richardt@orstcs.UUCP (richardt) (08/27/85)
>> What Humanist dogma is taught in public schools? >> Bob Weiler. > Don't you know? Teaching you to use logical reasoning instead of faith? > Learning the scientific method of objective analysis? Why, all of that > is SECULAR HUMANISM!!!! > Rich Rosen Ah, would that it were taught in public schools! Unfortunately, the only schools that are teaching anyone to think (with rare exceptions) are the parochial(!) or other private schools anyway. Note: I will make no such assertions about any school which is affiliated with any denomination of whatever faith if that denomination labels itself "Fundamentalist." > It seems to me that the secularists want it both ways. When it becomes > beneficial to have one's beliefs viewed as religious, they 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. > Paul Dubuc Many of this country's laws were passed with clauses about religion written into the text. This is most often apparent in (1) oaths of office; (2) laws relating to what is or is not allowed in the schools; and (3) laws of exemption. (1) Oaths of office: Most of the oaths of office are at least religious by implication. More blatant examples are: The Presidential oath (and the oath required of a witness) require that one hand be on The Bible. I think that this has been relaxed in more recent times, but I wouldn't (on a stack a' Bibles. Honest! :-) ) swear to it. For example, I don't think that the type or denomination of Bible is specified, so you might be able to get away with substituting the New American (or Koran) for the King James. (2) What is and is not allowed in school: This is a hot one. At present, required school prayer is deemed unconstitutional. I don't think (although I might be wrong) that anyone will get mad at you for randomly praying at the beginning of class, although the Principal/ Teacher/Whatever might get upset because someone might think that they condoned school prayer. However, even then religion is inherent in the public school system. One notable example: 'I pledge allegiance to the flag, Of the United States of America, And to the Republic, For which it stands, One Nation, Under *GOD*, Indivisible, With Liberty and Justice for All.' That might be a bit loose in the order of the verses; its been awhile. In any case, if you happen to be Muslim you're going to have problems with that one, and some teachers get very angry when you start substituting deities (look, I got sent to the principals office just for mumbling the thing instead of speaking it loudly, and that was in 1977!). On the other Hand/Paw/Tentacle, religious beliefs, such as Creationism, are banned from the schools where possible, on the grounds that scientific proof for them has not been substantiated, and that they therefore fall under the "Separation of Church and State" clause in the Constitution. Personally, I'd like to maintain that, if for no other reason than that it keeps a lot of crazies out of teaching positions. (3) Laws of Exemption: These cover such things as Conscientious Objector Status (exemption from military service for religious reasons, now extended to include most forms of personal belief), Exemption from Immunization for Religious Reasons, and other fun things. My own preference would be to rewrite these laws so that, in each case, it reads "for reasons of personal belief" instead of "for religious reasons." But that opens up a whole 'nother can of worms. > 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. > Paul Dubuc Excuse me, but I label myself a Secular Humanist (as well as being Jewish), and I don't remember appointing John Dunphy as my spokesman, or joining any organization known as "The American Humanist Association." I therefore do not see why their thoughts are being attributed to me and my ilk. Perhaps you're trying to embellish the facts to make a point? > ...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] This is an excellent point which I wish more people would listen to, think about, and take seriously. Of course, we wouldn't be having this argument if people used their brains, so maybe it is asking too much. > 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. > [Still] Paul Dubuc And here lies the root of your problem: you are unwilling to differentiate between groups of people with different opinions. This is on about the same level as grouping Communists with Socialists, or Nihilists with Anarchists. These groups stand for different things, and in many cases the groups that call themselves something are (a) lying (such as the Soviets calling themselves a Socialist Republic -- they're neither) and (b) they won't even agree on what they think they are! > 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. > [Still] Paul Dubuc My friend, that is what Isaac Asimov, J. Gould, and myself are after. What we are trying to prevent is ignorance of the way the world appears to work, irrational behavior, and the encouragement of a belief system which happens to promote hatred, racism, and totalitarianism as several of it's nasty side effects. Promoting any form of religion in the schools beyond the teaching of a rational way of thinking and a Science which has appeared to work quite well so far (unless my car's engine runs solely because The Lord is propelling it) tends to (1) put factionalism into the schools to a far greater degree, and (2) allows the people who scream the loudest (th Fundamentalists) to take over. I'm sorry, I don't like any theology which tries to control my mind. And if this effort and belief is a religion, so be it. > 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 ... are diametrically opposed to what > amounts to crass idolatry espoused by Secular Humanism. > Bob Brown Huh??? I missed something there. Last time I looked, the basic tenet of Secular Humanism was this: "Regardless of whether there may or may not be any deity, Men should do whatever they can to promote the welfare of the human race." I would not, however, be able to speak for the group which calls itslef "the American Humanist Association." They don't speak for me, and I won't speak for them. And BTW: Judiaism, Christianity, and Muslim ALL promote, albeit in varying degrees *and subject to varying moralities*, that tenet. Now, having undoubtedly made everyone mad at me for throwing some reasoning into a perfectly good argument, I'll let you go back to arguing. orstcs!richardt Richard Threadgill "Logic is an organized method for being dead wrong" -- Unfortunately, I can't remember who said it "A good debater can defend anything" -- my debate coach "The problem with Atheism is not the rejection of God; once you remove people's faith, rather than believe in nothing, they will believe in anything" -- G.K. Chesterton as Father Brown