frith@trwrdc.UUCP (Lord Frith) (01/01/70)
In article <507@teldata.UUCP> shad@teldata.UUCP (Warren Shadwick) writes: >> >> Michael McNeil writes: >> >> The United States was established as a *secular* nation because so >> many states were founded by individuals who had experienced religious >> persecution. > > Let's be a little more specific here. The FEDERAL GOVERNMENT of the > United States as created in and by the Constiution was not to endorse > or adopt a religion as a NATIONAL religion, nor was the federal > government to interfere in the State's and peoples' right to freely > exercise their religious beliefs.... > > This is a Christian nation simply because a majority of the people in > the United States are Christians. We do not need, nor should we want, > a declaration of Congress to make it so. > > Warren N. Shadwick How do you explain Amendment 705 to H.R. 3036? "(UPI) The Senate, with nary a wisp of protest, voted Thursday to crack down on the worshipers of Satan, and the practioners (sic) of witchcraft...the Senate approved legislation denying tax exemptions to any cult promoting Satanism or witchcraft."--Rocky Mountain News This legislation applies not just to "Satanists" (visions of Charles Manson, et al.), but practitioners and believers (mostly women) in Wicca, and revivals of the Old Religion, which, contrary to some Christian trains of thought, are not satan-worship. -- seismo!trwrdc!root - Lord Frith "And I want you" "And I want you" "And I want you so" "It's an obsession"
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (01/01/70)
In article <12373@rochester.UUCP> ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) writes: > > What do we observe in nature that requires > > a Creator? That is, what phenomenon do we observe that cannot be explained > > by accepted physical (and chemical, and biological) theory, but could be > > explained by the existence of a Creator? > > A leaf. Make me a leaf using all your accepted physical (and chemical, and > biological) theories. It's been done. Look around you and pick one up. The process is called evolution. -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson) (08/16/85)
Regarding the statute to ban the teaching of "Secular Humanism" 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
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (08/19/85)
> Regarding the statute to ban the teaching of "Secular Humanism" > 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 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
js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag) (08/19/85)
> Regarding the statute to ban the teaching of "Secular Humanism" > 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..."
carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes) (08/20/85)
In article <938@bunker.UUCP> garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson) writes: > 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
rjb@akgua.UUCP (R.J. Brown [Bob]) (08/20/85)
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}lkk@teddy.UUCP (08/21/85)
In article <161@gargoyle.UUCP> carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes) writes: >In article <938@bunker.UUCP> garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson) writes: > >> 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 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) lkk@mit-mc.arpa
pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (08/21/85)
>> Didn't the Supreme Court >> recognize Secular Humanism as a religion not too long ago? >>Gary Samuelson > >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
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (08/22/85)
> 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. [BROWN] 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
bch@mcnc.UUCP (Byron Howes) (08/22/85)
Why I don't worry about this, and what you folks are missing, is that
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!bchbob@pedsgd.UUCP (Robert A. Weiler) (08/22/85)
Organization : Perkin-Elmer DSG, Tinton Falls NJ Keywords: In article <5766@cbscc.UUCP> pmd@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.
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (08/23/85)
> 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? 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
csanders@ucbvax.ARPA (Craig S. Anderson) (08/23/85)
As a product of 12 years of public schools (not counting Berkeley) I think 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
rjb@akgua.UUCP (R.J. Brown [Bob]) (08/23/85)
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}jj@alice.UUCP (08/23/85)
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
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (08/23/85)
In article <5766@cbscc.UUCP> pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) writes: > 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". > 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
garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson) (08/23/85)
I don't know why I am taking the time to respond to Rich Rosen, 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
garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson) (08/23/85)
> ... 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?) 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
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (08/24/85)
> 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. 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@spar.UUCP (Baba ROM DOS) (08/25/85)
> The whole panoply of garbage of Situational > Ethics and moral relativity is probably the most repugnant > aspect of the Secular Humanist morality. > > Bob Brown {...ihnp4!akgua!rjb} 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
long@oliveb.UUCP (Dave Long) (08/25/85)
In article <1574@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) writes: > 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
flink@umcp-cs.UUCP (Paul V. Torek) (08/25/85)
In article <952@bunker.UUCP> garys@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. 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
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (08/25/85)
> I don't know why I am taking the time to respond to Rich Rosen, but I am. 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 <938@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. -- Popular consensus says that reality is based on popular consensus. Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (08/26/85)
>>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. [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. -- Popular consensus says that reality is based on popular consensus. Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr
berman@psuvax1.UUCP (Piotr Berman) (08/26/85)
> > >> Didn't the Supreme Court > >> recognize Secular Humanism as a religion not too long ago? > >>Gary Samuelson > > > *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". > > 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. > > Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd 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
jj@alice.UUCP (08/26/85)
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. 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. -- SUPPORT SECULAR TEDDY-BEAR-ISM. "You, who are on the road, must have a code that you can live by." (ihnp4/allegra)!alice!jj
dan@scgvaxd.UUCP (Dan Boskovich) (08/27/85)
In article <1574@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@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 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@cmu-cs-k.ARPA (Tim Maroney) (08/27/85)
What is this nonsense about each person believing in her or his own 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@grkermi.UUCP (Andrew W. Rogers) (08/27/85)
In article <4217@alice.UUCP> jj@alice.UUCP writes: >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. > A few weeks ago, I caught the tail end of a news broadcast which told of 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
pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (08/28/85)
>In article <952@bunker.UUCP> garys@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
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (08/28/85)
> A few weeks ago, I caught the tail end of a news broadcast which told of > 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!) [ANDREW ROGERS] 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
pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (08/29/85)
>In article <5766@cbscc.UUCP> pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) writes: >> 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@baylor.UUCP (Peter da Silva) (08/29/85)
I have been informed that there will be a "secular humanism revival meeting"
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: 70216,1076peter@baylor.UUCP (Peter da Silva) (08/29/85)
> Basically, > > 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. -- Peter (Made in Australia) da Silva UUCP: ...!shell!neuro1!{hyd-ptd,baylor,datafac}!peter MCI: PDASILVA; CIS: 70216,1076
jj@alice.UUCP (08/29/85)
>Relay-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site alice.UUCP > >In article <1574@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@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! -- SUPPORT SECULAR TEDDY-BEAR-ISM. "You, who are on the road, must have a code that you can live by." (ihnp4/allegra)!alice!jj
smb@ulysses.UUCP (Steven Bellovin) (08/30/85)
> 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. Umm. Yes, but... The problem with this idea is that the only fair way to teach a controversial subject is "objectively", from the outside. That is, something like "some Christians believe the Bible was divinely dictated. Secular scholars cite following evidence to contradict that. Some Jews agree with the secular scholars about the New Testament, but not about the Old. Religious Moslems say the scholars are wrong, but the Koran is valid, too, and the others have misinterpreted what they were once told." Etc. You'd manage to insult everyone and confuse the students.
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (08/30/85)
>>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!) [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
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (08/31/85)
> Exercising faith is not the same as choosing to do without reasoning. [DUBUC] 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. -- "iY AHORA, INFORMACION INTERESANTE ACERCA DE... LA LLAMA!" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
jcp@osiris.UUCP (Jody Patilla) (08/31/85)
> > 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 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."
long@oliveb.UUCP (Dave Long) (09/01/85)
In article <390@scgvaxd.UUCP> dan@scgvaxd.UUCP (PUT YOUR NAME HERE) writes: > 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. 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. 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
scott@hou2g.UUCP (Racer X) (09/04/85)
> 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
brower@fortune.UUCP (Richard Brower) (09/05/85)
In article <390@scgvaxd.UUCP> dan@scgvaxd.UUCP (PUT YOUR NAME HERE) writes: > It teaches little children > how to think about suicide. It teaches them that some people's lives are > worth less than others. I've never heard of a humanist of any stripe teaching either of these 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@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) (09/05/85)
> > > > 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 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. religiously yours, ray
bch@mcnc.UUCP (Byron Howes) (09/06/85)
In article <390@scgvaxd.UUCP> dan@scgvaxd.UUCP (PUT YOUR NAME HERE) writes: > 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
pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (09/06/85)
>> 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 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@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (Beth Christy) (09/06/85)
[NO, PLEASE, I taste TERRIBLE] From: dan@scgvaxd.UUCP (Dan Boskovich), Message-ID: <390@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)
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (09/06/85)
In article <11384@rochester.UUCP> ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) writes: > 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
rdz@ccice5.UUCP (Robert D. Zarcone) (09/06/85)
> > 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 ***
jcp@osiris.UUCP (Jody Patilla) (09/06/85)
> 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. > 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."
berman@psuvax1.UUCP (Piotr Berman) (09/07/85)
> > > > > > > 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 > 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. > > religiously yours, > > ray 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
vch@rruxo.UUCP (Kerro Panille) (09/08/85)
>> 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 >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)
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (09/08/85)
> 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. [RAY FRANK] 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@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan) (09/08/85)
> > >> 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 > > 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 I thought religions were already being helped financially - don't they get tax breaks? Padraig Houlahan.
ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) (09/08/85)
> > 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@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) (09/08/85)
> >> 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 This subject may not belong here, and it may stur up a hornets nest, but so 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@amdcad.UUCP (Linda Seltzer) (09/09/85)
The term "humanism" refers to something much broader than the philosophies 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).
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (09/09/85)
In article <11464@rochester.UUCP> ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) 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 (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@scirtp.UUCP (Todd Jones) (09/09/85)
> 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. > > 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.
scott@hou2g.UUCP (Racer X) (09/09/85)
">>>" & ">" 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
scott@hou2g.UUCP (Racer X) (09/09/85)
>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
mcgeer@ucbvax.ARPA (Rick McGeer) (09/10/85)
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.pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (09/10/85)
>>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
berman@psuvax1.UUCP (Piotr Berman) (09/10/85)
> > > > 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 > secretly cunseling kids on sex and secretely giving out birth control pills, > and secret-ly performing abortions. As you said, "after all they ARE my kids." > I would object to that. Parents should not have full control over education 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
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (09/10/85)
>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 I thought that the US already did support all churches with tax money. 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
mcgeer@ucbvax.ARPA (Rick McGeer) (09/10/85)
In article <11464@rochester.UUCP> ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) 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, 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@l5.uucp (Laura Creighton) (09/10/85)
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!laura@lll-crg.arpa
helmsoid@scirtp.UUCP (the helmsoid) (09/11/85)
> > 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 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
scott@hou2g.UUCP (Racer X) (09/11/85)
>> 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
scott@hou2g.UUCP (Racer X) (09/11/85)
Re: the Government declaring the country was founded upon
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. Berrypmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (09/11/85)
In article <673@utastro.UUCP> padraig@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.) -- Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd
jjm@pecnos.UUCP (Jim Moseman) (09/11/85)
In article <10334@ucbvax.ARPA> mcgeer@ucbvax.UUCP (Rick McGeer) writes: > > 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@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (Beth Christy) (09/12/85)
[G'head, I don't care, byte me] From: pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc), Message-ID: <5867@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@amdcad.UUCP (Linda Seltzer) (09/12/85)
> > > > 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@amdcad.UUCP (Linda Seltzer) (09/12/85)
> > 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@amdcad.UUCP (Linda Seltzer) (09/12/85)
In article <11463@rochester.UUCP>, ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) writes: > > > > 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." > > 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. 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@l5.uucp (Laura Creighton) (09/12/85)
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. -- Laura Creighton (note new address!) sun!l5!laura (that is ell-five, not fifteen) l5!laura@lll-crg.arpa
bill@utastro.UUCP (William H. Jefferys) (09/12/85)
First let me say that in my opinion there should be provision for 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. However, I completely disagree with Paul Dubuc when he says: > 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. 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. Last night, for example, I watched a NOVA repeat on parasitic diseases. It was pointed out that in the case of malaria, both the insect vector (Anopheles mosquito) and the parasite have developed resistance to the agents used to combat them. Medicine in general faces a serious problem when overuse of antibiotics, for example, causes them rapidly to lose efficacy. Legislators (usually laymen in scientific matters) are required to legislate wisely on the question of whether, for example, animal feed ought to be treated with antibiotics, producing cheaper meat at the possible cost of increasing bacterial resistance to these antibiotics. 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. 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. Indeed, *even while stressing the importance of allowing conscientious objection to the teaching of evolution*, I believe that the children of Creationist parents would be better served by taking courses that include evolution. They can learn about their Creationist heritage as part of their religious upbringing, and they will, I hope, grow up understanding all the issues and being stronger in their faith. To my way of thinking, this is vastly preferable to being brought up sheltered from unpleasant ideas. -- Glend. I can call spirits from the vasty deep. Hot. Why, so can I, or so can any man; But will they come when you do call them? -- Henry IV Pt. I, III, i, 53 Bill Jefferys 8-% Astronomy Dept, University of Texas, Austin TX 78712 (USnail) {allegra,ihnp4}!{ut-sally,noao}!utastro!bill (UUCP) bill@astro.UTEXAS.EDU. (Internet)
pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (09/12/85)
I think I've covered many of Beths points in the "Schools and Churches" article I just posted. But I'll cover some others here: In article <1121@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP> beth@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@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) (09/13/85)
> > >> 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 Look, it's about time you and everyone else stop thinking of PP as an informat- ion center on sex. They give out pills and abortions and a 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.
