The debate "Should the Bible be a mandatory curriculum" was started by
December 3, 2018, 4:35 pm.
26 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 93 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
letsgobro posted 3 arguments, InfinityMachine posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
Brynn posted 3 arguments, Sanjib posted 1 argument, Nemiroff posted 1 argument, TheExistentialist posted 1 argument, District9 posted 1 argument, JDAWG9693 posted 1 argument, wordsmith posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
letsgobro, jemiju, wilsoergel76, WiseWords, InfinityMachine, vastworld and 20 visitors agree.
Nemiroff, Brynn, A_communist94, Sanjib, Coriander, TheExistentialist, tenyiyi, zain, jrardin12, TJ, JDAWG9693, nativeRepublican, Happybadgal, DestinySub, District9, historybuff, Rifa_Tamanna_2007, HelloWorLd, Napoleon_of_Politics, HeyChiefIMightBeWrongBut, chrissurvivor, SanjayKumar, jmch, wordsmith, Mj_Bossdude, Gray_son, heyitsben, Charlie and 65 visitors disagree.
I think that an intro to religion class should happen as, like, a history class, but nothing on one specific religion, just religion in general
Western culture predates Christianity. The greeks and the romans were both pagan. Those are the cornerstones of western culture.
But history aside, school is for learning things that are important for being an adult in the real world. Religion has nothing to do with that. if you want to go to chruch and read the bible that is perfectly fine, but putting it in schools is totally unacceptable. Schools should be secular institutions unless their purpose is specifically religious, such as a religious college.
We should be able to have the freedom to believe in what we want as this is a basic human right and if someone wants to learn about the bible then they can but they shouldn't be forced to
Yes. I'm not a Christian but the Bible is the cornerstone of Western culture. It's the key to understanding our history and a foundation of moral values.
You're sort of correct.....however, for all intents-and-purposes there it is law. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". The first clause (the establishment clause) formed the jurisprudence in Reynolds v. U.S., 98 U.S. 145 (1878) that gave us the legal enactment of "separation of church and state".
This has been re-affirmed multiple times in multiple supreme court cases. These decisions made it clear that the 1st and 14th amendment along with article 6 of the constitution are a legal separation of church and state.
The Treaty of Tripoli (which requires senate affirmation) states: "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion..."
While congress has not made a "Law" that states there is a separation of church and state, the legal precedent is that our constitution forms the legal basis for a separation of church and state and is thus enforceable.
the phrase was more a description of the effect of the law, not the wording of it. the mandate to separate church and state is definitely law.
Still against freedom of religion
oh good point jdog
While the U.S. is a secular country, "separation of church and state" isn't actually in any law.
let's make it
As long as it's not promoting the religion and only talking about factual things supported by evidence sure.
oh ok so it can't be like a school subject everyone could learn? if it won't be mandatory ?
That's against freedom of religion and the separation of church and state.
as far as an argument I won't be able to start until someone responds because I don't know where to start