Texas Public School Students Will Be Required to Read the Bible
- Thread starter Cypress
- Start date
BartenderElite
Verified User
Wait - when someone makes a definitive statement about the Koran - it's irrelevant if they've studied it?
Why would you ask them this?
If you take issue with his statement, offer a logical counterpoint. If you can.
BartenderElite
Verified User
That wasn't much of a response.
Obviously, it's relevant when you make a definitive statement about the Koran if you've actually studied the Koran.
Good chat, though.
I'm withholding judgement pending more information, but in principle if they are just reading the excerpts of the wisdom books and parables I'm not going to flip out about it. Those are just universal moral lessons. The King James Bible was exceedingly important to the evolution of English literature, and I don't have a problem with moral instruction, as long as the literary excerpts don't tread into the parts of the Bible that deal with Christian practice and doctrine.
My concern is that Bible thumpers tend to get a toe in the door and then try to cross red lines, instead of just bumping up against them.
Yours? No it wasn't.
That's not an argument.
Was it? Are you sure?
Grok, if a person makes an assertion regarding the Koran, is asking if they'd read it or the Old Testament of the Bible instead of addressing the issue an effective debating technique?
(@BartenderElite)
No, it's generally not an effective primary debating technique—it's more often a deflection or credibility probe that sidesteps the actual assertion.
This tactic works rhetorically with sympathetic audiences (it signals "you're ignorant/biased") but persuades few neutrals or informed opponents.
It can be a secondary useful question:
In short, "have you read it?" is a weak substitute for substantive rebuttal. Truth-seeking favors direct engagement with claims, context, and evidence over gatekeeping reading credentials. Both the Quran and Bible reward careful reading—debates improve when participants do it.
(@BartenderElite)
No, it's generally not an effective primary debating technique—it's more often a deflection or credibility probe that sidesteps the actual assertion.
Why it falls short
- It doesn't refute (or support) the claim: If someone says "The Quran contains verses endorsing X" (e.g., specific rules on warfare, apostasy, inheritance, or treatment of non-believers), responding with "Have you read the whole thing?" or "What about the Old Testament?" fails to engage the evidence. The assertion could be true or false regardless of whether the speaker has read every surah in Arabic. Effective debate tests the claim itself with counter-examples, context, abrogation (naskh), hadith, tafsir (commentaries), or historical application—not the opponent's reading list.
- It's a form of genetic/ad hominem appeal: It shifts focus to the person's qualifications or motives instead of the idea's validity. This is common in religious debates but weakens your position if the assertion holds up under scrutiny. Many informed critics (historians, ex-Muslims, Arabic speakers) base arguments on translations + scholarly works (e.g., Ibn Kathir, Al-Tabari) without needing "cover-to-cover" devotional reading.
- Tu quoque on the Old Testament: Pointing to violent passages in the Hebrew Bible (e.g., Deuteronomy 20, Joshua, or Psalms) is a classic whataboutism. It can highlight hypocrisy if the critic holds Christianity/Judaism to a different standard, but:
- It doesn't make the original claim about the Quran false.
- Theological differences matter: Judaism and Christianity have centuries of interpretive evolution, rabbinic/Christian tradition, and Enlightenment-influenced secularization that moderated literal application. Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh) and revivalist movements often treat the Quran and Sunnah as more directly prescriptive for state and society.
- Chronology and supersession: The Quran positions itself as the final, uncorrupted revelation correcting prior scriptures (Quran 5:48, etc.). Critics often argue it reintroduces or expands certain elements without equivalent later moderation in core texts.
This tactic works rhetorically with sympathetic audiences (it signals "you're ignorant/biased") but persuades few neutrals or informed opponents.
When "have you read it?" has some value
It can be a secondary useful question:
- If the assertion demonstrates clear factual error, cherry-picking without context (e.g., ignoring surrounding ayat or Meccan/Medinan distinction), or reliance on debunked secondary sources.
- To encourage primary engagement. Religious texts are complex; surface-level quotes often miss abrogation, asbab al-nuzul (occasions of revelation), or variant readings (qira'at).
- Empirical reality: Most people (on any side) haven't deeply read the texts they opine on. Polls and anecdotal debate experience show this gap for Quran, Bible, and other scriptures. Direct reading + historical sources (e.g., Sirah, Tabari's History) improves accuracy.
Stronger debating approach
- Address the specific assertion head-on: Quote the relevant Quran verse(s) in context (Arabic + multiple translations: Sahih International, Yusuf Ali, Pickthall, etc.), note scholarly interpretations, and compare application (e.g., classical vs. modern reformist views).
- Use evidence: Data on doctrinal outcomes, legal systems (Sharia in practice), historical conquests/expansions, or comparative religion (e.g., works by scholars like Patricia Crone, Ibn Warraq, Robert Spencer, or mainstream academics like Fred Donner).
- Acknowledge parallels and differences: Yes, the Old Testament has harsh passages. So do many ancient texts. The relevant questions are: frequency, centrality to later doctrine, and real-world impact under literalist governance. Christianity's New Testament shifts emphasis; the Quran integrates law, theology, and military guidance more seamlessly.
- Demand consistency: If the critic applies modern ethics selectively, call it. But mirror it back: evaluate texts by their own claims and fruits, not feels.
In short, "have you read it?" is a weak substitute for substantive rebuttal. Truth-seeking favors direct engagement with claims, context, and evidence over gatekeeping reading credentials. Both the Quran and Bible reward careful reading—debates improve when participants do it.
God forbid kids read books.Texas Public School Students Will Be Required to Read the Bible
Texas passed what may be the first state-mandated book list for public school students. It focuses on classic literature and includes Bible excerpts.
For example, 10th graders would read “The Tragedy of Julius Caesar” by William Shakespeare, and “The Inferno” by Dante Alighieri. Among other texts, they would also read the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I’ve Been to the Mountain Top” speech; Edgar Allan Poe’s famous poem “The Raven”; Margaret Thatcher’s eulogy for Mr. Reagan; and an excerpt from the Book of Job.
Students would be required to read a Bible excerpt at most grade levels, starting in elementary school.
Excerpts included “The Necessity of Humility” by the Gospel of Luke and “To Everything There is a Season” from the Book of Ecclesiastes. In middle and high school, Bible selections were included in thematic units along with a book. For example, the “Definition of Love,” from First Corinthians, would be taught alongside “Pride and Prejudice” by Jane Austen in 12th grade.
Texas Public School Students Will Be Required to Read the Bible
Texas passed what may be the first state-mandated book list for public school students. It focuses on classic literature and includes Bible excerpts.www.nytimes.com
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
What's the point of quoting the Quran if it doesn't offer good moral or philosophical 'advice?' That's how it changes what you stated.
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
I have one--got it at the Grand Mosque in Manama Bahrain--and I've read some of it.
Yes, I have. I've read a good portion of it. A lot of it is not directly religious. Take Proverbs for example. Most of those are not directly religious but rather good advice.
BartenderElite
Verified User
It's also pretty violent (the OT).
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
Not in the way the Quran is. The Old Testament is mostly a recounting of wars and such whereas the Quran is more about 'Kill the unbelievers' sort of thing.
Yes, the Quran offers profound and universally respected wisdom on ethics, mindfulness, and the human condition. Whether viewed as a religious scripture or a philosophical guide, it provides practical advice on humility, interpersonal justice, and maintaining emotional resilience during hardship.Key themes of value include:Social Justice & Compassion: The text strongly emphasizes charity (Zakat), defending the oppressed, and treating all people—regardless of background—with dignity and fairness.Mindfulness & Stress Reduction: It advocates for a deep connection with the Creator and constant self-reflection, which modern wellness studies indicate can lower anxiety and promote psychological resilience.Ethics in Daily Life: Practical guidelines on honoring parents, speaking truthfully, avoiding gossip, and controlling one's temper are central to its teachings.
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
Only towards other Muslims. All others get to die and go to Hell or something.
This is the tone the Quran and Islam take towards foreigners and non-believers.
9 Hadiths on How to Treat Non-Muslims | About Islam
Hadiths teach Muslims to treat non-Muslims with kindness, fairness, and mercy. The Prophet (peace be upon him) visited their sick, exchanged gifts, protected their rights, and forbade harming them.
aboutislam.net
Contrary to the title about kindness and fairness, the actual wording is more like 'Screw them! Show them no mercy!'
Last edited:
I have a hard time believing you that the Qur'an is mostly violent, but it's a moot point. These are standards for English classes. The Qur'an has nothing to do with English literature, whereas the King James Bible has an important and undeniable influence on the evolution of English literature.
Last edited:
They're always trying to push the envelope.
I'm fine with it as long as they also have to read the Torah, the Vedas, the Talmud, and so on.Texas Public School Students Will Be Required to Read the Bible
Texas passed what may be the first state-mandated book list for public school students. It focuses on classic literature and includes Bible excerpts.
For example, 10th graders would read “The Tragedy of Julius Caesar” by William Shakespeare, and “The Inferno” by Dante Alighieri. Among other texts, they would also read the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I’ve Been to the Mountain Top” speech; Edgar Allan Poe’s famous poem “The Raven”; Margaret Thatcher’s eulogy for Mr. Reagan; and an excerpt from the Book of Job.
Students would be required to read a Bible excerpt at most grade levels, starting in elementary school.
Excerpts included “The Necessity of Humility” by the Gospel of Luke and “To Everything There is a Season” from the Book of Ecclesiastes. In middle and high school, Bible selections were included in thematic units along with a book. For example, the “Definition of Love,” from First Corinthians, would be taught alongside “Pride and Prejudice” by Jane Austen in 12th grade.
Texas Public School Students Will Be Required to Read the Bible
Texas passed what may be the first state-mandated book list for public school students. It focuses on classic literature and includes Bible excerpts.