Japan Today

Here
and
Now

opinions

Some U.S. lawmakers want more Christianity in the classroom. Trump could embolden their plans

69 Comments
By MORIAH BALINGIT

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.

©2025 GPlusMedia Inc.


69 Comments

Comments have been disabled You can no longer respond to this thread.

Great. Finally, a step toward restoring the moral and spiritual backbone of this nation. Christianity in the classroom is EXACTLY what America needs to combat the woke rot that's been infecting schools for far too long. Faith instills discipline, purpose, and a sense of accountability - values that are VANISHING in a culture obsessed with "me me me!" selfishness, sexual immorality (including the disturbing sexualization of children) and nihilistic atheism.

And isn't it funny how the same people who FOAM AT THE MOUTH OVER GOD in schools are the ones gleefully pushing TRANSGENDER ideology, LGBTQ propaganda, and divisive and RACIST concepts like CRITICAL RACE THEORY onto children. WHY is it acceptable to confuse and indoctrinate kids with harmful nonsense like that, but not to teach them about faith, family, and the eternal truth of God?

The time to stop bowing to the anti-Christian mob is OVER, and praise the Lord. Welcome back, real values in education. And If that makes the woke Radical Left Uber "Liberals" uncomfortable, then good - it's about time they felt the discomfort of a culture that finally stands for something again.

-20 ( +7 / -27 )

I hope the Church of Satan is ready to demand equal access.

11 ( +18 / -7 )

JayToday  07:30 am JST

True or false: is Christianity in public schools respecting an establishment of religion?

8 ( +13 / -5 )

no.

the 1st amendment does not say freedom of religion. it says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…”

the founding fathers wanted freedom from religion.

as english colonies, they were forced to be members of the church of england. the word god does not appear in the constitution. they wanted people to be free from government forcing religion upon them.

freedom works both ways, of and from.

not much i dislike more than people forcing their religion on others, using words, stories and books written by men.

13 ( +19 / -6 )

I hope the Church of Satan is ready to demand equal access.

Gleefully pleading for Satanism in schools is something you would demand, wouldn't you TINC.

-19 ( +3 / -22 )

JayToday  07:40 am JST

I hope the Church of Satan is ready to demand equal access.

Gleefully pleading for Satanism in schools is something you would demand, wouldn't you TINC.

Thank you. If you don't like it, you know how to keep all of this stuff out of the public schools.

11 ( +15 / -4 )

Usually that will come with cancelling teaching about Darwin and evolution, that's US education in 2025.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/evolution-teaching-states

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/feb/24/usa.schools

-6 ( +5 / -11 )

Usually that will come with cancelling teaching about Darwin and evolution, that's US education in 2025.

I gotta admit that, while I was taught about evolution at school, a road trip through the southern red states a few years ago definitely shook my belief in it.

11 ( +15 / -4 )

sakurasukiToday  07:44 am JST

Usually that will come with cancelling teaching about Darwin and evolution, that's US education in 2025. 

https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/evolution-teaching-states

This link says that evolution is taught in all US public schools.

5 ( +9 / -4 )

Gross.

6 ( +10 / -4 )

More far-right attempts to turn our democracy into a religious theocracy just like Iran...

You can see it coming, only "Christians" are allowed to vote...

But that's not America - American is a place where the Constitution protects your right to practice any religion you want - and to be free not to have someone else or the State push their religion onto you...

But that's not that these fundamentalist faux Christians want - they want to preach their religion to your kids...

They're religious fascists - just like those in Tehran...

8 ( +12 / -4 )

What happened to the separation of State and religion? All religions should be kept out of all public schools.

13 ( +17 / -4 )

More far-right attempts to turn our democracy into a religious theocracy just like Iran...

Look up "Frank Zappa crossfire" or "Frank Zappa theocracy". There are clips on youtube of him on a discussion show called "Crossfire". He was saying this stuff back in the late eighties, and he was scarily close to the mark.

6 ( +9 / -3 )

Christianity will line the pockets of a select few and fleece the gullible flock. Don’t force it on kids.

