it’s more complex than that and you are just bloviating and ranting!

It has been almost a century and a half.

The south and the slavers lost the civil war as they most certainly should have.

Slavery has been abolished.

Get over it! It’s would be for your own good. I firmly believe that the big majority of southerners have. Why can’t you?

Do you have little Confederate and Union soldiers that you refight the civil war with? How about John Wilkes Booth and Abraham Lincoln figures? You know the great President Abraham Lincoln that you say was a hypocrite and who destroyed our country or some such.

I hope that you are not actually doing that, but it is not at all hard to imagine it.

MB4 on November 25, 2007 at 2:58 AM

As President Thomas Jefferson requested funds from Congress to purchase New Testaments for distribution to the Indians so they could understand the morality upon which our government is founded. Congress approved the request.

ALl religions are not equal in this case because the old and new testaments of the Bible are the basis of the American system. We are not a sharia based nation. We are a nation formed on biblical principles. What was considered to be good or important, or not good or detrimental, was taken from the pages of the Bible which was the foundation of study for those who wrote our system of governmnet

The first Congress even endorsed a recommended translation of the Bible for reading

entagor on November 25, 2007 at 8:24 AM

The Bible is the basis of our system! It was always the basis and the building block for our government. It is the foundation. When you mess with the foundation of any house,, regardless of what you build above it, the house is at risk. It was a Christian people, a Bible believing Christian people that built a nation where all people were free to live in liberty!

JellyToast on November 25, 2007 at 9:09 AM

It was a Christian people, a Bible believing Christian people that built a nation where all people were free to live in liberty!

One freedom in the Constitution is to practice a religion that holds that the Bible is not written by your God.

It seems clear to me that the founders recognized the importance of religion as an organizing and moral force among the people they were about to rule. Almost all those people were protestants. Even so, they managed to produce the Declaration of Independence and Constitution without referencing the Bible as precident.

dedalus on November 25, 2007 at 11:38 AM

I don’t want the Bible in schools. I can only imagine how they screw up teaching that.

My real concern is having Public Education. The Founders were against that. We seriously as righties need to stop sending kids to public schools. We need to start scholarships and such to get them out and get them in Hilsdale style schools, even elementary schools.

Tim Burton on November 25, 2007 at 12:14 PM

MB4 on November 25, 2007 at 2:58 AM
Gene Splicer, are you getting paid by the number of times you use the word “simplistic”? How much? 5 cents each time?
How about “complex” and “complexity”? How much? 2 cents each time?
And now “bloviating” and “rant”? How much? 1 cent each time?

How about addressing the points made rather than you r problem with me or my diction.

Is that the best you can do? Apparently it is or otherwise you would not likely be doing it, and so much of it. But then what you are trying, although not well at all, to defend, is indefensible.

You have yet to post anything but personal slights and the quote of other men in defense of whatever your position is. My points have been made and detailed in conversation with Spirit of 1776.

Speaking of indefensible, you could use your sorry excuse for argument to defend 9/11.
You could say “Well 9/11 was not Al Qaeda’s fault, it was really mostly Americas fault.”

I would normally ask you to provide support for this fallacy of composition yuo posted here, but you have to actually defend anything you have posted other than to take issue with me or my diction.

Then after someone else responds you could say, “That’s simplistic and sophomoric, it’s more complex than that and you are just bloviating and ranting!

Again, debate the issue and not my diction.

It has been almost a century and a half.

Time is irrelevant when it comes to actions taken by a hypocrite such as Lincoln.

The south and the slavers lost the civil war as they most certainly should have.

Again, judging by modern morals of a past society. To do so is simplistic. Sorry you have a problem with that term, but is applicable.

Slavery has been abolished.

Really? Then you have no clue as to the status of the rest of the world, just your simplistic (oh the pain) view.

Get over it! It’s would be for your own good. I firmly believe that the big majority of southerners have. Why can’t you?

Again, you cannot even address the topic with fact, just the simplistic pabulum if the slavery issue.

Do you have little Confederate and Union soldiers that you refight the civil war with? How about John Wilkes Booth and Abraham Lincoln figures? You know the great President Abraham Lincoln that you say was a hypocrite and who destroyed our country or some such.

More non sequitor comments. Again, address the issue rather than me or my diction if you can.

I hope that you are not actually doing that, but it is not at all hard to imagine it.

And again, address the topic with something other than more of your whining, personal rants and comments. If you are unable to actually debate your case rationally, then by all means keep obsessing about my diction and making personal comments.
Take my conversation with Spirit of 1776 for example. We disagree on certain points but through his citing historical events I can understand his or her point of view. You seem to just want to preach and make unquestionable summary statements.

You seem too emotionally attached to the topic of Lincoln to debate rationally and without resorting to such personal rants.

Gene Splicer on November 25, 2007 at 3:12 PM

The xian bible was not the foundation for our government, our laws or our legal system. To claim so is to be totally ignorant of history and to ignore how religious based governments function. The current fight for personal freedoms in Islamic nations is a great example of what happens when religion is the foundation of government.

Gene Splicer on November 25, 2007 at 3:18 PM

Wow, I go away for a week, and I miss all the good arguments! Being how I’m all late and wrong, I’d like to toss in my two cents: Until the schools start actually teaching the subjects they already have (math, science, lit/English, etc), and bring back the ones they’ve dropped (music, art, phys ed), Biblical studies should remain in the private home/church/school. I’ve come across high school grads who could barely read a menu or calculate a tip. Let’s get back to the basics in schools before adding something so highly contentious.

Better yet, school choice. I got to choose the high school I went to, and I believe I’m a (slightly more educated and) better person for it. Yay for vouchers!

Personally, I hate when my mother-in-law tells my daughter about the Bible, but that’s a family thing. The heck if I’m going to let that crap fly from a public school teacher (my daughter starts kg next Fall).

the goddess anna on November 26, 2007 at 2:39 PM

Indeed, but they’ll distinguish that on grounds that the Koran teaches war and the Bible teaches peace. A better analogy would be Buddhism. If you think Baptists get a little ornery when Mormons poach members of the congregation, have the state turn a few Christian kids into budding Buddhist monks and see what happens.

Allahpundit on November 23, 2007 at 3:05 PM

The more serious objection would be that Islamic theology would not be thought as is but instead whitewashed as it is in universities. In fact this is already happening. I was thought about Christianity and Buddhism in school at age 13 and it didn’t do me any harm.

aengus on November 26, 2007 at 6:11 PM