Evolution banned in the US Schools.
j...@alice.uucp
one, from the loud silence I hear.}
I find it quite disturbing that netters, while finding time
to worry about who is/was a Nazi-influenced composer/artist/conductor
(I thought conductors were artists, too, by the way), what
the politics of Don Black are (I think we can all see for
ourselves, on that one, folks), and what to do about the
nuclear bombs that we're stuck with (since the USSR
isn't about to do anything except blackmail us if we get
rid of them), do not even seem to care that evolution,
physics, sexual equality, racial equality, the scientific
method, geology, geography, and other such "secular
humanism studies" have been banned in high-schools that
receive federal funding.
Of course, that's not strictly true, since the statute
only bars "secular humanism", which is ill-defined and
probably meaningless. None-the-less,
that's what "fundamental Christians" and other nasty beasties
are using the statute for. Given that the person who
WROTE the statute (Orin Hatch, R-Utah) is a person with strong
and very regressive religious beliefs, I cannot believe that the
use of the statute for religious harrassment is co-incidence.
It is more than sad that the US is about to have a new round
of Scopes trials, religious persecutions, and the like,
it is downright TERRIFYING!
Why don't all you activists out there who have the time
and willingness to do something wake up and DO something?
(Well, I do know the answer, since most of the
"activists" on this net seem to be luddites themselves,
albiet of a different nature. Maybe because it's anti-science
it's OK? Come on, now. Do you really think you fit
into Orin Hatch's New World? Really?)
Lots of people have spent time crying about things that
the "Ray-Gun" administration has done, merely because
they figured they could make some political points,
even though they knew that the points were dishonest
and bankrupt. Now something matters, and I don't hear a peep, a rumble,
or even a pin drop on the subject.
Come on, folks, you're smarter than THAT!
Prove it!
--
SUPPORT SECULAR TEDDY-BEAR-ISM.
"I see a dark cloud, On the horizon,..."
(ihnp4/allegra)!alice!jj
Yosi Hoshen
> of Scopes trials, religious persecutions, and the like,
> it is downright TERRIFYING!
>
????????
I don't understand what are you talking about.
Can you be more specific?
--
Yosi Hoshen, AT&T Bell Laboratories
Naperville, Illinois, Mail: ihnp4!ihu1m!jho
Gary M. Samuelson
in schools which receive federal money:
I found it quite ironic (but then, I have been
seeing irony a lot recently). Didn't the Supreme Court
recognize Secular Humanism as a religion not too long ago?
And didn't the same Court find that the Establishment clause
prohibited federal funded schools from teaching religion
(or was it just Christianity)? And wasn't that ruling the result
of the efforts of the Secular Humanists?
But if my perceptions are correct, then there is no need to
pass a new law; the teaching of Secular Humanism should already
be illegal.
In either case, it would be quite consistent to forbid Secular
Humanism in public schools.
Gary Samuelson
Rich Rosen
Leave it to Samuelson, the man who joined this newsgroup with an article
about how he thought this country just wasn't Christian enough for him,
saying that Christians were made an example of by not being given special
treatment. No matter.
The real irony here is who gets to decide what things involve secular humanism.
Of course, the Christians in power. I doubt that they will simply stop
teaching math and science in general. Or will they?
Perhaps this is a great boon in disguise. Let's let everyone teach their
own beliefs. Christians can teach only religious babble, and so-called
secular humanists can teach science, math, learning, objective investigation,
and logical thinking. Of course, the opposing belief may not be taught.
I give Christianity no more than three generations to die out completely
once the Christian children have stopped learning some real substantive
learning.
But seriously, I doubt they will excise secular humanism completely.
They will continue to teach the dreaded mathematics and science.
It's just "certain" ideas that the anti-human people don't like that
will suffer. It's little more than an excuse to ban books, censor,
and teach children to be willingly led zombies. And Samuelson is reveling
in it. Need I say more?
The question is: when faced with equal time for two forms of learning and
thought (1. believe on faith; 2. use objective reasoning), what basis
do you teach the children to use in order to decide which one to go
with? Objective analysis of the two possibilities? Or faith that the (1.)
MUST be right. Dealing with radical religionists like Samuelson on this
issue is like resolving a debate between a reasonable child and a brat
fighting over a cake. The reasonable child says "We should each get half".
while the brat says "I want it all". Do you "compromise" by giving the
reasonable child a fourth and the brat the rest? Or do you accept the
reasonable solution? Certainly the notion that some people choose to believe
in a god should be taught in schools. But in addition students should be
taught to use the reasoning tools that will enable them to evaluate and
make a rational decision about such issues. Maybe that's what the religionists
are really scared of, and the real reasion they want "secular humanism" excised
from school learning: to teach such "secular humanism", such heinous horrible
methods of reasoning leading to horrible non-religious conclusions, would
effectively wipe out religion by the middle of the next century.
--
"Do I just cut 'em up like regular chickens?" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
sonntag
> in schools which receive federal money:
> I found it quite ironic (but then, I have been
> seeing irony a lot recently). Didn't the Supreme Court
> recognize Secular Humanism as a religion not too long ago?
> And didn't the same Court find that the Establishment clause
> prohibited federal funded schools from teaching religion
> (or was it just Christianity)? And wasn't that ruling the result
> of the efforts of the Secular Humanists?
Guess again.
--
Jeff Sonntag
ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j
"Like a newuser (HACK!), flamed for the very first time..."
Richard Carnes
> Didn't the Supreme Court
> recognize Secular Humanism as a religion not too long ago?
I imagine I'm not the only one who missed this. References, please.
Whatever "secular humanism" means (and it seems to cover a wide area
of ambiguity) I doubt that it refers to a religion. Perhaps there
are several Secular Humanist temples in your neighborhood, but there
are none in mine. Oh, you mean the University of Chicago? Wrong,
pal. The U of C (in the classic description) is a Baptist university
where atheist professors teach Thomas Aquinas to Jewish students.
More than a grain of truth in this.
Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes
R.J. Brown [Bob]
Richard,
I can't give you a case title but in a 1961 decision the
Supreme Court ruled that there are religions that have no
deities. Among those they described was secular humanism.
This was oblique to the main issue in the case which if I
remember correctly was a school prayer type case.
Bob Brown {...ihnp4!akgua!rjb}
l...@teddy.uucp
There IS a secular humanist church. It is called:
The Ethical Culture Society.
It was founded about 100 years ago in NYC. There are various
congregations around the NY metro area (and perhaps elsewhere), and they
have a rather large headquarters on central park west in manhattan.
Local congregations (I don't know if that's what they're called), have
sunday school, and weekly meetings at which the "leader" discusses
moral issues. They generally don't believe in God, or at least don't
beleive in organized religion as such.
Unitarians might also be called a secular humanist church for all intents
and purposes.
I believe the reference on secular humanism being a church stems from
a footnote by Mr. Justice Hugo Black in a Supreme Ct. decision overturning
a rule which required that a person be a beleiver in God to be
a conscientious objector. The court ruled that a number of "religions"
didn't have such a belief, and the footnote listed secular humanism
(or maybe it was "ethical culture" now I'm not sure) among them.
--
Sport Death,
Larry Kolodney
(USENET) ...decvax!genrad!teddy!lkk
(INTERNET) l...@mit-mc.arpa
Paul Dubuc
>> Didn't the Supreme Court
>> recognize Secular Humanism as a religion not too long ago?
>
>I imagine I'm not the only one who missed this. References, please.
>Whatever "secular humanism" means (and it seems to cover a wide area
>of ambiguity) I doubt that it refers to a religion.
*Torcaso vs Watkins* (1961). The Supreme Court ruled that it is
unconstitutional for the state of Maryland to require belief in God
as a condition for becoming a notary public. The judges specifically
identified secular humanism as a religion: "Among religions in this
country which do not teach what would be generally be considered a
belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture,
Secular Humanism and others".
Before that, federal courts broadened the term "religion" in cases like
*United States vs Kauten* (1943), where non-believers wanted conscientious
objector status exemption from the military draft.
In 1965 the Supreme Court heard *United States vs Seeger* and opined
that any belief can be classified as religious if it is "sincere
and meaningful and occupies a place in the life of its possessor
parellel to that filled by the orthodox belief in God". The primary
theologian consulted was Paul Tillich who defines the essence of
religion as "ultimate concern". This case also dealt with the
conscientious objector issue regarding the draft.
It seems to me that the secularists want it both ways. When it becomes
beneficial to have one's beliefs viewed as religious, the wear the
religious mantle. When it comes to keeping certain ideas out of the
public schools, however, that's different. Then you're only religious
if you believe in God. The Humanist Manifestos proclaim the religious
nature of humanism, though many humanists avoid the term. Some don't
bother to hide fact that they consider the public classroom to be
the primary vehicle for the promulgation of their views. John Dunphy's
statement in *The Humanist* (Jan/Feb 1983) is classic:
I am convinced that the battle for humankind's future must be
waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers who
correctly perceive their role as the proselytizers of a new faith:
a religion of humanity that recognizes and respects the spark of
what theologians call divinity in every human being. These teachers
must embody the same selfless dedication as the most rabid
fundamentalist preachers, for they will be ministers of another
sort, utilizing a classroom instead of a pulpit to convey humanist
values in whatever subject they teach, regardless of the educational
level--preschool day care or large state university.
In the original article, JJ mentioned Issac Asimov as one who was upset
over the "ban" of "secular humanism" from the public schools. Maybe Asimov
has more to worry about than the teaching of evolutionary science. The
American Humanist Assoc. voted him "humanist of the year" in 1983. The
following year Steven J. Gould received the award. This information I
received after subscribing to an often cited (by some net.origins evolutionists
anyway) anti-creationist journal called "Creation/Evolution". Turns out
the editor of that journal is (or was) executive director of the AHA and
writes and anti-creationism column in *The Humanist*. Perhaps the connection
between evolution and religious belief isn't as contrived as many imagine. :-)
Personally, I think its about time they did something to prevent secularism
from being the only religious ideology allowed a voice in the public schools.
As Richard John Neuhaus (not exactly a fundamentalist) points out in his
recent popular book "The Naked Public Square", the idea that religion can
be excluded from the public square is a myth. Some religion will fill the
void; the tacit religion of our "pluralistic" society is secularism. The
only purpose for its non-religious cloak is to exclude other religions from
its primary sphere of influence. Twenty years ago, while embracing the
new age of "secularization", Harvey Cox warned that,
...wherever [secularization] appears appears it should be carefully
distinguished from *secularism*. ... [secularism] is the name for
an ideology, a new closed world-view which functions very much like
a new religion. ... Like any other "ism", it menaces the openness
and freedom secularization has produced; it must therefore be watched
very carefully to prevent its becoming the ideology of a new
establishment. It must especially be checked where it pretends not
to be a world-view but nonetheless seeks to impose its ideology
though the organs of the state. [*The Secular City*, pp. 20-21]
Personally I think Cox's distinction between "secularism" and "secularization"
is vague and tenuous. But, aside from that, it's a distinction that few
people make anyway. The secularist influence is insidious because it
is commonly perceived as being neutral toward the differing religious values
many people hold.
If a secular society means that the public square is open to the "falwellites",
"liberals", "secular humanists" and all alike--regardless of their religious
persuasion--I'm all for it. I fear that that is not what we have, however.
Those with certain values get excluded from the public square by religious
prejudice, opening the corridors of power for the monopolistic influence
of the supposedly neutral secularists.
>Perhaps there are several Secular Humanist temples in your neighborhood,
>but there are none in mine. ...
>Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes
Have you bothered to look in the phone book? In the Columbus Yellow
Pages the Humanist Fellowship has themselves listed under
"Churches-Non-Denominational" (that's where my Christian church is listed).
They advertise "Non-traditional weddings by Humanist Counselor Advocates".
Anyway, since when is a temple a necessary item for a religion?
--
Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd
Rich Rosen
>
> I can't give you a case title but in a 1961 decision the
> Supreme Court ruled that there are religions that have no
In 1961? Anyway, the reason the Supreme Court applied Constitutional
rights to belief systems without deities is because they wanted to
ensure that the negligence of the founding fathers was not visited
on other beliefs: they wanted to ensure rights for all belief systems,
even though the Constitution spoke of "freedom of religion" (I believe
they wanted it for all such systems). Thus they labelled such beliefs
as religions for such purposes. (What other purposes, other than
legal purposes, could they define?) Another example of succumbing
to human laziness and carelessness with the words we use.
--
Popular consensus says that reality is based on popular consensus.
Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr
Byron Howes
it is impossible to define a non-trivial body of thought which comprises
"secular humanism." You can say: "Evolution is part of the body of
secular humanism, therefore we can't teach it." Wrongo! Secular Humanists
(if such exist) may happen to subscribe to evolutionary theory, but so do
a broad spectrum of folk who are "not" secular humanists, as do an equally
large number of people who don't know whether they are or not. It makes
about as much sense to say that evolution is part of the doctrine of secular
humanism as it does to say that modern medicine is part of such a doctrine.
I think a few tests in the courtroom will reveal the bogey-man of secular
humanism (or secular dialectical humanism as Jimmy Swaggart likes to call
it) to be precisely that. It can probably only be defined as religion
which includes that set of beliefs not included by other religions, especially
fundamentalist Christianity. To believe in something is not necessarily
the same as having that something be a religious belief.
--
Byron C. Howes
...!{decvax,akgua}!mcnc!ecsvax!bch
Robert A. Weiler
Keywords:
In article <57...@cbscc.UUCP> p...@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) writes:
{ with a whole bunch of other stuff deleted }
>
>It seems to me that the secularists want it both ways. When it becomes
>beneficial to have one's beliefs viewed as religious, the wear the
>religious mantle. When it comes to keeping certain ideas out of the
>public schools, however, that's different. Then you're only religious
>if you believe in God. The Humanist Manifestos proclaim the religious
>nature of humanism, though many humanists avoid the term. Some don't
>
>
Just curious again , but exactly what huminist dogma is taught in public
schools? What I learned in school was Math, Chemistry, Biology, English
( but not much ), etc. But no course in secular humanism. Not even after
school. I must of missed it.
If what were really talking about Creation/ Evolution, this isnt where
it belongs.
>Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd
Bob Weiler.
Rich Rosen
> schools? What I learned in school was Math, Chemistry, Biology, English
> ( but not much ), etc. But no course in secular humanism. Not even after
> school. I must of missed it.
Don't you know? Teaching you to use logical reasoning instead of taking
things on faith? Learning the scientific method of objective analysis?
Why, all of that is SECULAR HUMANISM!!!!! Because it leads you to conclusions
that contradict religious thinking. Thus, religionists feel it should be
banned, to prevent people from thinking about such things. Isn't that clear?
What's that? It's just the conclusions you reach using these methods that
you don't like? Maybe they should start teaching subjectivism and wishful
thinking in schools to produce a "balanced view". :-(
--
Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen.
Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr
Craig S. Anderson
that the concern about 'Secular Humanism' is totally misplaced. Not once
in twelve years did any of my teachers even remotely try to promote a set
of dogmatic beliefs, including humanism, whatever that happens to be.
The only time religion was even brought up was when my biology teacher said
that he was not trying to contradict anyone's religion by teaching
evolution. He went on to add that evolution is an accepted part
of science, just as we accept that photosynthesis is how plants
make their food. How come some people are more concerned about
prayer in schools rather than the education their children receive there?
After all, schools are meant to educate the next generations. If I were
to look at the performance of this nation's schools, I sure as hell
would be more concerned about how we are training the people who will
run this country rather than if they get a minute of silence every day...
-Craig Anderson
R.J. Brown [Bob]
Let's get back to what Secular Humanism is...
This philosophy or religion elevates the individual's
immediate desires or reasoning to the SUMMUM BONUM
in life. The whole panoply of garbage of Situational
Ethics and moral relativity is probably the most repugnant
aspect of the Secular Humanist morality.
Basically,
Man and/or Man's Desire is the deity
All morality is relative
Most Jews, Christians, and Muslims although sharply divided
on issues between them are diametrically opposed to what
amounts to crass idolatry espoused by Secular Humanism.
Bob Brown {...ihnp4!akgua!rjb}
j...@alice.uucp
Frankly, I don't see this bogeyman (good choice of names!) of
'Secular Humanism' being supported in any important court.
What I worry about is all the science, biology, physics and math
teachers who are sued in little towns where they can't defend themselves,
and who are either run out or bankrupted by the lawsuit.
Being the right party in a lawsuit is the same as loosing, if you're the defendant.
Just look at the cost (that you canNOT recover) of defending yourself.
Hoping for a day where Juristy and Barristry are punishible offenses that
can be actually persued with reasonable vigor!
--
SUPPORT SECULAR TEDDY-BEAR-ISM.
"You, who are on the road, must have a code that you can live by."
(ihnp4/allegra)!alice!jj
Mike Huybensz
> that any belief can be classified as religious if it is "sincere
> and meaningful and occupies a place in the life of its possessor
> parellel to that filled by the orthodox belief in God". The primary
> theologian consulted was Paul Tillich who defines the essence of
> religion as "ultimate concern". This case also dealt with the
> conscientious objector issue regarding the draft.
Thus, in order to teach the essence of religion, we must teach that
something is of "ultimate concern".
> It seems to me that the secularists want it both ways. When it becomes
> beneficial to have one's beliefs viewed as religious, the wear the
> religious mantle. When it comes to keeping certain ideas out of the
> public schools, however, that's different. Then you're only religious
> if you believe in God. The Humanist Manifestos proclaim the religious
> nature of humanism, though many humanists avoid the term.
The Humanist Manifestos state their ideas of ultimate concerns. I personally
would oppose teaching these as ultimate concerns in public schools.
(I am an agnostic, not a humanist, and feel that some statements in the
Manifestos are mistaken.) Just as I would oppose teaching that Jesus is
Lord in our public schools. I don't see the Humanist Manifesto being
taught as ultimate concerns in public schools, but I do see a horde of
Bible-thumpers who've been doing that for centuries trying to continue
their unconstitutional practices.
> Some don't
> bother to hide fact that they consider the public classroom to be
> the primary vehicle for the promulgation of their views. John Dunphy's
> statement in *The Humanist* (Jan/Feb 1983) is classic:
>
> I am convinced that the battle for humankind's future must be
> waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers who
> correctly perceive their role as the proselytizers of a new faith:
> a religion of humanity that recognizes and respects the spark of
> what theologians call divinity in every human being. These teachers
> must embody the same selfless dedication as the most rabid
> fundamentalist preachers, for they will be ministers of another
> sort, utilizing a classroom instead of a pulpit to convey humanist
> values in whatever subject they teach, regardless of the educational
> level--preschool day care or large state university.
Frankly, I think he is overzealous but accurate. It is next to impossible
to separate the instructor from the subject material. Use of the classroom
as a pulpit is entirely inappropriate, but you cannot entirely shut off
the transfer of values while employing human teachers.
