It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Florida Teacher Banned Bible from 'Free Reading' Time in Classroom

page: 2
14
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 5 2014 @ 11:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi

For crying out loud, it is a historical book!

Yah, lets ban all historical books?




posted on May, 5 2014 @ 11:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: theantediluvian

Although your comparison is different, there sure was a thread on your diversionary topic.....

www.abovetopsecret.com...


Thanks for the link. I was slammed with projects at work most of January and February and I obviously missed a lively topic! You must have missed it too?



posted on May, 5 2014 @ 11:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian



I'm guessing he was just looking for a reason to put ACLU and Muslim in a sentence. Then again, maybe they didn't want help from the ACLU because they view them as the unholy defenders of Muslims who are certainly all going straight to hell.


I didn't. But you did.

And I'll be damned if you tell me WHO I view and HOW I view any one person or organization. Don't dare speak for me.



posted on May, 5 2014 @ 11:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Night Star
It's not like the kid was reading it aloud or anything. It wasn't x rated. It shouldn't have been a problem.
The Song of Solomon can get pretty racy.



posted on May, 5 2014 @ 11:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: burntheships
a reply to: Grimpachi

For crying out loud, it is a historical book!

Yah, lets ban all historical books?




The only thing truly historical about it is how old it is that would be why it isn't found in the history section, but you can tell yourself and others different if you like that still will not change things.

As far as where it actually belongs, well there are differing opinions.




edit on 5-5-2014 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 5 2014 @ 11:21 PM
link   
This is not surprising and it won't be the last time you hear about something like this happening. It was "Free Reading Period". They should change it to say exactly what they mean... "Free Reading For Those Who Are Willing To Read What We Approve Of Beforehand Period". That sounds more like it. The good old public reeducation camps are right on track I would say. No room at all for those who wish to travel outside of what they consider PC and the social norms.

Who would have thought that someone silently reading a bible to themselves would be an affront to others? I hope they win their case. For those wondering if I would say the same for the Quran??? Absolutely. As long as they are reading it to themselves, I could not care less what they read in school as long as it isn't pornographic. We'll save that for planned parenthood and their "How To" films on masturbating the PC way.



posted on May, 5 2014 @ 11:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: TiedDestructor

originally posted by: theantediluvian



I'm guessing he was just looking for a reason to put ACLU and Muslim in a sentence. Then again, maybe they didn't want help from the ACLU because they view them as the unholy defenders of Muslims who are certainly all going straight to hell.


I didn't. But you did.

And I'll be damned if you tell me WHO I view and HOW I view any one person or organization. Don't dare speak for me.



You said:


Where in the hell is the ACLU?

If this kid were a Muslim..mind


Is it fair to say that the gist of your remark was: If the kid was a Muslim, the ACLU would be involved?

So wouldn't that then mean that you view the ACLU as being more concerned with the rights of non-Christians? Sounds like you pretty much expressed your own view.

I then opined that the family may not have wanted the help of the ACLU because they might take issue with their defense of Muslims who they may feel are going to hell (along with the ACLU).

Don't you dare tell me that I am speaking for you when you speak for yourself



posted on May, 5 2014 @ 11:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi

Maybe you would like to organize a book burning then,
like the British did in 1814 upon the Libary of Congress,
which contained those "dreaded" Bibles?

**rolls eyes again**


edit on 5-5-2014 by burntheships because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 5 2014 @ 11:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: burntheships
a reply to: Grimpachi

Maybe you would like to organize a book burning,
like the British did in 1814 upon the
Libary of Congress, which contained Bibles?


If I remember correctly, the British put to the torch the White House as well as the Capitol which is where the Library of Congress was.

I'm pretty sure it wasn't about book burning let alone bible burning so that's a curious reference.



posted on May, 5 2014 @ 11:35 PM
link   
a reply to: burntheships

So instead of talking about the content of books that would be acceptable for school children you went strait to insinuating I would endorse book burnings. Great that's real mature.

Of course we differ on the classification of the book but the content of it is what it is. If the child brought in a book with the same type of content murders, rapes, mutilation, and quite a bit of other such behavior would you defend it?

Off the top of my head I couldn't name another book that has so many examples of questionable behavior I would say there would be smut books that are tame in comparison. If your for all literature regardless of the content then that's fine.

To be clear though I haven't stated an opinion to ban anything however I believe if there is a standard then it needs to be applied evenly regardless of the label or section of the library it comes from.

I guess it is a question of if you have standards that you believe should be upheld.
edit on 5-5-2014 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 5 2014 @ 11:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: xDeadcowx
If i was in that class and one of the other students was reading a bible, i would have shown up with a quran to read silently to myself.

Either all religions are allowed, or none are. If you can't handle someone with a quran in school, you can't expect a bible to be acceptable.


And most level headed people would support your right to do so.

I went to Catholic school and we read from the Quran and holy books from several other world religions. We even had to attend services for multiple denominations as part of a comparative religions class.

Religion is a major part of many cultures, so to better understand various cultures it is important to study their religions, myths and legends.



posted on May, 5 2014 @ 11:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian

originally posted by: TiedDestructor

originally posted by: theantediluvian



I'm guessing he was just looking for a reason to put ACLU and Muslim in a sentence. Then again, maybe they didn't want help from the ACLU because they view them as the unholy defenders of Muslims who are certainly all going straight to hell.


I didn't. But you did.

And I'll be damned if you tell me WHO I view and HOW I view any one person or organization. Don't dare speak for me.



You said:


Where in the hell is the ACLU?

If this kid were a Muslim..mind


Is it fair to say that the gist of your remark was: If the kid was a Muslim, the ACLU would be involved?

So wouldn't that then mean that you view the ACLU as being more concerned with the rights of non-Christians? Sounds like you pretty much expressed your own view.

I then opined that the family may not have wanted the help of the ACLU because they might take issue with their defense of Muslims who they may feel are going to hell (along with the ACLU).

Don't you dare tell me that I am speaking for you when you speak for yourself


The 1st was a sarcastic statement. The ACLU can be back-azz-wards and yet marvelous at times.

The 2cd statement was literal.

The rest of the babbling you threw in was of your own accordance. Void of my approval, lacking of substance and full of misappropriated assumptions.

Now once again tonight on ATS I will concede to prevent further incessant arguing and remain somewhat on topic. I find it likely that there are many more people more intelligent than you and I who wish to participate in a legitimate discussion....Void of ass.umptions.


Let's give them that chance.



posted on May, 5 2014 @ 11:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi

"accross the board" that is dangerous thinking
to ban books from free reading that contain
reference to violence in a historical context.

What then would become of "history class"
and "sex education"?

So it should only be allowed that a child
could read a book if it is taught in
a certain way, in a certain context?

No free thinking allowed eh?

edit on 5-5-2014 by burntheships because: format, grammar



posted on May, 5 2014 @ 11:44 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

At face value, I agree that the teacher is in the wrong. However, I am certain that Breitbart isn't giving us the whole story. Maybe he was reading out loud, praying or reciting religious rhetoric and/or otherwise disturbing the class.

Maybe "free reading" period isn't really "free" but the children must read from a predetermined list of books. There's always two sides to a story, and so far I've only heard one side.



posted on May, 5 2014 @ 11:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi

just because religious doctrine and the like is in the bible doesn't mean all the information within is all false, there is plenty of accurate historical, archeological and geographical information within and plenty of religious events people like to use to denounce christianity are easily explained by natural things if you read what is described.



posted on May, 5 2014 @ 11:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi

Hmmm.

I have a sneaking suspicion that you must be in favor of unilateral decisions made by people like this teacher who has no authority to make those decisions, as long as those "decisions" meet your standards.

I would say the school board probably has a list of banned publications, but the Bible is probably not one.

This issue isn't all about just the Bible, it's about the unilateral decision made by one person against another person.

And those crazy pictures you posted might make some people think they're actually from the Bible LOL.

Busted.




posted on May, 5 2014 @ 11:48 PM
link   
Come on the bible has strong language in it, it even has the word "ass" 87 times....



posted on May, 5 2014 @ 11:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: xuenchen

At face value, I agree that the teacher is in the wrong. However, I am certain that Breitbart isn't giving us the whole story. Maybe he was reading out loud, praying or reciting religious rhetoric and/or otherwise disturbing the class.

Maybe "free reading" period isn't really "free" but the children must read from a predetermined list of books. There's always two sides to a story, and so far I've only heard one side.



Well here's a link to the Liberty Institute that explains their side....

See anything missing ?

And did you listen to the voicemail here

Hope this helps.




posted on May, 6 2014 @ 12:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen

The Father has retained the Liberty Institute to figure out why this teacher and possibly the entire school system there is against the 1st Amendment.

If he can afford to do that, why is he sending his kid to a public school anyway?

Just sayin'. Maybe they're doing pro bono work, who knows. I didn't dig that deep to find out, but I have a nagging suspicion he sent his kid to school with a copy of the Bible with the intention of provoking a response.

Not to condone the deplorable actions of the teacher and/or administration, but one should always question the motivation of people involved in lighting up tinderbox issues.

Especially when children are involved. Many parents are shameless bastards, and will use their children for all manner of self-serving reasons.



posted on May, 6 2014 @ 12:06 AM
link   
a reply to: burntheships

So does that mean you are against having certain questionable content or are saying it should all be included as acceptable?


Like I said before I think a lot of times the bible gets a pass simply because it has the title of the bible.

Either we except children can read in school about rape, murder, mutilation, incest, human and other sacrifice, ethnic cleansing, abuse, slavery, polygamy, oh the list goes on and on or maybe we say that isn't really appropriate for a fifth grader to read in class.

I am not going to say which it should be, but I think that is the choice.

Next we can talk about movies which is kind of dependent on what is acceptable with literature. House of thousand corpses was pretty damn disturbing to me, but it isn't even close to what is in the book we are debating as far as disturbing. Maybe that will get a pass for fifth graders which for some reason I don't think will gain much support. The world is funny that way.




top topics



 
14
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join