The Bible & violence
By The Tribune-Review
Published: Friday, March 1, 2013, 8:57 p.m.
The Bible & violence
Since the Connecticut school shooting, some letter writers and others have blamed school violence in part on what they view as God being “expelled” from school. Claims are made that in doing so, we have not been faithful to the Founding Fathers. By God being expelled, these writers often refer to the removal of mandated Bible readings or prayer in schools. While many recognize a possible link of violence in movies, television shows and video games to violence in society, many fail to acknowledge that violence in the Bible could also foster violence in society.
The violence in the Bible was abhorred by several Founders. John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, for instance, denounce the Old Testament God for his cruelty and killings performed on his own or by his orders. Ethan Allen in “Reason: The Only Oracle of Man” took issue with God of the Old Testament. So, too, did Thomas Paine in “The Age of Reason.”
I have no problems with an objective study of the Bible and other Scriptures as literature. But we must also be prepared to deliver ourselves from the evil violence of Scripture as well as that in movies and video games. We might just need to redefine what “God” it is we want in our schools, if any.
The writer is a Mt. Pleasant native and a 1968 Geibel graduate.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Islam & women
- Corbett’s choice
- Invest in pre-K
- ‘We the people’ are veterans
- Beneficial, irreplaceable
- Medicaid’s future
- Slots & property taxes
- Springdale’s dysfunction