chrism@shark.UUCP (03/23/84)
(MM = Moral Majority) >I don't think that people should condemn the MM's involvement in politics >before they realize that the groups they oppose are doing the same thing >(and using the same methods) with their ideas. And I think the news media >definitely biases itself against the MM. If you think that all Christians >who see an application of biblical principles for society are "Falwellites" >think again. Political involvement works both ways. Jesse Jackson is an example of a leftist who is strongly influenced by biblical principles. Some of his rallies look like old-time revivals. Interestingly, the press seems to ignore this aspect of his character. If Jackson were, in contrast, a far-right candidate (and possibly white??) I'm sure he'd be pinned to the proverbial cross for his political-religious mixing. However, since 'Liberal' religious institutions and people often have goals congruent with politically active secular types, there is a marked tendency to 'forgive' their religious motivation. This is called expediency, although I agree its often more than a little hypocritical. I'm reminded, as an example, of the Marxist guerrila leader and the leftist Catholic priest fighting side by side in Central America. >Speaking of book burning and censorship, Liberals have been praciticing it >for years under the guise of "instilling proper values in our children" and >"removing stereotypes and religious influences". We part company here. The democratic secular state tries to promote a scientific education; in principle it leaves religions training to private homes and places of worship. The value of this approach may be judged by its results - in the few hundred years of the ascendancy of secularism (what you call Liberalism, I guess), man's life has improved immeasurably. None of this was due to religious relevations; it came about through science and its application. An approach of this sort 'ignores' religion - it doesn't actively suppress it. It simply provides a set of tools for critical thinking. Granted, this critical thinking often has the effect of letting people see through percieved inconsistencies in some religions and so adopt a secular philosophy. This is far cry from book burning or censorship, however. >People should learn how to think rather than be told what to think. I could not agree more. Chris Minson
pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (03/30/84)
A response to Chris Minson: } }>Speaking of book burning and censorship, Liberals have been praciticing it }>for years under the guise of "instilling proper values in our children" and }>"removing stereotypes and religious influences". } }We part company here. The democratic secular state tries to promote a }scientific education; in principle it leaves religions training to private }homes and places of worship. The value of this approach may be judged by }its results - in the few hundred years of the ascendancy of secularism }(what you call Liberalism, I guess), man's life has improved immeasurably. }None of this was due to religious relevations; it came about }through science and its application. An approach of this sort 'ignores' }religion - it doesn't actively suppress it. It simply provides a set }of tools for critical thinking. Granted, this critical thinking often }has the effect of letting people see through percieved inconsistencies }in some religions and so adopt a secular philosophy. This is far cry }from book burning or censorship, however. Interesting how a secular philosophy is one that is adopted as a result of obtaining "tools for critical thinking" and being able to "see through percieved inconsistencies". Has the system failed if it does not achieve this end? I used to have a purely secular philosophy of life. I partially credit critical thinking for allowing me to reject it and adopt my present religious one. Critical thinking is *not* taught in the public schools, however. The emphasis there is on "right" or "wrong" answers. How old do you think kids have to be before they can question the opinion of a teacher, or realize that it may be good to do so? When good grades mean putting down the "right" answers on a test, there isn't much use for critical thinking--just find out what the right answer is and use it. This is how kids learn, especially at a young age. It makes them particularly vulnerable to the instillment of moral values. C.S. Lewis describes the abuse of this characteristic of young people in "The Abolition of Man". I think that book would make good required reading in the public high schools. I see what Lewis calls "men without chests" to be the product of the purely secularist philosophy of education, all the while believing that we are bringing up a more "enlightened" youth by its implementation. A mulitplicity of religious influence should be allowed in the classroom, but not the total exclusion of them. Those influences are an important part of our moral fiber. I would surely object to the teaching of only one religious view in the public schools, but I also object to the students being isolated from religion altogther. Do you credit the "immeasurable improvement" of man's life totally to the rise of secularism? Without even giving any examples of how secularism has directly contributed to such improvement? As if the the only thing that has contributed to the improvement during the last "few hundred years" is secularization. Actually I think secularism has had a significant effect on our society only in the last eighty years or so. I think it has produced some benefit, but I don't think we owe the secularists such a large debt as you suppose. Also the promotion of a scientific education is not exclusively a secular characteristic. Many of our best universities were started by churches. Whether or not our lives have been improved "imeasurably" may depend on who you are and what you look at. There are may ways in which our lives have gotten worse, in my opinion. And many would attribute those to "secular philosophy". I don't think that the technological advancement of our society is the only basis on which we can judge whether or not our lives have "improved". (Science has given us many benefits, but also many more problems to deal with. e.g. polution, nuclear arms). The moral fabric has more to do with it, I think. This is the main point of conflict between religion and secularism. It's not as simple as "ignoring" religion. Removing evidence of the religious aspects of our society from public school texbooks and libraries removes from the educational process an important view society itself. Ignoring religion actually promotes the idea that it is not important. Great stress is laid on getting an education to be a productive member of society. So by ignoring religion in the schools we are really saying that it is fine for pleasing Mom and Dad, but religion will not really help you with what is really important in the world. Values derived from religious beliefs seem irrelevent. Again, I am not talking about promoting one particlular religion in the schools. I am just saying that religious belief is a very important part of the makup of our society. There are Liberal groups that organize screening of school libarary and text books to make sure no mention is made of "God". Childeren learn how to relate to society largely though their education. Indeed, the school environment is their first taste of "society". Ignoring society's religious values inculcates the idea that religion is irrelevant to society at large. All the while many liberal groups *are* trying to influence curriculum with their moral values, some of which strongly contradict those derived from religious belief. Some feminist groups screen books in an effort to remove exposure to the "tradional roles of women". It doesn't matter that a good portion of the women in our society fulfill and are fulfilled in that role. They aren't so concerned about how society is, but in showing kids how they think it should be. That is teaching values. If kids get the idea that the "ideal" woman is the "career" woman, they might begin to wonder why their Mom doesn't measure up. Homosexual groups also like to see their lifestyle viewed as normal and healthy. All this while the voice of religious belief is ignored. Secularism is not amoral. It *does* instill moral values. There wouldn't be anything wrong with that if it didn't do so by also excluding other moral influences. Pluralism it pretends to be, but in reality it is not. At any rate, I'm sure you must have noticed that the public schools aren't as great a place to learn (in general) as they used to be. Whose educational philosophy is responsible for the present crisis? Paul Dubuc