> In the original article, JJ mentioned Issac Asimov as one who was upset
> over the "ban" of "secular humanism" from the public schools. Maybe Asimov
> has more to worry about than the teaching of evolutionary science. The
> American Humanist Assoc. voted him "humanist of the year" in 1983. The
> following year Steven J. Gould received the award. This information I
> received after subscribing to an often cited (by some ... evolutionists
> anyway) anti-creationist journal called "Creation/Evolution". Turns out
> the editor of that journal is (or was) executive director of the AHA and
> writes and anti-creationism column in *The Humanist*. Perhaps the connection
> between evolution and religious belief isn't as contrived as many imagine. :-)
Close, but you've got it reversed. Organized skeptics form a fairly small
society, who are very quick to oppose religious interference in politics,
science, etc.
> Personally, I think its about time they did something to prevent secularism
> from being the only religious ideology allowed a voice in the public schools.
Show us where secularism is being taught as an ultimate value in the schools.
> As Richard John Neuhaus (not exactly a fundamentalist) points out in his
> recent popular book "The Naked Public Square", the idea that religion can
> be excluded from the public square is a myth. Some religion will fill the
> void; the tacit religion of our "pluralistic" society is secularism. The
> only purpose for its non-religious cloak is to exclude other religions from
> its primary sphere of influence.
All our constitutional guarantees are myths. Your every constitutional
right can be violated. The goal is to make as fair an approximation as
can be reasonably arrived at. Saying "you can't be ideal, so let's make
it worse" is fallacious "solution" being suggested.
If some "religion" will fill the void, is the solution then to throw away
"the [government] shall make no laws concerning an establishment of religion"
because it is an impossible ideal? Or shall we attempt to follow the spirit
of that ammendment by doing the best we can? Prohibiting teaching of ultimate
values in public schools is a practical procedure: eliminating all teaching of
values is ridiculous.
> >Perhaps there are several Secular Humanist temples in your neighborhood,
> >but there are none in mine. ...
>
> Have you bothered to look in the phone book? In the Columbus Yellow
> Pages the Humanist Fellowship has themselves listed under
> "Churches-Non-Denominational" (that's where my Christian church is listed).
> They advertise "Non-traditional weddings by Humanist Counselor Advocates".
> Anyway, since when is a temple a necessary item for a religion?
At Harvard, there is a secular humanist chaplain. Surprised me; it's the
first mention of one I'd seen.
--
Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
Gary M. Samuelson
but I am.
> Leave it to Samuelson, the man who joined this newsgroup with an article
> about how he thought this country just wasn't Christian enough for him,
> saying that Christians were made an example of by not being given special
> treatment. No matter.
Mr. Rosen becomes quite upset at what he calls "twisting" of his words.
I wonder if anybody *really* believes that his summary of my initial
article to this group is a fair statement of what I said. What I
remember (and it has been a while) saying is that Christians were,
in some cases, not being allowed the freedom to worship (one example
was that Bible studies in private homes were being considered illegal,
according to zoning ordinances). Other people responded that adherents
of other religions were subject to the same sort of harassment. I
guess Mr. Rosen thinks I want Christians to be free to worship, and
others to be harassed. Or he wants other people to think that that
is what I want. Well, I suppose that that is what he wishes to
believe.
> The real irony here is who gets to decide what things involve secular
> humanism...
I, for one, will read documents like the Humanist Manifesto to find
that out (thanks to whoever posted that, by the way).
> ...Of course, the Christians in power.
The Christians are not in power, Mr. Rosen; they don't even constitute
a majority in this country.
> I doubt that they will simply stop
> teaching math and science in general. Or will they?
We were talking about the religion (philosophy, if you prefer, or
world-view, or belief system) known as humanism. Math and science
are subjects which can be taught by adherents to any such system.
> Perhaps this is a great boon in disguise. Let's let everyone teach their
> own beliefs.
Say, now that's a radical idea. What a shame that Mr. Rosen is
not suggesting it seriously.
> Christians can teach only religious babble, and so-called
> secular humanists can teach science, math, learning, objective investigation,
> and logical thinking.
> Of course, the opposing belief may not be taught.
I know Mr. Rosen will not believe this, but Christianity is not
opposed to science, math, etc. Nor will he believe that science,
math, etc. are *not* inherently part of the philosophy of secular
humanism.
> I give Christianity no more than three generations to die out completely
> once the Christian children have stopped learning some real substantive
> learning.
How often the demise of Christianity has been predicted, and how
disappointed those making such predictions must have been.
> But seriously, I doubt they will excise secular humanism completely.
> They will continue to teach the dreaded mathematics and science.
Which are not part and parcel of secular humanism, no matter what
you wish to believe.
> It's just "certain" ideas that the anti-human people don't like that
> will suffer.
"Anti-human"? I used to have a list of pejoratives Mr. Rosen uses,
but I abandoned the effort in favor of more productive uses of my
time. Are you aware that the use of such terms makes people tend
not to pay attention to the other things you say? Do you care?
> It's little more than an excuse to ban books, censor,
> and teach children to be willingly led zombies. And Samuelson is reveling
> in it. Need I say more?
Personally, I think your articles would be more effective if you said
less. Cut down on the heat, and the light might be clearer.
And I don't think reveling is the right word; if I did, I would
have used it. I said I found it ironic. My dictionary doesn't
mention the connection between the two terms. Actually, I don't
think the government should be in the education business.
> The question is: when faced with equal time for two forms of learning and
> thought (1. believe on faith; 2. use objective reasoning), what basis
> do you teach the children to use in order to decide which one to go
> with? Objective analysis of the two possibilities? Or faith that the (1.)
> MUST be right.
Mr. Rosen, of course, has an unshakable faith that objective reasoning
is the one which should be used. On what other grounds could one
possibly say, "Objective reasoning MUST be right" ? The pot cannot
contain itself.
The argument is clearly circular; to choose between faith and reasoning
(which I consider a false dichotomy in the first place), one must
first decide which to use to make the choice.
> Dealing with radical religionists like Samuelson on this
> issue is like resolving a debate between a reasonable child and a brat
> fighting over a cake. The reasonable child says "We should each get half".
> while the brat says "I want it all".
Which child is being reasonable and which a brat depends on whose
cake it was in the first place, does it not?
I wonder what a "radical religionist" is.
> Do you "compromise" by giving the
> reasonable child a fourth and the brat the rest? Or do you accept the
> reasonable solution?
Obviously, the reasonable solution is to believe some things on faith
and others on the basis of objective reasoning. That, of course, is
what people really do. For a trivial example, I maintain that each
person accepts on faith the fact of his own existence. No objective
reasoning can take place without the implicit assumption that the
reasoner exists to do the reasoning. As I said, a trivial example;
no doubt each person has a myriad of things he accepts without
proof (i.e., on faith -- "the assurance of things hoped for; the
conviction of things not seen").
> Certainly the notion that some people choose to believe
> in a god should be taught in schools. But in addition students should be
> taught to use the reasoning tools that will enable them to evaluate and
> make a rational decision about such issues.
And Mr. Rosen, no doubt, would like us to believe that he could
(and would?) present such issues as belief in God objectively.
Not likely.
> Maybe that's what the religionists are really scared of
> and the real reason they want "secular humanism" excised
> from school learning:...
To claim to know what "religionists" (I forget -- did you ever
define that term? I think you did, and I denied that I fit
the definition you invented, which of course had no effect
on your propensity to use it) are "really" scared of and the
"real" reason they want what they want is just a tad presumptuous.
Some Christians are concerned that some people with authority in
the public school system want to undermine the beliefs these
Christians have attempted to teach their children. (I wonder
where they would get such an idea -- from people who "revel"
in the prospect of wiping out religion within three generations?)
Now, Mr. Rosen doesn't think that parents should have a say
in what their children are taught -- mustn't "impose" on them,
you know -- so the only alternative is that the state should
mandate what everyone is taught. No thanks.
> ...to teach such
> "secular humanism", such heinous horrible methods of reasoning leading
> to horrible non-religious conclusions,...
It is not surprising that a philosophy which rejects religion
out of hand leads to non-religious conclusions.
> ...would effectively wipe out
> religion by the middle of the next century.
Mr. Rosen's desire to wipe out religion is quite clear. Once that
is accomplished, he will find that there are people who disagree
with him on other issues. Then, I suppose he (or his successors)
will endeavor to wipe out these other undesirable thought patterns.
Gary Samuelson
ittvax!bunker!garys
Gary M. Samuelson
> rights to belief systems without deities is because they wanted to
> ensure that the negligence of the founding fathers was not visited
> on other beliefs: they wanted to ensure rights for all belief systems,
> even though the Constitution spoke of "freedom of religion" (I believe
> they wanted it for all such systems). Thus they labelled such beliefs
> as religions for such purposes. (What other purposes, other than
> legal purposes, could they define?)
Certainly, the Supreme Court's definition of "religion" is for
"legal purposes." But the same definition must be used for all
legal purposes, and therefore, if the Constitution forbids the
teaching of Christianity in the public schools, then it also
forbids the teaching of "secular humanism."
> Another example of succumbing
> to human laziness and carelessness with the words we use.
Or an example of trying to refine our understanding of the way
words are used.
> Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr
Gary Samuelson
ittvax!bunker!garys
Rich Rosen
Please note that this does not describe secular humanism, it describes
what a fundamentalist Christian thinks of secular humanism. If anything,
"all morality is relative" is not an axiom of the philosophy, it is a
consequence of a realization that if you have no god, absolute good and
evil is an oxymoron. (in fact, this is a reason for discounting the existence
of god as many religionists depict it) Thus the best morality that results
in the most gain for the most people is most desireable. The complaint
Christians are making is not that they say "all morality is relative" but
that they say "Judaeo-Christian morality is not absolute". Let's be
clear on that.
Also, this sanctification of desire crap has been making the rounds among
such people so as to make it seem that humanists are "amoral" and have no
respect for other human beings. I would say that, on the contrary, humanists
have far more respect for individual human lives than religionists.
By far.
--
"There! I've run rings 'round you logically!"
"Oh, intercourse the penguin!" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
Baba ROM DOS
> The whole panoply of garbage of Situational
> Ethics and moral relativity is probably the most repugnant
> aspect of the Secular Humanist morality.
>
The Sea of Faith
Was once, too, at the full, and round earth's shore
Lay like the folds of a bright girdle furled.
But now I only hear
It's melancholy, long, withdrawing roar,
Retreating, to the breath
of the night-wind, down the vast edges drear
And naked shingles of the world.
- Matthew Arnold, 1867
Christianity was ill prepared for the onslaught of Charles Darwin,
Victorian science, and 19th Century materialism. Our western views
of man and his place in the universe were shifted both by the weakening
authority of religious teaching and an increasing sense of self-importance
brought on by the tremendous technological advances of the last 100 years.
Christianity lost credibility because its *cosmology* was inconsistent with
our growing knowledge of the universe, and as a consequence its authority
on *morality* was undermined. Situational ethics and moral relativism
are characteristic, not of any Secular Humanist morality, but of an
atheist/materialist society without a universally agreed upon foundation
for ethics. We could do with a lot more devout Secular Humanists and
a lot fewer cynical Sunday Christians.
Baba
Dave Long
> Don't you know? Teaching you to use logical reasoning instead of taking
> things on faith? Learning the scientific method of objective analysis?
> Why, all of that is SECULAR HUMANISM!!!!! Because it leads you to conclusions
> that contradict religious thinking. Thus, religionists feel it should be
> banned, to prevent people from thinking about such things. Isn't that clear?
No, it isn't clear. What I learn in school is using logical reasoning,
scientific method, etc. I do *not* learn "Secular Humanism". The claim that
"all of that is SECULAR HUMANISM" is absurd! Secular Humanists can claim that
their faith is based on the preceding items, however they should *not* claim
that the preceding items are part of Secular Humanism, like Ragnarok is part
of historical Norse religion. As far as I am concerned, Secular Humanists are
just another religious group. I do not use logical reasoning and the scien-
tific method because my religion tells me too, I use them due to *personal*
preference. If any of my teachers starts pushing "Secular Humanism", I will
try to get transferred out of the class.
Dave Long
--
{hplabs,fortune,idi,ihnp4,tolerant,allegra,tymix}!oliveb!long
Then the Usenetter said to the Architect: "From *where*
did you think the chaos came?" -- Var. on Trad. Joke
Paul V. Torek
>is the one which should be used. On what other grounds could one
>possibly say, "Objective reasoning MUST be right" ? The pot cannot
>contain itself.
>
>The argument is clearly circular; to choose between faith and reasoning
>(which I consider a false dichotomy in the first place), one must
>first decide which to use to make the choice.
Actually, the idea that one can *choose* to do without reasoning is
wrongheaded. The very representation of the alternatives is a mental
act governed by norms of rationality; one has to be rational in order
to represent the choice to oneself. But then, the choice one identifies
as 'reasoning' must be recognized as the correct choice, because
recognizing something as rational means acknowledging it as correct.
>Obviously, the reasonable solution is to believe some things on faith
>and others on the basis of objective reasoning. That, of course, is
>what people really do. For a trivial example, I maintain that each
>person accepts on faith the fact of his own existence. No objective
>reasoning can take place without the implicit assumption that the
>reasoner exists to do the reasoning.
Bad example. Each person accepts on *evidence* -- *conclusive* evidence --
the fact of her own existence, which is implied directly by the fact
(of which she is immediately aware) that she is considering the issue.
No faith need apply for the job; reason is quite sufficient here.
--Paul V. Torek, Iconbuster-in-chief
Rich Rosen
I don't know why either, Gary, since you swore you'd never do it again. Perhaps
you are doing it because I have again shown major flaws in your thinking and
you seek to cover that up.
>>Leave it to Samuelson, the man who joined this newsgroup with an article
>>about how he thought this country just wasn't Christian enough for him,
>>saying that Christians were made an example of by not being given special
>>treatment. No matter.
> Mr. Rosen becomes quite upset at what he calls "twisting" of his words.
> I wonder if anybody *really* believes that his summary of my initial
> article to this group is a fair statement of what I said. What I
> remember (and it has been a while) saying is that Christians were,
> in some cases, not being allowed the freedom to worship (one example
> was that Bible studies in private homes were being considered illegal,
> according to zoning ordinances).
What Gary was (and is) saying is that such meetings deserve some special
treatment. After all, this would apply to ANY religious gathering, but
Christianity, that's different, eh? Again, your goal was to claim that
this was "discrimination", the fact that Christians were treated just like
any other religion.
> Other people responded that adherents
> of other religions were subject to the same sort of harassment. I
> guess Mr. Rosen thinks I want Christians to be free to worship, and
> others to be harassed. Or he wants other people to think that that
> is what I want. Well, I suppose that that is what he wishes to believe.
Your article then (and now) refers to "CHRISTIANS (not religious believers,
just Christians) not being allowed the freedom of worship". Let's get
serious.
>>The real irony here is who gets to decide what things involve secular
>>humanism...
> I, for one, will read documents like the Humanist Manifesto to find
> that out (thanks to whoever posted that, by the way).
And what does it say that you don't like?
>>...Of course, the Christians in power.
> The Christians are not in power, Mr. Rosen; they don't even constitute
> a majority in this country.
Not even a moral one... ??? Come now, be serious, Christians are not a
majority in the United States?
>>I doubt that they will simply stop
>>teaching math and science in general. Or will they?
> We were talking about the religion (philosophy, if you prefer, or
> world-view, or belief system) known as humanism. Math and science
> are subjects which can be taught by adherents to any such system.
Ah, but science leads to conclusions like evolution, and the skepticism
that leads to agnosticism or atheism (after enough examination). These
are among the things that these people are seeking to have removed from
schools.
>>Perhaps this is a great boon in disguise. Let's let everyone teach their
>>own beliefs.
> Say, now that's a radical idea. What a shame that Mr. Rosen is
> not suggesting it seriously.
I am. See below.
>>Christians can teach only religious babble, and so-called
>>secular humanists can teach science, math, learning, objective investigation,
>>and logical thinking.
>>Of course, the opposing belief may not be taught.
> I know Mr. Rosen will not believe this, but Christianity is not
> opposed to science, math, etc.
Except when the conclusions they reach contradict the holy word of god as
determined by a book.
> Nor will he believe that science, math, etc. are *not* inherently part of
> the philosophy of secular humanism.
They are part of what the religionists seek to abolish. After all, how
can you just avoid teaching about evolution unless you just skip over teaching
biology. Or chemistry. Or physics. Or ...
>>I give Christianity no more than three generations to die out completely
>>once the Christian children have stopped learning some real substantive
>>learning.
> How often the demise of Christianity has been predicted, and how
> disappointed those making such predictions must have been.
Well, I don't believe that the Christians would take this advice. Even they
know the value of math and science, even when they disagree with the
conclusions. It wasn't a serious prediction for that reason. (See below.)
>>But seriously, I doubt they will excise secular humanism completely.
>>They will continue to teach the dreaded mathematics and science.
>>It's just "certain" ideas that the anti-human people don't like that
>>will suffer.
> "Anti-human"? I used to have a list of pejoratives Mr. Rosen uses,
> but I abandoned the effort in favor of more productive uses of my
> time. Are you aware that the use of such terms makes people tend
> not to pay attention to the other things you say? Do you care?
I meant to type "anti-humanist", and what's more I think you're fully
aware of that, since it's a pretty simple typo. But, come to think of
it, such people, when they proclaim that that word of god (as they see it)
is over and above human needs, they are being anti-human.
>>It's little more than an excuse to ban books, censor,
>>and teach children to be willingly led zombies. And Samuelson is reveling
>>in it. Need I say more?
> Personally, I think your articles would be more effective if you said
> less. Cut down on the heat, and the light might be clearer.
That was light. A light that needs to be cast on the real reasons behind
so-called Christian efforts to "ban" secular humanism.
>>The question is: when faced with equal time for two forms of learning and
>>thought (1. believe on faith; 2. use objective reasoning), what basis
>>do you teach the children to use in order to decide which one to go
>>with? Objective analysis of the two possibilities? Or faith that the (1.)
>>MUST be right.
> Mr. Rosen, of course, has an unshakable faith that objective reasoning
> is the one which should be used. On what other grounds could one
> possibly say, "Objective reasoning MUST be right" ? The pot cannot
> contain itself.
Indeed. And Samuelson thinks faith must be right. It is not a faith
in objectivity that moves me. It is evidence that it is more accurate
than whimsical faith.
> The argument is clearly circular; to choose between faith and reasoning
> (which I consider a false dichotomy in the first place), one must
> first decide which to use to make the choice.
Exactly. And Samuelson chooses faith, not because it is demonstrably
better (quite the opposite) but because he likes the conclusions better.
We know what term I used to refer to that.
>>Dealing with radical religionists like Samuelson on this
>>issue is like resolving a debate between a reasonable child and a brat
>>fighting over a cake. The reasonable child says "We should each get half".
>>while the brat says "I want it all".
> Which child is being reasonable and which a brat depends on whose
> cake it was in the first place, does it not?
I would think it belonged to neither. Does Samuelson think the world
belongs to religionists?
>>I wonder what a "radical religionist" is.
Check out article <9...@bunker.UUCP> for an example.
>>Do you "compromise" by giving the
>>reasonable child a fourth and the brat the rest? Or do you accept the
>>reasonable solution?
> Obviously, the reasonable solution is to believe some things on faith
> and others on the basis of objective reasoning. That, of course, is
> what people really do. For a trivial example, I maintain that each
> person accepts on faith the fact of his own existence. No objective
> reasoning can take place without the implicit assumption that the
> reasoner exists to do the reasoning. As I said, a trivial example;
> no doubt each person has a myriad of things he accepts without
> proof (i.e., on faith -- "the assurance of things hoped for; the
> conviction of things not seen").
Better referred to as "wishful thinking", to be sure. When you base your
judgments of the way you perceive the world to be on "what you hope for",
you are deliberating failing to be objective, and clouding your conclusions.
Which is OK (or not) depending on your goals. If you're not looking for
truth or reality, it's fine.
>>Certainly the notion that some people choose to believe
>>in a god should be taught in schools. But in addition students should be
>>taught to use the reasoning tools that will enable them to evaluate and
>>make a rational decision about such issues.
> And Mr. Rosen, no doubt, would like us to believe that he could
> (and would?) present such issues as belief in God objectively. Not likely.
As seen in Samuelson's summart of his own original article, the only "fair"
hearing in his view would be one that holds Christianity up as the absolute
truth. After all, any other "hearing" would show flaws in it, and he certainly
doesn't want THAT.
>>Maybe that's what the religionists are really scared of
>>and the real reason they want "secular humanism" excised
>>from school learning:...
> To claim to know what "religionists" (I forget -- did you ever
> define that term? I think you did, and I denied that I fit
> the definition you invented, which of course had no effect
> on your propensity to use it) are "really" scared of and the
> "real" reason they want what they want is just a tad presumptuous.
I said maybe. The above was a speculation. Yes, I defined religionist
as did the dictionary, and you have continued to fit the definition.
> Some Christians are concerned that some people with authority in
> the public school system want to undermine the beliefs these
> Christians have attempted to teach their children. (I wonder
> where they would get such an idea -- from people who "revel"
> in the prospect of wiping out religion within three generations?)
And with good reason: they have taught them a biased and bogus set of
beliefs contrary to real reality. Not just *different* from "norms" (as
with customs of ethnic groups), contrary to reality. Indeed, I "revel" (maybe
too strong a word, perhaps "be pleased to see") in religion dying out
from disuse. I have repeatedly said that it is not my wish to forcefully
eradicate religion. To do so would make us no better than they are.
To let it drop dead of its own weight as more and more people are
informed, would certainly prove better. Of course, it is possible
that dispensing of such information through education may be seen as
an attempt at eradication by some.
> Now, Mr. Rosen doesn't think that parents should have a say
> in what their children are taught -- mustn't "impose" on them,
> you know -- so the only alternative is that the state should
> mandate what everyone is taught. No thanks.
"The state"? Parents should and do have a say in what their children
are taught. It's a shame that parents who want to teach their children
a set of beliefs regardless of their relationship to reality exercise this
right all too much, producing non-thinking children (and later adults)
as a result.
>>...to teach such
>>"secular humanism", such heinous horrible methods of reasoning leading
>>to horrible non-religious conclusions,...
> It is not surprising that a philosophy which rejects religion
> out of hand leads to non-religious conclusions.
It's even less surprising that a philosophy that assumes the existence of
god in a particular form leads to conclusions about the existence of god
that match those assumptions. But of course, Gary is not assuming, he
knows the truth about the existence of god. I will let him do so in the
reply article that is sure not to follow because he will never respond
to a Rich Rosen article again.
>>...would effectively wipe out
>>religion by the middle of the next century.
> Mr. Rosen's desire to wipe out religion is quite clear.
I said that the methods of education described above would "effectively
wipe out religion". As I've said many times before, eradicating religion
by force is not a goal nor a desire of mine, though Samuelson would like
you to think because it aids him in his perpetually manipulative style
of rhetoric and argument.
> Once that is accomplished, he will find that there are people who disagree
> with him on other issues. Then, I suppose he (or his successors)
> will endeavor to wipe out these other undesirable thought patterns.
Yes, Gary, we're all heinous fascists for wanting to encourage teaching of
"thinking before believing" ideas. Once we've "forcibly" stoppoed people
from wishful thinking about gods, we'll turn our evil hands towards other
wishful thinking beliefs like ... Only a true scholar of fascistic
manipulation would go out of his way to twist words to imply that those
who support teaching rational thinking in schools are out to forcibly
crush other ideas like the purveyors of Nazi genocide. If your ideas
are sound, Gary, after some rigorous examination, they will hold up. If not,
they won't. That's the "force" with which "I" (??) will "wipe out"
fallacious thinking. The stronger force of all.
Rich Rosen
>>things on faith? Learning the scientific method of objective analysis?
>>Why, all of that is SECULAR HUMANISM!!!!! Because it leads you to conclusions
>>that contradict religious thinking. Thus, religionists feel it should be
>>banned, to prevent people from thinking about such things. Isn't that clear?
> No, it isn't clear. What I learn in school is using logical reasoning,
> scientific method, etc. I do *not* learn "Secular Humanism". The claim that
> "all of that is SECULAR HUMANISM" is absurd! Secular Humanists can claim that
> their faith is based on the preceding items, however they should *not* claim
> that the preceding items are part of Secular Humanism, like Ragnarok is part
> of historical Norse religion. As far as I am concerned, Secular Humanists are
> just another religious group. I do not use logical reasoning and the scien-
> tific method because my religion tells me too, I use them due to *personal*
> preference. [DAVE LONG]
So do secular humanists. Only certain people choose to deem *that* a religious
preference. The fact remains that those seeking to eliminate secular
humanism from schools are actually seeking to eliminate the reaching of
conclusions that they don't like achieved through the reasoning processes
described above. Logically speaking, the only way to avoid reaching those
conclusions is not to teach the methods that get you there.
Or maybe logic doesn't apply here. After all, look who's seeking the
elimination. Perhaps they want to allow teaching of rational thinking
processes but forbid the children from reaching the "undesired" conclusions.
Piotr Berman
> >> Didn't the Supreme Court
> >> recognize Secular Humanism as a religion not too long ago?
> >>Gary Samuelson
> >
> unconstitutional for the state of Maryland to require belief in God
> as a condition for becoming a notary public. The judges specifically
> identified secular humanism as a religion: "Among religions in this
> country which do not teach what would be generally be considered a
> belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture,
> Secular Humanism and others".
>
> beneficial to have one's beliefs viewed as religious, the wear the
> religious mantle. When it comes to keeping certain ideas out of the
> public schools, however, that's different. Then you're only religious
> if you believe in God. The Humanist Manifestos proclaim the religious
> nature of humanism, though many humanists avoid the term.
>
I am an atheist and I want to have it both ways. Moreover, I sinsirely
believe that I am rigth. What those two ways are?
1. I want the principle of tolerating religion to be extended
to tolerating lack of religion.
2. I want to keep certain ideas in school.
Explanation of point 1.
Whatever the judges explenations in the quoted cases are, the core of
the issue is: should it be legal to make atheists second class citizens?
Frankly, I am not interested in the letter of constitution or "the intention
of the founding fathers" but in my legal rights. I know relativism and I
know that one can read the constitution in diffferent ways, all of them
honest. Still, I prefer such an interpretation which preserves my rights.
The precedent quoted by Paul is very serious one. If a notary public
must believe in God, that probably means that the oath of a person who
does not believe in God is not valid. That would pave way to other laws:
the testimony of an atheist could be regarded as less valid, also an
atheist could be legally barred from taking jobs requiring an oath.
E.g. I needed to signed an oath to accept my university contract.
I read an intervue with sen. Jesse Helms. He claims that while the
constitution bars establishment of a religion, it allows, and even implies
the principle of believing in God ("one nation under the God"). Thus when
I am afraid that someone wants to make me a second class citizen, I afraid
of polititians which at this very moment may enact laws in many states.
The quoted legal opinion really worries me. It seems that judges
agreed that someone may be required to have a religion to hold a public
position, they merely disallowed that one may be required to believe in
God. Happily, I do not see any polititian proposing such a funny law.
Explanation of point 2.
I want to keep certain ideas in school in spite of the fact that they
are deemed to by holy by a sect of "secular humanists". The reason is
that I regard those as useful and practical part of education.
Any piece of school program may become a tenet of faith for some
group. Shall we stop teaching geography if somebody makes an idol
of a globe? Similarly, if somebody believes religiously in evolution
it does not mean that teaching geology should be forbidden.
What foes of "secular humanism" are against? I heard and read some
of them. They are against the idea that the norms of good and bad are
created by humans. Their classical example of "brainwashing in the
spirit of secular humanism" is the following. The teacher asks the
students to write on the blackboard different moral principles, then
invents a situations of conflict between those principles and asks
students to decide what they would do. The conclusion is that the
school trains students in moral relativism.
In short, the idea which is to be purged from school by Orrin Hatch's
ammendment is: honest people may have different moral choices.
According to fundamentalists, this is false: if you cannot figure from
the Scripture what you should do, your preacher can. If you listen
to Phillys Schaffly, Jesse Helms, Jerry Farwell etc. then it is clear
what is the worst part of the abominable secular humanism.
Not evolution, but the tolerance. If there would be any activity in
the school that teaches respect to other views or other lifestyles,
you should at best remove this activity, and at least be able to
forbid your children to participate.
The New Right is well organized, has plenty of funds and promotes
a clear, logical vision. What is not good, is bad. No hesitation.
Children are our future, purity of their souls is the largest asset.
Thus we should never confront our children with an idea that an atheist
or homosexual may be a worthy human being. Remove school activities
that may suggest that! Remove books from libraries that may suggest
that! Remove teachers that may suggest that! (A law on the book in
Arkansas, I guess, forbids teachers to accept homosexualism in privite
conversations with students.)
Piotr Berman
j...@alice.uucp
In your haste to contradict all that Rosen says and/or
stands for, you ignore, overlook, or deliberately omit one
important, binding, and compelling point:
Individuals throughout the country, who profess to be
of the same religion and beliefs as you, and who claim that their
mission in life is the promotion of "Christian Ethics and Morals",
are using the Hatch act (the new one) to harrass science, math,
physics, and biology teachers.
The correctness of their attacks are not an issue,
as the mere threat of a lawsuit is enough to ruin any individual's
credit rating, have their house repossessed, their insurances
cancelled, and their life irrevocably ruined.
Such actions, unfortunately not redressable in our current
legal system, are why I object to this act of Congress.
Regardless of whether or not individuals who pose such
lawsuits are Christian is of no import to me, because they are
allowed to retain their "Christian" mantle, with little or no
public opposition, regardless of their behavior. If you believe
that such actions are not appropriate, it is your place to say
so, and my prompting should be unnecessary.
Dan Boskovich
>> schools? What I learned in school was Math, Chemistry, Biology, English
>> ( but not much ), etc. But no course in secular humanism. Not even after
>> school. I must of missed it.
>> Bob Weiler.
>
>Don't you know? Teaching you to use logical reasoning instead of taking
>things on faith? Learning the scientific method of objective analysis?
>Why, all of that is SECULAR HUMANISM!!!!! Because it leads you to conclusions
>that contradict religious thinking. Thus, religionists feel it should be
>banned, to prevent people from thinking about such things. Isn't that clear?
>
Wrong! Thats not what secular humanism teaches. It teaches little children
how to think about suicide. It teaches them that some people's lives are
worth less than others. It teaches them that homosexuality and premarital
sex are choices for them to consider. It also teaches them to ignore any
values they may be learning in the home and that values are purely subjective
and how to make their own values. (if any!)
Come on! No more BS! Secular humanism is designed to eliminate God from
our society and its central target is the YOUNG!
And its working just fine! Because most parents don't have the slightest
idea what is going on in the public school systems.
If anybody is interested in finding out, Phyllis Schlafly wrote a book
that tells all the gory details. Can't remember the name off hand but
will find out and post it!
Dan
Tim Maroney
existence? I know that I do not exist and am merely an illusion. Please be
a little more careful with your generalizations.
-=-
Tim Maroney, Carnegie-Mellon University, Networking
ARPA: Tim.Maroney@CMU-CS-K uucp: seismo!cmu-cs-k!tim
CompuServe: 74176,1360 audio: shout "Hey, Tim!"
Andrew W. Rogers
>Mr. Samuelson,
> In your haste to contradict all that Rosen says and/or
>stands for, you ignore, overlook, or deliberately omit one
>important, binding, and compelling point:
>
> Individuals throughout the country, who profess to be
>of the same religion and beliefs as you, and who claim that their
>mission in life is the promotion of "Christian Ethics and Morals",
>are using the Hatch act (the new one) to harrass science, math,
>physics, and biology teachers.
>
some fundamentalist group using the Hatch Act against a high-school Chemistry
teacher... apparantly they contend that teaching about elements not
specifically mentioned in the Bible constitutes "secular humanism". (Just
one look at the so-called "Periodic Table" should convince you of that -
all those symbols and numbers *must* be Satanic! After all, it *was* invented
by a godless Commie!)
If I were a Math teacher, I'd watch out... after all, the Bible implies that
pi = 3, and teaching otherwise is obviously "secular humanism".
Incidentally, howcum this discussion has progressed as far as it has without
anyone mentioning Galileo?
AWR
j...@faust.uucp
{}
I fail to see the correlation between being "willingly led" and being a
"zombie". Christianity is not a religion which imposes a uniformity upon
its believers. Christianity does rejoice in diversity. The uniformity might
be derived from the belief that Christians all relate to Jesus Christ, but
since each relationship is on an individual basis, I would really
appreciate substantive data on why you belief Christians are nothing more
than walking-talking-bible-packing-Jesus-machines.
Jerryl Payne
...!ihnp4!inmet!faust!jlp
Karen Wieckert
>... do not even seem to care that evolution,
>physics, sexual equality, racial equality, the scientific
>method, geology, geography, and other such "secular
>humanism studies" have been banned in high-schools that
>receive federal funding.
>
>Of course, that's not strictly true, since the statute
>only bars "secular humanism", which is ill-defined and
>probably meaningless. None-the-less,
>that's what "fundamental Christians" and other nasty beasties
>are using the statute for. Given that the person who
>WROTE the statute (Orin Hatch, R-Utah) is a person with strong
>and very regressive religious beliefs, I cannot believe that the
>use of the statute for religious harrassment is co-incidence.
>
My suggestion is for someone to get the exact wording of the legislation,
which I believe is on the D of Educ. authorization. I was in Washington in
1984, and the bit about secular humanism was added by Orrin Hatch to
the D of Educ.'s 1985 authorization, but was not applicable to all schools.
In that authorization, which I know passed the Senate but don't know what
happened in conference, federal funding was being used to set up magnate
schools or some such thing. These would be regional "super" schools where
bright kids would be educated on math, science, literature, etc. making them
better engineers, scientist, leaders of the future. This was being pushed
because of data on the number of these types being educated in USSR, Japan,
China, etc.
Anyway, Hatch added this stuff about no money going to secular humanism type
courses in these magnate schools. Hatch may have gotten away with more in
the 1986 authorization and extended it to all schools with federal funds,
almost all schools now both public and private. I wouldn't be suprised. But
before you go bananas over the loss of evolutionary biology, etc, take a
look at the legislation.
Write to your Congressman requesting the Do educ.'s 1985 authorization and
budget, and the 1986 draft legislation for the authorization and budget. I
doubt that it has been passed into law yet. For 1986, you should request
both the House and Senate versions. (I would do this myself, but I am leaving
the net for at least three weeks and possibly permanently. Moving to another
network...)
ka:ren
Paul Dubuc
>In article <9...@bunker.UUCP> ga...@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson) writes:
>>Mr. Rosen, of course, has an unshakable faith that objective reasoning
>>is the one which should be used. On what other grounds could one
>>possibly say, "Objective reasoning MUST be right" ? The pot cannot
>>contain itself.
>>
>>The argument is clearly circular; to choose between faith and reasoning
>>(which I consider a false dichotomy in the first place), one must
>>first decide which to use to make the choice.
>
>Actually, the idea that one can *choose* to do without reasoning is
>wrongheaded.
I agree. This is because I would agree with Gary's remark that faith
vs reason is a false dichotomy. Exercising faith is not the same
as choosing to do without reasoning.
>The very representation of the alternatives is a mental
>act governed by norms of rationality; one has to be rational in order
>to represent the choice to oneself.
... to represent the choice to oneself in a rational manner, you mean.
It still seems circular to me. The mere representation of two choices
if a very simple example, one that doesn't really get to the heart of
Gary's point, I think. Once you go beyond the representation of choices
and rely on a particular method for obtaining the correct choice, you
can't really examine the basis for the method by using the method itself.
>But then, the choice one identifies
>as 'reasoning' must be recognized as the correct choice, because
>recognizing something as rational means acknowledging it as correct.
Unless one also recognizes reasoning to have certain limits in
a particular case. Also, even in case like this, reason and faith
may be used in conjunction with one another, the latter picking up
where the former leaves off.
>>Obviously, the reasonable solution is to believe some things on faith
>>and others on the basis of objective reasoning. That, of course, is
>>what people really do. For a trivial example, I maintain that each
>>person accepts on faith the fact of his own existence. No objective
>>reasoning can take place without the implicit assumption that the
>>reasoner exists to do the reasoning.
>
>Bad example. Each person accepts on *evidence* -- *conclusive* evidence --
>the fact of her own existence, which is implied directly by the fact
>(of which she is immediately aware) that she is considering the issue.
>No faith need apply for the job; reason is quite sufficient here.
>
>--Paul V. Torek, Iconbuster-in-chief
No, good example.
Sounds like another way of representing Descartes' hat trick to me.
It's still circular. The conclusion (i.e. "I exist") is already
contained in the premise ("I consider").
^
right here.
Evidence can't interpret itself as being evidence for the existence
of itself.
--
Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd
Rich Rosen
> some fundamentalist group using the Hatch Act against a high-school Chemistry
> teacher... apparantly they contend that teaching about elements not
> specifically mentioned in the Bible constitutes "secular humanism". (Just
> one look at the so-called "Periodic Table" should convince you of that -
> all those symbols and numbers *must* be Satanic! After all, it *was* invented
This is but one example of this trend. Ironically, it would sound like
this argument (as described above) would kill itself in a legal sense.
If government is supposed to refrain from establishing a state religion,
then saying that "you can't teach this because it goes against our religion"
would be doing just that: authorizing Judaeo-Christian doctrine as an
approved state religion.
Of course, the christocentrists could turn around and claim that "secular
humanism is a religion that denies the veracity of our claims, and if you
allow them to do this you are INTERFERING with our religious beliefs, and
FAVORING another religion!!!" (Ubizmo damn it, I shouldn't have said that,
they're liable to use that one now... Even though it makes about as much
sense as calling the teaching of real scientific learning an example of
the dreaded secular humanism. I won't say I told you so.)
--
"iY AHORA, INFORMACION INTERESANTE ACERCA DE... LA LLAMA!"
Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
Paul Dubuc
>> In 1965 the Supreme Court heard *United States vs Seeger* and opined
>> that any belief can be classified as religious if it is "sincere
>> and meaningful and occupies a place in the life of its possessor
>> parellel to that filled by the orthodox belief in God". The primary
>> theologian consulted was Paul Tillich who defines the essence of
>> religion as "ultimate concern". This case also dealt with the
>> conscientious objector issue regarding the draft.
>
>Thus, in order to teach the essence of religion, we must teach that
>something is of "ultimate concern".
More to the point: If someone has a belief which she regards as being
of such concern personally, it may be regarded as a religious belief.
I would say the nearly everyone holds beliefs that could be counted
as religious on this basis.
>> It seems to me that the secularists want it both ways. When it becomes
>> beneficial to have one's beliefs viewed as religious, the wear the
>> religious mantle. When it comes to keeping certain ideas out of the
>> public schools, however, that's different. Then you're only religious
>> if you believe in God. The Humanist Manifestos proclaim the religious
>> nature of humanism, though many humanists avoid the term.
>
>The Humanist Manifestos state their ideas of ultimate concerns. I personally
>would oppose teaching these as ultimate concerns in public schools.
>(I am an agnostic, not a humanist, and feel that some statements in the
>Manifestos are mistaken.) Just as I would oppose teaching that Jesus is
>Lord in our public schools. I don't see the Humanist Manifesto being
>taught as ultimate concerns in public schools, but I do see a horde of
>Bible-thumpers who've been doing that for centuries trying to continue
>their unconstitutional practices.
I think it would be best to oppose either the exclusion of, or the
exclusive teaching of, any point of view that is in conflict with
other views. Exclusion of some views from the classroom because of
religious bias while conflicting views are taught indirectly teaches
the such conflicting views are either wrong or irrelevant.
There are a lot of things that have been banned that the Framers
would not have considered unconstitutional. I agree with the
person (claiming to be a fundamentalist Christian) who essentially
said that no point of view should be banned outright from public
schools. If you go around banning things because they are religious
in nature, are you gaurenteed to have something that is not religious
left (if you have anything at all left)? I don't think so. Even
if there was a purely non-religious, ideologically neutral standard
for what ideas may have exposure in the public schools, what would
give that ideology the right to have exclusive treatment in the
public schools? If the state is going to make education compulsory
and regulate that education (even church sponsored schools and home
schooling), what right does it have to ban any point of view on
the existence of God, moral standards, or theories of creation vs evolution?
>> Some don't
>> bother to hide fact that they consider the public classroom to be
>> the primary vehicle for the promulgation of their views. John Dunphy's
>> statement in *The Humanist* (Jan/Feb 1983) is classic:
>>
>> I am convinced that the battle for humankind's future must be
>> waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers who
>> correctly perceive their role as the proselytizers of a new faith:
>> a religion of humanity that recognizes and respects the spark of
>> what theologians call divinity in every human being. These teachers
>> must embody the same selfless dedication as the most rabid
>> fundamentalist preachers, for they will be ministers of another
>> sort, utilizing a classroom instead of a pulpit to convey humanist
>> values in whatever subject they teach, regardless of the educational
>> level--preschool day care or large state university.
>
>Frankly, I think he is overzealous but accurate. It is next to impossible
>to separate the instructor from the subject material. Use of the classroom
>as a pulpit is entirely inappropriate, but you cannot entirely shut off
>the transfer of values while employing human teachers.
But introducing religious bias as a requirement for whether ideas may
or may not be taught in public schools, gives license to those who would
have their beliefs labled as non-religios to have exclusive representation
in the schools. Teachers who pray over their meals in front of students
sometimes get in trouble. Why should this be? Why should there even be any
effort to shut off the transfer of values based on what the teacher believes?
One teacher communicates the fact that belief in God is relevant in her
life another may imply that it is not. Why must public eduction be
sterilized of religious influence? Such sterilization does communicate
(albeit in a subtle way) that such beliefs are irrelevant. This maybe
why some people expect religious belief to die out within a
few generations. The state is gaining more control over the teaching
of our children. Can the content, or lack thereof, have no effect on future
society?
>> In the original article, JJ mentioned Issac Asimov as one who was upset
>> over the "ban" of "secular humanism" from the public schools. Maybe Asimov
>> has more to worry about than the teaching of evolutionary science. The
>> American Humanist Assoc. voted him "humanist of the year" in 1983. The
>> following year Steven J. Gould received the award. This information I
>> received after subscribing to an often cited (by some ... evolutionists
>> anyway) anti-creationist journal called "Creation/Evolution". Turns out
>> the editor of that journal is (or was) executive director of the AHA and
>> writes and anti-creationism column in *The Humanist*. Perhaps the connection
>>between evolution and religious belief isn't as contrived as many imagine. :-)
>
>Close, but you've got it reversed. Organized skeptics form a fairly small
>society, who are very quick to oppose religious interference in politics,
>science, etc.
And who is there to oppose the interference of organized skeptics? They
are pushing their own agenda. They advocate certian teaching have exclusive
sway in the public schools in opposition to the ones of which they are
skeptical. When these skeptics turn out to have a religion of their own,
who opposes them?
>> Personally, I think its about time they did something to prevent secularism
>> from being the only religious ideology allowed a voice in the public schools.
>
>Show us where secularism is being taught as an ultimate value in the schools.
By serving as the sole standard that determines what is taught in the public
schools.
>> As Richard John Neuhaus (not exactly a fundamentalist) points out in his
>> recent popular book "The Naked Public Square", the idea that religion can
>> be excluded from the public square is a myth. Some religion will fill the
>> void; the tacit religion of our "pluralistic" society is secularism. The
>> only purpose for its non-religious cloak is to exclude other religions from
>> its primary sphere of influence.
>
>All our constitutional guarantees are myths. Your every constitutional
>right can be violated. The goal is to make as fair an approximation as
>can be reasonably arrived at. Saying "you can't be ideal, so let's make
>it worse" is fallacious "solution" being suggested.
A fair approximation to a myth? Why should anyone bother with that goal?
>If some "religion" will fill the void, is the solution then to throw away
>"the [government] shall make no laws concerning an establishment of religion"
>because it is an impossible ideal? Or shall we attempt to follow the spirit
>of that ammendment by doing the best we can? Prohibiting teaching of ultimate
>values in public schools is a practical procedure: eliminating all teaching of
>values is ridiculous.
I don't believe our constitutional gaurantees are myths. But anyway, I think
you have my point backwards. I'm advocating that a plurality of beliefs
be allowed into the public square. This does not make things worse in my
opinion. When the government takes it upon itself to exclude certain
points of view by religious bias, it is making a law concerning the establish-
ment of religion. What ever you teach will have an effect on the ultimate
values people hold. All people hold values that can be considered ultimate.
>Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
--
Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd
Peter da Silva
at Nasfic this weekend. I intend to try and go, just to see what in the
hell "Secular Humanism" is.
--
Peter (Made in Australia) da Silva
UUCP: ...!shell!neuro1!{hyd-ptd,baylor,datafac}!peter
MCI: PDASILVA; CIS: 70216,1076
Peter da Silva
>
> Man and/or Man's Desire is the deity
>
> All morality is relative
That's not secular humanism. That's satanism as espoused by Alisteir Crowley:
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.
By defining "wilt" as "will accePk responsibility for" he is merely describing
how humans behave. This is a descriptive, not a prescriptive, philosophy.
j...@alice.uucp
>
>In article <15...@pyuxd.UUCP> r...@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) writes:
>>> Just curious again , but exactly what huminist dogma is taught in public
>>> schools? What I learned in school was Math, Chemistry, Biology, English
>>> ( but not much ), etc. But no course in secular humanism. Not even after
>>> school. I must of missed it.
>>> Bob Weiler.
>>
>>Don't you know? Teaching you to use logical reasoning instead of taking
>>things on faith? Learning the scientific method of objective analysis?
>>Why, all of that is SECULAR HUMANISM!!!!! Because it leads you to conclusions
>>that contradict religious thinking. Thus, religionists feel it should be
>>banned, to prevent people from thinking about such things. Isn't that clear?
>>
>> Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr
>
> Wrong! Thats not what secular humanism teaches. It teaches little children
> how to think about suicide. It teaches them that some people's lives are
Well, lookie here. "Secular humanism teaches little children how
to think about suicide". Of course, with no explaination of why
or how. Just a bald, manipulitive, misleading, emotional, co-opting
statment that is clearly intended to make peoples' knees jerk.
Suicide clearly exists. Who commits suicide? Lots of people.
Of course, they're all kids corrupted by secular humanism. They're not
people affected by overpopulation, starvation, economic hardship,
LOSS of faith, and things like that.
And then:
> worth less than others. It teaches them that homosexuality and premarital
This isn't net.abortion. What, let us see, does the "Moral Majority"
teach us? Well, one thing it teaches us is that black people are
worth less than whites, at least in South Africa. I guess that means
that the "Moral Majority" is secular humanism too? Yeah, sure :-(
> sex are choices for them to consider. It also teaches them to ignore any
"Homosexuality and premarital sex" Of course, lump two things,
clearly unrelated, together for the emotional kick it provides.
The first "homosexuality" is supposed to cause a knee-jerk
fear reaction. Of course, since Dan lumps them together, the second
"Premarital Sex" must be the same. Well, Dan, one of the points
of secular humanism is that different people have different
opinions, and that's all there is to it. You seem to say that
I HAVE to hold your opinion. Hell, you presume that I hold your
opinions. I don't.
> values they may be learning in the home and that values are purely subjective
> and how to make their own values. (if any!)
Sure, and since that's what you hear, that's what they teach. Never
mind that they point out that many "Christian" ethics are necessary
for the functioning of society and the self-interest of the
individual. Never mind that secular humanism tries to establish
a NON-deistic ethos that provides each person a place.
(And that justifies being nice to others, etc, in a completely
non-superstitious way)
You don't. You don't have any place for a 'secular humanist"
and you make that clear. You consider, from the tone of your
article, "secular humanists" to be worth less than others.
Does that make YOU a secular humanist? Or do you just have
the same ethos you're accusing them of?
> Come on! No more BS! Secular humanism is designed to eliminate God from
> our society and its central target is the YOUNG!
No BS? Ok, start with yourself. Your target is MY YOUNG. You want
to brainwash them into believing an outdated, bankrupt set of
beliefs that were created to make a society of 2000 years ago
survive, and that haven't changed as the world has.
You want me to be forced to handicap my children.
BTW: Eliminate God? That's a good trick, mortals eliminating
God!
> And its working just fine! Because most parents don't have the slightest
> idea what is going on in the public school systems.
I have a good idea. You're trying to prevent my children from
learning secular humanism, evolution, physics, chemistry, and
cosmology (among other things) and replace them with a
set of supernatural beliefs.
> If anybody is interested in finding out, Phyllis Schlafly wrote a book
> that tells all the gory details. Can't remember the name off hand but
> will find out and post it!
Phyllis Schafley writes the TRUTH? I thought that the truth
was finished in Revelations, and that there wasn't going to be
any more.
>
> Dan
Enough!
Rich Rosen
>>things on faith? Learning the scientific method of objective analysis?
>>Why, all of that is SECULAR HUMANISM!!!!! Because it leads you to conclusions
>>that contradict religious thinking. Thus, religionists feel it should be
>>banned, to prevent people from thinking about such things. Isn't that clear?
> Wrong! Thats not what secular humanism teaches. It teaches little children
> how to think about suicide. It teaches them that some people's lives are
> worth less than others. It teaches them that homosexuality and premarital
> sex are choices for them to consider. It also teaches them to ignore any
> values they may be learning in the home and that values are purely subjective
> and how to make their own values. (if any!) [BOSKOVICH]
I think this merits a translation from the opinions of a fanatical Christian
into words approaching a more objective version of what secular humanism is
and what people like Boskovich say about it that it is not.
If it teaches them to think about suicide, about why people might feel
like committing suicide in this world (rather than covering up or ignoring
the fact), great! If it teaches them to make their own choices about sex
based on positive real information and not edicts, great! If it teaches
them that some people's lives are worth less than others, it's probably
a religious institution we're talking about and not a school teaching
the dreaded secular humanism (note how such religious schooling did and
still does teach about the inferiority of, not only non-Christian groups,
but even other Christian groups in many cases). If it teaches them to
think for themselves and not blindly accept the values of their parents
and clergy, given them the faculties and tools to do so, GREAT!!!!!!!!
I can only hope for more of this in the future.
> Come on! No more BS! Secular humanism is designed to eliminate God from
> our society and its central target is the YOUNG!
Thank God for that! :-) This is the raving of a paranoid desperately
believing in some plot to "eliminate god". If god is "eliminated" from
people's thoughts because they are taught a little bit of reasoning
ability to help them reach new conclusions, what are you going to do
about it? Call teaching of such things "secular humanism" and try to
ban it? That's exactly what you are doing with your vile disgusting lies
designed to smear the teaching to children of how to think for themselves
independent of you and your precious so-called values.
> And its working just fine! Because most parents don't have the slightest
> idea what is going on in the public school systems.
Especially you, Mr. Boskovich. It is most apparent that you are making
up stories about what "the teaching of secular humanism in our schools"
is all about, to further your own sick ends. Hopefully some day your
children may be able to write a set of essays about objective proof for
something (as you did) in which they actually provide objective proof,
having learned what it means and how to acquire it. Why do you want to
stop this from happening? Because you value your values more than the
good of your own children?
> If anybody is interested in finding out, Phyllis Schlafly wrote a book
> that tells all the gory details. Can't remember the name off hand but
> will find out and post it!
Anybody who would trust the word of Phyllis Schafly, a woman whose writing
uses as much substantiatory material as yours, Dan, I would question.
Dan, if you are such a "good Christian", why do feel the need to make up
lies about the "evil secular humanism" in order to preserve your values
at the expense of teaching your children about reasoning, science, and
independent thought? Are you a Communist? It sounds like a Communist plot
to squelch the minds of our children and make them willing slaves when
the Commies take over? I don't believe this, of course, but reassure me
please: are the fundamentalist Christians really Communists out to destroy
the foundation of American thinking?
--
"Meanwhile, I was still thinking..."
Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
Rich Rosen
Take out the word "not" and you have a true sentence. Unless you are saying
"do without reasoning" to mean "do without" in a permanent way.
> Unless one also recognizes reasoning to have certain limits in
> a particular case. Also, even in case like this, reason and faith
> may be used in conjunction with one another, the latter picking up
> where the former leaves off.
The problem arises when a person arbitrarily chooses these "limits" so as to
increase the chances of reaching a "preferred" conclusion, insisting that
"reasoning has limits" and that these limits have ipso facto been reached
at some point where switching to faith mode helps to reach the desired
conclusion.
>>>Obviously, the reasonable solution is to believe some things on faith
>>>and others on the basis of objective reasoning. That, of course, is
>>>what people really do. For a trivial example, I maintain that each
>>>person accepts on faith the fact of his own existence. No objective
>>>reasoning can take place without the implicit assumption that the
>>>reasoner exists to do the reasoning.
>>Bad example. Each person accepts on *evidence* -- *conclusive* evidence --
>>the fact of her own existence, which is implied directly by the fact
>>(of which she is immediately aware) that she is considering the issue.
>>No faith need apply for the job; reason is quite sufficient here.
> No, good example.
Nice rebuttal.
> Sounds like another way of representing Descartes' hat trick to me.
> It's still circular. The conclusion (i.e. "I exist") is already
> contained in the premise ("I consider").
> ^
> right here.
> Evidence can't interpret itself as being evidence for the existence
> of itself.
I'm not sure I understand, why is this "circular". The fact that there is
considering going on would seem to point to something considering. It
may all be a simulation in that there's not earth and no people, but that
simulation is played out for something.
Jody Patilla
> Wrong! Thats not what secular humanism teaches. It teaches little children
> how to think about suicide. It teaches them that some people's lives are
> worth less than others. It teaches them that homosexuality and premarital
> sex are choices for them to consider. It also teaches them to ignore any
> values they may be learning in the home and that values are purely subjective
> and how to make their own values. (if any!)
>
The crux of the "problem" is that the children might learn to (gasp)
think for themselves, something that people don't do nearly often enough !
--
jcpatilla
"The bland leadeth the bland and they both shall fall into the kitsch."
Dave Long
> Come on! No more BS! Secular humanism is designed to eliminate God from
> our society and its central target is the YOUNG!
>
> idea what is going on in the public school systems.
Come on! No more BS! Dan, *you* don't have the slightest idea what is
going on in the public school systems either. When was the last time *you*
went to a public school? I'm currently *attending* one, which in my opinion
makes my ideas a bit more realistic than yours. Just cut this cretinism out,
try to learn whereof you speak, and remember: even the fool will pass for a
wise man if he keeps his mouth shut.
Racer X
> I think it would be best to oppose either the exclusion of, or the
> exclusive teaching of, any point of view that is in conflict with
> other views. Exclusion of some views from the classroom because of
> religious bias while conflicting views are taught indirectly teaches
> the such conflicting views are either wrong or irrelevant.
SURE! As soon as you start teaching evolution in your church,
I'll make sure they teach about God in my neighborhood school.
Until then, I suggest the schools stick to facts and keep away
from fantasy.
Atheistically Yours,
Scott J. Berry
Richard Brower
> how to think about suicide. It teaches them that some people's lives are
> worth less than others.
alternatives. Would you please provide some documentation?
> It teaches them that homosexuality and premarital
> sex are choices for them to consider.
I don't wish to get into the issue of premarital sex except to mention
that there it is not currently a method for some people to engage in
marriage under this American legal system, same sex couples for example.
HOWEVER, homosexuality is not a choice to consider, because it is a given.
That is to say that there are homosexuals, and those of us who are such
did not necessarily "choose" to be so. It is true that some of us chose to
happily engage in homosexual activities rather than remaining in unhappy
little closets called acting hetro or remaining celibate. And all schools
should teach that for homosexual children, there definately is that option.
> If anybody is interested in finding out, Phyllis Schlafly wrote a book
> that tells all the gory details.
Oh no, not Phyllis...
Richard A. Brower Fortune Systems
{ihnp4,ucbvax!amd,hpda,sri-unix,harpo}!fortune!brower
Ray Frank
The church is free to teach whatever it wants simply because it is a private
organization and not subject to any state or federal guide lines concerning
public education.
The school on the other hand, that is public schools, is a public organization
set up to teach the sum total of man's endeavors, be it math, evolution, or
religion. The poeple being taught in these public schools have a right to
ALL the information concerning mankind on earth, and this definitely should
include the concept of creationism.
religiously yours,
ray
Byron Howes
> Wrong! Thats not what secular humanism teaches. It teaches little children
> how to think about suicide. It teaches them that some people's lives are
> worth less than others. It teaches them that homosexuality and premarital
> sex are choices for them to consider. It also teaches them to ignore any
> values they may be learning in the home and that values are purely subjective
> and how to make their own values. (if any!)
>
> Come on! No more BS! Secular humanism is designed to eliminate God from
> our society and its central target is the YOUNG!
Them's strong words, Dan, and I expect you to document them or say that you
are wrong. By document I mean show me where in a "secular humanist"
document that is identifiable as such the above are proffered. I do not
mean in a book *about* "secular humanism" by some yo-ho like Phyllis
Shafley or Jimmy Swaggart. I mean in a manifesto *by* so-called "secular
humanists" identifying themselves as such. I suspect you will find these
charges are harder to prove than the popularists would tell you.
--
Byron C. Howes
...!{decvax,akgua}!mcnc!ecsvax!bch
Paul Dubuc
OK. Then we'll make church attendance cumpulsory, just as a
state certified education is now. You'll have to help support
the church with your tax money too, just so we're all on an
equal footing. Is it a deal?
--
Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd
Beth Christy
[NO, PLEASE, I taste TERRIBLE]
From: d...@scgvaxd.UUCP (Dan Boskovich), Message-ID: <3...@scgvaxd.UUCP>:
> Wrong! Thats not what secular humanism teaches. It teaches little children
> how to think about suicide.
I can't imagine what you're talking about, what secular humanism
"teaches" regarding suicide. But I do know that I have yet to meet
anybody, religious or not, who hasn't at one time or another considered
suicide. Why shouldn't we recognize that most Americans face thoughts
of suicide, and teach them what it *really* is - a permanent escape, not
only from the real but temporary pain they may be feeling at the time,
but also from the richness and joy that life has to offer them as they
travel through various experiences? And teach them that *before* they
get into that pain, 'cause once they're desperate enough to consider
suicide, it's too little too late.
> It teaches them that some people's lives are
> worth less than others.
Huh? Who's lives are worth less than who's [whom's?]? How does it teach that?
> It teaches them that homosexuality and premarital
> sex are choices for them to consider.
You mean they aren't choices? All those people I know (including myself)
who have chosen one or the other or both have done the impossible? Gosh.
Or are you saying that they *are* choices, but that the lives of homo-
sexuals and people who choose to have premarital sex are worth less than
other people's lives?
> It also teaches them to ignore any
>values they may be learning in the home and that values are purely subjective
> and how to make their own values. (if any!)
It teaches them to make their own values?! You mean it teaches them to
think for themselves, to evaluate options and make informed choices for
themselves?! Gasp! What is this country coming to when we have people
who think for themselves and don't just follow blindly when someone tells
them "this is The Truth"? It's a far cry from Nazi Germany that we have
here, and I for one am appalled. You're right, we better get The Truth
indoctrinated early...just in case it can't stand up under close
scrutinization.
--
--JB (Beth Christy, U. of Chicago, ..!ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!beth)
"Oh yeah, P.S.,
I...I feel...feel like...I am
in a burning building
And I gotta go." (Laurie Anderson)
Mike Huybensz
> You are over looking the fundamental difference between a church and a school.
> The church is free to teach whatever it wants simply because it is a private
> organization and not subject to any state or federal guide lines concerning
> public education.
> The school on the other hand, that is public schools, is a public organization
> set up to teach the sum total of man's endeavors, be it math, evolution, or
> religion. The poeple being taught in these public schools have a right to
> ALL the information concerning mankind on earth, and this definitely should
> include the concept of creationism.
Let's not stop there. Let's also teach Satanism, Acid Rock, terrorism,
communism, revolution, murder, torture, astrology, numerology, geocentrism,
and a host of other things. Authoritatively.
If you're serious, you're wrong.
--
Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
Robert D. Zarcone
> The correctness of their attacks are not an issue,
> as the mere threat of a lawsuit is enough to ruin any individual's
> credit rating, have their house repossessed, their insurances
> cancelled, and their life irrevocably ruined.
I am NOT posting this as a stand either way on the subject at hand. I
just wanted to point out that, at least in New York, the above statement
is just not true. I speak from over four years of experience in credit
and banking.
>
> Such actions, unfortunately not redressable in our current
> legal system, are why I object to this act of Congress.
Again, if you mean in conjunction with the above mentioned lawsuit, not so
in New York. You can bring a counter-suit against the attacking party.
If I misinterpreted your remarks to mean other than you had intended, please
accept my appology.
*** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***
Jody Patilla
> set up to teach the sum total of man's endeavors, be it math, evolution, or
> religion. The poeple being taught in these public schools have a right to
> ALL the information concerning mankind on earth, and this definitely should
> include the concept of creationism.
>
That is fine, but if you are teaching the Christian creation myth,
then you should also teach the Shinto mythology, the Hindu mythology, the
American Indian mythology, etc. I see them all as equally valid. Christians,
by and large, do not, as they are asserting the supremacy of their mythology
over that of other cultures/religions.
--
jcpatilla
"At night, the ice weasels come."
Piotr Berman
Is it a joke? Or you propose an optional course on a variety of
concepts of Creation: Christian, Zoroastric, Hindu, religions of native
Americans, Manicheism, etc. Same course would include also alternative
geographies (flat Earth, Earth resting on a giant fish etc.). It could
make sence, if presented as a collection of different opinions.
But which is THE concept of creationism which you refer to?
teoretically yours
piotr
Kerro Panille
>> I'll make sure they teach about God in my neighborhood school.
>> Until then, I suggest the schools stick to facts and keep away
>> from fantasy.
>You are over looking the fundamental difference between a church and a school.
>The church is free to teach whatever it wants simply because it is a private
>organization and not subject to any state or federal guide lines concerning
>public education.
>The school on the other hand, that is public schools, is a public organization
>set up to teach the sum total of man's endeavors, be it math, evolution, or
>religion. The poeple being taught in these public schools have a right to
>ALL the information concerning mankind on earth, and this definitely should
>include the concept of creationism.
Ok guys, let's put it this way: public schools cannot teach religion because
there are too many religions out there. Period. Religious people are very
protective of their religion, and I'm sure that a christian <or whatever>
wouldn't want the school teaching their kids about some other religion.
Let's face it, there really isn't a true definition of creationism. Each
religion has its own story of how we got here. It is better left to the
church to teach such things, so that your children aren't exposed to
conflicting ideas about their own religion.
Personally, I wouldn't want my kids to be taught that God (in whatever form,
for all I know they be teaching them about Allah - one god is as good as any
other, after all we can't have discrimination) is the *one* true god.
Besides, I don't belive in god. I don't want the schools teaching MY kids
about that at all. Too biased. If I want my kids to learn religion, I'll
send them to a special school for it. After all, they ARE my kids. We all
should have control over what they learn, espically in the area of religions.
Don't get me wrong, my kids will learn about religion. I'm just not going
to shove it down their throats. Strong belief has helped many people,
I won't deny it. I just haven't found it to be much help myself, but I
won't deny my kids that chance. (I just hope they don't grow up to be
fanatics.)
Well, bye for now! Stay happy, healthy, and try to keep your blood pressure
down (there's enough pressure in this world), Read net.jokes. It helps.
--
Vince Hatem ---------------- A
Bell Communications Research | UZI |----------|_ _ _\/ T
Raritan River Software Systems Center | |----------| /\ &
444 Hoes Lane ---------------- ROGER GUTS T
4D-360 / /\ DON'T NEED NO STINKIN'
Piscataway, NJ 08854 / / TIES
(201) 699-4869 /-----/
...ihnp4!rruxo!vch
TRUE GRIT MYSTERIES - The detective series for those who NEVER eat quiche!
(WARNING - MAY BE EMOTIONALLY DISTURBING TO HAMSTER LOVERS)
Rich Rosen
> You are over looking the fundamental difference between a church and a school.
> The church is free to teach whatever it wants simply because it is a private
> organization and not subject to any state or federal guide lines concerning
> public education.
> The school on the other hand, that is public schools, is a public organization
> set up to teach the sum total of man's endeavors, be it math, evolution, or
> religion. The poeple being taught in these public schools have a right to
> ALL the information concerning mankind on earth, and this definitely should
Great, then can they also teach the sum of total of the basis for the theory
of creationism? Accurately, in a way that might damage the reputation of
religion? Is that what you want? Hey...
--
"I was walking down the street. A man came up to me and asked me what was the
capital of Bolivia. I hesitated. Three sailors jumped me. The next thing I
knew I was making chicken salad."
"I don't believe that for a minute. Everyone knows the capital of Bolivia is
La Paz." Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr
Padraig Houlahan
I thought religions were already being helped financially - don't
they get tax breaks?
Padraig Houlahan.
Ray Frank
> Besides, I don't belive in god. I don't want the schools teaching MY kids
> about that at all. Too biased. If I want my kids to learn religion, I'll
> send them to a special school for it. After all, they ARE my kids. We all
> should have control over what they learn, espically in the area of religions.
>
You should have control over what they learn, this is exactly why I'm against
Planned Parenthood counseling. I find it ironic that people are more against
puplic institutions teaching religion than against private institutions secretlycounseling kids on sex and secretely giving out birth control pills, and secret-ly performing abortions. As you said, "after all they ARE my kids."
> Vince Hatem ---------------- A
> Bell Communications Research | UZI |----------|_ _ _\/ T
> Raritan River Software Systems Center | |----------| /\ &
> 444 Hoes Lane ---------------- ROGER GUTS T
> 4D-360 / /\ DON'T NEED NO STINKIN'
> Piscataway, NJ 08854 / / TIES
> (201) 699-4869 /-----/
> ...ihnp4!rruxo!vch
> TRUE GRIT MYSTERIES - The detective series for those who NEVER eat quiche!
> (WARNING - MAY BE EMOTIONALLY DISTURBING TO HAMSTER LOVERS)
*** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***
Ray Frank
> >> I'll make sure they teach about God in my neighborhood school.
> >> Until then, I suggest the schools stick to facts and keep away
> >> from fantasy.
> >> Scott J. Berry
does secular humanism so here goes.
Has it ever occured to any of us that this country really IS a religious/
christian country and should be coined as such to the extent that Iran is
considered a Muslim country, or Russia is considered an atheist country (no
offense intented to the people of Russia who are religious, but this is the
official teaching line of the communist party).
If one looks at the founding fathers, they would find many instances of the
them refering to not only the constitution but also to God for wisdom in
guiding the country. When the president takes the oath of office he says:
"So help me God." Each day congress begins it's session with the Lord's
prayer. Behind the Supreme court bench is a huge plaque with the Lord's
prayer on it. Lincoln's Gettysburg Address mentions God. Christmas is
very much a national holiday. On all our currency is 'In God We Trust.'
Would it be religious tyranny for the federal government to take a stand on
religious issues? Has religious tyranny existed in this country? The seper-
ation of church and state I believe originally meant that people would have
the freedom to worship as they pleased without government oppression. I
don't believe it meant the exclusion of government in declaring itself to be
of a religious faith if it thought itself as much. Some people would make the
claim that if our government took a stand on religion that those who believed
differently would be singled out or somehow alienated. I don't think so. The
Constitution and the Bill of Rights protects all the people the same as it
protects members of the Nazis or Communist party even though these people in
principle don't agree with and in some cases would like to abolish our form
of government. In order not to have words put in my mouth by Rosen I hereby
state that I do not equate Nazis or Communists with any other group of people.
One final thought, if the Government declared this country to be founded on
the beliefs that upset some people, would those people have a legitimate right
to claim that this declaration was unconstitutional because of a violation of
their rights?
Linda Seltzer
practiced by such groups as the Ethical Cultural Society. Someone who
is more knowledgeable about history than I can comment further, but I
thought that "humanism" refers to the intellectual movements which formed
the Renaissance and ended the Middle Ages. Humanism then became associated
with rational inquiry and with philosophers such as Descartes. If
"secular Humanism" is banned in the schools, it seems that this refers
to these historical movements (and also the American Revolution).
Mike Huybensz
> christian country and should be coined as such to the extent that Iran is
> considered a Muslim country, or Russia is considered an atheist country (no
> offense intented to the people of Russia who are religious, but this is the
> official teaching line of the communist party).
Has it ever occured to you, Mr. Frank, that this country really IS a white
country and should be coined as such? I hope not.
> If one looks at the founding fathers, they would find many instances of the
> them refering to not only the constitution but also to God for wisdom in
> guiding the country. When the president takes the oath of office he says:
> "So help me God." Each day congress begins it's session with the Lord's
> prayer. Behind the Supreme court bench is a huge plaque with the Lord's
> prayer on it. Lincoln's Gettysburg Address mentions God. Christmas is
> very much a national holiday. On all our currency is 'In God We Trust.'
If one looks at the founding fathers, you would also find many instances
of them referring to black slaves. Should our currency read "in white male
landowners we trust"?
References to the Christian god in politics are necessary to pander to the
ignorance and bigotry of Christians who assume whoever beats his breast
the loudest and most piously is the better candidate.
> Would it be religious tyranny for the federal government to take a stand on
> religious issues?
Would you feel it to be tyranny if our government took the stand that it was
a Moselem or Atheist government? Many of us feel a declared christian
government would be tyrannous.
> Has religious tyranny existed in this country?
Of course. To varying degrees.
> The seperation of church and state I believe originally meant that people
> would have the freedom to worship as they pleased without government
> oppression. I don't believe it meant the exclusion of government in
> declaring itself to be of a religious faith if it thought itself as much.
The founding fathers clearly intended both meanings, having seen the abuses
then prevalent in Europe. For example, if you are going to declare the US
to be Christian, which sect? What's Christian? Are Morman's Christian?
(Please let's not debate that last here-- it is meant as an illustrative
example of a controversial subject.)
> Some people would make the
> claim that if our government took a stand on religion that those who believed
> differently would be singled out or somehow alienated. I don't think so. The
> Constitution and the Bill of Rights protects all the people the same as it
> protects members of the Nazis or Communist party even though these people in
> principle don't agree with and in some cases would like to abolish our form
> of government.
The same way as the Constitution has protected blacks and other minorities
from discrimination, bigotry, and racial hatred? Should we declare this to
be a white country, but we tolerate the niggers?
> One final thought, if the Government declared this country to be founded on
> the beliefs that upset some people, would those people have a legitimate right
> to claim that this declaration was unconstitutional because of a violation of
> their rights?
People have a constitutional right to make almost any claim they like.
How would this declaration be made? President Reagan has made it: it has no
force of law. If it is enacted as a law by Congress, there is a constitutional
right to find it unconstitutional. If it is a constitutional ammendment,
then there is a constitutional right to change the constitution back.
--
Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
Todd Jones
> The church is free to teach whatever it wants simply because it is a private
> organization and not subject to any state or federal guide lines concerning
> public education.
> The school on the other hand, that is public schools, is a public organization
> set up to teach the sum total of man's endeavors, be it math, evolution, or
> religion. The poeple being taught in these public schools have a right to
> ALL the information concerning mankind on earth, and this definitely should
> include the concept of creationism.
>
> religiously yours,
>
> ray
DON'T FORGET TO TEACH ALL AMERICAN CHILDREN ABOUT TODDISM!!!!!
See my previous posting for a quick briefing on the fundamental
tenets of my post-neo-new wave religizoidal sect.
Love and High Fives,
-todd jones
P.S. The Toddists (well just the Toddist-me) will be recruiting
at an airport near you. Please give generously so that our
teachings may be diseminated throughout the land.
P.P.S. The Toddist commune is progressing nicely. Now if I can
only afford a 7 foot TV by the Jacuzzi or a mobile phone
in the Rolls. Please send money to elevate our commune to the
standards befitting such a worthy cause.
Racer X
">>>" & ">" Paul Dubuc
">>" & " " Me
>>> I think it would be best to oppose either the exclusion of, or the
>>> exclusive teaching of, any point of view that is in conflict with
>>> other views. Exclusion of some views from the classroom because of
>>> religious bias while conflicting views are taught indirectly teaches
>>> the such conflicting views are either wrong or irrelevant.
>>SURE! As soon as you start teaching evolution in your church,
>>I'll make sure they teach about God in my neighborhood school.
>>
>>Until then, I suggest the schools stick to facts and keep away
>>from fantasy.
>OK. Then we'll make church attendance cumpulsory, just as a
>state certified education is now. You'll have to help support
>the church with your tax money too, just so we're all on an
>equal footing. Is it a deal?
Certainly. Now, who is to agree on what church to attend? Tell
you what--you go to the Church of Hari Krishnas and Homeless
Airport Waifs. I'll go to the church of..er..ah.. Here's one!
Says here there's a *religion* (sic) called "Secular Humanism".
And HEY! I can go to school and attend church at the same time!
Whatta deal!
Seriously, when science, mathematics, English, etc. are declared
(collectively) a religion, I'll be happy to give every religion
an equal chance. But then, if the above subjects comprise a
religion, they have no business being taught in a public school.
That won't really leave much that CAN be taught. Recess, perhaps.
Thousands of restless children will rejoice if you can pull THAT off.
Yeah, Right
Scott J. Berry
Racer X
>You are over looking the fundamental difference between a church and a school.
>The church is free to teach whatever it wants simply because it is a private
>organization and not subject to any state or federal guide lines concerning
>public education.
I have no qualms about this, although I would say the church is a private
organization because it teaches whatever it wants, not the other way around.
That's what the separation of church and state is all about.
>The school on the other hand, that is public schools, is a public organization
>set up to teach the sum total of man's endeavors, be it math, evolution, or
>religion. The poeple being taught in these public schools have a right to
>ALL the information concerning mankind on earth, and this definitely should
>include the concept of creationism.
>
WRONG! The public school system is NOT the place for religion of any kind.
I can't believe schools were set up to teach THE SUM TOTAL OF MAN's
ENDEAVORS. Schools (public) are there to teach the minimum necessary
for a person to survive in our society. That's why it's compulsory.
Sometimes they fail even at that. Religion is NOT necessary to survive
in our society. I've survived quite nicely without, thank you.
What people ARE taught is the ability to *gather and analyze* all knowledge,
so as to make informed CHOICES about which religion, if any, to follow.
That's why we are taught to read and to use a library, and why we, as a
nation, value free speech. Free speech doesn't mean compulsory speech.
Neither does freedom of religion mean compulsory religion.
End of "sermon",
Scott J. Berry
Rick McGeer
If ever there was a strong advertisement for the voucher system for
public schools, it's this discussion. Secular humanists don't want their kids
to pray in school, or learn creationism on an equal footing with evolution,
and they do want their kids to read classic literature, whether or not it's
risque. Religionists want their kids to pray in school, learn creationism
with or without evolution, and not read Lady Chatterley's Lover.
Oh, no doubt there are finer gradations than this, and I've
misrepresented dozens of people's point of view, and I'll get flamed at ("I
don't mind my kid reading Chatterley, but I draw the line at Catcher In The
Rye..."). But if we were talking about any other commodity, the answer would
be simple. If we were talking about cars, for example, then everyone would
immediately see that the discussion was ludicrous. People don't debate whether
cars should have whitewalls or not: those that want whitewalls buy them, those
that want blackwalls buy those.
Hey, what an idea. Why don't the Creationists send their kids to the
William Jennings Bryan High School, and the Secular Humanists send
their kids to the Darrow-Scopes High School? And everybody's happy.
In short, my friends, the real trouble is not what the public schools
teach, it's that there are public schools. It's absurd to expect that a
homogenous institution can faithfully serve a diverse society. Why not
permit people to send kids to the school of their choice, within certain
(rudimentary) guidelines, and give them vouchers that can be redeemed by the
school for a (fixed) amount of cash? If the school wants to charge more, that
comes out of the parent's pocket. But this way, every kid gets educated, at
the school of his parent's choice. And you people can choose the school that's
right for you instead of fighting over the shape of the one you have.
Rick.
Paul Dubuc
>>You are over looking the fundamental difference between a church and a school.
>>The church is free to teach whatever it wants simply because it is a private
>>organization and not subject to any state or federal guide lines concerning
>>public education.
>
>I have no qualms about this, although I would say the church is a private
>organization because it teaches whatever it wants, not the other way around.
>That's what the separation of church and state is all about.
Could you explain this a little more? Granting the distinction you make
about the church, why then is the school considered a public organization?
Because it doesn't teach whatever it wants? If so, who is able to decide
what is taught? The public? Who is included in that?
>>The school on the other hand, that is public schools, is a public organization
>>set up to teach the sum total of man's endeavors, be it math, evolution, or
>>religion. The poeple being taught in these public schools have a right to
>>ALL the information concerning mankind on earth, and this definitely should
>>include the concept of creationism.
>>
>
>WRONG! The public school system is NOT the place for religion of any kind.
>I can't believe schools were set up to teach THE SUM TOTAL OF MAN's
>ENDEAVORS. Schools (public) are there to teach the minimum necessary
>for a person to survive in our society. That's why it's compulsory.
>Sometimes they fail even at that.
I think you'll find that the systematic exclusion of religious values
(and even religious practices) from the public schools to be fairly recent.
One thing that has always been considered part of the "minimum necessary"
for the survival in society and society itself are certain standards of
moral conduct. Are these unrelated to religious values?
As I see it, the problem with the public school's exclusion of religion
stems not from the fact that religious practice (e.g. public prayer
and religious services) and doctrine are excluded or not taught. I'll
agree that the public schools are no place for this. On the other hand,
the schools are *public*, tax supported, and compulsory. When something
that is being taught in the public schools contradicts certain values
held by those who must send their children to these schools and support
them, those people ought to be allowed to have a say in what's going on.
Who decides what is the minimum necessary content of an education? Is
the teaching of evolutionary theory absolutely necessary? I think not.
One can teach biology, chemistry, and physics (the understanding of
how things work) quite apart from any speculations about their ultimate
origins. These can be reserved for future studies in the school of
the students own choosing.
There are areas of conflict in what the public schools teach and what
many people believe. As I see it these conflicts are most pronounced
in the areas of personal morality (e.g. the moral content of some sex
education programs and "values clarification") and origins (have we
evolved or were we created). In these areas, I would think that there
should be a minimum of exposure to the various points of view. Some
have said that this will only confuse students. Maybe it will. I
don't think we can say for certain, however, that it would be wrong. Many
things in life are confusing. With such things I think it is better to
be a little confused than to be decieved or infused with bias. Confusion,
if it really is part of the subject, should not be avoided by giving neat
answers consonant with only one view. By the time students are old enough
to grapple with the subjects themselves, they ought to also be exposed to
some of the diversity of opinion that exists in society on those issues.
To argue that some points of view ought to be excluded to avoid confusion
seems silly in principle. I think this is clearer when we apply that
same principle to other areas. Could we justify not teaching that some
countries don't value democracy or an open economy to avoid confusion?
What about differing views on war and peace? Should students be exposed
to only one view of the Vietnam War to avoid confusion? There is probably
a place for avoiding too much confusion, but we ought not to use it as
a pretext for giving one point of view a monopoly in public education.
To do so helps insure that students will close their minds to further
inquiry or persue such inquiry along a predetermined path.
If the public schools are public, then the public ought to have some
say where there are real points of conflict. (Dredging up imagined or
remote ones along with them, as some have done, does little but muddy the
waters). One solution, might be to cut back on the control the state
has over education and remove some of the financial and administrative
barriers to private education in competition with public. This solution
seems to have some merit, but I haven't thought out all the implications
very thoroughly. (Maybe someone else can expand on the possibilities).
Too much control in this area opens the door to tyranny equally well whether
the controlers are religious or secular.
>Religion is NOT necessary to survive
>in our society. I've survived quite nicely without, thank you.
You have survived in a society that is full of religion and which is
infused with many religious values. It's part of the air you breathe.
Why do we routinely go to great expense and inconvenience to save
individual human lives? Why must hundreds of people pull their cars
to the side of the road to let emergency vehicles through? I think
it's greatly due to the fact that traditional religious values have
placed great value on the worth of the individual. There are a lot
of things we take for granted that have religious roots. Many hospitals
and major universities (consider Harvard and Yale; read their original
charters) were founded by the church. Our present emphasis on education,
and advances in medicine has definite religious roots.
If you personally get along fine without religion, good for you. But
your own perception can't be extended to say that society itself (in
which you've survived quite nicely) gets along fine without it. That
would be a fatuous claim indeed. One which many seem to take for granted,
however, in justifying the exclusion of certain values from public domain
(e.g. the public schools and government).
>What people ARE taught is the ability to *gather and analyze* all knowledge,
>so as to make informed CHOICES about which religion, if any, to follow.
>That's why we are taught to read and to use a library, and why we, as a
>nation, value free speech. Free speech doesn't mean compulsory speech.
>Neither does freedom of religion mean compulsory religion.
>
> End of "sermon",
>
> Scott J. Berry
If certain information is barred from the education process, the extent of
which it can be said that any subsequent choice is informed is questionable.
Teaching the ability to gather and analyze *all knowledge* is hindered when
knowledge from certain sources and points of view are systematically
excluded. For the most part I agree with this paragraph, however. But
I'm wondering how your sentiments apply to the cumpulsory exclusion of
religious values from public space.
--
Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd
Piotr Berman
> > Besides, I don't belive in god. I don't want the schools teaching MY kids
> > about that at all. Too biased. If I want my kids to learn religion, I'll
> > send them to a special school for it. After all, they ARE my kids. We all
> > should have control over what they learn, espically in the area of religions.
> >
> > --
> You should have control over what they learn, this is exactly why I'm against
> Planned Parenthood counseling. I find it ironic that people are more against
> puplic institutions teaching religion than against private institutions
>
of their children. I would not like you to forbid your child to learn
arithmetic. I presume that Planned Parenthood doesnot councel how to make
69, but advises on the most fundamental question of biology.
Of course, kids should be smart enough to buy whatever supplies they need
in a drugstore. But that requires some information. Many of the people
raise their children in such a way that they are ashamed to ask for
condoms in a drugstore (even as adults).
Teaching about sex and providing services for planning parenthood is not
propagating promiscuism. It merely faces the problem. I think that it
may be much easier for parents to explain aspects of sexuality to children,
when they may assume that the children know the basic facts. You may explain
to your daughter why it is not good to engage in sex, even if she may do it.
But if you just say that kissing is a sin, do not expect that she will heed
your advise.
Piotr Berman
Piotr Berman
As I understand you, you claim that the Constitution professes the belief
in God, and so an atheist does not follow the letter and spirit of the
Constitution.
There is much more at stake than "upsetting some people". If you want
to construe that the Constitution implies belief in God, then uphelding
the Constitution implies believing in God. Shall all the atheist who
sworn to upheld the Constitution be fired from their jobs?
If I understand correctly the words
this country really IS a religious/christian country [as] Iran is
(...) a Muslim country, or Russia is (...) an atheist country ...
then the answer is yes. Is it what you want? Or a school prayer
uttered by atheist children?
Hopefully, more sane reading of the Constitution will prevail.
If Founding Fathers would want the country to be religious/Christian, they
would not leave such an important principle implicit.
As far as the God in public schools is concerned, this principle is at
stake: shall the Government imply to children that a patriot must believe
in God? And, by corollary, that atheists are not?
Piotr Berman
Martin Taylor
>OK. Then we'll make church attendance cumpulsory, just as a
>state certified education is now. You'll have to help support
>the church with your tax money too, just so we're all on an
>equal footing. Is it a deal?
>--
>
>Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd
Aren't they tax-exempt, which is the same thing as paying the proper tax
and then being given it back. The taxes on some of those churches
would be pretty high, if they were based on the same rules as for other
properties.
If the churches did teach about other religions, in such a way as to
make reasonable choices among them possible (or to provide arguments
for or against having a religion) rather than just pushing one version
of TRUTH, then it might be worthwhile making church attendance compulsory.
As matters stand, it's surely against the interests of most people
(those belonging to a different religion or to no religion) that anyone
should go to a church that teaches their view of the world to be WRONG.
--
Martin Taylor
{allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt
{uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsri!dciem!mmt
Rick McGeer
>christian country and should be coined as such to the extent that Iran is
>considered a Muslim country,
No, thanks. Last time I looked Iran was governed by a bunch of mullahs. Now,
the time may come when the United States is governed by a clergyman, but I
would hope that the Constitution of the United States would not demand that
the nation be governed by the Christian equivalent of the Imam.
>
>If one looks at the founding fathers, they would find many instances of the
>them refering to not only the constitution but also to God for wisdom in
>guiding the country.
If one looks at the founding fathers, one finds mostly Deists, and at least one
Rosicrutian (Franklin). Not a good argument for your case. You might cite
Washington's Farewell Address, in which Washington cites religion as necessary
for the public morals.
>When the president takes the oath of office he says:
>"So help me God." Each day congress begins it's session with the Lord's
>prayer. Behind the Supreme court bench is a huge plaque with the Lord's
>prayer on it. Lincoln's Gettysburg Address mentions God. Christmas is
>very much a national holiday. On all our currency is 'In God We Trust.'
This is actually one of the fundamentalists' better arguments: namely, that
the public schools are not permitted the access to prayer of the US Congress.
>
>Would it be religious tyranny for the federal government to take a stand on
>religious issues?
What on earth would be the point of that? I don't know about you, but I have
a hard time imagining anything more absurd than a US Government pronouncement
on a religious or theological issue. What do you want the government to say?
What effect would it have? And, assuming that the influence of the US Congress
on the divine is about as great as the influence of any of the rest of us, why
on earth would anyone care? If the federal government has nothing better to do
than deliver itself of religious opinions, then it occurs to me that we would
be far better served if the Congress packed up and went home until they found
something better to do.
>Has religious tyranny existed in this country? The seper-
>ation of church and state I believe originally meant that people would have
>the freedom to worship as they pleased without government oppression. I
>don't believe it meant the exclusion of government in declaring itself to be
>of a religious faith if it thought itself as much.
Say what? A government doesn't think, and doesn't have a religious faith. The
people who make up it might each have a religious faith, but that doesn't mean
the same thing.
>differently would be singled out or somehow alienated. I don't think so. The
>Constitution and the Bill of Rights protects all the people the same as it
>protects members of the Nazis or Communist party even though these people in
>principle don't agree with and in some cases would like to abolish our form
>of government.
The point is not whether people would be alienated, but the proper role of the
state in the affairs of the nation. The purpose of government is to prevent
foreign invasion and to set the boundaries of conduct in public affairs.
Period. Neither of these functions require any theological discourse from the
state, and as a result I would prefer that the government not indulge in any.
-- Rick.
Laura Creighton
Figuring out what Crowley meant by ``Will'' is not a light afternoon's work.
It *isn't* simply ``what you will accept responsibility for'' which makes
it sound entirely external to onseself. Whatever else it is, it is not that.
--
Laura Creighton (note new address!)
sun!l5!laura (that is ell-five, not fifteen)
l5!la...@lll-crg.arpa
the helmsoid
> > exclusive teaching of, any point of view that is in conflict with
> > other views. Exclusion of some views from the classroom because of
> > religious bias while conflicting views are taught indirectly teaches
> > the such conflicting views are either wrong or irrelevant.
>
> SURE! As soon as you start teaching evolution in your church,
> I'll make sure they teach about God in my neighborhood school.
>
> Until then, I suggest the schools stick to facts and keep away
> from fantasy.
>
>
> Scott J. Berry
Listen here, boy! That first poster knew what he was talking about!
Christianity *should* be taught, and enforced in public schools!
More taxpayers are Christians and constitute the majority! If we
could ship them damn welfare cheats and homosexuals out of this
country in the first place, we'd be doing good!
-Jeshee
Racer X
>> Besides, I don't belive in god. I don't want the schools teaching MY kids
>> about that at all. Too biased. If I want my kids to learn religion, I'll
>> send them to a special school for it. After all, they ARE my kids. We all
>> should have control over what they learn, espically in the area of religions.
>You should have control over what they learn, this is exactly why I'm against
>Planned Parenthood counseling. I find it ironic that people are more against
>puplic institutions teaching religion than against private institutions
>secretlycounseling kids on sex and secretely giving out birth control pills,
>and secret-ly performing abortions. As you said, "after all they ARE my kids."
And if parents would teach their kids about sex and birth control, instead
of having such outrageous puritan hangups about such topics, there wouldn't
be a need for them to go to Planned Parenthood to learn.
If you're so worried about your children having knowledge, YOU censor them.
Let ME worry about MINE. People are more concerned about public institutions
(i.e. schools) because they're mandatory. Planned Parenthood is a resource,
not a requirement.
Scott J. Berry
Racer X
certain beliefs, and that it could (should?) be recognized
as a "christian" country...
Look Ray,
The Government of the United States represents the people. To
declare itself to be of a certain religion when its people are
not would be unethical, to say the least.
What would you think if Ronnie (and Congress) decided this country
was founded on the principles of Satanism, or that the Government
is fundamentally Buddhist?
Scott J. Berry
Paul Dubuc
>
>I thought religions were already being helped financially - don't
>they get tax breaks?
This is really irrelevant to the issue at hand since public schools
don't pay taxes either. Private schools have to charge tuition.
Parents paying this tuition must also pay taxes to support the public
schools. (This is the argument for tuition tax credits.)
--
Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd
Jim Moseman
>
> In short, my friends, the real trouble is not what the public schools
>teach, it's that there are public schools. It's absurd to expect that a
>homogenous institution can faithfully serve a diverse society. Why not
>permit people to send kids to the school of their choice, within certain
>(rudimentary) guidelines, and give them vouchers that can be redeemed by the
>school for a (fixed) amount of cash? If the school wants to charge more, that
>comes out of the parent's pocket. But this way, every kid gets educated, at
>the school of his parent's choice. And you people can choose the school that's
>right for you instead of fighting over the shape of the one you have.
>
> Rick.
The trick is in establishing the guidelines (rudimentary or not). This is
what the controversy over public school curricula is about. You seem to
imply that basic science such as the theory of evolution should fall
outside the guidelines - I disagree. How about teaching that the earth is
round? Is it not required since it might offend members of the Flat Earth
Society? What about reading? (The "Television Is The Only Truth" sect
doesn't beleive in it.) If we could agree on the guidelines, it becomes
a relatively simple matter to have the publice school system implement
them.
--
Jim Moseman @ Perkin-Elmer, Tinton Falls, N.J.
...!vax135!petsd!jjm
Beth Christy
From: p...@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc), Message-ID: <58...@cbscc.UUCP>:
>One thing that has always been considered part of the "minimum necessary"
>for the survival in society and society itself are certain standards of
>moral conduct. Are these unrelated to religious values?
Their relation is that of coincedence. The "certain standards of moral
conduct" that are "part of the 'minimum necessary' for the survival in
society" are summed up quite easily and quite secularly (for want of a
better word): don't do to anybody else what you don't want anyone to do
to you. That moral code is not inherently religious. It is not expli-
citly part of all religions, and even in those it is (coincedentally) a
part of, it is occasionally contradicted (e.g. Christianity teaches
that you should go out and "spread the good news", even tho you don't
particularly want people trying to convert you to their religions).
Furthermore, some religious values are diametrically opposed to the
minimum necessary "certain standards of moral conduct", for example,
those of the KKK.
>As I see it, the problem with the public school's exclusion of religion
>stems not from the fact that religious practice (e.g. public prayer
>and religious services) and doctrine are excluded or not taught. I'll
>agree that the public schools are no place for this. On the other hand,
>the schools are *public*, tax supported, and compulsory.
----------
Um, not exactly. SchoolING is compulsory; attendance of public schools
is not. In fact, your children don't have to physically attend any
school at all. I have a friend whose wife receives prepared lessons
from an authorized "school" via the mail. She spends a few hours a day
teaching their 3 school-aged children the material, proctors the
provided tests, and sends the "homework" and tests back to be graded
and recorded. Now *that's* control over, if not content, at least
biasing (although I believe they have some say in the content as well).
Of course, you have to be pretty dedicated to your kids' education for
that.
>Why do we routinely go to great expense and inconvenience to save
>individual human lives? Why must hundreds of people pull their cars
>to the side of the road to let emergency vehicles through? I think
>it's greatly due to the fact that traditional religious values have
>placed great value on the worth of the individual.
I think it's because we all know it could be us.
>There are a lot
>of things we take for granted that have religious roots. Many hospitals
>and major universities (consider Harvard and Yale; read their original
>charters) were founded by the church. Our present emphasis on education,
>and advances in medicine has definite religious roots.
Saying that some parts of society have religious roots is quite
different from saying that society's religious. Certain cultural
idiosyncrasies in western Pennsylvania have German roots, but the
culture of Pittsburgh is not German.
>If you personally get along fine without religion, good for you. But
>your own perception can't be extended to say that society itself (in
>which you've survived quite nicely) gets along fine without it.
Similarly, your need for religion can't be extended to imply that
society needs it. Society needs some standard of behaviour, but as I
demonstrated above, that does not imply a need for religion.
>>What people ARE taught is the ability to *gather and analyze* all knowledge,
>>so as to make informed CHOICES about which religion, if any, to follow.
>>That's why we are taught to read and to use a library, and why we, as a
>>nation, value free speech. Free speech doesn't mean compulsory speech.
>>Neither does freedom of religion mean compulsory religion.
>>
>> Scott J. Berry
>
>If certain information is barred from the education process, the extent of
>which it can be said that any subsequent choice is informed is questionable.
>Teaching the ability to gather and analyze *all knowledge* is hindered when
>knowledge from certain sources and points of view are systematically
>excluded. For the most part I agree with this paragraph, however. But
>I'm wondering how your sentiments apply to the cumpulsory exclusion of
>religious values from public space.
I can't speak for Scott of course, but I would respond by pointing out
that religious values, and most of what constitutes religion in general,
are not *knowledge*. They're opinions/beliefs, which do not derive from
general knowledge and experience, but rather rely mostly on faith. Ex-
clusion of faiths does not hinder acquisition and analysis of knowledge.
--
--JB (Beth Christy, U. of Chicago, ..!ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!beth)
"Oh yeah, P.S.,
I...I feel...feel like...I am
in a burning building
And I gotta go." (Laurie Anderson)
Linda Seltzer
> > Wrong! Thats not what secular humanism teaches. It teaches little children
> > how to think about suicide. It teaches them that some people's lives are
> > worth less than others. It teaches them that homosexuality and premarital
> > sex are choices for them to consider. It also teaches them to ignore any
> > values they may be learning in the home and that values are purely subjective
> > and how to make their own values. (if any!)
> >
> > Dan
>
Does humanism teach little children to think about suicide? I always thought
they learned that from television.
Does humanism teach people that premarital sex is a choice to consider? I
thought it was nature.
By the way, I'm amazed at the people who convert to religious beliefs
that are against premarital sex, when they had plenty of it before
their own marriage. Suddenly, for their kids, it's not OK.
Linda Seltzer
> Is it a joke? Or you propose an optional course on a variety of
> concepts of Creation: Christian, Zoroastric, Hindu, religions of native
> Americans, Manicheism, etc. Same course would include also alternative
> geographies (flat Earth, Earth resting on a giant fish etc.). It could
> make sence, if presented as a collection of different opinions.
> But which is THE concept of creationism which you refer to?
>
> teoretically yours
>
> piotr
It seems perfactly reasonable for a school to teach comparative
religion. We learned the Greek and Norse myths when we were in
elementary school. Why not have stories from many different
cultures? why not read part of the Bible, part of the Talmud,
part of the Koran, part of the Vedas, and some of Confucius'
teachings? As long as noone tries to force the students to
prefer one more than the others.
Linda Seltzer
> >
> > Besides, I don't belive in god. I don't want the schools teaching MY kids
> > about that at all. Too biased. If I want my kids to learn religion, I'll
> > send them to a special school for it. After all, they ARE my kids. We all
> > should have control over what they learn, espically in the area of religions.
> >
> > --
> You should have control over what they learn, this is exactly why I'm against
> Planned Parenthood counseling. I find it ironic that people are more against
> puplic institutions teaching religion than against private institutions secretlycounseling kids on sex and secretely giving out birth control pills, and secret-ly performing abortions. As you said, "after all they ARE my kids."
>
>
be respected, not programmed. Parents can try to "shelter" children all they
want, but in the end the young adult will make ones own decisions. I
personally would want my children exposed to all philosophies, since in life
they will encounter all philophies. I would like them to know something
about several religions - why hide the fact that some people are religious
and that the various religions have different practices? You can't hide
reality from people forever. Now actually, the child of an anti-abortion
activist will probably learn about abortion much earlier than a child of
a pro-choice family. I have heard so much discussion at home and after
church in my friends' fundamentalist home that their children must
*certainly* have some curiosity.... now in a pro-choice home the
discussion may never come up at all in front of four year olds, even
though it's always on the radio and TV - or do you make sure that the news
never reaches the ear of your children? So parents can act like little
dictators and oppose Pravda while using it's techniques on sons and
daughters...
If a parents' moral and religious values are very strong, then they
should be able to withstand the presence of conflicting values.
Trying to shelter and suppress a child will only lead the child to
rebel and seek out all the information later.
Now with Planned Parenthood, this organization has *never* to my
knowledge recommended or advocated sexuality, but it does allow
the teenager to come into contact with medical information. If
the parent creates a climate of empathy and discussion, then the
child can confide in the parents and there will be no need for
"secret" counseling.
Remember, unless you intend to raise your child under house arrest,
there is nothing you can do to physically stop your child from
having pre-marital sex. So instead of being arbitrary and negative,
it is best to communicate with the teenager, and to voice, most
of all, that the son or daughter not get involved with someone
who doesn't treat him/her right. The concern should be that
your son or daughter is not hurt or used.
Again, parents can attempt to program their kids' minds, in which
the offspring may very well end up in the local mental institution
(or sleeping on Telegraph Avenue) or parents let the children learn
to cope with and deal with reality as it is.
Laura Creighton
At some point it would be nice to figure out what we really want our schools to
be doing. To some extent they are just a ``holding pen/baby-sitting service''
for children until tehy become adults. I don't think that 12 years of school
is actually essential -- and I do think that high school students should get
to persue a lot of non-essential knowledge simply because they are interested in
it.
How much of what you were taught was junk? How much of it were you taught
five times in successive years? How many interesting thigns were you told
you couldn't learn yet? There is a lot of waste going on here.
Paul Dubuc
Churches" article I just posted. But I'll cover some others here:
In article <11...@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP> be...@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (Beth Christy) writes:
>>As I see it, the problem with the public school's exclusion of religion
>>stems not from the fact that religious practice (e.g. public prayer
>>and religious services) and doctrine are excluded or not taught. I'll
>>agree that the public schools are no place for this. On the other hand,
>>the schools are *public*, tax supported, and compulsory.
> ----------
>Um, not exactly. SchoolING is compulsory; attendance of public schools
>is not. In fact, your children don't have to physically attend any
>school at all. I have a friend whose wife receives prepared lessons
>from an authorized "school" via the mail. She spends a few hours a day
>teaching their 3 school-aged children the material, proctors the
>provided tests, and sends the "homework" and tests back to be graded
>and recorded. Now *that's* control over, if not content, at least
>biasing (although I believe they have some say in the content as well).
>Of course, you have to be pretty dedicated to your kids' education for
>that.
This depends on the state you live in. The control exercised over
the content of the courses also varies. The word "authorized" is the
operative word. Who does the authorizing? To what extent does it
go. Recently in Nebraska the pastor of a church and some teachers
were jailed and the church's school padlocked because the church refused
to have it's teachers certified by the state. This even though the
kids attending that school did consistently better on aptitude
tests than their public school counterparts. In some states the
board of regents standardizes the final exams in many highschool
courses (e.g. New York). Should a student have to the "right" answers
about evolution in order to pass a regents course in high school?
Yes, you have to be exceptionally dedicated to take the options you
propose. But why should it be so tough to go around the state? Does
your friend get a break on the taxes she pays to support the public
schools to compensate for all the work she has to do?
>>Why do we routinely go to great expense and inconvenience to save
>>individual human lives? Why must hundreds of people pull their cars
>>to the side of the road to let emergency vehicles through? I think
>>it's greatly due to the fact that traditional religious values have
>>placed great value on the worth of the individual.
>
>I think it's because we all know it could be us.
And we all know that it isn't us in any particular case nor would it
necessarily ever have to be us. Saying "it could be me" does not
provide any support for the "golden rule". It's just as true to
say "it probably won't happen to me". We don't know the future.
>>There are a lot
>>of things we take for granted that have religious roots. Many hospitals
>>and major universities (consider Harvard and Yale; read their original
>>charters) were founded by the church. Our present emphasis on education,
>>and advances in medicine has definite religious roots.
>
>Saying that some parts of society have religious roots is quite
>different from saying that society's religious. Certain cultural
>idiosyncrasies in western Pennsylvania have German roots, but the
>culture of Pittsburgh is not German.
So on that basis could you exclued a German's point of view from public
policy. That is what is happing with points of view that are branded
"religious".
>>If you personally get along fine without religion, good for you. But
>>your own perception can't be extended to say that society itself (in
>>which you've survived quite nicely) gets along fine without it.
>
>Similarly, your need for religion can't be extended to imply that
>society needs it. Society needs some standard of behaviour, but as I
>demonstrated above, that does not imply a need for religion.
I don't think you have demonstrated the justification for morality.
(See my other article for more on this).
>>If certain information is barred from the education process, the extent of
>>which it can be said that any subsequent choice is informed is questionable.
>>Teaching the ability to gather and analyze *all knowledge* is hindered when
>>knowledge from certain sources and points of view are systematically
>>excluded. For the most part I agree with this paragraph, however. But
>>I'm wondering how your sentiments apply to the cumpulsory exclusion of
>>religious values from public space.
>
>I can't speak for Scott of course, but I would respond by pointing out
>that religious values, and most of what constitutes religion in general,
>are not *knowledge*. They're opinions/beliefs, which do not derive from
>general knowledge and experience, but rather rely mostly on faith.
That is your opinion of course. My complaint is not with the whole sets
of what you distinguish as religious values based on faith and knowledge
based on general experience (I would object to the idea is that religion
is not generally known or experienced.) but rather where the two might
intersect. I think the distinction you make here is not actually very
great, or even one that is often made in the average person's mind.
>Exclusion of faiths does not hinder acquisition and analysis of knowledge.
What about the faith that knowledge may be acquired and analyized?
--
Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd
Ray Frank
Their main objective is not information, it is 'safe sex' and 'safe abortions.'
It doesn't take much time in terms of counseling to give these things out.
I could do it and so could you, especially if I was receiving several hundred
thousands of dollors a year to do it.
Todd Jones
> was founded on the principles of Satanism, or that the Government
> is fundamentally Buddhist?
>
> Scott J. Berry
Not to belittle the point made here, but I got a good laugh
out of this scenario!
-todd jones
Kenn Barry
>christian country and should be coined as such to the extent that Iran is
to their respective state religions, I think no further answer is
necessary.
>Would it be religious tyranny for the federal government to take a stand on
>religious issues?
It is religious tyranny for the government to support any particular
set of religious beliefs, or to show any special favor to particular
religious groups.
>Has religious tyranny existed in this country?
The Mormons; the Ghost Dance religion; the Quakers; the Jews;
the Catholics; all, and many more, have suffered religious oppression
in this land. But we have done better in this regard than have most other
countries, particularly those with state religions.
>The seper-
>ation of church and state I believe originally meant that people would have
>the freedom to worship as they pleased without government oppression. I
>don't believe it meant the exclusion of government in declaring itself to be
>of a religious faith if it thought itself as much.
This is truly silly. A government doesn't "think of itself" as
anything; a government doesn't think. *People* think, and there are no
doubt people in government who think of the US as a "Christian" country.
Fine by me, as long as they don't try to give their opinions the force
of law.
>Some people would make the
>claim that if our government took a stand on religion that those who believed
>differently would be singled out or somehow alienated. I don't think so. The
>Constitution and the Bill of Rights protects all the people the same as it
>protects members of the Nazis or Communist party even though these people in
>principle don't agree with and in some cases would like to abolish our form
>of government.
If you're advocating some sort of empty statement of principle
about the US being Christian, it is both untrue, and a totally fatuous
suggestion. If you're advocating something more than an empty statement,
then you're talking about giving some religious group special priveleges,
and that's discrimination. Either way it's a bad idea.
>One final thought, if the Government declared this country to be founded on
>the beliefs that upset some people, would those people have a legitimate right
>to claim that this declaration was unconstitutional because of a violation of
>their rights?
The Constitution is, as always, what the Supreme Court says it
is. I would think that declaring the US Christian would be about as direct
a violation of the 1st Amendment as one could imagine, and fortunately
the 9 people whose job it is to decide such things seem likely to agree,
based on what they've decided in the past.
I would consider people that authored such a law to be either
religious bigots, or terminally silly, depending on their intent. The
former is unfortunately more likely than the latter, which is why such
a declaration would cause me deep concern, and have my active opposition,
were it proposed seriously. The Thought Police already have most of the
world for their playground; let's not invite them into our homes.
- From the Crow's Nest - Kenn Barry
NASA-Ames Research Center
Moffett Field, CA
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
USENET: {ihnp4,vortex,dual,nsc,hao,hplabs}!ames!barry
Michael McNeil
> > about that at all. Too biased. If I want my kids to learn religion, I'll
> > send them to a special school for it. After all, they ARE my kids. We all
> > should have control over what they learn, espically in the area of
> > religions.
> >
> You should have control over what they learn, this is exactly why I'm against
> Planned Parenthood counseling. I find it ironic that people are more against
> puplic institutions teaching religion than against private institutions
> secretly counseling kids on sex and secretly giving out birth control pills,
> and secretly performing abortions. As you said, "after all they ARE my
> kids."
>
> Ray Frank
Sorry, Frank, kids are their *own* selves, not ``yours.'' The fact
that a kid has gotten herself pregnant shows that ``you'' aren't in
control. So you're going to force her to carry the pregnancy to term,
huh? Quite a tyrant, aren't you! Thank God for Planned Parenthood!
And you're also going to ``control what they learn'' in this open
society of ours. *Good luck*! I suppose that *public libraries*
are on your list of ``private institutions secretly counseling''?
(Oh, that's right, *public libraries* are public! Worse yet!)
(Sorry if this seems a bit inFLAMEtory, but it gets my gander up
when people talk about restricting the free flow of information!)
________________
Michael McNeil
3Com Corporation "All disclaimers including this one apply"
(415) 960-9367
..!ucbvax!hplabs!oliveb!3comvax!michaelm
Tim Maroney
Thelemites here) to Crowley's defense, but it's appreciated. I posted
Crowley's "The Message of the Master Therion" as sent to me by Josh Gordon,
when I was sending the New Age mailing list digests to net.religion a few
months ago (before fundamentalist flak convinced me that it was a bad idea).
This explained "Will" in fairly clear terms. Now I'll post part two of my
"Introduction to Thelema", still in production, which deals explicitly with
"Will" as a basis for a moral system. Or, as Bruce Smith would say, "Would
you like some Thelemic literature? Would you like to buy a flower?"
Thelemic Morality
=================
The fundamental tenet of Thelema is that the supreme moral principle is
"Do what thou wilt." First, look at what this is not. Governments and
monotheistic religions adopt a uniform approach to morality, that of a list
of taboos. Although the Mosaic Law is rather different in content from the
U.S. Penal Code, it is identical in approach. A subset of all possible
actions is set down in writing and forbidden. The worthlessness of this
approach should be clear: no such list can exhaust the possibilities of
immorality, and any attempt to make it do so creates an impenetrable
document. The common man will never be able to do more than scratch its
surface; only a few scholars or lawyers will be able to apprehend its
entirety. Thus the list of taboos forms no real moral guide. It is to
virtually everyone just an ambiguous source of possible punishment, an
unknowable and impersonal force demanding fear and respect.
On the surface of it, "Do what thou wilt" is just as bad, or worse. It
would seem to mean that one should do whatever one pleases, without regard
for morality. However, the Book says more than "There is no law beyond
Do what thou wilt." Allow me to quote briefly:
"The Word of Sin is Restriction.... thou hast no right but to do thy will.
Do that, and no other shall say nay. For pure will, unassuaged of purpose,
delivered from the lust of result, is every way perfect."
Clearly this "will" is rather different from the animal will, or that which
is normally called "force of will" or "will-power". It is a divine, a
transcendent, Will which is referred to. All "Sin", all "wrong", is but
the Restriction of that divine Will. The relation to Taoistic concepts in
the latter sentence is apparent.
So now consider a society in which all keep to "Do what thou wilt". None
imposes an obstacle to the Will of another; each seeks to know and do
her or his own Will to the fullest. No one is content to sit all day,
rotting the mind with passive stimuli, kissing ass at work and squelching
any individual thoughts that may arise by mischance. (We have all seen the
ostracism that afflicts those who dare disagree with their neighbors, and
would never dare incur that or abstain from its infliction, would we? Such
is the cry of the middle classes.) No one lives by deceiving others or
by violating their will to own property; no one kills, rapes, or commits
other crimes which restrict the Will of another. In short, the
completeness of morality, both all aspiration to Godhead and all worthwhile
taboo, is expressed in that one phrase, "Do what thou wilt".
Of course, such a society will never exist, but morality is inherently
quixotic. (Why will it never exist? Because institutions devoted to the
lists of taboos exist, and under "Do what thou wilt" it would be immoral to
destroy them by force, provided they do not directly attack our freedoms.)
Society can never reach perfection; interpersonal morality consists largely
of determining what that impossible perfection would be like, and conforming
one's own behavior to it as much as possible.
There is a real psychological difference between the Law of "Do what thou
wilt", and the list of taboos. To verify this, try to explain "Do what thou
wilt" to a fundamentalist Christian, an Orthodox Jew, or some other who is
emotionally or dogmatically attached to one of the lists of taboos. The
person will prove simply incapable of understanding non-taboo-based morality
in most cases. The difference is what Crowley liked to call the
Sin-Complex. The taboo-monger cries "Not my will but thine be done!" He
sees himself as a cringing worm, bereft of all virtue and capable of good
only when under the control (or at the least guidance) of some force outside
himself. This attitude is useful to religious and political leaders, and
thus its predominance. Who understands and follows the Law knows that,
though subject to a myriad ignoble attractions and repulsions, she or he
contains the divine spark that redeems all the rest, awaiting only the Work
to bring it to light. The psychological benefits of realizing that one's
core is good, not evil, are immense; in fact, there is a school of
psychoanalysis, the Rogerian, which deals with nothing else.
Thelema is the foe of all sexism. The third verse of the first chapter (a
rather prominent position!) is "Every man and every woman is a star", thus
explicitly denying all sexist ideas. Furthermore, the cosmological model
involves the uniting of the goddess Nuit with the god Hadit to form the
hermaphroditic Ra-Hoor-Khuit, rather than a male god spurting out the
Universe in an act of masturbatory genesis, or a female goddess who
parthenogenetically birthed all life. The Universe is the dynamic union of
male and female, not the creation of either alone. Numerous parallels from
Hinduism and Buddhism will no doubt occur to the East-inclined reader.
The only "evil" is not direct restriction of the Will. The release from
restriction can create an unbalanced response which is not in conformity
with the Will. Rather than returning to the Will, one may swing to the
opposite extreme from the former restriction. For instance, a slave who
seeks to enslave his or her former masters rather than seek equality for
all, or a person who reacts against religion dominated by a single gender by
forming a religion dominated by the other gender rather than a sexually
egalitarian religion, or someone who reacts against hypocritical standards
of "good" by identifying himself with "evil". These are extreme cases; the
unbalance involved in reaction against Restriction can be far more subtle.
One predominant feature of morality is the carrot and stick aspect. Why
should you follow an inconvenient moral code? In the list of taboos
approach, the answer is simple: you will be punished if you transgress, and
rewarded if you keep to the straight and narrow. The Hindu idea of karma
and its variants such as the Law of Three are similar. There is no
"official" Thelemic position. It seems evident that seeking to know and do
the Will will lead to a less painful and restricted life. Crowley himself
believed in karma in the literal reincarnatory sense; I don't believe in the
afterlife, but I do feel that acts of deceit and such carry their own
psychological penalty which is immediate and self-inflicted. I don't mean
guilt, which fails to effect many people; I mean paranoia in its overt and
subtle manifestations. Most people are insufficiently introspective to see
that their enjoyment of life is dwindling when they increase their use of
deceit, but the negative effects are no less real for that. The crooked
businessman, the liar, the thief, the murderer: all are always on the run,
always looking over their shoulder to see who's either trying to do to them
what they have done to others or found out about their misdeeds. The
attitude of these people is always that the world is "dog eat dog"; they can
never reach any real contentment or rest.
Recently, an attempt has been made to improve upon "Do what thou wilt" by
prepending "An it harm none". I ask that anyone devoted to this formula
realize that I am only speaking what seems to me the truth, the result of
sincere analysis. I formerly accepted this formulation, but came to see
that it was seriously flawed.
The "Wiccan Rede", as the modified version of the Law is usually called,
misses the point of "Do what thou wilt" from both the negative and positive
perspectives. Negatively, the Law is non-interference, not non-harm. The
will to harm is valid in unusual cases. For instance, an Allied soldier in
the Second World War should not be called "immoral" for removing Axis
soldiers from incarnation: the Nazis were deliberately engaged in an
enterprise whose goal was to thwart the wills of all Jews, and any others
who disagreed with the Nazi party line. Yet under the Rede that Allied
soldier could not have pulled his trigger, because it is harming someone to
injure or kill him. It is no use to object that under the Rede the Nazi
would be likewise restrained, because such situations do arise in the real
world and must be dealt with. Under the Law it is clear: the Nazi is not
acting in accord with his will because he acts to block the wills of others,
and therefore it is not a violation of his divine will to force him to stop
this interference.
Certainly causing harm is something any sane person seeks to avoid whenever
possible, and most obstacles can be gone around instead of destroyed. But
to elevate non-harm to a primary position in one's morality is to ignore the
reality, that harming is not only justifiable but necessary in some cases.
At the turn of the century, many occultists and theosophists staggered under
the burdens of the right wing, such as anti-Semitism and fascism; as the
next century approaches, many occultists and witches stagger under the
burdens of the left, such as pacifism. Both must be transcended.
It is also possible to interfere with another's Will without doing any
"harm" as far as the person interfering is aware. To pick another extremely
clear-cut example, Soviet psychiatrists honestly believe that to oppose the
state is a mental illness. They are thus, as far as they know, not harming
someone by removing such opposition. All "harm" short of the infliction of
physical injury is a subjective judgment, so the actions of the brainwashers
are in accord with the Rede. Under the Law, however, no such fallacy is
possible: that this is interference with the person is an undeniable,
objective fact. A closer-to-home example of "harmless" interference, and of
how it is permitted by the Rede, is provided by the president of Covenant of
the Goddess who told me she would like to see violent sports made illegal.
Of course, it is possible to define harm in terms of interference, but then
why not just use the original version? Still, I can't see anything wrong
with the Rede under that interpretation, except that it is still only the
negative, the forbidding, half of morality.
The positive perspective on the Law is that one is to learn and do the
divine Will. This is wholly lacking in the modified version. The Rede can
be paraphrased as "Do whatever you feel like so long as it doesn't hurt
anyone." The mere human will is the only thing mentioned: at least, I have
never seen any Wiccan commentator take the Rede in any other light. Where
is the aspiration in this? Where is the moral obligation to realize one's
fullest potential? Morality is not simply to refrain from evil, but to do
good; but you would never know that from the Rede.
I have spent so much time on this because pacifism is a serious fallacy, a
Restriction of the Will of the same order as a taboo against premarital sex.
In fact, if one examines the beliefs of the leading original exponents of
pacifism in this century, such as Gandhi, their sexual priggishness is
obvious. This is not a coincidence. Remember always that to strike is as
blessed as to stroke, provided only that it is the true Will to do so.
-=-
Tim Maroney, Carnegie-Mellon University, Networking
ARPA: Tim.Maroney@CMU-CS-K uucp: seismo!cmu-cs-k!tim
CompuServe: 74176,1360 audio: shout "Hey, Tim!"
Rich Rosen
> religion. We learned the Greek and Norse myths when we were in
> elementary school. Why not have stories from many different
> cultures? why not read part of the Bible, part of the Talmud,
> part of the Koran, part of the Vedas, and some of Confucius'
> teachings? As long as noone tries to force the students to
I think the only reason they can "get away" with teaching about ancient
Greek and Viking religion in schools because (I think there's a joke I'm
taking this from) there are no more ancient Greeks (or Vikings). They
are "treading" on a religion that nobody currently believes in (to my
knowledge).
What would be interesting in teaching about religions that nobody believes
in anymore (like these ancient myths) is to talk about why nobody believes
them anymore, the flaws and presumptions these ancient peoples made in
designing these religious systems, and how this learning can be applied
in general today. That is perhaps the truest way to foster real FREEDOM
of religion I can think of. (Probably scares the hell out of some people,
though.)
--
"Meanwhile, I was still thinking..."
Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
Rich Rosen
>>Planned Parenthood counseling. I find it ironic that people are more against
>>puplic institutions teaching religion than against private institutions
>>and secret-ly performing abortions. As you said, "after all they ARE my
> Children are people and not robots. Their individuality and their minds must
> be respected, not programmed. Parents can try to "shelter" children all they
> want, but in the end the young adult will make ones own decisions. I
> personally would want my children exposed to all philosophies, since in life
> they will encounter all philophies. I would like them to know something
> about several religions - why hide the fact that some people are religious
> and that the various religions have different practices? You can't hide
> reality from people forever. ... Unless you intend to raise your child under
> house arrest, there is nothing you can do to physically stop your child from
> having pre-marital sex. So instead of being arbitrary and negative,
> it is best to communicate with the teenager, and to voice, most
> of all, that the son or daughter not get involved with someone
> who doesn't treat him/her right. The concern should be that
> your son or daughter is not hurt or used. [SELTZER]
Bra-vo! Tell THAT to someone like Ray! [SHE JUST DID!] Oh, yeah...
[I WONDER IF IT HAS ANY EFFECT...]
--
"to be nobody but yourself in a world which is doing its best night and day
to make you like everybody else means to fight the hardest battle any human
being can fight and never stop fighting." - e. e. cummings
Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
Yosi Hoshen
> Merely teaching the phenomenology
> of biology, as Paul proposes, would be to teach a severely emasculated
> subject, since evolution pervades all aspects of the field.
Biology is moving more and more today towards molecular biology.
Interpre tation of biology on the molecular level draws heavily on
evolutionary ideas. Trying to decouple evolution from molecular
biology will undoubtly make teaching this important subject meaningless.
(See for example: Molecular Biology of the Cell, by B. Alberts
et. al., 1983, Garland Publishing, Inc. ).
I do agree with Bill that creationists should be excused from
classes that teach evolution.
--
Yosi Hoshen, AT&T Bell Laboratories
Naperville, Illinois, Mail: ihnp4!ihu1m!jho
Charley Wingate
>I think the only reason they can "get away" with teaching about ancient
>Greek and Viking religion in schools because (I think there's a joke I'm
>taking this from) there are no more ancient Greeks (or Vikings). They
>are "treading" on a religion that nobody currently believes in (to my
>knowledge).
You'ld be suprised what some people believe in.....
>What would be interesting in teaching about religions that nobody believes
>in anymore (like these ancient myths) is to talk about why nobody believes
>them anymore, the flaws and presumptions these ancient peoples made in
>designing these religious systems, and how this learning can be applied
>in general today. That is perhaps the truest way to foster real FREEDOM
>of religion I can think of. (Probably scares the hell out of some people,
>though.)
Actually, in the case of the Norse religions, the answer is quite simple;
the various Norse people were exposed to Christianity, and decided that it
was the better religion.
I think this is a worthwhile topic for discussion, if we can restrain
ourselves from wishful thinking about whether or not the religions in
question were (or are) true.
Charley Wingate
Rich Rosen
> parents who are "conscientious objectors" to their children being
> taught some subject, such as evolution, to have their religious
> sensibilities respected by the public school system. I am not sure
> that it would be *wise* for them to take advantage of such a
> provision, but it should exist. [JEFFERYS]
I'm sorry, Bill, but I can imagine parents denying their children the
right to learn about any number of things. Math? Oh, Timmy flunked
math last year, why should he have to learn THAT? To deny children the
right to an education due to "religious beliefs" ("My religious beliefs
say pi is 3, I won't let Jane learn this heinous arithmetic of Satan!")
strikes me as abominable.
> Society has the responsibility of ensuring that children educated in
> the public schools are prepared to act responsibly when they become
> adults. There are important questions of public policy that require
> a basic understanding of evolutionary theory if they are to be handled
> intelligently. Whether you believe in evolution or not, these organisms
> seem to behave *as if* natural selection is operative, and until a better
> theory comes along, the people who have to make such important decisions had
> better understand the basic ideas of evolution.
The eagerness of some to deny all this, and to deny to their children the
right to learn this, is frightening. As a Christian who understands
evolution and scientific knowledge, Bill, I'm sure you can appreciate the
problems in that.
> Nearly all scientists would agree that evolution is one of the
> great scientific ideas of all time. We ought to protect the
> religious sensibilities of all, but it would be wrong to let the
> objections of some parents deprive all children of a good education.
> To be blunt, it is *flat out wrong* to claim that a person is
> adequately educated in biology if that person does not understand
> the basic issues of evolution. Merely teaching the phenomenology
> of biology, as Paul proposes, would be to teach a severely emasculated
> subject, since evolution pervades all aspects of the field.
Bra-vo!
--
Popular consensus says that reality is based on popular consensus.
Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr
Rich Rosen
> Interpre tation of biology on the molecular level draws heavily on
> evolutionary ideas. Trying to decouple evolution from molecular
> biology will undoubtly make teaching this important subject meaningless.
> (See for example: Molecular Biology of the Cell, by B. Alberts
> et. al., 1983, Garland Publishing, Inc. ).
> I do agree with Bill that creationists should be excused from
I would agree if we were talking about adults. If creationist adults in
school chose not to learn about evolution, and thus lose out on a significant
part of education because of their religious beliefs, that is their business.
But it is not adults who go to school. It is their children. To claim that
a parent has the right to declare that "this subject should not be taught
to my child" is horrific.
Rich Rosen
> bullshit. Their main objective is not information, it is 'safe sex' and
> 'safe abortions.'
Ray, it's about time you STARTED thinking, and presenting facts. I have yet
to see a single solitary one fact from you in all your articles. Do you have
any to offer? I think dispensing data about making sex safe and describing
alternatives to people IS the very purpose of an information center on sex,
and I for one am glad they do it. Tell me, are you Ken Arndt in a new
location? Or did Ken just give you lessons on how a rampant know-nothing
can disrupt a discussion forum?
--
Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen.
Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr
Michael McNeil
Frank Ray writes:
> Has it ever occured to any of us that this country really IS a religious/
> christian country and should be coined as such to the extent that Iran is
> considered a Muslim country, or Russia is considered an atheist country ...
The United States was established as a *secular* nation because so
many states were founded by individuals who had experienced religious
persecution. In addition, the sorry examples of the Thirty Years' War
and other bloody religious conflicts during the Protestant Reformation
were still fresh in the memory. The image of such a disaster occurring
in the new United States -- particularly since America had (and has) so
many different religions, none of whom were in a position to dominate
the others -- led to the Constitutional prohibition on governmental
interference with religion. These reasons still apply, in spades!
> If one looks at the founding fathers, they would find many instances of the
> them refering to not only the constitution but also to God for wisdom in
> guiding the country. When the president takes the oath of office he says:
> "So help me God." Each day congress begins it's session with the Lord's
> prayer. Behind the Supreme court bench is a huge plaque with the Lord's
> prayer on it. Lincoln's Gettysburg Address mentions God. Christmas is
> very much a national holiday. On all our currency is 'In God We Trust.'
These all fall under a legal principle which may be
described as ``don't fault the little things.''
> Would it be religious tyranny for the federal government to take a stand
> on religious issues?
You mean religious issues such as what is ``true'' and what is
``heretical''? And once ``truth'' is defined, wouldn't saving
nonbelievers and heretics' souls from eternal damnation -- or
at least saving others from being contaminated -- be in order?
Wouldn't the next logical step be to burn heretics at the stake?
> Has religious tyranny existed in this country?
Massachusetts and other colonies prior to independence exhibited
religious tyranny at times. The Salem witch trials -- during
which many innocent people were executed purely on ``spectral''
evidence -- certainly constituted an episode of religious tyranny.
> The seperation of church and state I believe originally meant that people
> would have the freedom to worship as they pleased without government
> oppression. I don't believe it meant the exclusion of government in
> declaring itself to be of a religious faith if it thought itself as much.
In my opinion, many people of different religious faiths would
have *great* difficulty feeling ``at home'' in a country where
the government declared ``itself to be of a religious faith''
which differed from individuals' own beliefs. Such a divisive
influence is *precisely* what the constitutional prohibition on
governmental involvement with religion was designed to prevent!
> Some people would make the claim that if our government took a stand on
> religion that those who believed differently would be singled out or
> somehow alienated. I don't think so.
Whether you think they should or not, ``those who believed
differently'' would inevitably *feel* ``singled out or somehow
alienated.'' You may not agree, but this is *their* country too!
> The Constitution and the Bill of Rights protects all the people the same
> as it protects members of the Nazis or Communist party even though these
> people in principle don't agree with and in some cases would like to
> abolish our form of government. In order not to have words put in my
> mouth by Rosen I hereby state that I do not equate Nazis or Communists
> with any other group of people.
Sorry, Ray, *I* don't want to be ``protected'' just as ``Nazis or
Communist party'' or others who ``would like to abolish our form
of government'' are protected! *All* religions consider themselves
to be the repository of ``truth,'' and therefore would like to
replace *all* the others. Once any particular religion becomes
``established,'' all other religions become subversive to it!
> One final thought, if the Government declared this country to be founded
> on the beliefs that upset some people, would those people have a legitimate
> right to claim that this declaration was unconstitutional because of a
> violation of their rights?
Only if the declaration made by the government *was*
unconstitutional and *was* a violation of their rights.
Kenneth C R C Arnold
And I suppose we should give rebates to people who don't have children
at all, since they are taxed for a service they don't receive? If not,
why not?
Of course, I have a reason myself why I think why not. I think that
society at large gets real, substantial benefits from a generally
educated citizenry. Public school taxes make this benefit possible,
and thus are payed for the same reason you pay other taxes -- because
society at large, and thus you, (allegedly) benefit from the service,
and it could not be efficiently or properly provided any other way.
The fact that someone might have children they choose to educate some
other way is just as irrelevant to this as someone who has no
children.
If this isn't your reasoning, what is? Why not give rebates to the
childless?
Ken Arnold
Michael McNeil
> Listen here, boy! That first poster knew what he was talking about!
> Christianity *should* be taught, and enforced in public schools!
> More taxpayers are Christians and constitute the majority! If we
> could ship them damn welfare cheats and homosexuals out of this
> country in the first place, we'd be doing good!
>
> -Jeshee
Imagine the holocaust (I mean that literally) that would occur
when Jeshee's religion manages to get control and proceeds to
``ship them damn welfare cheats and homosexuals out of this
country.'' I'm sure that would only be the beginning --
I doubt if too many people would be left alive! All I
can say is, thank God for church-state separation!
Michael McNeil
>
> > Listen here, boy! That first poster knew what he was talking about!
> > Christianity *should* be taught, and enforced in public schools!
> > More taxpayers are Christians and constitute the majority! If we
> > could ship them damn welfare cheats and homosexuals out of this
> > country in the first place, we'd be doing good!
> >
> > -Jeshee
>
> Imagine the holocaust (I mean that literally) that would occur
> when Jeshee's religion manages to get control and proceeds to
> ``ship them damn welfare cheats and homosexuals out of this
> country.'' I'm sure that would only be the beginning --
> I doubt if too many people would be left alive! All I
> can say is, thank God for church-state separation!
>
I'm embarrassed to say, I took this one seriously. But, on reflection,
it really isn't so different from much else in this newsgroup. As they
say, you can't burlesque burlesque.
nyssa of traken
>little bullshit. Their main objective is not information, it is
>'safe sex' and 'safe abortions.' It doesn't take much time in terms
>of counseling to give these things out. I could do it and so could
>you, especially if I was receiving several hundred thousands of
>dollors a year to do it.
I guess then that if the teenagers of the United States wish to have
sex, then they should all risk VD, etc, even though there are means
available to educate these people! This posting is one of the most
naive I have read in a long time, if Mr. Frank would ever crawl out
from under his prejudices and take a look at the world, perhaps he'd
learn a thing or two.
I guess these options should not be available to those who are married,
either, after all, Planned Parenthood doesn't just counsel teenage
girls!
--
James C. Armstrong, Jnr. {ihnp4,cbosgd,akgua}!abnji!nyssa
It is a highly directional ultrasonic beam of rock and roll! It kills!
-who said it, what story?
Kerro Panille
>> from fantasy.
>>
>> Atheistically Yours,
>>
>> Scott J. Berry
>
>Listen here, boy! That first poster knew what he was talking about!
>Christianity *should* be taught, and enforced in public schools!
>More taxpayers are Christians and constitute the majority! If we
>could ship them damn welfare cheats and homosexuals out of this
>country in the first place, we'd be doing good!
>
>-Jeshee
I hope that you are just kidding. If so, please use the smiley-face ( :-} )
symbol to denote this. If not, piss off *sshole. :-}
--
Vince Hatem ---------------- A
Bell Communications Research | UZI |----------|_ _ _\/ T
Raritan River Software Systems Center | |----------| /\ &
444 Hoes Lane ---------------- ROGER GUTS T
4D-360 / /\ DON'T NEED NO STINKIN'
Piscataway, NJ 08854 / / TIES
(201) 699-4869 /-----/
...ihnp4!rruxo!vch
TRUE GRIT MYSTERIES - The detective series for those who NEVER eat quiche!
(WARNING - MAY BE EMOTIONALLY DISTURBING TO HAMSTER LOVERS)
Paul Dubuc
>> In article <6...@utastro.UUCP> pad...@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan) writes:
>> >
>> >I thought religions were already being helped financially - don't
>> >they get tax breaks?
>>
>> This is really irrelevant to the issue at hand since public schools
>> don't pay taxes either. Private schools have to charge tuition.
>> Parents paying this tuition must also pay taxes to support the public
>> schools. (This is the argument for tuition tax credits.)
>>
>
>I hate to disappoint you but it is relevant. I was responding to the remark:
>
>>> OK. Then we'll make church attendance cumpulsory, just as a
>>> state certified education is now. You'll have to help support
>>> the church with your tax money too, just so we're all on an
>>> equal footing. Is it a deal?
>>> --
>>>
>>> Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd
>
>The implication here is that churches don't get help financially from the
>tax-payer. If they don't have to pay taxes, then they are being helped.
>
>Padraig Houlahan
Are they being helped more than the public schools who don't have to pay
taxes either (though they recieve help from tax money)?
--
Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd
Paul Dubuc
>In article <58...@cbscc.UUCP> p...@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) writes:
>>This is really irrelevant to the issue at hand since public schools
>>don't pay taxes either. Private schools have to charge tuition.
>>Parents paying this tuition must also pay taxes to support the public
>>schools. (This is the argument for tuition tax credits.)
>
>And I suppose we should give rebates to people who don't have children
>at all, since they are taxed for a service they don't receive? If not,
>why not?
>
>Of course, I have a reason myself why I think why not. I think that
>society at large gets real, substantial benefits from a generally
>educated citizenry. Public school taxes make this benefit possible,
>and thus are payed for the same reason you pay other taxes -- because
>society at large, and thus you, (allegedly) benefit from the service,
>and it could not be efficiently or properly provided any other way.
>The fact that someone might have children they choose to educate some
>other way is just as irrelevant to this as someone who has no
>children.
No, I don't think it is just as irrelevant. Parents who have children
ought to have a choice as to how they are educated. They are compelled
to get them educated somewhere. Why should the tax system be set up
so as to make it so difficult to choose against the public schools?
People who don't have children obviously do not have to deal with the
problem of wheter or not they are getting a proper education in the
public schools.
--
Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd