charli@cylixd.UUCP (Charli Phillips) (01/01/70)
In article <5530@fortune.UUCP> brower@fortune.UUCP (Richard brower) writes: >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. > >Richard A. Brower Fortune Systems >{ihnp4,ucbvax!amd,hpda,sri-unix,harpo}!fortune!brower Excuse me, but if you want to send a child to a school that teaches that homosexual activities are a legitimate option, you should send him to a private school. If you are a member of a minority group with respect to beliefs, morals, and the like, you cannot expect the majority to pay to teach the options you prefer. The best you can ask is that the public schools remain neutral. I intend to send my children to private schools because I want them to be taught traditional Christian (traditional, not fundamentalist) values. Because these are minority views, I do not expect the public schools to teach them. However, if I cannot afford to send my child to a private school, I will insist that the public school be neutral. I do not want the school to teach my child that homosexuality, premarital sex, and the like are acceptable alternatives. You probably don't want the school to teach your child some things that I believe in. So let's just have the public schools teach grammar, biology, chemistry, and the like. (They're having enough problems doing that well!) charli
richardt@orstcs.UUCP (richardt) (08/27/85)
>> What Humanist dogma is taught in public schools? >> Bob Weiler. > Don't you know? Teaching you to use logical reasoning instead of faith? > Learning the scientific method of objective analysis? Why, all of that > is SECULAR HUMANISM!!!! > Rich Rosen Ah, would that it were taught in public schools! Unfortunately, the only schools that are teaching anyone to think (with rare exceptions) are the parochial(!) or other private schools anyway. Note: I will make no such assertions about any school which is affiliated with any denomination of whatever faith if that denomination labels itself "Fundamentalist." > It seems to me that the secularists want it both ways. When it becomes > beneficial to have one's beliefs viewed as religious, they wear the > religious mantle. When it comes to keeping certain ideas out of the > public schools, however, that's different. Then you're only religious if > you believe in God. > Paul Dubuc Many of this country's laws were passed with clauses about religion written into the text. This is most often apparent in (1) oaths of office; (2) laws relating to what is or is not allowed in the schools; and (3) laws of exemption. (1) Oaths of office: Most of the oaths of office are at least religious by implication. More blatant examples are: The Presidential oath (and the oath required of a witness) require that one hand be on The Bible. I think that this has been relaxed in more recent times, but I wouldn't (on a stack a' Bibles. Honest! :-) ) swear to it. For example, I don't think that the type or denomination of Bible is specified, so you might be able to get away with substituting the New American (or Koran) for the King James. (2) What is and is not allowed in school: This is a hot one. At present, required school prayer is deemed unconstitutional. I don't think (although I might be wrong) that anyone will get mad at you for randomly praying at the beginning of class, although the Principal/ Teacher/Whatever might get upset because someone might think that they condoned school prayer. However, even then religion is inherent in the public school system. One notable example: 'I pledge allegiance to the flag, Of the United States of America, And to the Republic, For which it stands, One Nation, Under *GOD*, Indivisible, With Liberty and Justice for All.' That might be a bit loose in the order of the verses; its been awhile. In any case, if you happen to be Muslim you're going to have problems with that one, and some teachers get very angry when you start substituting deities (look, I got sent to the principals office just for mumbling the thing instead of speaking it loudly, and that was in 1977!). On the other Hand/Paw/Tentacle, religious beliefs, such as Creationism, are banned from the schools where possible, on the grounds that scientific proof for them has not been substantiated, and that they therefore fall under the "Separation of Church and State" clause in the Constitution. Personally, I'd like to maintain that, if for no other reason than that it keeps a lot of crazies out of teaching positions. (3) Laws of Exemption: These cover such things as Conscientious Objector Status (exemption from military service for religious reasons, now extended to include most forms of personal belief), Exemption from Immunization for Religious Reasons, and other fun things. My own preference would be to rewrite these laws so that, in each case, it reads "for reasons of personal belief" instead of "for religious reasons." But that opens up a whole 'nother can of worms. > The Humanist Manifestos proclaim the religious nature of humanism, though many > humanists avoid the term. Some don't bother to hide fact that they consider > the public classroom to be the primary vehicle for the promulgation of their > views. John Dunphy's statement in *The Humanist* (Jan/Feb 1983) is classic: > > I am convinced that the battle for humankind's future must be > waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers who > correctly perceive their role as the proselytizers of a new faith: > a religion of humanity that recognizes and respects the spark of > what theologians call divinity in every human being. These teachers > must embody the same selfless dedication as the most rabid > fundamentalist preachers, for they will be ministers of another > sort, utilizing a classroom instead of a pulpit to convey humanist > values in whatever subject they teach, regardless of the educational > level--preschool day care or large state university. > Paul Dubuc Excuse me, but I label myself a Secular Humanist (as well as being Jewish), and I don't remember appointing John Dunphy as my spokesman, or joining any organization known as "The American Humanist Association." I therefore do not see why their thoughts are being attributed to me and my ilk. Perhaps you're trying to embellish the facts to make a point? > ...wherever [secularization] appears appears it should be carefully > distinguished from *secularism*. ... [secularism] is the name for > an ideology, a new closed world-view which functions very much like > a new religion. ... Like any other "ism", it menaces the openness > and freedom secularization has produced; it must therefore be watched > very carefully to prevent its becoming the ideology of a new > establishment. It must especially be checked where it pretends not > to be a world-view but nonetheless seeks to impose its ideology > though the organs of the state. [*The Secular City*, pp. 20-21] This is an excellent point which I wish more people would listen to, think about, and take seriously. Of course, we wouldn't be having this argument if people used their brains, so maybe it is asking too much. > Personally I think Cox's distinction between "secularism" and "secularization" > is vague and tenuous. But, aside from that, it's a distinction that few > people make anyway. The secularist influence is insidious because it > is commonly perceived as being neutral toward the differing religious values > many people hold. > [Still] Paul Dubuc And here lies the root of your problem: you are unwilling to differentiate between groups of people with different opinions. This is on about the same level as grouping Communists with Socialists, or Nihilists with Anarchists. These groups stand for different things, and in many cases the groups that call themselves something are (a) lying (such as the Soviets calling themselves a Socialist Republic -- they're neither) and (b) they won't even agree on what they think they are! > If a secular society means that the public square is open to the > "falwellites", "liberals", "secular humanists" and all alike--regardless > of their religious persuasion--I'm all for it. I fear that that is not > what we have, however. > [Still] Paul Dubuc My friend, that is what Isaac Asimov, J. Gould, and myself are after. What we are trying to prevent is ignorance of the way the world appears to work, irrational behavior, and the encouragement of a belief system which happens to promote hatred, racism, and totalitarianism as several of it's nasty side effects. Promoting any form of religion in the schools beyond the teaching of a rational way of thinking and a Science which has appeared to work quite well so far (unless my car's engine runs solely because The Lord is propelling it) tends to (1) put factionalism into the schools to a far greater degree, and (2) allows the people who scream the loudest (th Fundamentalists) to take over. I'm sorry, I don't like any theology which tries to control my mind. And if this effort and belief is a religion, so be it. > Let's get back to what Secular Humanism is... > This philosophy or religion elevates the individual's > immediate desires or reasoning to the SUMMUM BONUM > in life. The whole panoply of garbage of Situational > Ethics and moral relativity is probably the most repugnant > aspect of the Secular Humanist morality. > Basically, > Man and/or Man's Desire is the deity > All morality is relative > Most Jews, Christians, and Muslims ... are diametrically opposed to what > amounts to crass idolatry espoused by Secular Humanism. > Bob Brown Huh??? I missed something there. Last time I looked, the basic tenet of Secular Humanism was this: "Regardless of whether there may or may not be any deity, Men should do whatever they can to promote the welfare of the human race." I would not, however, be able to speak for the group which calls itslef "the American Humanist Association." They don't speak for me, and I won't speak for them. And BTW: Judiaism, Christianity, and Muslim ALL promote, albeit in varying degrees *and subject to varying moralities*, that tenet. Now, having undoubtedly made everyone mad at me for throwing some reasoning into a perfectly good argument, I'll let you go back to arguing. orstcs!richardt Richard Threadgill "Logic is an organized method for being dead wrong" -- Unfortunately, I can't remember who said it "A good debater can defend anything" -- my debate coach "The problem with Atheism is not the rejection of God; once you remove people's faith, rather than believe in nothing, they will believe in anything" -- G.K. Chesterton as Father Brown
ask@cbdkc1.UUCP (A.S. Kamlet) (09/01/85)
>Many of this country's laws were passed with clauses about religion written >into the text. This is most often apparent in (1) oaths of office; (2) laws >relating to what is or is not allowed in the schools; and (3) laws of exemp > >(1) Oaths of office: Most of the oaths of office are at least religious by > implication. More blatant examples are: The Presidential oath (and > the oath required of a witness) require that one hand be on The Bible. > I think that this has been relaxed in more recent times, but I wouldn't > (on a stack a' Bibles. Honest! :-) ) swear to it. For example, I don't > think that the type or denomination of Bible is specified, so you might > be able to get away with substituting the New American (or Koran) for > the King James. What is the source for saying that, "The Presidential oath (and ...) require that one hand be on The Bible?" I believe that using The Bible, or taking an oath rather than affirming, is the choice of the president. The Constitution of The United States, Article II, Section 1, states: Before he enter on the execution of his office he shall take the following oath or affirmation: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will, to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States." -- Art Kamlet AT&T Bell Laboratories Columbus {ihnp4 | cbosgd}!cbrma!ask
tim@k.cs.cmu.edu.ARPA (Tim Maroney) (09/14/85)
Thanks, Laura; rather weird that you beat both me and Owen (the two Thelemites here) to Crowley's defense, but it's appreciated. I posted Crowley's "The Message of the Master Therion" as sent to me by Josh Gordon, when I was sending the New Age mailing list digests to net.religion a few months ago (before fundamentalist flak convinced me that it was a bad idea). This explained "Will" in fairly clear terms. Now I'll post part two of my "Introduction to Thelema", still in production, which deals explicitly with "Will" as a basis for a moral system. Or, as Bruce Smith would say, "Would you like some Thelemic literature? Would you like to buy a flower?" Thelemic Morality ================= The fundamental tenet of Thelema is that the supreme moral principle is "Do what thou wilt." First, look at what this is not. Governments and monotheistic religions adopt a uniform approach to morality, that of a list of taboos. Although the Mosaic Law is rather different in content from the U.S. Penal Code, it is identical in approach. A subset of all possible actions is set down in writing and forbidden. The worthlessness of this approach should be clear: no such list can exhaust the possibilities of immorality, and any attempt to make it do so creates an impenetrable document. The common man will never be able to do more than scratch its surface; only a few scholars or lawyers will be able to apprehend its entirety. Thus the list of taboos forms no real moral guide. It is to virtually everyone just an ambiguous source of possible punishment, an unknowable and impersonal force demanding fear and respect. On the surface of it, "Do what thou wilt" is just as bad, or worse. It would seem to mean that one should do whatever one pleases, without regard for morality. However, the Book says more than "There is no law beyond Do what thou wilt." Allow me to quote briefly: "The Word of Sin is Restriction.... thou hast no right but to do thy will. Do that, and no other shall say nay. For pure will, unassuaged of purpose, delivered from the lust of result, is every way perfect." Clearly this "will" is rather different from the animal will, or that which is normally called "force of will" or "will-power". It is a divine, a transcendent, Will which is referred to. All "Sin", all "wrong", is but the Restriction of that divine Will. The relation to Taoistic concepts in the latter sentence is apparent. So now consider a society in which all keep to "Do what thou wilt". None imposes an obstacle to the Will of another; each seeks to know and do her or his own Will to the fullest. No one is content to sit all day, rotting the mind with passive stimuli, kissing ass at work and squelching any individual thoughts that may arise by mischance. (We have all seen the ostracism that afflicts those who dare disagree with their neighbors, and would never dare incur that or abstain from its infliction, would we? Such is the cry of the middle classes.) No one lives by deceiving others or by violating their will to own property; no one kills, rapes, or commits other crimes which restrict the Will of another. In short, the completeness of morality, both all aspiration to Godhead and all worthwhile taboo, is expressed in that one phrase, "Do what thou wilt". Of course, such a society will never exist, but morality is inherently quixotic. (Why will it never exist? Because institutions devoted to the lists of taboos exist, and under "Do what thou wilt" it would be immoral to destroy them by force, provided they do not directly attack our freedoms.) Society can never reach perfection; interpersonal morality consists largely of determining what that impossible perfection would be like, and conforming one's own behavior to it as much as possible. There is a real psychological difference between the Law of "Do what thou wilt", and the list of taboos. To verify this, try to explain "Do what thou wilt" to a fundamentalist Christian, an Orthodox Jew, or some other who is emotionally or dogmatically attached to one of the lists of taboos. The person will prove simply incapable of understanding non-taboo-based morality in most cases. The difference is what Crowley liked to call the Sin-Complex. The taboo-monger cries "Not my will but thine be done!" He sees himself as a cringing worm, bereft of all virtue and capable of good only when under the control (or at the least guidance) of some force outside himself. This attitude is useful to religious and political leaders, and thus its predominance. Who understands and follows the Law knows that, though subject to a myriad ignoble attractions and repulsions, she or he contains the divine spark that redeems all the rest, awaiting only the Work to bring it to light. The psychological benefits of realizing that one's core is good, not evil, are immense; in fact, there is a school of psychoanalysis, the Rogerian, which deals with nothing else. Thelema is the foe of all sexism. The third verse of the first chapter (a rather prominent position!) is "Every man and every woman is a star", thus explicitly denying all sexist ideas. Furthermore, the cosmological model involves the uniting of the goddess Nuit with the god Hadit to form the hermaphroditic Ra-Hoor-Khuit, rather than a male god spurting out the Universe in an act of masturbatory genesis, or a female goddess who parthenogenetically birthed all life. The Universe is the dynamic union of male and female, not the creation of either alone. Numerous parallels from Hinduism and Buddhism will no doubt occur to the East-inclined reader. The only "evil" is not direct restriction of the Will. The release from restriction can create an unbalanced response which is not in conformity with the Will. Rather than returning to the Will, one may swing to the opposite extreme from the former restriction. For instance, a slave who seeks to enslave his or her former masters rather than seek equality for all, or a person who reacts against religion dominated by a single gender by forming a religion dominated by the other gender rather than a sexually egalitarian religion, or someone who reacts against hypocritical standards of "good" by identifying himself with "evil". These are extreme cases; the unbalance involved in reaction against Restriction can be far more subtle. One predominant feature of morality is the carrot and stick aspect. Why should you follow an inconvenient moral code? In the list of taboos approach, the answer is simple: you will be punished if you transgress, and rewarded if you keep to the straight and narrow. The Hindu idea of karma and its variants such as the Law of Three are similar. There is no "official" Thelemic position. It seems evident that seeking to know and do the Will will lead to a less painful and restricted life. Crowley himself believed in karma in the literal reincarnatory sense; I don't believe in the afterlife, but I do feel that acts of deceit and such carry their own psychological penalty which is immediate and self-inflicted. I don't mean guilt, which fails to effect many people; I mean paranoia in its overt and subtle manifestations. Most people are insufficiently introspective to see that their enjoyment of life is dwindling when they increase their use of deceit, but the negative effects are no less real for that. The crooked businessman, the liar, the thief, the murderer: all are always on the run, always looking over their shoulder to see who's either trying to do to them what they have done to others or found out about their misdeeds. The attitude of these people is always that the world is "dog eat dog"; they can never reach any real contentment or rest. Recently, an attempt has been made to improve upon "Do what thou wilt" by prepending "An it harm none". I ask that anyone devoted to this formula realize that I am only speaking what seems to me the truth, the result of sincere analysis. I formerly accepted this formulation, but came to see that it was seriously flawed. The "Wiccan Rede", as the modified version of the Law is usually called, misses the point of "Do what thou wilt" from both the negative and positive perspectives. Negatively, the Law is non-interference, not non-harm. The will to harm is valid in unusual cases. For instance, an Allied soldier in the Second World War should not be called "immoral" for removing Axis soldiers from incarnation: the Nazis were deliberately engaged in an enterprise whose goal was to thwart the wills of all Jews, and any others who disagreed with the Nazi party line. Yet under the Rede that Allied soldier could not have pulled his trigger, because it is harming someone to injure or kill him. It is no use to object that under the Rede the Nazi would be likewise restrained, because such situations do arise in the real world and must be dealt with. Under the Law it is clear: the Nazi is not acting in accord with his will because he acts to block the wills of others, and therefore it is not a violation of his divine will to force him to stop this interference. Certainly causing harm is something any sane person seeks to avoid whenever possible, and most obstacles can be gone around instead of destroyed. But to elevate non-harm to a primary position in one's morality is to ignore the reality, that harming is not only justifiable but necessary in some cases. At the turn of the century, many occultists and theosophists staggered under the burdens of the right wing, such as anti-Semitism and fascism; as the next century approaches, many occultists and witches stagger under the burdens of the left, such as pacifism. Both must be transcended. It is also possible to interfere with another's Will without doing any "harm" as far as the person interfering is aware. To pick another extremely clear-cut example, Soviet psychiatrists honestly believe that to oppose the state is a mental illness. They are thus, as far as they know, not harming someone by removing such opposition. All "harm" short of the infliction of physical injury is a subjective judgment, so the actions of the brainwashers are in accord with the Rede. Under the Law, however, no such fallacy is possible: that this is interference with the person is an undeniable, objective fact. A closer-to-home example of "harmless" interference, and of how it is permitted by the Rede, is provided by the president of Covenant of the Goddess who told me she would like to see violent sports made illegal. Of course, it is possible to define harm in terms of interference, but then why not just use the original version? Still, I can't see anything wrong with the Rede under that interpretation, except that it is still only the negative, the forbidding, half of morality. The positive perspective on the Law is that one is to learn and do the divine Will. This is wholly lacking in the modified version. The Rede can be paraphrased as "Do whatever you feel like so long as it doesn't hurt anyone." The mere human will is the only thing mentioned: at least, I have never seen any Wiccan commentator take the Rede in any other light. Where is the aspiration in this? Where is the moral obligation to realize one's fullest potential? Morality is not simply to refrain from evil, but to do good; but you would never know that from the Rede. I have spent so much time on this because pacifism is a serious fallacy, a Restriction of the Will of the same order as a taboo against premarital sex. In fact, if one examines the beliefs of the leading original exponents of pacifism in this century, such as Gandhi, their sexual priggishness is obvious. This is not a coincidence. Remember always that to strike is as blessed as to stroke, provided only that it is the true Will to do so. -=- Tim Maroney, Carnegie-Mellon University, Networking ARPA: Tim.Maroney@CMU-CS-K uucp: seismo!cmu-cs-k!tim CompuServe: 74176,1360 audio: shout "Hey, Tim!"
baba@spar.UUCP (Baba ROM DOS) (09/18/85)
Wow! Could it be that that libertarianism has roots in Satanism? ;-) Baba