Normally one thinks of Canada as more secular than the US. Handing out Bibles in a public school would be a constitutional violation south of the 49th. Alas, there is no law in Canada to clarify such situations.
> Normally one thinks of Canada as more secular than the US. Handing out Bibles in a public school would be a constitutional violation south of the 49th. Alas, there is no law in Canada to clarify such situations.
As long as the bibles being given out to students are not a cost to
the taxpayer, I have no problem with it. Except perhaps a bit of
concern for the trees that were consumed to create the books. And
perhaps a bit of worry over the toxicity that may have resulted from
the manufacturing of the ink that was used to print the books. And
maybe a bit regarding the pollution caused by the transportation of
the bibles, etc. However, I do wish that all people would read the
bible, and other insane religious scriptures, and critically think
about it. Perhaps then we would have fewer religious people to deal
with.
>> Normally one thinks of Canada as more secular than the US. Handing out Bibles in a public school would be a constitutional violation south of the 49th. Alas, there is no law in Canada to clarify such situations.
>As long as the bibles being given out to students are not a cost to
>the taxpayer, I have no problem with it. Except perhaps a bit of
>concern for the trees that were consumed to create the books. And
>perhaps a bit of worry over the toxicity that may have resulted from
>the manufacturing of the ink that was used to print the books. And
>maybe a bit regarding the pollution caused by the transportation of
>the bibles, etc. However, I do wish that all people would read the
>bible, and other insane religious scriptures, and critically think
>about it. Perhaps then we would have fewer religious people to deal
>with.
The Gideons' Bibles don't seem to have made my four children any less
anti-religious than they are (well, one of them didn't get one,
because she went to the convent, which had an even more theologically
rebarbative effect).
> >> Normally one thinks of Canada as more secular than the US. Handing out Bibles in a public school would be a constitutional violation south of the 49th. Alas, there is no law in Canada to clarify such situations.
> >As long as the bibles being given out to students are not a cost to
> >the taxpayer, I have no problem with it. Except perhaps a bit of
> >concern for the trees that were consumed to create the books. And
> >perhaps a bit of worry over the toxicity that may have resulted from
> >the manufacturing of the ink that was used to print the books. And
> >maybe a bit regarding the pollution caused by the transportation of
> >the bibles, etc. However, I do wish that all people would read the
> >bible, and other insane religious scriptures, and critically think
> >about it. Perhaps then we would have fewer religious people to deal
> >with.
> The Gideons' Bibles don't seem to have made my four children any less
> anti-religious than they are (well, one of them didn't get one,
> because she went to the convent, which had an even more theologically
> rebarbative effect).
Well, I noticed that the Catholic Church never felt comfortable about
members actually reading the bible. Been that way for centuries.
Slightly less so now though...
> > >> Normally one thinks of Canada as more secular than the US. Handing out Bibles in a public school would be a constitutional violation south of the 49th. Alas, there is no law in Canada to clarify such situations.
> > >As long as the bibles being given out to students are not a cost to
> > >the taxpayer, I have no problem with it. Except perhaps a bit of
> > >concern for the trees that were consumed to create the books. And
> > >perhaps a bit of worry over the toxicity that may have resulted from
> > >the manufacturing of the ink that was used to print the books. And
> > >maybe a bit regarding the pollution caused by the transportation of
> > >the bibles, etc. However, I do wish that all people would read the
> > >bible, and other insane religious scriptures, and critically think
> > >about it. Perhaps then we would have fewer religious people to deal
> > >with.
> > The Gideons' Bibles don't seem to have made my four children any less
> > anti-religious than they are (well, one of them didn't get one,
> > because she went to the convent, which had an even more theologically
> > rebarbative effect).
> Well, I noticed that the Catholic Church never felt comfortable about
> members actually reading the bible. Been that way for centuries.
> Slightly less so now though...
I often hear this thing about the alleged reluctance of the RCC in
letting ordinary people read the Bible, but where does this story
originate, what evidence is there to support it? Just curious you see.
On Monday, April 9, 2012 3:29:07 PM UTC+10, Devils Advocaat wrote:
> On Apr 8, 10:57 pm, wiki trix <wikit...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Apr 8, 2:48 pm, Mike L <n...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > > On Sun, 8 Apr 2012 12:51:26 -0700 (PDT), wiki trix
> > > <wikit...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >On Apr 8, 10:59 am, Mark Buchanan <marklynn.bucha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> Some Christians didn't get the memo:
> > > >> Normally one thinks of Canada as more secular than the US. Handing out Bibles in a public school would be a constitutional violation south of the 49th. Alas, there is no law in Canada to clarify such situations.
> > > >As long as the bibles being given out to students are not a cost to
> > > >the taxpayer, I have no problem with it. Except perhaps a bit of
> > > >concern for the trees that were consumed to create the books. And
> > > >perhaps a bit of worry over the toxicity that may have resulted from
> > > >the manufacturing of the ink that was used to print the books. And
> > > >maybe a bit regarding the pollution caused by the transportation of
> > > >the bibles, etc. However, I do wish that all people would read the
> > > >bible, and other insane religious scriptures, and critically think
> > > >about it. Perhaps then we would have fewer religious people to deal
> > > >with.
> > > The Gideons' Bibles don't seem to have made my four children any less
> > > anti-religious than they are (well, one of them didn't get one,
> > > because she went to the convent, which had an even more theologically
> > > rebarbative effect).
> > Well, I noticed that the Catholic Church never felt comfortable about
> > members actually reading the bible. Been that way for centuries.
> > Slightly less so now though...
> I often hear this thing about the alleged reluctance of the RCC in
> letting ordinary people read the Bible, but where does this story
> originate, what evidence is there to support it? Just curious you see.
I think the received wisdom would be that the pre-reformation church clung to using a latin bible (which virtually nobody outside of the clergy could read) way beyond the point when a literate middle class started to emerge (literate in their native-country languages). It was mostly "heretics" and religious rebels who provided local translations (Wyclif, Tyndale). I would say it was a combination of church persecution of heretical ideas, emerging literacy and printing technology that drove the process.
> On Monday, April 9, 2012 3:29:07 PM UTC+10, Devils Advocaat wrote:
>> On Apr 8, 10:57 pm, wiki trix <wikit...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Apr 8, 2:48 pm, Mike L <n...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> > > On Sun, 8 Apr 2012 12:51:26 -0700 (PDT), wiki trix
>> > > <wikit...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > >On Apr 8, 10:59 am, Mark Buchanan <marklynn.bucha...@gmail.com>
>> > > >wrote:
>> > > >> Some Christians didn't get the memo:
>> > > >> Normally one thinks of Canada as more secular than the US.
>> > > >> Handing out Bibles in a public school would be a constitutional
>> > > >> violation south of the 49th. Alas, there is no law in Canada to
>> > > >> clarify such situations.
>> > > >As long as the bibles being given out to students are not a cost
>> > > >to the taxpayer, I have no problem with it. Except perhaps a bit
>> > > >of concern for the trees that were consumed to create the books.
>> > > >And perhaps a bit of worry over the toxicity that may have
>> > > >resulted from the manufacturing of the ink that was used to print
>> > > >the books. And maybe a bit regarding the pollution caused by the
>> > > >transportation of the bibles, etc. However, I do wish that all
>> > > >people would read the bible, and other insane religious
>> > > >scriptures, and critically think about it. Perhaps then we would
>> > > >have fewer religious people to deal with.
>> > > The Gideons' Bibles don't seem to have made my four children any
>> > > less anti-religious than they are (well, one of them didn't get
>> > > one, because she went to the convent, which had an even more
>> > > theologically rebarbative effect).
>> > Well, I noticed that the Catholic Church never felt comfortable about
>> > members actually reading the bible. Been that way for centuries.
>> > Slightly less so now though...
>> I often hear this thing about the alleged reluctance of the RCC in
>> letting ordinary people read the Bible, but where does this story
>> originate, what evidence is there to support it? Just curious you see.
> I think the received wisdom would be that the pre-reformation church
> clung to using a latin bible (which virtually nobody outside of the
> clergy could read) way beyond the point when a literate middle class
> started to emerge (literate in their native-country languages).
The bible was translated into Gothic and Syriac in the 5th century, in
French in the 13th century so the received wisdom got it wrong.
> It was
> mostly "heretics" and religious rebels who provided local translations
> (Wyclif, Tyndale).
And the Cathar, Waldensics, Hussites (Hungary)... Strange as it may sound,
not ALL the medieval period took place in Brittain.
> I would say it was a combination of church
> persecution of heretical ideas, emerging literacy and printing
> technology that drove the process.
The printing process certainly had a large influence, by driving down the
cost of a copy rather sharply.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----
_________________________________________
/ I just got my PRINCE bumper sticker ... \
\ But now I can't remember WHO he is ... /
-----------------------------------------
\
\
___
{~._.~}
( Y )
()~*~() (_)-(_) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----
> >> > > >> Normally one thinks of Canada as more secular than the US.
> >> > > >> Handing out Bibles in a public school would be a constitutional
> >> > > >> violation south of the 49th. Alas, there is no law in Canada to
> >> > > >> clarify such situations.
> >> > > >As long as the bibles being given out to students are not a cost
> >> > > >to the taxpayer, I have no problem with it. Except perhaps a bit
> >> > > >of concern for the trees that were consumed to create the books.
> >> > > >And perhaps a bit of worry over the toxicity that may have
> >> > > >resulted from the manufacturing of the ink that was used to print
> >> > > >the books. And maybe a bit regarding the pollution caused by the
> >> > > >transportation of the bibles, etc. However, I do wish that all
> >> > > >people would read the bible, and other insane religious
> >> > > >scriptures, and critically think about it. Perhaps then we would
> >> > > >have fewer religious people to deal with.
> >> > > The Gideons' Bibles don't seem to have made my four children any
> >> > > less anti-religious than they are (well, one of them didn't get
> >> > > one, because she went to the convent, which had an even more
> >> > > theologically rebarbative effect).
> >> > Well, I noticed that the Catholic Church never felt comfortable about
> >> > members actually reading the bible. Been that way for centuries.
> >> > Slightly less so now though...
> >> I often hear this thing about the alleged reluctance of the RCC in
> >> letting ordinary people read the Bible, but where does this story
> >> originate, what evidence is there to support it? Just curious you see.
> > I think the received wisdom would be that the pre-reformation church
> > clung to using a latin bible (which virtually nobody outside of the
> > clergy could read) way beyond the point when a literate middle class
> > started to emerge (literate in their native-country languages).
> The bible was translated into Gothic and Syriac in the 5th century, in
> French in the 13th century so the received wisdom got it wrong.
It was the Latin version, not the Gothic or Syriac translations, that was adopted by the politically predominant Roman church (I daresay there were other translations made during the early years, which also failed to make the cut).
The point of the received wisdom is that the Latin Bible required an "intermediary" to read it in a language that the common folk couldn't follow. The heretical idea of the Reformation was **not** that you didn't need an intermediary (that came later), but that you could hear the Bible in a language that you could understand directly.
> > It was
> > mostly "heretics" and religious rebels who provided local translations
> > (Wyclif, Tyndale).
> And the Cathar, Waldensics, Hussites (Hungary)... Strange as it may sound,
> not ALL the medieval period took place in Brittain.
Agreed. I couldn't think of any non-English Reformation examples other than Jan Hus, and he based his teaching on Wyclif, though presumably not in Wyclif's language.
> > I would say it was a combination of church
> > persecution of heretical ideas, emerging literacy and printing
> > technology that drove the process.
> The printing process certainly had a large influence, by driving down the
> cost of a copy rather sharply.
Winston Churchill has an interesting passage in The History of The English-speaking Peoples regarding this process. Typical Whig progressivist nonsense, but not entirely.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----
> _________________________________________
> / I just got my PRINCE bumper sticker ... \
> \ But now I can't remember WHO he is ... /
> -----------------------------------------
> \
> \
> ___
> {~._.~}
> ( Y )
> ()~*~() > (_)-(_) > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----
>> Normally one thinks of Canada as more secular than the US. Handing out
>Bibles in a public school would be a constitutional violation south of
>the 49th. Alas, there is no law in Canada to clarify such situations.
>As long as the bibles being given out to students are not a cost to
>the taxpayer, I have no problem with it.
The more egregious cases in the US have involved various degrees of
coercion, such as handing them out with dimplomas at graduation (so
you don't have the option of *not* picking it up) or penalizing students for throwing the unwanted bibles in the trash.
-- Please reply to: | "We establish no religion in this country, we
pciszek at panix dot com | command no worship, we mandate no belief, nor
Autoreply is disabled | will we ever. Church and state are, and must
| remain, separate." --Ronald Reagan, 10/26/1984
In article <4c9f5d93-72fa-4a0a-8a9b-aa566abc5...@w5g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
Devils Advocaat <mankygo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>I often hear this thing about the alleged reluctance of the RCC in
>letting ordinary people read the Bible, but where does this story
>originate, what evidence is there to support it? Just curious you see.
I have heard it from older catholics a lot. I believe that it may be
one of the Vatican II reforms. I think the NAB was started around the
same time--a translation from the original languages to English with
no invervening langauges, and the whole thing Imprimatured and Nihil
Obstated by the Church so that Catholics would have an "acceptable"
version to read from.
-- Please reply to: | "We establish no religion in this country, we
pciszek at panix dot com | command no worship, we mandate no belief, nor
Autoreply is disabled | will we ever. Church and state are, and must
| remain, separate." --Ronald Reagan, 10/26/1984
On Apr 9, 2:55 pm, nos...@nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) wrote:
> In article <4c9f5d93-72fa-4a0a-8a9b-aa566abc5...@w5g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
> Devils Advocaat <mankygo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >I often hear this thing about the alleged reluctance of the RCC in
> >letting ordinary people read the Bible, but where does this story
> >originate, what evidence is there to support it? Just curious you see.
> I have heard it from older catholics a lot. I believe that it may be
> one of the Vatican II reforms. I think the NAB was started around the
> same time--a translation from the original languages to English with
> no invervening langauges, and the whole thing Imprimatured and Nihil
> Obstated by the Church so that Catholics would have an "acceptable"
> version to read from.
Why would the Catholic Church start a story like that?
> --
> Please reply to: | "We establish no religion in this country, we
> pciszek at panix dot com | command no worship, we mandate no belief, nor
> Autoreply is disabled | will we ever. Church and state are, and must
> | remain, separate." --Ronald Reagan, 10/26/1984
>> Normally one thinks of Canada as more secular than the US. Handing out
>Bibles in a public school would be a constitutional violation south of
>the 49th. Alas, there is no law in Canada to clarify such situations.
>As long as the bibles being given out to students are not a cost to
>the taxpayer, I have no problem with it. Except perhaps a bit of
>concern for the trees that were consumed to create the books. And
>perhaps a bit of worry over the toxicity that may have resulted from
>the manufacturing of the ink that was used to print the books. And
>maybe a bit regarding the pollution caused by the transportation of
>the bibles, etc. However, I do wish that all people would read the
>bible, and other insane religious scriptures, and critically think
>about it. Perhaps then we would have fewer religious people to deal
>with.
I suspect the storm of criticism the school board experienced as
a result of forbidding a Christian organization from handing out
Bibles is nothing compared to the storm they would experience as
a result of allowing a Muslim organization to hand out Qurans.
There is a Muslim organization that will give a free Quran to
anybody who asks. (I no longer remember their name.) I was
tempted to contact them, a couple years ago, after a local school
allowed the Gideons to hand out Bibles.
If the school board allows Christians to hand out religious
literature they will have no credible grounds to forbid it for
Muslims. Or ISKCON.
-- David Canzi | TIMTOWWTDI (tim-toe-woe-dee): There Is More Than One
| Wrong Way To Do It
Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com> wrote:
> But did Jesus add the important caveat, "Don't get caught."?
Almost. "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" is an
injunction to let people do what they do, privately.
-- John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydney
http://evolvingthoughts.net But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
On Tuesday, April 10, 2012 2:53:33 AM UTC+10, Devils Advocaat wrote:
> On Apr 9, 2:55 pm, nos...@nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) wrote:
> > In article <4c9f5d93-72fa-4a0a-8a9b-aa566abc5...@w5g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
> > Devils Advocaat <mankygo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >I often hear this thing about the alleged reluctance of the RCC in
> > >letting ordinary people read the Bible, but where does this story
> > >originate, what evidence is there to support it? Just curious you see.
