You wrote:
“Oh, now the real issues around this, according to you, is NOT that teachers would “interpret”, since now you’ve been kicked with that one,”
Didn’t happen. As I said, teachers will interpret - no matter what the law actually says. Tecahers will answer questions - and that will mean interpretation. A translation will be selected over others - and that means interpretation. Particular verses will be picked - and that means interpretation.
“but, instead, that the Bible translation and possible “indifferentism” (whatever the HECK that word is) will occur?”
Indifferentism. Before you condemn what you don’t seem to know, I suggest you look it up.
“Your words are just so much clanging in the wind, Vlad.”
No, my words will be shown to be correct.
Man, you are grasping at straws to save yourself.
First of all, that the Catholic church would actively protest a country trying to get Bible reading in schools is so perverted. Apparently we are to assume the Catholic church would be against such a law here? I’m curious, was the Catholic church in the US on the side of atheists as court cases ruled even “moments of silence” are wrong? I mean, there’s a big problem with interpreting what might come up in someone’s mind when silent, right?
Back to your words. In your first post, these were your words on the matter:
“The problem is the same one that happened here in the 19th century - the teacher of the class will choose how to interpret the Bible.”
When your own article post shows that’s not the case at all, you then add that “teachers will answer questions - and that will mean interpretation.” Uh, yeah, right. Do you realize 90 percent of those teachers will be Catholics?? I don’t even care if they give the CATHOLIC version on that—just get the actual BIBLE read in the darn classes and let’s see what happens.
Man, how can you be against 9 out of 10 teachers giving the CATHOLIC version of how to interpret that stuff?
So, you are the anti-Catholic here, not me, it would appear.