12 ( +15 / -3 )

religion is perverted in the u.s.

mega church pastors with $65 million jets, tax free and not doing a single thing to help homeless, hungry and destitute people.

you want to know how silly it is? who decided humans are the only animals who get to go to heaven? what about cattle, dogs and fish? homo sapiens have been around let’s say 75,000 years.

dinosaurs were around about 160 million years. imagine going to your imaginary heaven and low and behold, there are millions of hungry dinosaurs for every human. haha.

why not use the book of mormon? written in 18th century english in the 19th century by a convicted fraudster traveling west to escape prison.

keep religion out of schools and government.

you can always count on societies transforming into autocratic rule before their fall.

read some history,

12 ( +13 / -1 )

and i wrote lo and behold, but autocorrect changed between the time i hit post and it appeared.

the “religion” of scientology was a bet in a bar that someone could create a religion out of thin air with thousands of followers. why not scientology in schools?

7 ( +9 / -2 )

and a newly-elected president whom has violated 7 of them.

what a joke.

11 ( +13 / -2 )

why not scientology in schools?

They've tried it before. They have what they call "study tech", which they claim (probably without proof; I mean Scientology is legally defined as a religion, after all) that it makes their followers super-smart learners and they've tried in the past to sneak it into schools as a prelude to disseminating the rest of the stuff.

(Source: used to know a few of them in the States, so got to know a bit about the whole scene)

Way I see it, if one religion is allowed to proselytise in schools, they all should be allowed to. All or none, those are the only fair options.

8 ( +9 / -1 )

But that's not that these fundamentalist faux Christians want - they want to preach their religion to your kids...

Yet you seem to have no problem bombarding kids with radical gender ideologies, drag shows in libraries, and divisive critical race theory that teaches children to HATE themselves or others based on skin color. Yeah, the audacity of these Christians wanting to instill purpose, accountability, and hope in the next generation instead of the nihilistic, identity-obsessed chaos woke "Uber Liberals" are peddling.

Have you ever considered, that maybe you're just afraid that kids exposed to Christianity might start questioning the woke circus your side is running.

-12 ( +5 / -17 )

Way I see it, if one religion is allowed to proselytise in schools, they all should be allowed to. All or none, those are the only fair options.

I concur. Comparative religious instruction would be the way to go. While I have no problem with my children being taught about Christianity, or any religion, I do not want them taught Christianity, especially at the exclusion of other religions and philosophies.

Which flavor of Christianity would it be, by the way? Catholic? Greek Orthodox? Methodist? Unitarian? Baptist? Southern Baptist? Seventh Day Adventist? Mormon? Jehovah's Witness? The Jim Jones variety? How about the David Koresh variety? (We all know the answer - mass market Evangelical -the worst of them all. Ain't no hate like Christian "love.").

Also, who would do the teaching? If I'm going to be taught religion, I want it to be from somebody ordained or sanctioned by their religion, not just somebody who is "a believer and goes to church." I mean, I'm pretty handy with a set of tools - just made a picnic table - but you don't want me teaching carpentry.

9 ( +11 / -2 )

Gross.

Are you talking about the agenda in schools that promotes gender confusion through unscientific and harmful transgender propaganda, encouraging kids to question their biological realities? Are you talking about how education boards teach children to view themselves and others solely through the lens of race, fostering resentment and guilt rather than unity and mutual respect? Are you referring to how they normalize unhealthy lifestyles, reject personal responsibility, and celebrate shallow/selfish worldviews completely devoid of meaning or moral foundation?

If so, you're 100% correct.

-12 ( +4 / -16 )

Have you ever considered, that maybe you're just afraid that kids exposed to Christianity might start questioning the woke circus your side is running.

I think that more kids should be exposed to Christianity. I know of no better way to create more atheists.

7 ( +11 / -4 )

Education going down in the USA, it is going down to trump level.

What happen to the separation of church and state?

If this happen, I hope all religions are going to ask the same level of opportunity like the Church of Satan.

10 ( +11 / -1 )

data

More far-right attempts to turn our democracy into a religious theocracy just like Iran...

I am pro secular education, but that claim is just misguided. There is no christian "theocracy", unless you count the Vatican. In christianity, the separation of church and state is built-in ("give to cesar what is cesars" etc etc), quite contrary to islamic teaching where sharia is gods law for all of mankind, which is supposed to be enforced by a world-wide caliph in its final state. Totally apples and oranges.

-12 ( +3 / -15 )

Yet you seem to have no problem bombarding kids with radical gender ideologies, drag shows in libraries, and divisive critical race theory that teaches children to HATE themselves or others based on skin color. Yeah, the audacity of these Christians wanting to instill purpose, accountability, and hope in the next generation instead of the nihilistic, identity-obsessed chaos woke "Uber Liberals" are peddling. 

Stay on topic. We’re talking about Christianity.

Have you ever considered, that maybe you're just afraid that kids exposed to Christianity might start questioning the woke circus your side is running.

No. Have you ever considered that Christianity is a lie. If you want to believe it great. Don’t force your views on other people. It’s very ‘unchristian’.

10 ( +12 / -2 )

But that's not that these fundamentalist faux Christians want - they want to preach their religion to your kids...

Yet you seem to have no problem bombarding kids with radical gender ideologies, drag shows in libraries, and divisive critical race theory that teaches children to HATE themselves or others based on skin color. Yeah, the audacity of these Christians wanting to instill purpose, accountability, and hope in the next generation instead of the nihilistic, identity-obsessed chaos woke "Uber Liberals" are peddling.

Not me, guess you're referring to someone else...

Have you ever considered, that maybe you're just afraid that kids exposed to Christianity might start questioning the woke circus your side is running.

If you want your kids exposed to Christianity then pay a private school to provide that to them...plenty out there...

Buddhist, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, or any other religious group should not be forced to have their children indoctrinated in Christianity in a public school....period, dot...

That's called FREEDOM OF RELIGION....guaranteed in the Constitution...

10 ( +12 / -2 )

No. Have you ever considered that Christianity is a lie.

According to whom?

If you want to believe it great. Don’t force your views on other people. It’s very ‘unchristian’.

Forcing Christians to think their religion is a lies is equally offensive and forcing your atheist viewpoints on religious believers, that feeling goes both ways.

-10 ( +3 / -13 )

Are you talking about the agenda in schools that promotes gender confusion through unscientific and harmful transgender propaganda, encouraging kids to question their biological realities? Are you talking about how education boards teach children to view themselves and others solely through the lens of race, fostering resentment and guilt rather than unity and mutual respect? Are you referring to how they normalize unhealthy lifestyles, reject personal responsibility, and celebrate shallow/selfish worldviews completely devoid of meaning or moral foundation?

I'm not particularly on board with all of that either. I think you can teach kids about those kinds of things, and you can teach them about Christianity (and other religions) in a neutral and fact-based manner but you shouldn't force your beliefs on anyone. If students (or their parents) want their education to be based on religious tenets, principles and dogma, then they can choose a school that does that.

Also, I do think that religion can provide a framework for positive attitudes and behaviours, such as respect for others, self-discipline, compassion, hard work and so on. However, I don't think that's the only way you can try to instill that in young people. There are sports, volunteering, community activities, clubs, school projects and others.

Access not allowed

Try to log in again

4 ( +4 / -0 )

No. Have you ever considered that Christianity is a lie.

According to whom?

All others religions

7 ( +8 / -1 )

Forcing Christians to think their religion is a lies is equally offensive and forcing your atheist viewpoints on religious believers, that feeling goes both ways.

Well, if you can "force" them, that doesn't say much for their faith.

Anyway, atheism exists, by definition, as a response to religion.

If religion had never existed, and thus people had never felt the need to go around telling people "believe in my religion or you will suffer for ever", there would be no need for atheists to use their simple two word response which trumps everything: "prove it".

Atheism is inherently a reactive position and exists precisely because religious people (and I'm not singling any one religion out here; some do this and some don't) feel the need to go around pushing their beliefs on other people. You have to expect some pushback. If you don't want pushback, don't push in the first place.

7 ( +8 / -1 )

Have you ever considered that Christianity is a lie.

Unfortunately Bob Floss, what you're doing is the intellectual equivalent of burying your head in the sand and shouting at the truth to go away. Jesus Christ's existence, teachings, and impact are objective facts - some of the most well-documented and transformative events in human history, supported by secular AND Christian, Jewish and Islamic sources alike. Like, seriously dude?

Don’t force your views on other people. It’s very ‘unchristian’.

Um, the Gospel is literally about spreading the good news, not keeping it to ourselves. Lololol Bobby!

Refusing to acknowledge the evidence doesn't make it less real; it just makes your nihilistic atheism far less credible.

-10 ( +2 / -12 )

Christianity is what made the US and the rest of the Western world great.

Nevertheless, the US is a democracy. Let the people decide which ideology they want; woke secularism founded on the belief that creation created itself? Or Christianty? Or something else. May they choose wisely.

-4 ( +7 / -11 )

Well, if you can "force" them, that doesn't say much for their faith.

I don’t believe in forcing anyone to do anything and would never approve of anyone forcing their religious or political beliefs on anyone, it’s wrong.

Anyway, atheism exists, by definition, as a response to religion. 

I understand, but as I said, forcing me to accept it is as equally offensive, so it goes both ways, neither side should push their beliefs.

If religion had never existed, and thus people had never felt the need to go around telling people "believe in my religion or you will suffer for ever", there would be no need for atheists to use their simple two word response which trumps everything: "prove it".

More baseless hypotheticals

Atheism is inherently a reactive position and exists precisely because religious people (and I'm not singling any one religion out here; some do this and some don't) feel the need to go around pushing their beliefs on other people. You have to expect some pushback. If you don't want pushback, don't push in the first place.

Again, that goes both ways.

-9 ( +2 / -11 )

Let the people decide which ideology they want; woke secularism founded on the belief that creation created itself.

Exactly. The all-time classic is their theory/belief in the scientific impossibility that nothing created everything. If the universe spontaneously emerged from absolutely nothing, then that clearly violates the very laws of physics they claim to revere.

Come on, shiny heads - if causality and order are fundamental to science, how can you reconcile your worldview with the notion that the intricate complexity of life and the universe arose without an intelligent cause?

FOLLOW THE "SCIENCE!"

-12 ( +2 / -14 )

I understand, but as I said, forcing me to accept it is as equally offensive, so it goes both ways, neither side should push their beliefs.

OK, let's try and make this simple. Situation 1:

You: I'm a Christian.

Me: Cool. I'm not, but you do you.

Situation 2:

You: I'm a Christian and if you don't believe in what I believe in, you're going to burn in hell forever.

Me: I don't accept that, as you can't provide a single piece of evidence to support it.

You: Stop forcing your beliefs on me!

10 ( +12 / -2 )

Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world

John 18:36

Hey Christians, did you hear? Jesus' kingdom is not a secular one. No need to make America, or anywhere else, "a Christian nation." Besides, the Founding Fathers were Deists, Washington swearing on a Masonic Bible. Hiram Abiff is Hiram abinu (our father), the architect a Tyrian king, Solomon's temple a pagan sanctuary. Christianity belongs in school as much as evolution belongs in chruch, it doesn't. Teach lessons from the good book at home and church. And if you are so worried about a secular education in public school, homeschool. That is what my southern Baptist sister and her husband did.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

If the universe spontaneously emerged from absolutely nothing, then that clearly violates the very laws of physics they claim to revere

I think your area of scholarship is WW2. I’d stay in that lane.

I’d leave the physics to someone else. It involves maths and stuff. It’s hard.

Teaching about religions is a good thing. Teaching that one of them is true or correct ( they can’t all be right ) has no place in modem education.

Teaching about the ‘truth’ of talking snakes, water into wine, walking on water, virgin births etc. clearly has no place in a serious classroom about education in the 21st century.

10 ( +12 / -2 )

Refusing to acknowledge the evidence doesn't make it less real

Lol evidence from a Christian.

Forcing Christians to think their religion is a lies is equally offensive and forcing your atheist viewpoints on religious believers, that feeling goes both ways.

Absolute and complete rubbish. I’m not forcing you to think anything.

Don’t attempt to make me complicit in your games.

8 ( +9 / -1 )

It is smart to keep classrooms secular, a clear separation between religion and state.

All faiths out of the classroom.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

You certainly don't demonstrate much love of your neighbor. Quite the opposite. You radiate hatred.

When challenged, you don't turn the other cheek. You become even more hostile. I recall something about a gentle answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger?

Well, as an admitted atheist, you have absolutely no objective moral standard to measure anything by, so your attempt to judge Christian behavior is just plain ridiculous. You see, without God, your "morality" becomes subjective and meaningless - just your personal preferences.

But anyway, let me flip this table right back at you: Jesus also flipped tables and called out hypocrisy when He saw it, and I'm simply following His lead. So again, with love, consider your tables flipped.

-11 ( +1 / -12 )

But anyway, let me flip this table right back at you: Jesus also flipped tables and called out hypocrisy when He saw it, and I'm simply following His lead. So again, with love, consider your tables flipped.

What is the hypocrisy that I have demonstrated?

I pointed out that you are, online at least, always angry, always combative, and always insulting people; traits which don't seem very Christ-like.

What is hypocritical about that? I made no claims about my own behaviour.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

Well, as an admitted atheist, you have absolutely no objective moral standard to measure anything by, so your attempt to judge Christian behavior is just plain ridiculous. 

Athiests can’t have an objective moral standard?

What an absurd statement.

All you’re doing is are doing is trying to force your personal beliefs on posters who who have no interest in them and attacking them for it. By far the nastiest poster here these days, if those are your Christian values it’s not wining any converts.

You do you. I’m not interested in it. Keep it out of schools.

7 ( +9 / -2 )

Certain blue state inner-cities could do with a bit of 'thou shalt not steal' teaching in their schools.

-8 ( +2 / -10 )

I think Gandhi nailed it. Pun intended.

"I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ".

7 ( +8 / -1 )

Athiests can’t have an objective moral standard? 

What an absurd statement.

If they are as atheistic as they claim, then no, they can't. Their morality is reduced to subjective opinions - which is not truly objective. Atheists may behave morally (and from where is that behavior borrowed?), but their framework lacks a universal standard to determine right from wrong beyond personal preferences. Game set match, Bob.

-8 ( +1 / -9 )

And if it's offensive to other students who are not Christians? Do they have a say?

3 ( +5 / -2 )

JayToday  12:49 pm JST

Athiests can’t have an objective moral standard? 

What an absurd statement.

If they are as atheistic as they claim, then no, they can't. Their morality is reduced to subjective opinions - which is not truly objective. Atheists may behave morally (and from where is that behavior borrowed?), but their framework lacks a universal standard to determine right from wrong beyond personal preferences. Game set match, Bob.

Atheism came before religion (unless you really believe in Adam and Eve). Therefore religion was based on pre-religious morality.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Atheists may behave morally (and from where is that behavior borrowed?),

It's not borrowed, it's learned from parents, teachers, peers, society in general.

My whole family is essentially nonreligious. None of us has ever been in legal trouble, and as far as I can make out we're all upstanding citizens who live our lives without doing bad stuff. In my family there are medical professionals who spend their lives helping others, and teachers who dedicate their careers to improving the prospects of young people when they enter the larger world out there.

Let's take an example. I don't steal, because I know that 1) stealing usually causes another person (or people) to suffer, and 2) stealing is agreed on by most people to be wrong. Further, I would, if caught, be punished for it and that would undo the work I've put in on being a contributing member to society. Even if I were not caught, I'd be living with the knowledge that I had potentially caused harm (financial or emotional, or both) to another person who I probably don't even know. There are plenty of good reasons not to steal.

You (presumably) don't steal because the eighth commandment says that you shall not steal.

Same result, different way of getting there. Doesn't make you any more moral than me, or vice versa.

It really seems to bother you that atheists can be moral. Not my problem, but maybe worth some reflection on your part.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

@Tokyo Guy

My whole family is essentially nonreligious. None of us has ever been in legal trouble, and as far as I can make out we're all upstanding citizens who live our lives without doing bad stuff. In my family there are medical professionals who spend their lives helping others, and teachers who dedicate their careers to improving the prospects of young people when they enter the larger world out there.

Let's take an example. I don't steal, because I know that 1) stealing usually causes another person (or people) to suffer, and 2) stealing is agreed on by most people to be wrong. Further, I would, if caught, be punished for it and that would undo the work I've put in on being a contributing member to society. Even if I were not caught, I'd be living with the knowledge that I had potentially caused harm (financial or emotional, or both) to another person who I probably don't even know. There are plenty of good reasons not to steal.

> Same result, different way of getting there.

Good for you. However the Bible commands far more than that kind of morality.

It commands loving your enemies, turning the other cheek, forgiving those who harm us, generosity to our own hurt, actively seeking to help and love our neighbors, putting the needs of others above our own, etc. etc.

I realise that many Christians don't live up to that. But it is a great standard to strive for.

8 ( +9 / -1 )

Tokyo Guy

If religion had never existed, and thus people had never felt the need to go around telling people "believe in my religion or you will suffer for ever", there would be no need for atheists to use their simple two word response which trumps everything: "prove it".

That claim is quite ironic, seeing that the fanatics of current Western woke ideologies such as climatism, genderism and CRT are doing exactly that, although they are using other terminology. In a ironic way you are proving that these are indeed pseudo-religions. Which, again ironically, are being pushed into schools by many people who would call themselves atheist.

Good point! But as far as the argument you wanted to make, it is an own-goal :-)

-8 ( +3 / -11 )

It commands loving your enemies, turning the other cheek, forgiving those who harm us, generosity to our own hurt, actively seeking to help and love our neighbors, putting the needs of others above our own, etc. etc

Depends on what part of it you want to take seriously.

The Bible is a long, incoherent, self-contradicting collection of books put together by committee.

You can find the nice stuff in there as well as justifications for genocide, slavery, racism, land theft, the mistreatment of women, child abuse etc.

Not a very good book on which to base morality in the 21st century.

There is far better out there.

6 ( +8 / -2 )

Concerned Citizen Today 01:13 pm JST

[The Bible] commands loving your enemies, turning the other cheek, forgiving those who harm us, generosity to our own hurt, actively seeking to help and love our neighbors, putting the needs of others above our own, etc. etc.

I realise that many Christians don't live up to that. But it is a great standard to strive for.

Indeed, a great standard to strive for. After all, the Buddha said,

Even if low-down bandits were to sever you limb from limb with a two-handed saw, anyone who had a malevolent thought on that account would not be following my instructions. This is often depicted as one of the torments of hell. If that happens, you should train like this: ‘Our minds will not degenerate. We will blurt out no bad words. We will remain full of sympathy, with a heart of love and no secret hate. We will meditate spreading a heart of love to that person. And with them as a basis, we will meditate spreading a heart full of love to everyone in the world—abundant, expansive, limitless, free of enmity and ill will.’ That’s how you should train.

https://suttacentral.net/mn21/en/sujato?lang=en&layout=plain&reference=none&notes=asterisk&highlight=false&script=latin

Forgive them father, they know not what they do!

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

That claim is quite ironic

I don’t think you understand the meaning of the word ironic.

In a ironic way you are proving that these are indeed pseudo-religions

Pseudo-religions? So it’s proof that they are not religions?

What point are you trying to make here?

1 ( +4 / -3 )

That claim is quite ironic, seeing that the fanatics of current Western woke ideologies such as climatism, genderism and CRT are doing exactly that, although they are using other terminology. In a ironic way you are proving that these are indeed pseudo-religions. Which, again ironically, are being pushed into schools by many people who would call themselves atheist.

Atheism is actually pretty straightforward. It is the viewpoint that there is no evidence for any of the many claimed supreme beings which have been worshipped over the millennia.

Atheism doesn't have a stance on "climatism" (sic), or genderism, or CRT. An atheist will have his or her own opinion on these matters, or may be indifferent or disinterested, but that's not part of being an atheist. Being an atheist simply involves taking the above-mentioned stance vis-a-vis the presence or absence of supreme beings. You may want it to be other things (see below), but it's not.

I see what you're trying to do, btw. Same as people who use the "hurr durr something came from nothing" trick. You can't out-argue atheism, as it only has one essential tenet, and nobody has ever proven the existence of a supreme being without a) lying or b) twisting the meaning of words so far as to be meaningless, so you go off on tangents and try to connect them to atheism. This sometimes works on the young and gullible, but I am neither of those.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

inserting biblical references gratuitously,

What does that even mean? how ?

while erasing the role Christianity played in justifying atrocities perpetuated by Americans, like genocide of Native people.

Care to explain the role of Christianity there?

-7 ( +0 / -7 )

I think your area of scholarship is WW2. I’d stay in that lane.

I’d leave the physics to someone else. It involves maths and stuff. It’s hard.

Oh, I'm sorry, did I accidentally stumble into a physics debate led by someone who believes the universe just magically appeared from nothing? Go on then - explain with your "maths and stuff" how can something can come from absolutely nothing/ Then, go ahead and tell us how you're perfectly comfortable swallowing the absurdity of a BIG BANG that defies those basic scientific principles?

-9 ( +1 / -10 )

Atheism came before religion (unless you really believe in Adam and Eve). Therefore religion was based on pre-religious morality.

Could you clarify what "pre-religious morality" you're referring to? Because if we look at examples like the ancient Egyptians, Sumerians or Romans, their moral codes were based on self-interest or power, not on any universal sense of right or wrong. The Sumerians had a strict legal code, but it was about maintaining order and control, not compassion or equality. Take the Code of Hammurabi, for example - punishments were severe and bloody harsh, which points to a utilitarian view of law and order, not moral empathy. Similarly, the Romans were all about conquest, slavery, and dominance - hardly what we'd consider a moral system by God's standards.

So, what exactly is this pre-religious morality that you're speaking of?

-9 ( +1 / -10 )

Then, go ahead and tell us how you're perfectly comfortable swallowing the absurdity of a BIG BANG that defies those basic scientific principles?

The idea of the Big Bang was based on observations by a priest.

Nice self own.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

Similarly, the Romans were all about conquest, slavery, and dominance - hardly what we'd consider a moral system by God's standards.

The bible explicitly allows slavery.

Take the Code of Hammurabi, for example - punishments were severe and bloody harsh, which points to a utilitarian view of law and order, not moral empathy

The bible refers to stoning people to death.

Doesn't matter how much semantic chicanery you apply, the bible both condones slavery and allows people to be stoned to death.

Google is your friend.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

while erasing the role Christianity played in justifying atrocities perpetuated by Americans, like genocide of Native people.

Care to explain the role of Christianity there?

I’ll leave the poster to justify his/her claim on that one but the slave owners actually quoted the Bible to justify the filthy practice of enslaving another human being.

A pity this revolting practice wasn’t outlawed in the 10 commandments or Jesus didn’t get round to repudiating it later on.

Could have saved a lot of unspeakable suffering.

Never mind, eh?

Oh, I'm sorry, did I accidentally stumble into a physics debate led by someone who believes the universe just magically appeared from nothing? Go on then - explain with your "maths and stuff" how can something can come from absolutely nothing/ Then, go ahead and tell us how you're perfectly comfortable swallowing the absurdity of a BIG BANG that defies those basic scientific principles?

Look, you may have read half of the books ever written on WW2 ( have you finished all of them now? ) and we admire your scholarship, but this doesn’t qualify you in this area.

What basic scientific principles have been violated? You sound very educated in this area. I have some training in physics but I’m certainly no authority in this area - mine was more mundane stuff.

Some of the smartest people on the planet work in this area. I mean smart. Even smarter than Tucker Carlson and Steven Crowder.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

@Jimizo

You can find the nice stuff in there as well as justifications for genocide, slavery, racism, land theft, the mistreatment of women, child abuse etc.

Christians follow Christ's teachings....hence the name CHISTians. Please quote chapter and verse of His teachings, or any New Testament writer that justifies genocide, slavery, racism, land theft, the mistreatment of women, child abuse etc.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

ZaphodToday 10:50 am JST

data

More far-right attempts to turn our democracy into a religious theocracy just like Iran...

I am pro secular education, but that claim is just misguided. There is no christian "theocracy", unless you count the Vatican. In christianity, the separation of church and state is built-in ("give to cesar what is cesars" etc etc), quite contrary to islamic teaching where sharia is gods law for all of mankind, which is supposed to be enforced by a world-wide caliph in its final state. Totally apples and oranges.

That's why we have laws banning abortion and aid for Israel right? The secular nature of US law.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

 (As an atheist,) my morality is not borrowed, it's learned from parents, teachers, peers, society in general.

Cool story TG. Now where did your "parents, teachers, peers and society in general" get their morality from? Unless you grew up in a country with either a weapon or a rudimentary farming tool on their flag, the answer is quite obvious.

Doesn't matter how much semantic chicanery you apply, the bible both condones slavery and allows people to be stoned to death.

Absolute clown comment straight from the edgy teen atheist playbook. The Bible doesn't "allow" slavery OR stoning; it RECORDS historical practices that were common in ancient times - it also provides principles that ultimately DISMANTLED those practices. Paul's letters in the New Testament promotes the idea of spiritual equality, urging masters to treat their slaves justly and calling for mutual respect. Stoning? A punishment under the Mosaic Law for serious transgressions, but JESUS himself challenged the execution of such laws when he intervened in the case of the woman caught in adultery, showing mercy and forgiveness instead.

Yeah, ancient cultures practiced these things. But Christianity has long been a force for moral progress, not the backward, barbaric system you're suggesting. So what on earth are you talking about?

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

I’ll leave the poster to justify his/her claim on that one but the slave owners actually quoted the Bible to justify the filthy practice of enslaving another human being.

What is this, Dumb & Dumber 3? Again, the Bible doesn't "allow" slavery or stoning - it records ancient practices that were challenged and eliminated by Christian principles.

What is it that are you struggling to comprehend here?

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

You can find the nice stuff in there as well as justifications for genocide, slavery, racism, land theft, the mistreatment of women, child abuse etc.

Christians follow Christ's teachings....hence the name CHISTians

You make it sound as if that is a unified group. Christianity is violently schismatic. The various sects of it butchered one another along with people from other faiths. Absolute bloodbaths from the followers of the prince of peace.

Christians are often desperate to jettison the Old Testament at suitable times.

Do you find Christians refer to the Old Testament? I do. Many seem to like the disgraceful treatment of homosexuals for one. Jesus didn’t mention it so there has to be a flicking back of the pages to justify this bigotry.

Did Jesus repudiate all the savagery of the Old Testament. Can you point me to the clear repudiation of slavery? I missed it. So did the slaveowners.

Anyway, my point still stands. Choose what you want and ‘reinterpret’ the contradictions.

Also, the nonsense Jesus taught cannot be followed. Turn the other cheek? Let someone belt you twice?

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone? We are all sinners. I find Christians tend to be i favour of the death penalty. An eye for an eye from the Old Testament or something.

Again, incoherent nonsense.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

Absolute clown comment straight from the edgy teen atheist playbook. The Bible doesn't "allow" slavery OR stoning; it RECORDS historical practices that were common in ancient times - it also provides principles that ultimately DISMANTLED those practices. Paul's letters in the New Testament promotes the idea of spiritual equality, urging masters to treat their slaves justly and calling for mutual respect. Stoning? A punishment under the Mosaic Law for serious transgressions, but JESUS himself challenged the execution of such laws when he intervened in the case of the woman caught in adultery, showing mercy and forgiveness instead.

I might have accepted that if you hadn't felt the need to package it with an insult.

If you're the type who does confession, I'd pop along and admit to having a serious temper problem.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Concerned CitizenToday 02:14 pm JST

Christians follow Christ's teachings....hence the name CHISTians

Only if they practice turning the other cheek. Otherwise they are cult members using the name of JC.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Only if they practice turning the other cheek. Otherwise they are cult members using the name of JC

Don’t forget giving all you have to the poor.

Talk about wealth redistribution. Jesus was full-on.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Concerned Citizen Today 02:14 pm JST

@Jimizo

You can find the nice stuff in there as well as justifications for genocide, slavery, racism, land theft, the mistreatment of women, child abuse etc.

Christians follow Christ's teachings....hence the name CHISTians. Please quote chapter and verse of His teachings, or any New Testament writer that justifies genocide, slavery, racism, land theft, the mistreatment of women, child abuse etc.

“the law is holy”

— Paul, Romans 7:12

It therefore follows that, at least to Paul, the Mosaic law was divinely ordained. So if the Mosaic law supports any of those things, then is necessarily follows that they are understood to be divinely sanctioned. Now I could go though to show how such things are indeed viewed as divinely sanctioned in the Mosaic law, but I won’t. The reason is, as can be seen from this page (https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justin-taylor/how-could-god-command-genocide-in-the-old-testament-2/), any such demonstrations will be explained away as perfectly just given that God is the standard for justice, making such things just by definition; a tautological position. The unreasonableness is easily seen when one notes the same tautological position in other religious traditions just to be told, “Well yeah, in those cases it was unjust because that was not the real God sanctioning those acts.” And so there is no real objective way to evaluate the justness or unjustness of the Mosaic legislation, or anything else biblical, in the Christian worldview. The Christian is always right by definition. That is why I find the topic to be a waste of time frankly.

And Christians are Christians because they believe Jesus is the Christ, Christ deriving from the Greek translation of the word Messiah, a Jewish concept. Christianity is predicated on Jewish religion, a variant form of Israelite religion of the people of Judah. So first prove that Jewish religion is true, as compared to the other surviving strand of Israelite religion, Samaritan religion. The proclamation “Jesus is the Messiah” is only significant to those who have first accepted a Jewish worldview. I do not share that worldview nor do many others whose children are in the public school system. I attribute no sanctity to Jerusalem. I have no reason to contort the failed religio-political propaganda of the Davidic monarchy in the bible into "prophecies" of a universal savior for mankind.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites