The Bible discusses rape and murder!

Damocles said:
There are no electives in first through third grades and the "Bible as literature" is not what you are talking about here. You are saying that the Bible is taught as an example of morality in these same grades or you are pretending to be stupid about what the law you are arguing against actually says in more ways than that.

The law does not permit teachers to use the bible to speak about sexuality any more than it allows them to use other imagery to teach kindergartners through third grade children about sexuality.
Click to expand...

The Bible is in most, if not all public libraries available for kids to check out, that’s a good thing. The point is that conservatives are trying to ban books with less sex.
 
LV426 said:
Boy were you probably shocked by the Dodgers raising the pennant in Los Angeles in 2020 instead of in Brooklyn.

After all, the Dodgers used to be in Brooklyn, so should Brooklyn get to raise the 2020 pennant at Ebbets Field? Apparently you would think so.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I don't follow pro sports.
 
Jarod said:
The Bible is in most, if not all public libraries available for kids to check out, that’s a good thing. The point is that conservatives are trying to ban books with less sex.
Click to expand...


Those books are in the library available for kids to check out. The point is that things available in the library are not banned. They've just not been selected, often rightly so (like the Bible), to be part of the official curriculum. Your beliefs are not "the right ones" that must be taught to children in kindergarten over other folk's beliefs just because you dislike what they believe. There's a whole amendment in the constitution about this.
 
Damocles said:
Those books are in the library available for kids to check out.
Click to expand...

Which library? Not all of them.


The point is that things available in the library are not banned.
Click to expand...

Well, only if the library carries it. Some libraries are being told to not carry certain books.


They've just not been selected, often rightly so (like the Bible), to be part of the official curriculum.
Click to expand...

No, they WERE a part of the curriculum but the Nazis don't like it, so they removed it from the curriculum.


Your beliefs are not "the right ones" that must be taught to children in kindergarten over other folk's beliefs just because you dislike what they believe.
Click to expand...

The only people who should have any say over what kids are taught in Kindergarten all the way through 12th grade are teachers.

Parents are stupid and don't know shit.
 
LV426 said:
But you understand the point very clearly; shit changes over time.
Click to expand...

On the tribal issue, I understand the forced narrative completely. However the essential traits remain. Democrats believe that the rich make money off the backs of the poor, just like the slavers that their ancestors were.
 
The Big Guy said:
On the tribal issue, I understand the forced narrative completely.
Click to expand...

What "forced narrative"?

What are you talking about?

Are you just saying random words to try and appear smarter than you actually are? Because what you wrote is totally incoherent.
 
Damocles said:
Those books are in the library available for kids to check out. The point is that things available in the library are not banned. They've just not been selected, often rightly so (like the Bible), to be part of the official curriculum. Your beliefs are not "the right ones" that must be taught to children in kindergarten over other folk's beliefs just because you dislike what they believe. There's a whole amendment in the constitution about this.
Click to expand...

My point was that Conservatives (mostly Christian Conservatives) across the nation are asking to have books removed from school and municipal libraries for addressing the same subjects as are addressed in the Bible. I have said nothing about an official curriculum.
 
The Big Guy said:
However the essential traits remain.
Click to expand...

Right, it's not political party but governing ideology.

Back when your grandma was shouting racist things at Black people trying to go to integrated schools, Conservatives were the Democrats.

But since then, Conservatives switched parties and became Republicans because they couldn't win as Democrats by being racist anymore.

So they flocked to Nixon and Reagan and became the trash Republicans we have today.

It's like the Dodgers moving from Brooklyn to Los Angeles; sure all the Brooklyn history is still there, but the team isn't anymore.


Democrats believe that the rich make money off the backs of the poor
Click to expand...

Then how do the rich make money?

Without the muscle of labor, not a single wheel would turn.


just like the slavers that their ancestors were.
Click to expand...

OK so you're saying that Democrats today recognize that Democrats 150 years ago fought for slavery and the rich so today, Democrats fight for the opposite and YOU'RE the one fighting for slavery and the rich.
 
LV426 said:
What "forced narrative"?

What are you talking about?

Are you just saying random words to try and appear smarter than you actually are? Because what you wrote is totally incoherent.
Click to expand...

The narrative that the two Parties "switched" sides on racial issues in the late 1960s. It's nothing more than a lie.
 
LV426 said:
Back when your grandma was shouting racist things at Black people...
Click to expand...

Same false assumption as previous.

I don't have to defend my ancestors against a baseless allegation like that. The onus is on you to prove that shit. Until you can, shut your liberal mouth.
 
The Big Guy said:
The narrative that the two Parties "switched" sides on racial issues in the late 1960s. It's nothing more than a lie.
Click to expand...

So then how do you explain whites in the South flipping entirely from Democrat to Republican?

In order for your bullshit to make sense, you'd have to prove that there was a mass migration of white Democrats from the North to the South between 1965-2000, and an equal migration of white Republicans from the South to the North during the same period.

Can you prove that?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top