scott@hou2g.UUCP (Racer X) (09/13/85)
I'm going to try this once more, though I don't know why. Maybe I just have some time to kill this afternoon. I find myself arguing in the Rich Rosen tradition. ">" & ">>>"- Paul Dubuc " " & ">>" - Me > It is very questionable whether any teaching can >be neutral in the manner that you suppose. Clearly our ideas (sic) of neutrality differ vastly. For some reason I get the impression you think that any teaching without heavy doses of christianity isn't neutral. > They do impact belief and >morality. The distinction between belief and science is actually much >fuzzier that you suppose. It's actually not nearly as fuzzy as you would like. Or like others to think. >I have never seen any moral code that could be supported appart from >some transcendant framework (religion). Shure, religion may not be >necessary to *learn* morals (as long as there are people willing to >do what others expect of them without question) but I doubt very much >that morality can be said to mean anything (supported rather than just >learned) apart from religion. > >Anyway, even if this assumption were true it still is not a good reason >of excluding a moral perspective simply because it is religious. Why >is one that is "non-religious" inherently better? Paul, do everyone a favor and go find your dictionary. Look up moral. For that matter look up morality, moralism, etc. Do you find any mention of religion? I can't even find any *implication* of religion in my Webster's Ninth Edition Collegiate. But of course you'll complain that Christians were excluded from preparing that dictionary. And if religion is not necessary for one to have AND SUPPORT morals, it's clearly extraneous and needn't be taught in school. >> I can't think of any *VALUES* taught in >>school which would contradict church teachings, just *IDEAS* which may >>be contradictory. >The problem is not with just my child. I care about society also. I >would like to have as much input into the public institutions that >effect the future of our society as those who have their views represented >in compulsory education. The main problem with (your) religion is the mandate on proselytizing. Another reason for separation of church and state. The founders of this country came here because they were tired of having someone else's *religion* shoved down their throats. No one is shoving religion down YOUR throat, just facts. If *facts* contradict your *beliefs*, well that's just too bad. >I think the distinction you make between "values" and "ideas" is trivial. >Certainly they are very closely related, if not interchangeable, when >dealing with kids. You MUST be kidding! If you can't find a difference between values and ideas, I'd suggest you go back to school. You apparantly spent too much time worrying about everybody else's education and not enough about your own. >>Evolutionary theory may not be absolutely necessary, but if you're going >>to treat origins, teach evolution in school and creationism (whichever >>variety you espouse) in church. See above. Very few (I've since been >>corrected) churches teach evolution, leaving schools as the ONLY place >>to learn the theory. >But why should one view be compulsory and tax supported and the conflicting >on not? Because one *view* is based on FACTS, the other on BELIEFS with often blatent DISREGARD of these same facts. If the tax-supported view is in error, it will be replaced with the theory that best accounts for the most facts. (Right now that theory is evolution.) How often has the church changed its mind on Genesis? > Many churches teach nothing with regard to origins. Students >who don't go to church's that teach creationism or no church at all will >only learn one side of the issue. I wouldn't WANT to go anywhere that taught 1+1=3. >> I don't think, however, that sex-ed programs are >>saying "Go out and have sex". They seem to be saying "IF you are considering >>sex, here are some of the issues". What constitutes the biology of human >>reproduction, and what constitutes sex-ed? Where do YOU draw the line? >You mean where to WE draw the line. That's the way I would like it with >regard to the public schools. Some people aren't even allowed into the >debate because of religious bias. Why is it that when others disagree with you the claim is religious discrimination? And I know where *I* draw the line. You're sidestepping the question. This happens quite a lot (not just with Paul). I haven't seen anywhere on the net a "pro-creationist" or "anti-humanist" state how they feel about teaching Buddhist or Greek origin theory in school, or perhaps rationally comparing "Creationism" with the Midgard Serpent. Is it because you feel these other ideas (excuse me; maybe I should have said *values*) are silly next to YOUR belief? Or is it that when compared side to side yours might look equally silly? Maybe you're right. You DO have a religious bias. >>Fine. Then you must agree to teach the minimum in church as well. Since >>most teach only one view, kids might develop a bias. My experience with >>religions is that THEY "give neat answers consonant with only one view." >What the church teaches is not compulsory or supported by tax money. Oh, I see. Make up your mind. Either you support dogmatism or you don't. >>As I said before, morals can be pretty well divorced from religion. I >>probably have morals consistent with many Christians (the Golden >>Rule, which I live by, is a good example). But I didn't go to church >>to learn them. Nor did I need to. >OK, you have learned them. But how do you support them. How do you >compel another to treat others as he would be treated? ^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^ I don't do this since I live by the Golden Rule. I wouldn't want anyone to force their morals on me (as you can see by now). How 'bout me and my friends come over and COMPEL you to worship Zippy the Pinhead? >The problem lies in that some see fit for the public schools to teach >what they believe in to the exclusion of conflicting points of view. >Others pay just as much to support the public schools but aren't allowed >that kind of representation. They are forced to go to extra expense >to get it privately (where it can safely be ignored). This is another (related) issue I've never seen addressed by you (or any other, for that matter). How would you like to be forced to teach the Flat Earth theory? I mean we wouldn't want to exclude "conflicting points of view". Of course it doesn't matter whether or not these points of view contradict facts, as long as students see the "truth" in them, right? "Most of the Gods dreamed up by men have all the morals and manners of a spoiled child" Scott J. Berry