> > I have heard it from older catholics a lot. I believe that it may be
> > one of the Vatican II reforms. I think the NAB was started around the
> > same time--a translation from the original languages to English with
> > no invervening langauges, and the whole thing Imprimatured and Nihil
> > Obstated by the Church so that Catholics would have an "acceptable"
> > version to read from.
> Why would the Catholic Church start a story like that?
> It doesn't make sense.
Perhaps to keep hold of the power that Constantine granted the hierarchy.
> > --
> > Please reply to: | "We establish no religion in this country, we
> > pciszek at panix dot com | command no worship, we mandate no belief, nor
> > Autoreply is disabled | will we ever. Church and state are, and must
> > | remain, separate." --Ronald Reagan, 10/26/1984
On Monday, April 9, 2012 1:41:37 PM UTC-4, David Canzi wrote:
> wiki trix <wikit...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Apr 8, 10:59 am, Mark Buchanan <marklynn.bucha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Some Christians didn't get the memo:
> >> Normally one thinks of Canada as more secular than the US. Handing out
> >Bibles in a public school would be a constitutional violation south of
> >the 49th. Alas, there is no law in Canada to clarify such situations.
> >As long as the bibles being given out to students are not a cost to
> >the taxpayer, I have no problem with it. Except perhaps a bit of
> >concern for the trees that were consumed to create the books. And
> >perhaps a bit of worry over the toxicity that may have resulted from
> >the manufacturing of the ink that was used to print the books. And
> >maybe a bit regarding the pollution caused by the transportation of
> >the bibles, etc. However, I do wish that all people would read the
> >bible, and other insane religious scriptures, and critically think
> >about it. Perhaps then we would have fewer religious people to deal
> >with.
> I suspect the storm of criticism the school board experienced as
> a result of forbidding a Christian organization from handing out
> Bibles is nothing compared to the storm they would experience as
> a result of allowing a Muslim organization to hand out Qurans.
> There is a Muslim organization that will give a free Quran to
> anybody who asks. (I no longer remember their name.) I was
> tempted to contact them, a couple years ago, after a local school
> allowed the Gideons to hand out Bibles.
> If the school board allows Christians to hand out religious
> literature they will have no credible grounds to forbid it for
> Muslims. Or ISKCON.
> -- > David Canzi | TIMTOWWTDI (tim-toe-woe-dee): There Is More Than One
> | Wrong Way To Do It
That may be why the school board made the decision to ban all religious material - to avoid confrontations with multiple religious groups.
And that's why it would make life easier if there was a clear separation of church (all churches) and state. Some religious organization would strongly agree. Even Jesus would, "Give to Caesar what is Ceasar's and to god what is god's".
>> > But did Jesus add the important caveat, "Don't get caught."?
>> Almost. "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" is an
>> injunction to let people do what they do, privately.
>But Jesus ended by telling her to "Go and sin no more."
>I think story was a late addition among people who devote much more >time to scholarly criticism of the Christian scriptures than I do.
It's one of the passages that the Conservative Bible Project would like
to exclude as being "too liberal", if that's what you mean.
-- Please reply to: | "We establish no religion in this country, we
pciszek at panix dot com | command no worship, we mandate no belief, nor
Autoreply is disabled | will we ever. Church and state are, and must
| remain, separate." --Ronald Reagan, 10/26/1984
timothya1...@gmail.com wrote:
>On Tuesday, April 10, 2012 2:53:33 AM UTC+10, Devils Advocaat wrote:
>> On Apr 9, 2:55 pm, nos...@nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) wrote:
>> > In article <4c9f5d93-72fa-4a0a-8a9b-aa566abc5...@w5g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
>> > Devils Advocaat <mankygo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >I often hear this thing about the alleged reluctance of the RCC in
>> > >letting ordinary people read the Bible, but where does this story
>> > >originate, what evidence is there to support it? Just curious you see.
>> > I have heard it from older catholics a lot. I believe that it may be
>> > one of the Vatican II reforms. I think the NAB was started around the
>> > same time--a translation from the original languages to English with
>> > no invervening langauges, and the whole thing Imprimatured and Nihil
>> > Obstated by the Church so that Catholics would have an "acceptable"
>> > version to read from.
>> Why would the Catholic Church start a story like that?
>> It doesn't make sense.
>Perhaps to keep hold of the power that Constantine granted the hierarchy.
As I recall, the Roman Catholic position is that scripture is hard to understand without proper training. Parts are poetic,
part parable, part seemingly injunctive, and so on.
In addition to the Bible, the Church also relies on the writings
of the Church Fathers and upon custom.
The greatest fear was that some bunch of folks would start reading
the Bible for themselves and misinterpret what they read. One only
need watch the current state of affairs in the US to see that in
action.
> Normally one thinks of Canada as more secular than the US. Handing out
> Bibles in a public school would be a constitutional violation south of
> the 49th. Alas, there is no law in Canada to clarify such situations.
It is evil to give children Bibles for the exact same reason it is
evil to give children cocaine.
> Mark
--
"Schools are to teach children what their parents don't know." -- Robert Carnegie
> > >> Normally one thinks of Canada as more secular than the US. Handing out Bibles in a public school would be a constitutional violation south of the 49th. Alas, there is no law in Canada to clarify such situations.
> > >As long as the bibles being given out to students are not a cost to
> > >the taxpayer, I have no problem with it. Except perhaps a bit of
> > >concern for the trees that were consumed to create the books. And
> > >perhaps a bit of worry over the toxicity that may have resulted from
> > >the manufacturing of the ink that was used to print the books. And
> > >maybe a bit regarding the pollution caused by the transportation of
> > >the bibles, etc. However, I do wish that all people would read the
> > >bible, and other insane religious scriptures, and critically think
> > >about it. Perhaps then we would have fewer religious people to deal
> > >with.
> > The Gideons' Bibles don't seem to have made my four children any less
> > anti-religious than they are (well, one of them didn't get one,
> > because she went to the convent, which had an even more theologically
> > rebarbative effect).
> Well, I noticed that the Catholic Church never felt comfortable about
> members actually reading the bible. Been that way for centuries.
> Slightly less so now though...
Well, it also seems that the church has realized that people want to
be allowed to read the bible; that does not mean they will actually
read it. Since so few will read it anyway, what is the point of
discouraging it?
Note: owning a bible and displaying it does not mean that it has been
read.
> > Normally one thinks of Canada as more secular than the US. Handing out Bibles in a public school would be a constitutional violation south of the 49th. Alas, there is no law in Canada to clarify such situations.
> As long as the bibles being given out to students are not a cost to
> the taxpayer, I have no problem with it. Except perhaps a bit of
> concern for the trees that were consumed to create the books. And
> perhaps a bit of worry over the toxicity that may have resulted from
> the manufacturing of the ink that was used to print the books. And
> maybe a bit regarding the pollution caused by the transportation of
> the bibles, etc. However, I do wish that all people would read the
> bible, and other insane religious scriptures, and critically think
> about it. Perhaps then we would have fewer religious people to deal
> with.
yeah, most atheist had read some fractions of the Bible at least.
Mostly the most significant parts of it, as recommended by some people
who knows. Then, to read the bible can be productive to understand
the book is about hate and fanaticism in the name of god.
> > >> Normally one thinks of Canada as more secular than the US. Handing out Bibles in a public school would be a constitutional violation south of the 49th. Alas, there is no law in Canada to clarify such situations.
> > >As long as the bibles being given out to students are not a cost to
> > >the taxpayer, I have no problem with it. Except perhaps a bit of
> > >concern for the trees that were consumed to create the books. And
> > >perhaps a bit of worry over the toxicity that may have resulted from
> > >the manufacturing of the ink that was used to print the books. And
> > >maybe a bit regarding the pollution caused by the transportation of
> > >the bibles, etc. However, I do wish that all people would read the
> > >bible, and other insane religious scriptures, and critically think
> > >about it. Perhaps then we would have fewer religious people to deal
> > >with.
> > The Gideons' Bibles don't seem to have made my four children any less
> > anti-religious than they are (well, one of them didn't get one,
> > because she went to the convent, which had an even more theologically
> > rebarbative effect).
> Well, I noticed that the Catholic Church never felt comfortable about
> members actually reading the bible. Been that way for centuries.
> Slightly less so now though...
they realize that most people do not read bible; not even the famous
preachers.
Unless we are talking of some chose fragments.
Perseus
