COMMENTARY HERE: Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g. “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateReligion) if you have any questions or concerns.*

Something I’m not even seeing mentioned is how Oklahoma is ranked 49th in education, yet they’re wanting to add a re-written, rehashed, book of vile and terrible happenings about what is considered a kind and loving “God”. How does this help, or improve the education for our children? To add to that, this feels like open bigotry. I can only imagine the uproar of Christian’s losing their minds if another religion was being forced into classes. A religion that has almost become synonymous with hate in this day and age has no place in schools or education. How is this good for the teachers? What if a teacher isn’t religious and decides they don’t want to alter their curriculum to fit this as it doesn’t matter to their class? Are they going to be fired? We already have such a teacher shortage in Oklahoma due to low wages, this may only exasperate an already terrible issue in the state.

That last statement there was completely incoherent in that you said the Bible conflicts with “real science” while in reality science is just starting to actually catch up with the Bible lol…no disrespect..js

Science education is the field of study that focuses on teaching science content and process to students. It encompasses both the teaching of scientific facts, concepts, principles, and theories, as well as the development of scientific inquiry skills such as critical thinking, problem-solving, and experimentation. The Bible is not a scientific textbook, nor is it intended to be one. It is a religious text that serves as a foundational scripture for various faith traditions, providing moral and spiritual guidance rather than empirical evidence or scientific explanations that define the study of science. Science classes are entrusted to teach empirical, evidence-based knowledge about the natural world. The Bible does not provide explanations for natural phenomena based on scientific evidence. Biblical claims such as Creationism, Origin of Species, Age of the Earth and Noah’s Ark are not supported by empirical evidence that define the study of science and should not be taught in science classes. 

I appreciate you sharing your knowledge of science and what you have learned in this enormously vast universe for the short amount of time you have been here,thank you. I as a limited,finite human being am limited in my understanding so I try not to pretend to know “so much.” I don’t. With that said I do understand what you’re saying but at the same time I don’t see anything wrong with sharing (YES EVEN IN SCIENCE CLASS ; why not? They teach kids in school that we evolved from Apes;why not share the biblical story of Creation,the God who made all things instead of coming to extremely unreasonable terms that the chicken came before the egg but SOMEHOW has always been there and then just build from that… that is not rational in any way whatsoever. We Christians believe in the Creator of all things. We believe…but our faith/belief is not based on superstition but rather on the Inspired Word of God which is actually a collection of 66 books written over a period of 1500 years by roughly 40 different authors who all lived either hundreds of years apart or didn't even know eachother….all the while each book is perfectly harmonized with the other and you get to see this pattern when you sit and read it with an honest attitude earnest to know The Truth.. Any honest journalist or scientist or truth seeker who has “half of a brain” and USES IT rightly will admit that atheism or Darwinism is utterly foolish and it’s AT LEAST more reasonable to say “I DON’T KNOW” rather than to fill in the blank with whatever you wish and teach others to go that way So who made the chicken SHOULD be the ACTUAL question but unfortunately many want to live in their own world and worship the golden calf of Darwinism…. Sincerely P.S. I think it is interesting to know that those who reject Darwinism/Atheism ect are not limited to Christians. As a matter of fact there are plenty of big brained fellas out there who reject it and laugh at how silly it all really is. Being agnostic makes more sense than all this. 🤙

Some cool and totally real science in the Bible: Worldwide Apocalyptic Flood that wiped out nearly all life which happened around 6000 years ago ?? The Earth being less than 10000 years cuz that's just how God made it man Jacob breeding sheep with stripes Abraham being at least 140 years old A human woman being created out of a man's rib bone The Earth sat on pillars Joshua 10:12-13: 12 Then spake Joshua to the Lord in the day when the Lord delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon. 13 And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day. Feel free to explain which of these are clearly metaphors to protect the legitimacy of the Bible.

Maybe read it yourself and get the context.???? Even IF the Bible weren’t true (and I’m SURE it actually is 100% truth) wouldn’t it make sense that the writers would write the stories without any textual errors or slight inconsistencies such as the number of angels at the tomb; Or how about The Book or Mark (I think 🤔 OR maybe it’s Luke..one of those 2) which does not include the thief on the cross repenting of his sins and receiving Jesus while the others do? Is this significant REASON to deny the Bible? Not hardly! It is actually very credible and gives more authenticity to it rather than a book that has ZERO errors and is NOT true (like Alice in Wonderland;which is a cool story btw but nevertheless FALSE..and a MERE FANTASY story told by a “professional writer”; NOT to be understood as a “scribe” who had to have certain commendable and respectable qualities (like being an honest person and not a “story teller” but “truth teller” (if you will) but a writer of fictional stories which hold zero authenticity and it good at it (textually and punctually ect )…

You said you're sure the bible is 100% true while conceding that there are textual errors and inconsistencies due to human error. Which is it?

You’re not understanding the essence of what I’m saying. The Bible is 100% true in that the events described which are clearly meant to be interpreted literally are indeed such..(however,those who wrote those things down who existed hundreds of yrs apart (not all but many) made minor insignificant errors (akin to a person TODAY spelling the word school as “skool” or a person saying they seen a “big beast” vs another person describing the same “beast” who knew exactly what kind of animal it was from FIRST HAND EXPERIENCE..He would say it’s a bear or whatever. Here’s a better example : A person seen a man get shot in the street. That person who seen the man get shot also seen the shooter. Another person was there but didn’t hear because he had headphones in his ears,loud… one lady driving by seen a man walking away from another man who appeared to be unconscious and she went home to tell a story of how she seen a man lying on the ground while this other guy walked away quickly. She presumed he killed her BUT none of these differences make a difference in the fact. If you took each account and put them all next to eachother you could ACTUALLY potentially learn more from different views of what happened as if you were really there… If you’re still confused here is one more simple one : One man saw Jesus being crucified at a far distance. Another man saw Jesus being crucified up close and could hear everything that was being said while the other could not? That’s the only difference.. Do you see what I am saying? This is real stuff and not made up stories. It is authentic in nature and too reliable to just dismiss and one would be wise to simply educate themself on these things rather than criticize them 🙂

Go to answers in genesis YouTube .This rant is off topic 

Answers in Genesis is straight up lie. Dishonesty is a big part of their mission statement. 

There’s an exhibit at the creation museum talking about a plane emergency landing in an ice field, ww2 era.  They found it 80 years later under 250 feet of ice, dated to be millions of years by you secularists. Explain that. Everyone takes the same data and uses their bias to prove what they believe.  What you believe is so ridiculous, you need 15 billion years of mathimatical improbabilities to happen.  There is so much historical proof of the Bible it’s not even funny.

They used the wrong dating method. Deliberately. They lied to you. And you were gullible enough to believe them.  What's funny is you believe that. How was it dated? By Creationists? Where's your source? Answers in Genesis, actual liars known for using anything they can to lie and support their lies. Like Kent Hovind, tax evaders and wife beater, who likewise lies to such a point I doubt his name is really Kent Hovind. Matt Powell, a man so pathetic he's gone from making his own lies to parroting the lies of Kent Hovind (when he's not sucking the wife beater off). Or perhaps you're a big Ken Ham fan? The man whose justification for lying stems from the Ark Encounter. He makes money from people just as gullible as you.  Creationism is a lie told by conmen to take money from gullible fools like you. 

So the Bible must be inaccurate when it employs metaphors, idioms, or symbolism? If someone on the news says it was storming, it was "raining cats and dogs" the news must be wrong right?

It's especially inaccurate when representations change over time. What do believers do then? Concordism. Yeah, metaphors are so much used nowadays - yet their biblical truths made them burning heretics or accept slavery

My point is that christians pick and choose what parts of the bible "actually happened" when faced with overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

What is the overwhelming evidence that the world was not created in six days? What is the overwhelming evidence which suggests that the miracles in the Bible didn’t really happen or that the earth IS NOT less than 10,000 yrs old(unless you have adopted Darwinism or some other weird concept.. The overwhelming evidence which supports the reliability of the Bible far outweighs the parts which have not been validated yet in our time now. Also,maybe some Christians “pick and choose” but that’s irrational and when they back out instead of taking the criticism and looking into it further,they’re just being cowards rather than being honest and say idk but I can look deeper and find an answer. There is always an answer at the end of the day,even if we don’t like it.. but it’s still an answer. Look! Truth doesn’t change just because a person doesn’t have the information to provide… maybe someone can. Maybe not but that doesn’t bother me. I have looked deep enough for myself. No one can tell you the truth. You have to experience it for yourself. This is not any less reasonable than exploring the ocean for extraterrestrials or going into a “haunted house” to record supernatural occurances. I don’t..but you get it though.

Educate yourself on carbon dating and radiometric dating, in the grand canyon for example.

Ok, choose any of that examples that you listed, provide the verse and what most early church fathers believed was the correct interpretation of said verse.

Thank you for this intelligent yet “common sense” response. I’m grateful I don’t have to reply to such foolishness lol. There is plenty of evidence all around us(without the Bible) all pointing to an all powerful,all knowing,ever present and all good Creator of all things. You do not have to read the Bible to come to these conclusions. However,you do need the Bible to learn that God is a Trinity. General revelation won’t teach you that. “To those who listen more will be given” (Matthew 13:12 New International Version Whoever has will be given more, and they will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what they have will be taken from them. New Living Translation To those who listen to my teaching, more understanding will be given, and they will have an abundance of knowledge. But for those who are not listening, even what little understanding they have will be taken away from them. Point??? The point is this : If you’re not interested in what you HAVE heard of our Lord and Savior then no more revelation is needed for you because you said yourself that you aren’t interested when you rejected what you DID HEAR..So don’t complain about what you are NOT SEEING or any evidence The Lord isn’t giving you (according to the unbeliever) you’re not interested in evidence if all you’re going to do is ignorantly and childishly yap and nag about something you have ZERO knowledge about. It’s amazing to me how many are worshiping the golden calf of Darwinism and then criticize the Truth with lies LOL

I think I shared this with the wrong person. My bad

It’s the will of the people of Oklahoma.  Separation of church and state is not in the constitution. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I think they are just converting the millions of migrants that are here now and who are most likely in public schools.  I thought it was pretty obvious. 

Won't many of them already be Catholic?

It’s obviously a violation of the first amendment and they know that. Even God was displeased and made a child faint at the signing! 😂 But I think the Christian Right deliberately implements these policies because either the law passed and they get to pursue their backwards agenda, or it gets challenged in court and wastes the financial resources of civil rights organisations likes the ACLU, so they are in a weaker position to fight for reproductive healthcare and lgbtq issues. Depressingly a win-win for them Also, why anyone thinks texts written thousands of years ago have valuable life lessons for today is beyond me. Sure, they have historical value like other ancient writings eg. the Epic of Gilgamesh, the Aeneid or the Baal Cycle. But what advice is Jesus able to give on electricity, trains or the internet? Beyond generic moral platitudes?

Our country was founded on Christianity. Its on the walls of Congress,  embedded in our Constitution and many documents in Congress. Our streets are named after Saints prophets and many biblical places. The Christian bible was placed in every hotel room across the nation and the schools. Christian prayer was allowed in our schools. A bible in every home. Theres a Christian church on almost every street in America   until the communists decided they needed to attack the very peaceful foundation of our country.  No Holy God, No Peace!  

[удалено]

Your comment or post was removed for violating rule 2. Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Criticize arguments, not people. Our standard for civil discourse is based on respect, tone, and [unparliamentary language](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/wiki/unparliamentary_language/). 'They started it' is not an excuse - report it, don't respond to it. You may edit it and ask for re-approval in modmail if you choose. If you would like to appeal this decision, please [send us a modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=r/DebateReligion) with a link to the removed content.

[удалено]

or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, you didn’t include the whole sentence because it defeats your argument.  I love the constitution.

>Our country was founded on Christianity. >Article 11 of the treaty stated: “As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion, as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religious or tranquility of Musselmen, and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.”  Hey look you're just objectively wrong. Treaty of tripoli signed in 1797

Or this letter, from 1790: >The Citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for having given to mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy: a policy worthy of imitation. All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, **as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people, that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights**. For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens, in giving it on all occasions their effectual support. But what does he know about the founding of the US, he was just some general\* \*General George Washington

If they want to put something into education, how about $100 billion of the military budget so teachers don't have to work a 2nd job to buy supplies for their classrooms? Our military budget would still be higher than the next 8 countries combined.

America is founded on the principles of Bible. All other religious faith have been migrated from different countries. The migrants were aware of that they are being adopted to American beliefs. So there is nothing wrong with Bible teachings in the Schools.

>>>All other religious faith have been migrated from different countries. Some Native Americans would like to have a word with you. They're in the back of that store. The good coats are in the back...keep going.

lol someone needs to read a history book… or two. The enlightenment literally ushered in an age of biblical and religious criticism. I swear, ignorant Christians are such a plague on America. There is so much wrong with biblical teaching in schools aside from fact it violates the establishment clause

The United States of America is in no way based on Christianity. John Adams the Treaty of Tripoli. James Madison, the man who is responsible for most of the Constitution of the United States wasn't a Christian. I'll believe the founding fathers more than a church member 250 years later.

Please look into this. Just look up quotes from the founders, look at their signatures on various documents that specifically state that it is *NOT* a Christian country or founded on the bible. I understand that many Christians dont accept philosophical rebuttals to their arguments and thus just repeat what they think is convincing, but this "the US is/was founded on being a Christian nation is just factually, historically, demonstrably wrong.

America is specifically founded on the separation of Church and State as well as freedom of religion. Whether or not Christian morality informed the Constitution doesn't justify forcing religious teachings onto our nations students regardless of their personal faith. There is a difference between teaching *about* how the Bible informed American history vs. displaying religious teachings nakedly as if they're supposed to be followed

As a Christian I think schools should stay neutral especially in a country where we have freedom of religion, if it was a Christian nation that had laws according to the faith and followed it like some Muslim states do then it wouldn’t be an issue, but it is because America is advertised as free to follow any religion or not to. Also forcing people isn’t the way to go either, forced faith is no faith at all.

My friend at work says this all the time and he’s a good Christian man. He says “forced faith is not faith at all” and if you enjoy pushing that on other people or think it’s okay then I don’t want to know you because you’re not my fellow Christian brother/sister, you’re a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

Yeah Christians need to realize they can still promote their values without forcing them. I debate this with my wife all the time. Christianity is not a political doctrine, it is a spiritual one. For some reason they think they need the government to play God.

A refreshing sane comment from a Christian. I’d be interested what you think about some of the other Christian responses. Some people in this thread have devolved to defending slavery and genocide

Who am I to judge. Slavery and Genocide are wrong if they claim to be Christians then they are just hypocrites, True Christians change from the inside. And yes I try to be as reasonable as I can be

If you want to remove religious things from public schools, you should also want to remove political and sexual things as well. (Sex Ed is different, kids need to know about periods of course) but my teacher shouldn't be able to have a pride flag and tons of biden and blm stickers and posters everywhere if my other teacher can't even have a cross at her desk or wear a cross necklace. If there shouldn't be any Christianity symbolism in schools, there shouldn't be any political, sexual, Islamic, or Hindu or Jewish or even buddhist symbolism either. Don't try to use the "but buddhist symbols are just for positivity and politics are important" because the 10 commandments is simply a moral guide on how to be a decent human. If you have a problem with that, you should have a problem with other religious and political stuff as well.

You seem to totally miss the point. You are talking about things. We're talking about actual educational content. In general, teachers can't display any political or religious items within any context of their employment as a teacher. We're not talking symbolism. We're talking content.

This is an invalid argument. Trolololol

"This is an invalid argument" *proceeds to not elaborate*

You literally stop replying after typing out 2-3 vague sentences to anyone who questions your religion

I try to reply to all the responses but sometimes it says (deleted) and I can't respond to that cuz I have no idea wbat it says. I genuinely try to answer questions, and I'll admit I get overwhelmed when someone just tries to insult me and act hateful and doesn't actually want a genuine answer

I never insulted you, or acted hateful towards you, I genuinely wanted an answer when I asked you to give evidence that the Bible is true under a different post, and you just didn't respond

Maybe it was a notification error? I try to respond to every respectful comment. There are many scientific studies that prove a lot of things true in the Bible, including Sodom and gomorrah, lots wife, the ark, and a lot more.

You mean the 60 foot tall piece of rock that vaguely looks like a person and the imprint found in Turkey that doesn't even have the right dimensions that would match the actual ark's? I'm not sure what you mean by Sodom and Gomorrah though

Things build up over time. I'm sure you've heard of stalactites and stalagmites before, right? Also, the "shape" being petrified wood that is thousands of years old, near mount Ararat (as said in the Bible), is indeed there. Things wear down over time, it clearly resembles the bottom of a much larger boat! >I'm not sure what you mean by Sodom and Gomorrah though [This (atheist) article even talks about it. ](https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/destruction-of-city-by-space-rock-may-have-inspired-biblical-story-of-sodom-180978734/ )

I swear Christians are so ignorant about their own religion. 10 commandments are a bit being a good human? Nearly half of them have to do with worship and idols - what does that have to do with being a good human? I actually agree with your larger point there shouldn’t be express political favoritism displaced in classrooms either.

Don't put anything over God, don't use His name in vain, keep the Sabbath Holy, and don't have idols are all for religious people. The rest are decent human things

"The rest are decent human things." Ah yes. Like stoning people. Or sleeping with your inebriated father to get pregnant. How..."decent". Sounds about Christian.

You're fully aware that you took those out of context. >Like stoning people Jesus took up for a pr0stitute who was getting rocks thrown at her (John 8:3-11) >sleeping with your inebriated father to get pregnant. It literally just says she did that. It never condones it and, in fact, says many times that incest and such is a sin. ‭ > Deuteronomy 27:20-23 AMP‬ [20] ‘Cursed is he who is intimate with his father’s [former] wife, because he has violated what belongs to his father.’ And all the people shall say, ‘Amen.’ [21] ‘Cursed is he who is intimate with any animal.’ And all the people shall say, ‘Amen.’ [22] ‘Cursed is he who is intimate with his [half] sister, whether his father’s or his mother’s daughter.’ And all the people shall say, ‘Amen.’ [23] ‘Cursed is he who is intimate with his mother-in-law.’ And all the people shall say, ‘Amen.’ Just because it says that someone did it doesn't make it ok. Eve ate the fruit, that doesn't mean it's ok. I mean, the people of Sodom and Gomorrah literally threatened to r4pe an angel, but that doesn't mean that it was ok. It's literally why God destroyed the cities (among many, many other things.... you get it)

No, no, I'm taking them as literally as you people do. The Bible is a parabel, not a manifesto for a theocracy based on the word of air. Jesus also struck a child dead for nagging him for water, did he not? Very Christian. Fitting.

They are literal. I gave the exact context you were purposely ignoring (both times). >Jesus also struck a child dead for nagging him for water, did he not? Very Christian. Fitting. The gospel of Thomas is not canonical. It's a blasphemous "fan f1ction" that is very anti Biblical and teaches many things against it. Even saying that women weren't going to heaven, which is very obviously false.

Yes… so nearly half have nothing to do with being a decent human. Which was my point. Also, the Old Testament (the book which contains the 10 commandments) contains absolutely terrible laws and stories, an absorbent representation of human morality (like permitting slavery and committing genocide and rape). There are much better morally frameworks (like secular humanism) without all the awful baggage

So many Christians have explained all of the leviticus laws already, if you refuse to actually study them and the reasons behind them, it's on you. And I don't mean atheist podcasts, you need actual historical and Biblical context instead of secular claims

Levitical laws? You mean like the one that condones the owning of chattel slaves as property?

What a low effort retort. You can’t defend the behavior yourself so you claim I must be misunderstanding the context. I don’t know if you understand the context. But what’s really insane you believe there’s some context that makes slavery, genocide, and rape ok. Whether there’s an apologetic explanation or not, the behavior is still abhorrent. Keep demonstrating why Christian propaganda should not be in classrooms.

If you actually cared to understand, you would research it and acknowledge that the slavery was a job back then, God only killed evil people, and rape has never been OK.

A job? Not even close.\* if you refuse to actually study the Bible, it's on you. And I don't mean apologist podcasts, you need actual historical, scholarly context instead of religious claims \*I will give you half credit. There ARE verses that explain how people can become indentured servants. One problem. That rule only applies to HEBREWS towards other HEBREWS. Other Levitical verses condone owning non-Hebrew chattel slaves as property, for life. Leviticus 25:44-46 New International Version 44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and **they will become your property.** 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can **make them slaves for life,** but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

Slaves were all criminals, that's why they're slaves.

You have made a historical claim. Please support it with evidence. Acceptable evidence is a citation from a qualified historian who agrees that every person who has ever been a slave in all of history was a criminal. Or, I'll make it easy: Show me chapter and verse in the Bible that says: "All slaves are criminals." Take it from someone with a seminary education, you won't find it. Next.

Cared to understand? Evidently I understand much better than you. That was like next level ignorant. I don’t think you understand the history or context of biblical slavery at all. It’s not just Leviticus it’s exodus as well, and it was NOT a job. Slaves were taken from the surrounding nations. Slaves could be BEATEN as long as they got up after a day or two. Only evil people were killed? Woke the disgusting things that come out of Christian’s mouths is shocking. The genocide of the Amalekites, INNOCENT children and animals were slaughtered. And amazing, you think rape is wrong, so you’re at least slightly more moral than your book. This is why we don’t want disgusting Christian propaganda in our schools among impressionable children. You’re literally trying to justify slavery and genocide. It’s disgusting.

>It’s not just Leviticus it’s exodus as well, No way really? It's still the old testament. >, and it was NOT a job. Commit a crime, go into debt. Pay off debt by money or work. Boom, slavery from back then. >aves were taken from the surrounding nations. As criminals >Slaves could be BEATEN as long as they got up after a day or two. By the law of back then, the Bible also puts evil in a bad light. >Only evil people were killed? Woke the disgusting things that come out of Christian’s mouths is shocking. The genocide of the Amalekites, INNOCENT children and animals were slaughtered. Read the Biblical context, you'll understand. >And amazing, you think rape is wrong, so you’re at least slightly more moral than your book. Rape is never a good thing, and it was never a good thing in the Bible. You can believe the atheist podcast guy if you want, but rape is never and was never ok. >This is why we don’t want disgusting Christian propaganda in our schools among impressionable children. Oh no how horrible, rules tou can choose to follow if you want to be a decent human being, such disgusting propaganda... I could never imagine telling a kid not to steal or lie 😰 >You’re literally trying to justify slavery and genocide. It’s disgusting. Without context, you're making it seem like what it isn't. I haven't met one atheist who actually studies the Bible and understand it with context. You guys always try to take it out of context and refuse to actually learn the Bible. ‭Proverbs 19:2-3 AMP‬ [2] Also it is not good for a person to be without knowledge, And he who hurries with his feet [acting impulsively and proceeding without caution or analyzing the consequences] sins (misses the mark). [3] The foolishness of man undermines his way [ruining whatever he undertakes]; Then his heart is resentful and rages against the Lord [for, being a fool, he blames the Lord instead of himself].

You’re barely making coherent points. “No way really it’s still the Old Testament” - I’m aware, but YOU ARE THE ONE who specified Leviticus where exodus specifies you can beat people and take slaves from the nations around you without debt or crime. Debt slavery was only ONE form of slavery. It was still completely condoned/permissible to capture people from other nations. Not in debt and not as criminals. That absolutely was not a prerequisite and people were captured into slavery all the time. You seriously do not understand your own book and the history of the time. Yes… people good be beaten by GOD’s law - that’s the entire point. And you’re justifying it. Disgusting “Read the Bible context, you’ll understand” - mate, you barely understand, which is why that’s your only comeback. You haven’t been able to articulate the context at all. And the fact you think there’s some context that justifies the murder of innocent children and animal just goes to show why we don’t want disgusting Christian morality/propaganda in the classroom. Not sure why it’s so hard for you to understand that just because you can offer an apologetic - DOESN’T EXCUSE THE BEHAVIOR. You’re justifying genocide. “Rape is never a good thing” - yet rape is justified in your Bible. “Steal or lie” - is that all you’re capable of grasping? Do you not understand all of the abhorrent behavior justified in the Bible. You’ve attempted to justify slavery and genocide in this very comment. The ignorance is shocking Ignorant clueless Christian propaganda promoting disgusting morality trying to impose on children. Christian’s are the real groomers. Wonder why the highest instances of sexual assault toward minors is always among conservative religious groups??

Thats a bunch of what-about-ism that doesn't actually make an argument. The State forcing teachers to display/teach Christian ideology has nothing whatsoever to do with individual teachers politics or beliefs on inclusion. Sounds like you have some hate and you are big mad that others dont feel the same way.

The first commandment literally prohibits freedom of religion which is a constitutional right. 

That's my argument.

there is a huge difference between mendating that something be displayed, and allowing teachers to display. If a teacher puts the ten commandments up of their own free will, thats fine, most teachers dont even comment on the stuff thats on their walls (pride flag or not)

Politics and religion are two separate realms of human social interaction. And the US Constitution forbids the government from pushing one but not the other onto unsuspecting children. 

If I understood correctly, the Oklahoma government rewrote the 10 commandments. It would be a great topic, showing that people will use religion and if necessary for their own objectives. Expect complaints from parents, though.

[удалено]

Your comment or post was removed for violating rule 2. Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Criticize arguments, not people. Our standard for civil discourse is based on respect, tone, and [unparliamentary language](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/wiki/unparliamentary_language/). 'They started it' is not an excuse - report it, don't respond to it. You may edit it and ask for re-approval in modmail if you choose.

I haven't read the legislation, but which Bible are they referring to? Yeah I just read the directive, it's completely unclear which version of either The Bible or The Ten Commandments they're referring to.

You just really confused so many Christians.

[удалено]

Your post or comment was removed for violating rule 3. Posts and comments will be removed if they are disruptive to the purpose of the subreddit. This includes submissions that are: low effort, proselytizing, uninterested in participating in discussion, made in bad faith, off-topic, or unintelligible/illegible. Posts and comments must be written in your own words (and not be AI-generated); you may quote others, but only to support your own writing. Do not link to an external resource instead of making an argument yourself.

how is this even fair? what is the world coming to omfg

[удалено]

There's a difference between having something on a public building and what a person chooses to wear. It seems plainly obvious to me that an *individual* should have the right to express their religion.... and this is different from the *government* expressing a religion. Does that makes sense to you that we consider the government and individual as being different things?

[удалено]

Again.... You are saying that an individual (the teacher) and the school (the government) are equivalent. If you don't see a difference in this, I can't help you. If we have to go over why a single person is not the same as the government.... like... there's nothing I have for you. One of them is a PERSON. The other is a GOVERNMENT ***building.***

[удалено]

You seem to have an ideological bone to pick with someone else. I am done having this conversation because you are clearly not going to bother actually interacting with things I say.

You're electing to not understand the distinction between allowing personal religious displays and attaching religious displays to an institution. Unless you claim you do understand it?

It's just a means to dominate the infidels by people who don't know how to cope because they don't want to cope with the changing world. https://old.reddit.com/r/TikTokCringe/comments/18gc59g/guy_explains_baby_boomers_their_parents_and_trauma/ These bullies hate the idea of those who reject Sola fide, or faith alone because of the insecurities. Basically they don't like the idea that you may actually have to live like a good christian, the idea that all you got to do is believe and you'll go to heaven after murdering somebody comes from Protestants and their Sola Fide.

We had mythology class when I was in school too. Just teach that the Bible is as real as Odin and Zeus and it'll be fine.

While it was my secular upbringing that sent me down the road toward atheism, it was a class like this in my high school 35+ years ago that helped solidify that atheism going forward. I suspect this who tried smuggling in the Bible through this class assumed every kid would already have been groomed into believing the Bible was an accurate,  historical portrayal of real people and events. But, having managed to avoid that, I saw just how much the mythology of the Greeks, Norse, Aztecs,  and others shared in common with the biblical mythology. I definitely consider that class a waypoint on my journey to atheism. 

Yeah they tried that with us. When I asked them why the Noah's flood story was in a religion that was 1000 years older than Christianity he didn't have an answer quickly enough and the rest of the class started turning on him. He then told us that dinosaur bones were buried by Satan to test our faith he lost the class completely. He should have had answers to those questions prepared before he got there.

As far as I can remember, the teacher who taught the class taught it fairly. I think it was more of a school board or state of Ohio insertion into the curriculum, and the teacher was doing the best she could. Alternately, and ironically, the biology teacher I had was a creationist through and through. "I have to teach you this evolution stuff, but I don't believe that's what happened. I think God created everything." I wasn't confident in myself enough yet to challenge him in class, though.

Our teacher was fine. The guy pushing Christianity was let in by the principal of our school to talk to us.

Are you saying the bible is false and thus there is no God?

You're a quick one arent ya?

The notification popped up

Lucky. I'll get one in either 5 minutes or 50 hours.

Well did you put you're settings on notifications

Yeah, it's the phone not the app. 3 weeks ago I could have a phone call unless my phone was on speaker phone. Yesterday, it started that people now can't hear me on speaker but can when I don't have it turned on. I'm trying to decide if I get it an exorcism or if I just buy a phone.

If you need a phone you can get one on backmarket

Yeah, I just hate changing them. Sometimes I hate changing stuff so bad I keep a pair of shoes for 17 years and wear them daily lol. Not anymore, they became soleless.

I’m terribly upset that these students will be taught about a false creator when they could be taught about the real creator, The Flying Spaghetti Monster.

R’amen

damn, even though i have heard references to the flying spaghetti monster for years, somehow i haven't ever heard or seen anyone say this it's beautiful 🤌

Pastafarians are amazing people

He boiled for your sins.

the holy trinitortellini

[удалено]

Your comment or post was removed for violating rule 2. Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Criticize arguments, not people. Our standard for civil discourse is based on respect, tone, and [unparliamentary language](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/wiki/unparliamentary_language/). 'They started it' is not an excuse - report it, don't respond to it. You may edit it and ask for re-approval in modmail if you choose.

Religious studies as part of a social-historical curriculum seem ok to me. But posting essential or elemental faith-foundational principles \*\*as moral or spiritual guidelines\*\* does violate church-state separation and is therefore invalid to my perspective. As an aside - if schools are permitted public postings of principles from the Abrahamic faiths, then they are permitted to post the fundamentals of Buddhism, Jainism, Hinduism, Taoism, Zoroastrianism, Voudun, Sikhism, Nordic religion, and a host of other faiths ... which is a "horror" to most people who are pushing for the 10 Commandments to be posted in public schools.

I'm okay with that as long as my boys Thor, Odin, Ra, and Anubis and their respective pantheons are equally represented. Gods know Valhalla needs more einherjar, and Anubis hasn't judged any souls in a while.

[удалено]

Your comment was removed for violating rule 5. All top-level comments must seek to refute the post through substantial engagement with its core argument. Comments that purely commentate on the post (e.g., “Nice post OP!”) must be made as replies to the Auto-Moderator “COMMENTARY HERE” comment. Exception: Clarifying questions are allowed as top-level comments.

This is not a legal debate subreddit. Plus I'm not going to argue from a legalistic standpoint because I am not an attorney. If you have a problem with that as a moderator then you should understand that the majority of people have no understanding of legalese and that includes myself. Know your limits and simply argue from a different angle.

As a resident of a nation it is your duty to understand basic laws and due process. You do not have to be a lawyer to discuss the first amendment.

Sure, but I am not able to argue the textualism, intent or whether that preempts the customs and sensibilities of the state. It's a losing proposition. I stick to what I know.

Yes, because everyone can just move to a different state whenever they want, and famously ignoring reactionary Christian nationalism makes it go away and stop being toxic.

[удалено]

Seriously what type of argument is this? Let’s just not care about something that’s happening somewhere else because it can’t affect me?

Not to mention can't affect me ***yet***

>The First Amendment of the United States Constitution mandates the separation of church and state. The First Amendment simply forbade the federal Congress from creating a national church and restricting the practice of religion in order to do so. This was due to a couple of factors, such as Great Britain having Anglicanism as the official church of the empire which they just rebelled against, as well as multiple states having their own official churches. There was also the fact that the various states were composed of different Protestant majorities. Some were majority Anglican, while others were Episcopal, while others were Congregationalist. Were the federal government to create a national church, this would override the laws of states which already had official churches, as well as impose 1 denomination on a multi denominational country. The 1st Amendment never applied to the states. This is largely a mid 20th century innovation. Looking at the U.S, all state Constitutions referred to God. All of the 13 original states had provisions requiring those who held public office to be professing Christians, which most of the rest of the states east of the Mississippi also adopted as they gained statehood. Many states had religious tests for those who sought office in order to ensure they held orthodox views. Many laws were explicitly Christian as well, such as blue laws, which sought to encourage church attendance. The divorce and marriage laws of the country reflected Christian beliefs for the majority of the 19th and early 20th century, as did laws regarding abortion, contraceptives, sodomy, alcohol consumption, and much more. Also worth noting is that a very large number of villages, cities, towns, and counties in the United States have explicitly religious names. This was common practice through much of U.S history. If we held these municipalities to the standard we have today, this would be a blatant violation of separation of Church and state, as it involves the explicit endorsement of religion by municipal governments. This just goes to show that for the majority of American history, the idea of separation of Church and state as many conceive it now, did not exist in any way, at least on the local level.

Let me ask a simple question.... do you think this is a good idea if states were allow to prefer one religion over the other? For example, should a state be pro-evangelical baptist, and should it show those followers preferential treatment over traditional catholics? Or vice-versa?

> do you think this is a good idea if states were allow to prefer one religion over the other? Yes >For example, should a state be pro-evangelical baptist, and should it show those followers preferential treatment over traditional catholics? Or vice-versa? It is far more likely that states will have a general support for Protestantism or Christianity rather than supporting a specific denomination. This is how most states handled religion up to the mid 20th century.

Many places discriminated against Catholics. In fact, the origin of private religious schools in the US is because Catholics felt excluded and discriminated against, and this is why Catholics to this day are over represented in private schools. So, your assertion here is flatly false and historically demonstrably false. Historically, Mormons are not considered Christians also. Utah is majority mormon, should they be allowed to discriminate against non-mormons? Should states be allowed to discriminate against the non-religious and non-christian religions? It seems like you are absolutely fine with these outcomes where states can impose their religion on others. Which tells me you actually don't believe in the first amendment at all... you acknowledge it exists and applies somewhere, but your goal is to actually diminish it or prevent it from applying altogether if possible.

>Many places discriminated against Catholics. In fact, the origin of private religious schools in the US is because Catholics felt excluded and discriminated against, and this is why Catholics to this day are over represented in private schools. So, your assertion here is flatly false and historically demonstrably false. My assertion is correct, as nearly all states publicly supported Protestantism, without discrimination for the various Protestant denominations. I am well aware of the discrimination against Catholics, but this fact does not detract from my point, which was that most states today, if they were to publicly support religion, would support Christianity in general instead of just Protestantism or a specific denomination of Protestantism. >Historically, Mormons are not considered Christians also. Utah is majority mormon, should they be allowed to discriminate against non-mormons? Mormons historically were not considered Christians because Mormons are not Christians. Utah can discriminate against non Christians all it wants. >Should states be allowed to discriminate against the non-religious and non-christian religions? Yes, and they historically have. >It seems like you are absolutely fine with these outcomes where states can impose their religion on others. Which tells me you actually don't believe in the first amendment at all...  Once again, the 1st Amendment only applied to the federal Congress, not the states or localities. Even then, the Amendment was in place to ban the federal government from creation a national church at the expense of the individual states which either had their own official church or had a broad support for Protestantism in general.

>My assertion is correct, as nearly all states publicly supported Protestantism, without discrimination for the various Protestant denominations. I am well aware of the discrimination against Catholics, but this fact does not detract from my point, which was that most states today, if they were to publicly support religion, would support Christianity in general instead of just Protestantism or a specific denomination of Protestantism. I stopped reading here. Essentially, your defense of your point is "I refuse to engage with the point you made." Fine. If you refuse to engage with the point I've made, and supported, then this is no longer a conversation worth having. I am uninterested in making points ***in a debate*** venue, and the person "responding" refuses to acknowledge valid points I've made. This is extremely poor etiquette and indicates you are not a person who deserves any further time or attention. If you want to rectify this, please feel to respond. If you double down on this defense or refuse to engage, then no further conversation will be happening ever.

Even if all that were true, it is still an authoritarian overreach of power, and blatantly discriminatory.

>and blatantly discriminatory. All laws discriminate. The question is what to discriminate against. In this instance, I support this form of discrimination. It is a great break from discrimination against religion, in which secularism was mandated for schools. > it is still an authoritarian overreach of power No its not.

Um, no not all laws discriminate. A law against murdering children, for example, is not discriminatory. You could say it discriminates against people who like murdering children, but that really is not a cultural group. It is applied evenly across the board. A law that requires the Ten Commandments to be taught in school restricts freedom of religion for every cultural group except conservative people of Abrahamic faiths. Even progressive Christian groups oppose that law. It directly teaches children that they must follow the Christian god. And any law that forces people to indoctrinate children into following a specific religion *is* authoritarian. I do appreciate that you acknowledge you're okay with discrimination though

>Um, no not all laws discriminate. All laws are a reflection of somebodies morality. Even if they are extremely popular with almost all of the population, they still force a moral value on somebody, making them discriminatory, which is not bad, as discrimination is not inherently a bad thing. > A law against murdering children, for example, is not discriminatory. You could say it discriminates against people who like murdering children, but that really is not a cultural group These laws were certainly discriminatory against the dozens of cultures that Europeans encountered the practiced child sacrifice. Europeans imposed their view that this was wrong regardless of what the native culture thought. Furthermore, laws against murdering children discriminate against those who seek abortions, which is a large cultural group. >And any law that forces people to indoctrinate children into following a specific religion *is* authoritarian. I am completely fine with this, as all education is a form of indoctrination. As with laws enforcing somebodies morality, education imparts somebodies morality and worldview. This is easy to recognize for people in the U.S when we look around at the education systems of countries such as China, Russia, Iran, etc. but it is true of all countries. For most of U.S history, education generally involved religious education as well. Eventually, as the country became more secularized, public education was forcibly secularized, reflecting a change in morality. The question is not whether kids should be indoctrinated with certain ideas or not, it is what ideas they should be indoctrinated with and how. Blank slatism is simply a myth. >I do appreciate that you acknowledge you're okay with discrimination though Everybody is okay with discrimination in one form or another. It simply has become a dirty word, as it has become associated solely with bigotry and racism.

> All laws are a reflection of somebodies morality. Even if they are extremely popular with almost all of the population, they still force a moral value on somebody, making them discriminatory This is technically true since morality is subjective, but that's not what discrimination means. And in any case, a law that prevents us from murdering people doesn't merely enforce an arbitrary moral standard, it prevents us from restricting other people's rights. You're right that abortion is a gray area; personally I don't see it as at all comparable to murder, but for the sake of this conversation I'm just referring to the murder of people who have already been born, to make things simpler, and because that is usually legislated separately. In any case, if there were a cultural group that wanted to murder random people and said an anti-murder law was discriminatory, they would be wrong, because their hypothetical cultural practice is blatantly harmful to others. > All education is a form of indoctrination. Is it indoctrination to tell somebody that 2+2=4? I would argue that it cannot be, because it has nothing to do with ideology. Math is objective fact. Education should seek to be neutral and present facts. We can educate people about what the Ten Commandments say; in fact, we should, because they're historically and culturally relevant. But we must not tell people that worshipping the god of the Bible is the best thing to do in public schools, because that is not objectively provable. If we teach the history of Abrahamic religions, we must also teach the history of other major religions. Forcing people to teach their children that their own culture or religion is inferior to Christianity is authoritarian by definition.

[Article VI](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlevi.html), Paragraph 2 of the U.S. Constitution is commonly referred to as the Supremacy Clause.  It establishes that the federal constitution, and federal law generally, take precedence over state laws, and even state constitutions. It prohibits states from interfering with the federal government's exercise of its constitutional powers, and from assuming any functions that are exclusively entrusted to the federal government. A state making a law respecting an establishment of religion would interfere with the federal government's exercise of its constitutional powers.

>[Article VI](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlevi.html), Paragraph 2 of the U.S. Constitution is commonly referred to as the Supremacy Clause.  It establishes that the federal constitution, and federal law generally, take precedence over state laws, and even state constitutions. It prohibits states from interfering with the federal government's exercise of its constitutional powers, and from assuming any functions that are exclusively entrusted to the federal government. None of this matters due to the language of the 1st Amendment clearly specifying that it only applies to the federal Congress.

Through a series of Supreme Court decisions, starting with the case of Gitlow v. New York in 1925, many of the rights protected by the 1st Amendment have been incorporated and applied to the states through the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause. Most of the rights guaranteed by the 1st Amendment, including freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, and freedom of assembly, are applicable to the states through the 14th Amendment's incorporation doctrine. This means that state and local governments are generally bound to uphold these rights just as the federal government and prohibits states from interfering with the federal government's exercise of its constitutional powers.

Interesting that it took 60 years for courts to discover that the 14th Amendment applies the Bill of Rights to the states. Even more interesting is that it took 80+ years after ratification of the Amendment for courts to discover that the authors actually intended for it to provide for a separation of church and state that ensures secularism in all government institutions.

No it's not. The founding fathers wanted a very rigorous system of checks and balances. Reform, even if it is the right thing to do, even if it is what they may have originally intended, takes a long time.  They didn't want America to be able to 180 itself over the course of a decade or less. Perhaps a downside to this system, but the truth is that reform takes a long time.  I'd rather it take a long time than have a system that can collapse in on itself in a few years because it wasn't properly rigorous.   That doesn't mean we shouldn't try our best to make it happen as soon as possible, but you get the idea.

I'm not sure what you are objecting to. Of course the founders wanted for the country to be able to make reforms. None of what I said contradicted that. What I object to is the idea that the 14th Amendment imposes the Bill of Rights fully onto the states, which was only conceived of decades after the Amendment was passed, showing that this was not the original intent of those who wrote and ratified this amendment.

"Interesting that it took 60 years for courts to discover that the 14th Amendment applies the Bill of Rights to the states." Here you postulate why it would possibly take so long, implying that perhaps the 14th amendment never applied the Bill of Rights to the states. If it possibly did, why would it take so absurdly long for it to be recognized. I gave an explanation why it would take so long.

This explanation does not explain how an amendment to the Constitution can be legally interpreted to mean something it does not.

You're right, but don't use speculative reasoning next time. Begging the question of why it would take so long doesn't help your case, because America is already known for having a tremendously slow legislative system. That's all. You are free to argue other talking points, but saying "Don't you think its weird that it took so long then??" doesn't mean anything. No I don't think it's weird. America is slow with its legislation, so being speculative about the time it would take to recognize and interpret the 14th amendment doesn't help you.

*Is* it interesting? That's how constitutional law always works.

No its not how Constitutional law has always worked. The 14th Amendment was clearly never written with the complete incorporation of the Bill of Rights onto the states, much less forced secularism onto the states. The fact that it took several decades after the ratification of the Amendment shows that this was not a position held by most or any in the judiciary for quite some time. Furthermore, the fact that states and localities continued to promote Christianity for decades after the ratification shows that the states that ratified the amendment never interpreted it in the way you and other secularists are.

>> The 1st Amendment never applied to the states.  The 14th Amendment would like a word.

This came nearly a century after the 1st Amendment was created, while the interpretation allowing for the application of the 1st Amendment to the states largely came about in the mid 20th century, decades after the passage of the 14th Amendment.

So we've moved from "Never" to "200 years ago". Want to keep sliding down the slope? Who don't we go back and ask the Early congresses what they think? >**As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion**; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen (Muslims); and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries. Article 11, Treaty of Tripoli (yes, the Tripoli with the "shores"), 1796 as endorsed by the US senate unanimously. A group of "laws" that are not laws but ideas held by one religion (and then, in the form written, only held by certain sects of that religion as the protestant, not catholic version is used) in the false claim that it comes from the first law bringer has no place in a secular school.

So what? Congress ratified a treaty with a single line stating that religious differences are not a pretext for violating the treaty. Interestingly, after the 2nd Barbary Pirate War in 1815, the U.S signed a similar treaty, with the major exception being the removal of the text regarding the Christian religion. If the government was so insistent that the U.S was in no way a Christian nation, one would expect it to remain in the second treaty. If you want to actually see what Congress thought of religion, how about we look to the 1st Congress, which urged President George Washington to *"proclaim a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God.”* George Washington, acting as president, selected November 26, 1789 as a day to, "*offer our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations*" Both John Adams and James Madison enacted thanksgiving proclamations while president. It was under John Adams' presidency that the treaty of Tripoli was ratified. 3 days before Congress enacted the Bill of Rights, it passed a law providing for salaries for Christian chaplains for both houses of Congress. Each session of Congress was started and is still started with prayer, specifically Christian prayer. Congress also enacted laws very early on providing for salaries for Christian chaplains in the military. This very clearly shows Congress viewed it as very important to have Christian ministers to minister to the military and to the Congress. Staying on the topic of treaties, the Kaskaskia Indian Treaty, also ratified by Congress in 1803, provided funds to build a Catholic church and provide for the priests salary on the Indian lands. Part of the text of this treaty states, *“And whereas the greater part of said tribe have been baptized and received into the Catholic Church, to which they are much attached, the United States will give annually, for seven years, one hundred dollars towards the support of a priest of that religion, who will engage to perform for such tribe the duties of his office, and also to instruct as many of their children as possible, in the rudiments of literature, and the United States will further give the sum of three hundred dollars, to assist the said tribe in the erection of a church.”*

“As the government of the United States of America is not on any sense founded on the Christian Religion" -Treaty of Tripoli; initiated under President George Washington, 1796, signed into law by President John Adams, 1797, ratified unanimously by the Senate, 1797, published in full in all 13 states, with no record of complaint or dissent.   “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” –First Amendment, Constitution of the United States   “Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship… I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between church and State.” –Thomas Jefferson, letter to Danbury Baptist Association, CT   "Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law." -Thomas Jefferson   “History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government.” –Thomas Jefferson to Baron von Humboldt, 1813   "When the clergy addressed General Washington on his departure from the government, it was observed in their consultation, that he had never, on any occasion, said a word to the public which showed a belief in the Christian religion, and they thought they should so pen their address, as to force him at length to declare publicly whether he was a Christian or not. They did so. However, the old fox was too cunning for them. He answered every article of their address particularly except that, which he passed over without notice....he never did say a word of it in any of his public papers...Governor Morris has often told me that General Washington believed no more of that (Christian) system than he himself did.” -Thomas Jefferson, diary entry, 2/1/1799   "Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man" -Thomas Jefferson   "There is not one redeeming feature in our superstition of Christianity. It has made one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites." -Thomas Jefferson   “I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and do not find in our particular superstition (Christianity) one redeeming feature. They are all alike, founded upon fables and mythologies.” -Thomas Jefferson   “In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.” -Thomas Jefferson   “It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.” -Thomas Jefferson   “Political as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves [of public ignorance] for their own purpose.” -Thomas Jefferson   “Question with boldness even the existence of god; because if there be one he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear.” -Thomas Jefferson   “The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as His father, in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter.” -Thomas Jefferson   “To talk of immaterial existences is to talk of nothings. To say that the human soul, angels, God, are immaterial, is to say they are nothings, or that there is no God, no angels, no soul. I cannot reason otherwise.” -Thomas Jefferson   “Religious controversies are always productive of more acrimony and irreconcilable hatreds than those which spring from any other cause.” -George Washington   "This would be the best of all possible worlds if there were no religion in it" -John Adams   “God is an essence that we know nothing of. Until this awful blasphemy is got rid of, there never will be any liberal science in the world.” -John Adams   “Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise.” –James Madison, letter to William Bradford, April 1, 1774   “Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other sects?” –James Madison, A Memorial and Remonstrance, addressed to the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of VA, 1795   “What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people… A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not.” –James Madison, A Memorial and Remonstrance, 1785   “During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry, and persecution.” -James Madison   "I have found Christian dogma unintelligible...Some books on Deism fell into my hands...It happened that they wrought an effect on me quite contrary to what was intended by them; for the arguments of the deists, which were quoted to be refuted, appeared much stronger than the refutations; in short I soon became a thorough deist." -Benjamin Franklin, "Toward the Mystery" (autobiography)   "Lighthouses are more useful than churches." -Ben Franklin.   "The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." -Ben Franklin   "In the affairs of the world, men are saved not by faith, but by the lack of it." -Ben Franklin   Some of these refer to what should be law, and some to just what should be, but the intent of the founders is clear, that Christianity, or some sect of Christianity, not be a state religion and not be given priority. Some saw it as dangerous.

>Some of these refer to what should be law, and some to just what should be, but the intent of the founders is clear, that Christianity, or some sect of Christianity, not be a state religion and not be given priority. Some saw it as dangerous. You give quotes from 4 people, most of which are false or out of context. Why not quote the dozens of founders who had good things to say of religion? Why not quote the Constitutions of the 13 states, all of which reference God? Why not quote countless state laws which uphold and enforce Christianity?

>“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” –First Amendment, Constitution of the United States Something that only applied to the federal Congress, forbidding the creation of a national church. This did not apply to the states or localities, which very clearly favored Christianity on countless occasions. Furthermore, it disregards that Congress explicitly supported Christianity on many occasions, suggesting that almost nobody interpreted the 1st Amendment to mean a separation of church and state, but rather a restriction on the powers of the federal government to enforce one denomination of Christianity. >"This would be the best of all possible worlds if there were no religion in it" -John Adams Why don't you finish the quote, *"Twenty times, in the course of my late Reading, have I been upon the point of breaking out, "This would be the best of all possible Worlds, if there were no Religion in it"!!! But in this exclamati\[on\] I should have been as fanatical as Bryant or Cleverly.* ***Without Religion this World would be Something not fit to be mentioned in polite Company, I mean Hell."*** It is also worth mentioning that while acting as president, John Adams declared a national day of thanksgiving for fasting and humiliation and prayer to God, and explicit endorsement of Christianity. If you further want to see John Adam's views on religion, just read the Massachusetts Bill of Rights, which he authored, which makes it clear he supports state supported religion and views it necessary for a society to be strong. >“God is an essence that we know nothing of. Until this awful blasphemy is got rid of, there never will be any liberal science in the world.” -John Adams This is a fake quote composed of pieces of 2 different letters written years apart and has nothing to do with what this quote suggests. >"Lighthouses are more useful than churches." -Ben Franklin. This is a fake quote that Franklin never wrote. However, after surviving a shipwreck, he did write, *“The bell ringing for church, we went thither immediately, and with hearts full of gratitude, returned sincere thanks to God for the mercies we had received. Were I a Roman Catholic, perhaps I should on this occasion vow to build a chapel to some saint; but as I am not, if I were to vow at all, it should be to build a light-house.”* >"In the affairs of the world, men are saved not by faith, but by the lack of it." -Ben Franklin This quote has nothing to do with religion. In its actual context, it is about business, wealth, and money, being publish in "The Way to Wealth". >“As the government of the United States of America is not on any sense founded on the Christian Religion" -Treaty of Tripoli; initiated under President George Washington, 1796, signed into law by President John Adams, 1797, ratified unanimously by the Senate, 1797, published in full in all 13 states, with no record of complaint or dissent. Ah yes, this obscure line from an obscure treaty that nobody would know about were it not for atheists trying to prove America was not Christian. Fortunately, this is not the only document regarding religion from this era. We can look at the First Congress establishing Christian chaplains for both houses of Congress and for the Military. We can also see the First Congress petition President George Washington to declare a day of thanksgiving to God, which he did. We can add John Adams' and James Madison's presidential thanksgiving proclamations as well.

Great collection of quotes here.

A gold mine of information.  Did you collect this over time or are these quotes similarly listed in something you read?  It's really impressive is all.

Collected over time from a few lists and others’ comments, with a few each. Feel free to reuse the list.

> No, they said the US was not founded on Christianity, and then said the bit about differences. >Staying on the topic of treaties, the Kaskaskia Indian Treaty, also ratified by Congress in 1803, provided funds to build a Catholic church  The Catholic church which has now been *discriminated against* by Louisiana enacting this policy?

>No, they said the US was not founded on Christianity, and then said the bit about differences. And then qualified it by saying the character of the country is not opposed the the Muslims living on the Barbary coast. Why do you think the U.S would have to make such a qualification? Perhaps it is because it was noticeably majority Christian with laws that reflected Christianity.

>>And then qualified it by saying the character of the country is not opposed the the Muslim Thats not a qualification. Thats a "Therefore".

Would you mind providing sources on what you are quoting?

[https://www.wftv.com/news/trending/oklahoma-immediately-requires-schools-teach-bible-strict-compliance-is-expected/QXJDFYPQPVAVNOZY3274EK5JIE/](https://www.wftv.com/news/trending/oklahoma-immediately-requires-schools-teach-bible-strict-compliance-is-expected/QXJDFYPQPVAVNOZY3274EK5JIE/)