todd@scirtp.UUCP (Todd Jones) (09/13/85)
> 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 Not to belittle the point made here, but I got a good laugh out of this scenario! -todd jones
barry@ames.UUCP (Kenn Barry) (09/13/85)
>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 If you notice how Russia and Iran treat those who don't subscribe 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
michaelm@3comvax.UUCP (Michael McNeil) (09/14/85)
> > 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. > > > > Vince Hatem > 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
padraig@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan) (09/14/85)
> In article <673@utastro.UUCP> padraig@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.) > > Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd 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
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (09/14/85)
> 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] 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
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (09/14/85)
>>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 secretely giving out birth control pills, >>and secret-ly performing abortions. As you said, "after all they ARE my >>kids." [RAY FRANK] > 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
jho@ihu1m.UUCP (Yosi Hoshen) (09/15/85)
From Bill Jefferys: > 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
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (09/16/85)
> First let me say that in my opinion there should be provision for > 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
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (09/16/85)
> 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. [HOSHEN] 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. -- "Meanwhile, I was still thinking..." Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (09/16/85)
> Look, it's about time you and everyone else stop thinking of PP as an > information center on sex. They give out pills and abortions and a little > 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
michaelm@3comvax.UUCP (Michael McNeil) (09/16/85)
[Line eater monster's sacrificial victim.] 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. ________________ Michael McNeil 3Com Corporation "All disclaimers including this one apply" (415) 960-9367 ..!ucbvax!hplabs!oliveb!3comvax!michaelm
arnold@ucbvax.ARPA (Kenneth C R C Arnold) (09/16/85)
In article <5878@cbscc.UUCP> pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) writes: >In article <673@utastro.UUCP> padraig@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.) 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
michaelm@3comvax.UUCP (Michael McNeil) (09/16/85)
[sacrificial victim.] > 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 3Com Corporation "All disclaimers including this one apply" (415) 960-9367 ..!ucbvax!hplabs!oliveb!3comvax!michaelm
michaelm@3comvax.UUCP (Michael McNeil) (09/16/85)
> [sacrificial victim.] > > > 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 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. ________________ Michael McNeil 3Com Corporation "All disclaimers including this one apply" (415) 960-9367 ..!ucbvax!hplabs!oliveb!3comvax!michaelm
nyssa@abnji.UUCP (nyssa of traken) (09/16/85)
>Look, it's about time you and everyone else stop thinking of PP as an >information center on sex. They give out pills and abortions and a >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?
vch@rruxo.UUCP (Kerro Panille) (09/16/85)
>> Until then, I suggest the schools stick to facts and keep away >> 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)
pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (09/17/85)
In article <717@utastro.UUCP> padraig@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan) writes: >> In article <673@utastro.UUCP> padraig@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.) >> >> Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd > >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
pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (09/17/85)
In article <10395@ucbvax.ARPA> arnold@ucbvax.UUCP (Kenneth C R C Arnold) writes: >In article <5878@cbscc.UUCP> pmd@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
peter@graffiti.UUCP (Peter da Silva) (09/17/85)
> 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. Yes, but not in a science class. There definitely should be a class called "scripture" or "religion" or "philosophy" which teaches about religions, just as there is a class called "science" that teaches about sciences. Of course I may be biased, my scripture teacher (in Australia) used "A Clockwork Orange" as the basis of one term's teachings, and Watergate for another term. He also authored a rather good book on Velikovsky titled "Some trust in Chariots". I've got a lot to thank Barry Theiring for. If I had been educated in this country I'd never have known the man.
mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (09/18/85)
In article <1709@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) writes: >> I do agree with Bill that creationists should be excused from >> classes that teach evolution. [HOSHEN] > >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. I see. You have the right to indoctrinate the creationist's kids in evolution, but he has no right to object to this indoctrination. I say, let them keep their kids out. If creationism is so obviously wrong, they'll realize this in college (or wherever they run into evolution as adults). For the most part, it doesn't matter anyway. If not knowing evolution is so advantageous, people will begin to realize this and will back away from hardline creationism. And if it isn't, then, maybe it isn't all that important to teach it in school. Charley Wingate
ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) (09/18/85)
> > Look, it's about time you and everyone else stop thinking of PP as an > > information center on sex. They give out pills and abortions and a little > > 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 Rich, you've done it again, you 'HACKED' off the end of my posting seemingly to help in substantiating your point of view. This is nothing short of censorship. If your argument cannot bear up under it's own weight, then re-think your argument and present it in such a way that by it's own merits the crutch of censorship is eliminated. This is a lively topic open to much disention. To dimiss as rampant a view you disagree with is nothing short of emotional tyranny which in turn degen- erates into salvos of name calling and character assination which in turn does more to disrupt a discussion than all the contrasting points of view the world has to offer. You cannot say this is my ball and if you don't play by my rules I'm taking it home and we won't play at all. This is not YOUR net, you can't take it home, I will play and not necessarily by your definitions and if you don't agree than YOU can indeed go home, but not with the ball. floweringly ray
shad@teldata.UUCP (09/18/85)
* > Michael McNeil writes: > >The United States was established as a *secular* nation because so >many states were founded by individuals who had experienced religious >persecution. Let's be a little more specific here. The FEDERAL GOVERNMENT of the United States as created in and by the Constiution was not to endorse or adopt a religion as a NATIONAL religion, nor was the federal government to interfere in the State's and peoples' right to freely exercise their religious beliefs. This prohibition does not extend to the States, some of which already had a state-endorsed and sponsored religion. How was this done? Check the first Amendment; Congress was prohibited from making laws respecting religion. Without laws the federal executive could not enforce anything and without laws the federal courts were to have no jurisdiction over religious matters. The federal courts have overstepped their bounds and usurped jurisdicion where they have none. Recent legislation attempting to limit the unconstitutional actions of the federal judiciary have been unsuccessful, but will not be forgotten. This is a Christian nation simply because a majority of the people in the United States are Christians. We do not need, nor should we want, a declaration of Congress to make it so. -- Warren N. Shadwick ... ihnp4!uw-beaver!tikal!shad
bnapl@burdvax.UUCP (Tom Albrecht) (09/19/85)
In article <dciem.1673> mmt@dciem.UUCP (PUT YOUR NAME HERE) writes: > >>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 >I thought that the US already did support all churches with tax money. >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. > Oh, c'mon! That's the old, tired, liberal notion that all wealth belongs to the government and the IRS, in it beneficence, let's us poor taxpayers keep some of it. Neither your taxes nor my taxes goes to support any church. Newsgroups: net.politics,net.religion Subject: Re: "Secular Humanism" banned in the US Schools. Summary: Expires: References: <1072@ulysses.UUCP> <607@hou2g.UUCP> <5847@cbscc.UUCP> <dciem.1673> Sender: Reply-To: bnapl@burdvax.UUCP (Tom Albrecht) Followup-To: Distribution: Organization: Burroughs Corp. - SDG/Devon Keywords: In article <dciem.1673> mmt@dciem.UUCP (PUT YOUR NAME HERE) writes: > >>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 >I thought that the US already did support all churches with tax money. >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. > > >Martin Taylor >{allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt >{uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsri!dciem!mmt Oh, c'mon! That's the old, liberal notion that all property (real and otherwise) belongs to the state and the IRS, in its beneficence, lets the poor taxpayer keep some of it. Neither your taxes nor my taxes goes to support any religion. -- Tom Albrecht Burroughs Corp. ...{presby|psuvax1|sdcrdcf}!burdvax!bnapl
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (09/20/85)
> I see. You have the right to indoctrinate the creationist's kids in > evolution, but he has no right to object to this indoctrination. [WINGATE] Just as he has no "right" to object to their being "indoctrinated" with mathematics. As Bill Jefferys so eloquently pointed out, teaching biology without teaching evolutionary theory is like teaching arithmetic without teaching division. The notion that parents have a "right" to thwart the education of their children is abominable. If, after having learned about reasoning, science, math, and thought in school, the child is told by the parents' about some of their own theories, great. Let them then decide for themselves. Perhaps some parents are afraid their children will laugh at them. And we can't have that, can we? Next thing you know, we'll have "rock and roll records" making fun of parents, too. :-) > I say, let them keep their kids out. If creationism is so obviously wrong, > they'll realize this in college (or wherever they run into evolution as > adults). It's most important for people who want to indoctrinate others to "get" them while they're young and impressionable. Great, Charlie. By the time they're adults, they'll be like those who stick to the "learned" beliefs without wincing at contradictory evidence. This is exactly what we need to stop. > For the most part, it doesn't matter anyway. If not knowing evolution is so > advantageous, people will begin to realize this and will back away from > hardline creationism. I assume you meant "if knowing evolution is ..." The point is not just evolution. Evolution is a reasonable conclusion that is reached by scientific reasoning, based on scientific evidence. If you don't want people to reach that conclusion, you must teach them incorrect things about science, or not teach it at all. > And if it isn't, then, maybe it isn't all that important to teach it in > school. Yeah, and math, too. Who needs math when we have calculators? And by the way, as long as we're chopping the school budget by eliminating required courses, let's leave out anything to do with serious independent thought and reasoning. God, otherwise our children might disagree with us, and that would destabilize society... -- Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen. Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr
kurtzman@uscvax.UUCP (Stephen Kurtzman) (09/20/85)
> > In article <673@utastro.UUCP> padraig@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.) > > > > Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd > > 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 Look at this from the other side. If the donations to a church were taxed the government could claim a right to look at any records of the church to determine contributions. Such power can be (ab)used by the state to harass unpopular sects. Something of this sort happened to a TV preacher in LA. The FCC decided that it had a right to see all donation records to the church to determine whether or not fraud had been committed by the preacher. The preacher (Gene Scott) never let his records out for various religious and constitutional reasons. However, the courts didn`t see it that way and the FCC pulled the license for his TV station. The last that I heard the FCC was going after a TV station the church owns in No. California and after a couple of radio stations owned by the church. The problem here is that a church does have a right to protect its records from government intrusion. The FCC needs to see those records to determine whether a fraud has been committed. The FCC claims it has a right to see the records since his TV ministry is a television station business and the FCC has been given broad power over its licensees. In this case, it appears that the FCC has overstepped the bounds of its authority. But since it was upheld by the courts it can go about trying to silence that church (on TV that is).
kurtzman@uscvax.UUCP (Stephen Kurtzman) (09/20/85)
> In article <5878@cbscc.UUCP> pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) writes: > >In article <673@utastro.UUCP> padraig@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.) > > 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 I agree with Ken Arnold. But it should be further noted that our form of government is not viable without an educated citizenry. People must be educated so that they can exercise their franchise to vote in a meaningful way. It is not a coincidence that some of our founding fathers were also known as great educators.
kurtzman@uscvax.UUCP (Stephen Kurtzman) (09/20/85)
> > Look, it's about time you and everyone else stop thinking of PP as an > > information center on sex. They give out pills and abortions and a little > > 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 What is bad about an information center that treats sex as something one might wish to practice safely. If a person wants to be told that sex is morally wrong they can go to any one of their local churches for counciling. It is specious to think that one information center (planned parenthood) has a monopoly on the sex counciling business. When I lived with my parents I used to get counciling on matters sexual even when I didn't seek them. Stop implying that there is something terribly wrong that planned parenthood takes a different approach than the local baptist preacher.
padraig@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan) (09/21/85)
> >>> 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 The degree to which they get aid through the tax system is a separate, though related, issue. The original issue only concerned the implication on your part that they do not get help from the tax system. Padraig Houlahan.
laura@l5.uucp (Laura Creighton) (09/23/85)
In article <1709@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) writes: >to claim that >a parent has the right to declare that "this subject should not be taught >to my child" is horrific. To claim that the state has the right to say that this subject should not be tuaght to children of the state is horrific as well. To claim that the state should have the right to determine what should be taught at all is horrific. I have more faith in the combination of parents who sincerely want what is best for their kids coupled with kids who have a natural amount of rebellion and desire to be different from their parents than I have in the benign state -- but I don't like it either way. -- Laura Creighton (note new address!) sun!l5!laura (that is ell-five, not fifteen) l5!laura@lll-crg.arpa
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (09/23/85)
>>> Look, it's about time you and everyone else stop thinking of PP as an >>> information center on sex. They give out pills and abortions and a little >>> 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? > Rich, you've done it again, you 'HACKED' off the end of my posting seemingly > to help in substantiating your point of view. This is nothing short of > censorship. If your argument cannot bear up under it's own weight, then > re-think your argument and present it in such a way that by it's own merits > the crutch of censorship is eliminated. [more RAY FRANK] You're so right, Ray, I'll now re-include that all important section I deliberately left out so as to "censor" you. > 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. Now, if you can explain how that added anything to your position, please let me know. The "excised" sentences offered nothing in the way of information (except to claim that you could do what PP does, which you can't in any case being as unobjective about these things as you are. The first section contained most of the lies you told, I didn't think it necessary to add in your other sentences. > This is a lively topic open to much disention. To dimiss as rampant a view > you disagree with is nothing short of emotional tyranny which in turn degen- > erates into salvos of name calling and character assination which in turn does > more to disrupt a discussion than all the contrasting points of view > the world has to offer. You cannot say this is my ball and if you don't > play by my rules I'm taking it home and we won't play at all. This is not > YOUR net, you can't take it home, I will play and not necessarily by your > definitions and if you don't agree than YOU can indeed go home, but not > with the ball. I'm deeply sorry that I left out the fact that you feel you could do as good a job as PP in counseling people. And to accuse me of that which you are guilty of sounds awful weird to me. I might ask you to tell everyone how, by including the section I left out, your position has been enhanced or altered in the perception of readers, but I don't want to ask the impossible. Furthermore, when asked for facts, all you can do is accuse me of "censorship". Gee, if I had a penny for every character in a responded-to article that you left out for sheer convenience, I'd be a rich man. -- Meanwhile, the Germans were engaging in their heavy cream experiments in Finland, where the results kept coming out like Swiss cheese... Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
laura@l5.uucp (Laura Creighton) (09/23/85)
Actually, Martin Taylor works in Toronto, Ontario, Canada (don't let that ``Downsview'' fool you! ;-) ) where he could specify that his education taxes go to the Catholic Metropolitan Separate School Board rather than the other public one. Lest you think that this system is perfect, let me inform you that Dave Sherman can't send his money to the Jewish Private School System (whose initials I forget) despite the fact that there existence proves that there is sufficinet demand. Perhaps this is a good thing. From what I can tell the quality of education is better at the Jewish Schools. I wish my parents had known about them and sent me there rather than a private catholic school (which also appeared to have a higher standard than the public schools). -- Laura Creighton (note new address!) sun!l5!laura (that is ell-five, not fifteen) l5!laura@lll-crg.arpa
mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (09/26/85)
>Look at this from the other side. If the donations to a church were taxed >the government could claim a right to look at any records of the church >to determine contributions. Such power can be (ab)used by the state to >harass unpopular sects. Something of this sort happened to a TV preacher in >LA. The FCC decided that it had a right to see all donation records to the >church to determine whether or not fraud had been committed by the preacher. >The preacher (Gene Scott) never let his records out for various religious >and constitutional reasons. However, the courts didn`t see it that way and >the FCC pulled the license for his TV station. The last that I heard the FCC >was going after a TV station the church owns in No. California and after a >couple of radio stations owned by the church. The problem here is that a >church does have a right to protect its records from government intrusion. >The FCC needs to see those records to determine whether a fraud has been >committed. The FCC claims it has a right to see the records since his TV >ministry is a television station business and the FCC has been given broad >power over its licensees. In this case, it appears that the FCC has overstepped >the bounds of its authority. But since it was upheld by the courts it >can go about trying to silence that church (on TV that is). Why is this harrassment? Should all so-called churches be treated differently from other advertising agencies? These TV "churches" are mainly money-spinners, so why shouldn't they be investigated for possible fraud? What does that have to do with religion, except for the unsavoury habit these people have of preying on the praying? -- Martin Taylor {allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt {uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsri!dciem!mmt
berger@aecom.UUCP (Mitchell Berger) (09/26/85)
> In article <1709@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) writes: > >to claim that > >a parent has the right to declare that "this subject should not be taught > >to my child" is horrific. > > To claim that the state has the right to say that this subject should not > be tuaght to children of the state is horrific as well. I get it... school'd been alot easier if my principals had realized this.... No curriculum :-) micha
michaelm@3comvax.UUCP (Michael McNeil) (09/28/85)
References: <1072@ulysses.UUCP> <607@hou2g.UUCP> <5847@cbscc.UUCP> <dciem.1673> <2127@burdvax.UUCP> [*ahhhhhh!*] > >I thought that the US already did support all churches with tax > >money. 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. > >[mmt@dciem.UUCP (PUT YOUR NAME HERE)] > > Oh, c'mon! That's the old, tired, liberal notion that all wealth > belongs to the government and the IRS, in it beneficence, let's us poor > taxpayers keep some of it. > > Neither your taxes nor my taxes goes to support any church. > [TOM ALBRECHT] I don't need to apply notions of whether the government does or doesn't have a "right" to my money to know that if I didn't have to pay any taxes, I would be a lot better off financially. The fact is that churches do not have to pay taxes on facilities any other organization in society would have to pay heavily for. This has the dramatic, practical effect of decreasing the required "outgo" each and every month, which when balanced against the organization's "income," produces a direct and highly visible difference in the church's pocketbook. In addition, the power to tax is the power to destroy. Any organization the State can levy taxes on, the State can tax out of existence. Constitutional freedom from that power is a considerable security for religion in this country. -- Michael McNeil 3Com Corporation "All disclaimers including this one apply" (415) 960-9367 ..!ucbvax!hplabs!oliveb!3comvax!michaelm Who knows for certain? Who shall here declare it? Whence was it born, whence came creation? The gods are later than this world's formation; Who then can know the origins of the world? None knows whence creation arose; And whether he has or has not made it; He who surveys it from the lofty skies, Only he knows -- or perhaps he knows not. *The Rig Veda*, X. 129
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (09/29/85)
> Let's be a little more specific here. The FEDERAL GOVERNMENT of the > United States as created in and by the Constiution was not to endorse > or adopt a religion as a NATIONAL religion, nor was the federal > government to interfere in the State's and peoples' right to freely > exercise their religious beliefs. This prohibition does not extend to the > States, some of which already had a state-endorsed and sponsored religion. > > How was this done? Check the first Amendment; Congress was prohibited > from making laws respecting religion. Without laws the federal executive > could not enforce anything and without laws the federal courts were to > have no jurisdiction over religious matters. > > The federal courts have overstepped their bounds and usurped jurisdicion > where they have none. Recent legislation attempting to limit the > unconstitutional actions of the federal judiciary have been unsuccessful, > but will not be forgotten. > > This is a Christian nation simply because a majority of the people in > the United States are Christians. We do not need, nor should we want, > a declaration of Congress to make it so. [WARREN SHADWICK] So much for Jews, Muslims, believers in other religions, atheists, agnostics, etc. First we have Paul Dubuc insisting that no morality without a god has any "force". Now we have "proof" of that force. Anybody who actually believes this crap is so unconcerned with personal freedom as to be rightly labelled anti-American, anti-democracy, and anti-human (the opposite of what they claim to be). It's amazing what sort of wordtwisting these moral impositionalists will engage in, what ends they will resort to, to make their "point". Do you doubt that the religious right is the enemy of freedom? Read just one example above. Read another from Don Black. Read another from the wide variety of "Christians" who seem to think they have the right to impose their morality on the rest of us, despite the nature of our country, the nature of its founding principles. "This is a Christian nation simply because a majority of the people are Christians", you say? Does that mean that this is a white nation? A heterosexual nation? If anything, we are a HETEROGENEOUS nation, with a variety of people from a variety of backgrounds ALL of whom have rights in this country despite your crass assertions, despite the fact that they are not in some majority group that seeks to impose its will on the rest. Your position disgusts me. Unfortunately, it does not surprise me. -- Meanwhile, the Germans were engaging in their heavy cream experiments in Finland, where the results kept coming out like Swiss cheese... Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
friesen@psivax.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) (10/02/85)
In article <1736@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) writes: > >Just as he has no "right" to object to their being "indoctrinated" with >mathematics. As Bill Jefferys so eloquently pointed out, teaching >biology without teaching evolutionary theory is like teaching arithmetic >without teaching division. Well, actually, I would say it is like teaching mathemetics without *arithmetic*(which actually is possible, just as teaching biology without evolution is *possible*). Why don't we move this discussion to net.origins? -- Sarima (Stanley Friesen) UUCP: {ttidca|ihnp4|sdcrdcf|quad1|nrcvax|bellcore|logico}!psivax!friesen ARPA: ttidca!psivax!friesen@rand-unix.arpa
kurtzman@uscvax.UUCP (Stephen Kurtzman) (10/02/85)
In a previous entry I described how the FCC misused its power to take a television station license away from a church. The FCC maintained that there were numerous allegations of fraud and demanded to see all the records of the church to determine whether or not said fraud had taken place. The church claimed that donor records to the church were private and protected from government intrusion by the constitution. The FCC disagreed. Lacking the power to force the issue, lacking proof of any fraud, and lacking any witnesses to come forward to even allege fraud they pulled the stations license. The response to the article by mmt@dciem was: > >Why is this harrassment? Should all so-called churches be treated >differently from other advertising agencies? >These TV "churches" are mainly money-spinners, so why shouldn't they >be investigated for possible fraud? What does that have to do with >religion, except for the unsavoury habit these people have of preying >on the praying? >-- > >Martin Taylor >{allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt >{uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsri!dciem!mmt Whether or not you agree with a religion you have no right in the United States of America to try to destroy it. The FCC was trying to destroy this church's television ministry. They succeeded in taking away a tv station license, but from what I have heard this preacher is on a satellite and is carried all over the country. So, the FCC really only wasted taxpayer money! I believe that the preacher in question (Gene Scott) is a crackpot. However, he does seem to be a sincere one. Neither you nor the FCC have the right to silence a religious crackpot.
up547413042@ucdavis.UUCP (up547413042) (10/12/85)
> > >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 Mr. Barry forgot to add that creationism is *NOT* information. It's not even science. It's an unprovable idea. Chris Young.
ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) (10/12/85)
> Mr. Barry forgot to add that creationism is *NOT* information. It's not even > science. It's an unprovable idea. > > Chris Young. Black holes up there or down there in outer space cannot absolutely be proven. But no one denies the right to teach about the possibilities of the existence of black holes. It is also not clear that the existence of black holes can ever be proven. What we do see is the effect of not the direct observance of what might be black holes. To draw parallels, what we observe in nature is not necessarily God, but the effect God has had on nature, namely, creation- ism. I rest my case. p.s. Don't shoot this example down, there are a million more where this one came from. Science churns them out in unlimited quantities.
bill@utastro.UUCP (William H. Jefferys) (10/15/85)
> > > Mr. Barry forgot to add that creationism is *NOT* information. It's not even > > science. It's an unprovable idea. > > > > Chris Young. > > Black holes up there or down there in outer space cannot absolutely be proven. > But no one denies the right to teach about the possibilities of the existence > of black holes. It is also not clear that the existence of black holes can > ever be proven. What we do see is the effect of not the direct observance > of what might be black holes. To draw parallels, what we observe in nature > is not necessarily God, but the effect God has had on nature, namely, creation- > ism. > > I rest my case. > > p.s. Don't shoot this example down, there are a million more where this one > came from. Science churns them out in unlimited quantities. I WILL shoot this example down, as well as all the other million examples you have in mind. NOTHING in science can ever be definitely proven. If you don't understand this, you don't understand science. On the other hand, if an idea can't be shot down in principle, it's not science. The existence of black holes, just as evolution, the ancient age of the earth, and all the other assertions of science that Creationists object to, could in principle be shot down scientifically, given the appropriate evidence. The proof that Creationists agree that this is true is the fact that they keep writing books and arguing in debates that they have disproven these ideas. NOTHING could in principle ever disprove your assertion that "what we observe in nature is...the effect God has had on nature, namely, creationism". This assertion is tautologous (God is BY DEFINITION the omnipotent creator), therefore cannot be disproved. It is the clear and obvious demonstration that Creationism is not science. I object to teaching of Creationism in the public schools because it is not science, but pretends to be science. It's pseudoscience. Can't we move this discussion to net.origins, where it belongs? -- Glend. I can call spirits from the vasty deep. Hot. Why, so can I, or so can any man; But will they come when you do call for them? -- Henry IV Pt. I, III, i, 53 Bill Jefferys 8-% Astronomy Dept, University of Texas, Austin TX 78712 (USnail) {allegra,ihnp4}!{ut-sally,noao}!utastro!bill (UUCP) bill@astro.UTEXAS.EDU. (Internet)
bch@mcnc.UUCP (Byron C. Howes) (10/15/85)
In article <12288@rochester.UUCP> ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) writes: >Black holes up there or down there in outer space cannot absolutely be proven. >But no one denies the right to teach about the possibilities of the existence >of black holes. It is also not clear that the existence of black holes can >ever be proven. What we do see is the effect of not the direct observance >of what might be black holes. To draw parallels, what we observe in nature >is not necessarily God, but the effect God has had on nature, namely, creation- >ism. > >I rest my case. > >p.s. Don't shoot this example down, there are a million more where this one >came from. Science churns them out in unlimited quantities. I don't think the analogy is valid. True, the evidence for black holes is arguable and proof (in the tangible sense) probably impossible. A good teacher could instructively encourage debate on the existance vs. nonexistance of black holes. I ask, rhetorically of course, what would happen if that same instructor encouraged debate on the existance vs the nonexistance of G-d? -- Byron C. Howes ...!{decvax,akgua}!mcnc!ecsvax!bch
mcgeer@ucbvax.ARPA (Rick McGeer) (10/16/85)
No, No, Rick, don't respond to a creationist... In article <12288@rochester.UUCP> ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) writes: >Black holes up there or down there in outer space cannot absolutely be proven. >But no one denies the right to teach about the possibilities of the existence >of black holes. It is also not clear that the existence of black holes can >ever be proven. What we do see is the effect of not the direct observance >of what might be black holes. To draw parallels, what we observe in nature >is not necessarily God, but the effect God has had on nature, namely, creation- >ism. > >I rest my case. > >p.s. Don't shoot this example down, there are a million more where this one >came from. Science churns them out in unlimited quantities. In some absolute sense, you can't prove *anything*, with the *possible* exception of your own existence (and even that's doubtful -- Descarte's proof is pretty flawed). However, having conceded Bishop Berkeley that, I am forced to accept Hume's rebuttal: namely, that our senses don't lie to us, and that the Universe is pretty much as we see it. OK. Accepting Hume, we get Occam's Razor: use the minimum explanation necessary to cover the facts. We see x-rays in Cygnus X-1; these x-rays are consistent with those emitted by an accretion disk around a black hole; we know of no other phenomenon that could generate them. Ergo, we are looking at a black hole. Where is the creationist parallel? What do we observe in nature that requires a Creator? That is, what phenomenon do we observe that cannot be explained by accepted physical (and chemical, and biological) theory, but could be explained by the existence of a Creator? Where, if you like, is the Babel Fish? -- Rick.
rjb@akgua.UUCP (R.J. Brown [Bob]) (10/17/85)
Rick,
Sounds good that everything is explicable by the great god
Science until you run into somebody like Goedel (who if
we are allowed to extrapolate his ideas) predicting that
we will NOT be able to explain it all without reference
outside the System.
Maybe God is the Outside-the-System reference...maybe not ?
Bob Brown {...ihnp4!akgua!rjb}charli@cylixd.UUCP (Charli Phillips) (10/17/85)
William H. Jefferys writes: >I object to teaching of Creationism in the public schools because it is >not science, but pretends to be science. It's pseudoscience. > >Can't we move this discussion to net.origins, where it belongs? > I'll second that motion! charli
ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) (10/17/85)
> > OK. Accepting Hume, we get Occam's Razor: use the minimum explanation > > necessary to cover the facts. We see x-rays in Cygnus X-1; these x-rays are > consistent with those emitted by an accretion disk around a black hole; we > know of no other phenomenon that could generate them. Ergo, we are looking at > a black hole. > "We know of no other phenomenon that could generate them." This sounds typical of man taloring the cosmos to fit his theories, helps him sleep at night. I've often heard it said that each answer produces three questions, a simple mathematical progression would show that our ignorance is aproaching infinity. By this reasoning we should become more humble in our ignorance as a token of our respect for the elegant complexity of nature. Eventually we should realize that all this complexity is not a result of a big bang accidently randomizing atoms into elegance but had as it's driving force a being who has all the answers and no questions. I know, sounds like the old "have to accept it laymen and learned alike, the laymen could not begin to work it out mathematically, so they just accept on faith that what someone worked out in principle is correct and true and they believe it while not ever being able to 'see' it for themselves. to 'see' it for themselves, so faith is used by all of us all the time, there is nothing mysterious about faith. to the time and distance the light travels rather than the dopler effect of the galaxies sp distance that light travelse ather the the dopler effect of the galaxies speeding away from us. If the former became accepted, we would have to rewrite a lot of text books. Oh well so much for faith in fallible human reasoning. > Where is the creationist parallel? What do we observe in nature that requires > a Creator? That is, what phenomenon do we observe that cannot be explained by > accepted physical (and chemical, and biological) theory, but could be explained > by the existence of a Creator? Where, if you like, is the Babel Fish? > > > -- Rick. A leaf. Make me a leaf using all your accepted physical (and chemical, and biological) theories. faithfully yours ray
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (10/18/85)
> Rick, > > Sounds good that everything is explicable by the great god > Science until you run into somebody like Goedel (who if > we are allowed to extrapolate his ideas) predicting that > we will NOT be able to explain it all without reference > outside the System. > > Maybe God is the Outside-the-System reference...maybe not ? > > Bob Brown {...ihnp4!akgua!rjb} I find it amzaing how some people can take things like Godel's Theorem, twist the meaning of it slightly ("we will NOT be able to explain it all without reference outside the system"??????????), and utter it as "proof" of the existence of the conclusion that they really wanted in the first place. -- "There! I've run rings 'round you logically!" "Oh, intercourse the penguin!" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
mcgeer@ucbvax.ARPA (Rick McGeer) (10/18/85)
In article <1744@akgua.UUCP> rjb@akgua.UUCP (R.J. Brown [Bob]) writes: > >Rick, > >Sounds good that everything is explicable by the great god >Science until you run into somebody like Goedel (who if >we are allowed to extrapolate his ideas) predicting that >we will NOT be able to explain it all without reference >outside the System. > >Maybe God is the Outside-the-System reference...maybe not ? > > >Bob Brown {...ihnp4!akgua!rjb} You're taking a few liberties with Goedel. His statement concerned the completeness and correctness of axiomatic systems, and I would not call any of the sciences axiomatic systems. Heisenberg is a better citation for you... Anyway, these speculations are interesting but fundamentally unanswerable. Hence they pall after a time. My point is that many things are knowable. All that they require is that we trust our senses and our observations more than we trust revealed word. Our observations tell us that evolution is a fact. Revealed word tells us that the world was created in 4004 BC, or whatever. ``Creation Science'' mostly consists of asserting that our observations could be flawed, because all observations may be flawed: there is no statement of observations which conflict with those commonly reported. The case is that since observations may be flawed, and since the observed phenomena conflict with revealed word, the revealed word should be taught as an alternate theory. Needless to say, I find that argument rather unconvincing. A better argument for teh religionists is to make their peace with science, as Catholic theologians have long since done. The Catholics now argue that Genesis is a metaphor, God's way of explaining complex truths to ignorant children. If I were a theologian, I should find this argument quite appealing. Rick.
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (10/21/85)
In article <1744@akgua.UUCP> rjb@akgua.UUCP (R.J. Brown [Bob]) writes: > Sounds good that everything is explicable by the great god > Science until you run into somebody like Goedel (who if > we are allowed to extrapolate his ideas) predicting that > we will NOT be able to explain it all without reference > outside the System. > > Maybe God is the Outside-the-System reference...maybe not ? Stretch your brain a little further, Bob. If God is the "outside the reference system", then by the same principle the God cannot be omniscient. -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
rjb@akgua.UUCP (R.J. Brown [Bob]) (10/22/85)
Gimme a break Rosen. I didn't twist Goedel and I didn't
offer proof you dufus...I said maybe....I said "if we extrapolate.."
Most people recognize this as specualtion...not proof.
Bob Brown {...ihnp4!akgua!rjb}rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (10/23/85)
> Gimme a break Rosen. I didn't twist Goedel and I didn't > offer proof you dufus...I said maybe....I said "if we extrapolate.." > > Most people recognize this as specualtion...not proof. > > Bob Brown {...ihnp4!akgua!rjb} 1. You most certainly did twist Godel. 2. Most people don't use a speculation as proof of a belief. If that's not what you're doing, then what proof DO you have for your beliefs? 3. Nice tone coming from a (to use Wingate's punctuation technique) "cHRISTIAN'. -- "Meanwhile, I was still thinking..." Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
rjb@akgua.UUCP (R.J. Brown [Bob]) (10/24/85)
If my fragile understanding of Goedel can be explained,
I would say that in terms of systems you would need a
larger system to model a smaller one and have the smaller
one simulate any operations. By definition the larger one
(God) would have complete "knowledge" of the smaller one.
Thus, God's omniscience would remain intact. Does this get
me anywhere Mike ?? << Hey Rich, I not offering proof - I'm
speculating again >>
Bob Brown {...ihnp4!akgua!rjb}zoro@fluke.UUCP (Mark Hinds) (10/25/85)
In article <28@uscvax.UUCP> kurtzman@usc-cse.UUCP (Stephen Kurtzman) writes: > >I believe that the preacher in question (Gene Scott) is a crackpot. However, >he does seem to be a sincere one. Neither you nor the FCC have the right to >silence a religious crackpot. You believe that Gene Scott is a crackpot, but a sincere one, so he's OK. Well, I've seen this guy too, and I'm sure he's cracked. This being the case, it is likely that he would consider all his actions to be reasonable. This could lead to fradulent use of his TV "Ministry" to gain funding. Based on this, I can see why the FCC acted as it did. Jim Jones was also a cracked minister. Would it be better not to investigate such people? Mark Hinds -- ____________________________________________________________ Mark Hinds {decvax,ihnp4}!uw-beaver!--\ John Fluke Mfg. Co., Inc. {sun,allegra}!---> fluke!zoro (206) 356-6264 {ucbvax,hplabs}!lbl-csam!--/
ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis) (10/25/85)
>> Gimme a break Rosen. I didn't twist Goedel and I didn't >> offer proof you dufus...I said maybe....I said "if we extrapolate.." >> >> Most people recognize this as specualtion...not proof. >> >> Bob Brown {...ihnp4!akgua!rjb} > >1. You most certainly did twist Godel. > >2. Most people don't use a speculation as proof of a belief. If that's > not what you're doing, then what proof DO you have for your beliefs? > >3. Nice tone coming from a (to use Wingate's punctuation technique) > "cHRISTIAN'. > Rich 1. Show us, Rich. What is illogical about God as a truth that is not verifiable from within a rational, empirical system? 2. You have no proof for your religion, either, Rich. 3. You betchum, Red Rider.. -michael
kurtzman@uscvax.UUCP (Stephen Kurtzman) (10/29/85)
In article <2395@cal-dbb.fluke.UUCP> zoro@fluke.UUCP (Mark Hinds) writes: >In article <28@uscvax.UUCP> kurtzman@usc-cse.UUCP (Stephen Kurtzman) writes: >> >>I believe that the preacher in question (Gene Scott) is a crackpot. However, >>he does seem to be a sincere one. Neither you nor the FCC have the right to >>silence a religious crackpot. > >You believe that Gene Scott is a crackpot, but a sincere one, >so he's OK. Well, I've seen this guy too, and I'm sure he's >cracked. This being the case, it is likely that he would >consider all his actions to be reasonable. This could lead >to fradulent use of his TV "Ministry" to gain funding. >Based on this, I can see why the FCC acted as it did. > >Jim Jones was also a cracked minister. Would it be better >not to investigate such people? > >Mark Hinds >-- The fact is that the FCC demanded to see all church records so that it could find evidence of wrongdoing. Our constitution protects religious freedom. Where would our religious freedoms be if every oddball preacher was suspect? How would you feel if your house and records were invaded because some govt official thought you were a compunerd. After all, you know how dangerous those hackers can be. It would be a service to the country to have you jailed since you are a potential computer criminal!
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (10/30/85)
>>> Gimme a break Rosen. I didn't twist Goedel and I didn't >>> offer proof you dufus...I said maybe....I said "if we extrapolate.." >>> Most people recognize this as specualtion...not proof. >>> Bob Brown {...ihnp4!akgua!rjb} >>1. You most certainly did twist Godel. >>2. Most people don't use a speculation as proof of a belief. If that's >> not what you're doing, then what proof DO you have for your beliefs? >>3. Nice tone coming from a (to use Wingate's punctuation technique) >> "cHRISTIAN'. >> Rich > 1. Show us, Rich. What is illogical about God as a truth that is not > verifiable from within a rational, empirical system? [ELLIS] The assumption that THAT is that truth, that a god exists with your particular favorite attributes for god in mind, and for that matter the assumption that anything necessarioly exists of that form with deliberate willful power and intelligence. > 2. You have no proof for your religion, either, Rich. Which religion? Anit-assumptionism? Non-presumptivism? As opposed to your Crutch of the Holy Assumption (with its "devils", Skinner et al)... > 3. You betchum, Red Rider.. Or to put it another way, SMASH your head against the wall... -- "Wait a minute. '*WE*' decided??? *MY* best interests????" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr