Forums | MacLife

[MA] Flying_Meat wrote:

charon wrote:

(I'll call them "anti-religious" although that's not quite accurate).

I think that you will find that this applies (or should) across the religious board and plays no favorites. This is the crux of your argument, it seems to me, and can be easily remedied. if you think any "one" religious content should be allowed in the face of separation of church and state as it applies to public education, then "all" religious content must therefore be allowed.

No, I don't think any one religious doctrine should be allowed nor the doctrines of all religions (which is just plain impossible).  Nor do I think that religious doctrines should be negated.  All of these choices seem to breach the wall.

otter wrote:

So long as publicly funded education institutions continue to refrain from teaching religious doctrine, then yes, they can and do co-exist with said separation.

But doesn't it also follow that public schools have to refrain from teaching that certain religious doctrines are wrong?  Yet they do this all the time (albeit without explicitly saying so).

otter wrote:

The real issue regarding the separation of church and state, particularly in public schools, is that when religious doctrine is taught as fact, then a decision has to be made as to which religious doctrines are "true" and which are "false". 
...
The government, in any form, is in no position to make these decisions, nor should it be.

otter wrote:

And to deride the teaching of valid science in public education, on the grounds that it is "anti-religious" or "derisive" of a particular, or even all, religious beliefs is disingenuous and tendencious.  Science belongs in public schools, and religion does not.  Period.

This seems contradictory.  On the one hand, you don't want government picking and choosing religious doctrines on the basis of what it considers to be the truth.  I absolutely agree.  Yet you also think it's OK for the government to teach things that contravene religious beliefs--as long as it's "science."  Isn't that just another name for government-approved "truth"?  (And don't get the wrong impression--I'm an atheist.)

charon wrote:

Based on what you've written, it sounds like you don't believe in any constitutional limits at all upon what's taught in a public school.  Maybe that's not what you meant; if not, then my question is why the constitution only limits the explicit affirmation of certain religious doctrines and not the explicit negation of religious doctrines--which is what a lot of public school education is.

Now, I am very sympathetic to the idea that parents should take more responsibility in how their kids are raised.  On the other hand, how can we ask them to do that when money they might otherwise spend on education is taxed away and they are told that there's basically one public school to choose from?  Nor does this address the fact that people are being forced to support the propagation of doctrines that violate their religious beliefs, nor that the government is putting its muscle behind such doctrines.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by your question- are you saying that a lot of public schools explicitly negate religious doctrines? You cant keep children in a bubble and call it education. Knowledge in and of itself doesnt violate religious doctrine either; I would say it merely provides an option. If a religion teaches 2+2=5, I really think thats wonderful in a way, but children should at least be educated that the way most people see it, even Dostoevsky's sick and spiteful man, 2+2=4.

Pundit Guy wrote:

Camp David wrote:

We are not a secular society.

Are too.

Dream on. He's wrong IMO in saying that we are a religious society, but dead on in saying we arent a secular society. The US may strive for a secular government, but that is hardly the same thing.

Pundit Guy wrote:

Camp David wrote:

We are not a secular society.

Are too.

A few months ago, another post on MacAddict documented the fact that most Americans identify with some sort of religious affiliation by a LARGE percentage... the secular scourge of disbelief, although a growing threat, is by no means a majority factor... MOST AMERICANS FOLLOW SOME SORT OF RELIGION OR RELIGIOUS BELIEF... thus your statement implying a Secular Society is patently wrong... if you'd like I'll research it again and repost the links...

Historically, America has identified with Judeo-Christian religions and America's history is rife with religious affiliation...

Camp David

Pundit Guy wrote:

StaticAge wrote:

Dream on. He's wrong IMO in saying that we are a religious society, but dead on in saying we arent a secular society. The US may strive for a secular government, but that is hardly the same thing.

We seem to get mildly religious in December and sometimes March, and religion polls very well. Other than that, what have you got?

I said I think he is wrong in suggesting that we are a religious society. Its not like there are only two options here, either all religious or all business, as though one is the binary opposite of the other. US society is defined by neither.

charon wrote:

StaticAge wrote:

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by your question- are you saying that a lot of public schools explicitly negate religious doctrines?

Sure--the belief in 7-day creation of the universe and mankind and the ethics of birth control, for example.

StaticAge wrote:

You cant keep children in a bubble and call it education. Knowledge in and of itself doesnt violate religious doctrine either; I would say it merely provides an option. If a religion teaches 2+2=5, I really think thats wonderful in a way, but children should at least be educated that the way most people see it, even Dostoevsky's sick and spiteful man, 2+2=4.

Some "knowledge" does violate religious doctrine.  The point, of course, is that believers will argue that it's not "knowledge," it's falsehood.

I'm an atheist, so I personally want my children to get an education as based upon logic and science and free of religious influence.  But my point is that it's not my or your place to plan out what kind of education should be taught to kids who aren't ours, nor what kind of edcuation should be taught at other people's expense, nor what kind of education should be taught by the government, where that education is going to run counter to people's religious beliefs, for all the same reasons that we generally separate church and state (it's respectful to these religious groups and it's also dangerous for your own beliefs--there are a lot of Camp David's in this country).

I think your starting from a mistaken position: that exposure to an alternative view will negate the original belief. That is totally baseless, one doesnt automatically shift their belief system because they hear something contrary to it. The shift would require choice- something no one can will upon someone else. Offering a choice does not force a selection, and the supposed "violation" or "negation" can only occur by absorbing and merging with the new knowledge; an unlikely occurance if the believers already assert the knowledge is false.

Pro_ wrote:

I know only 2 reasons for education. 

1. to provide the background knowledge necessary to find a job
2. to provide a filter of understand about how the world works

from every filter that we use to view the world, there is a fundamental assumption that is the basis of the filter.  The assumption of science is that we can learn more about the nature of the universe's existence by using logic and observation.  (everything that happens or exists is natural by definition).  this viewpoint means that there is no such thing as absolute certainty, there is always a probability of being wrong associated with intrepertations of available data.

The assumption of religion, is that humans cannot understand the nature of existence without being told by something outside the human frame of reference(something supernatural).  This frame of reference allows for absolute certainty, only in the light of faith, if you are wrong, you dont know that you are wrong(trust in a judgement of someone or something else that you have no rational reason to trust).

There are some problems when you try to reconcile these 2 assumptions with the workforce.  If you believe that every population of animals today is descended from two individuals, on the blind faith that it is possible to get all the genetic diversity required for a sustainable population from 2 randomly selected indididuals, then you probably will not be very successfull breeding and reintroducing endangered species.

You forget one of the primary reasons it is in every nation states best interest to provide education: to socialize society and create a bulwark of allegiance. Also, any education tends to place authority in the hands of the teachers or in the source of certain positions. Certainly no one teaches students that science is flawed and probably everything in their textbooks is wrong, rather, the knowledge acts as an authority, that this is how you are to think of your world. There is often criticism made of religious persons that they dont really know anything, they just believe what they were told to from what they read in a book, unfortunately however, most secular education is the exact same process.

Last edited by StaticAge (2005-02-24 10:01 am)

StaticAge wrote:

charon wrote:

StaticAge wrote:

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by your question- are you saying that a lot of public schools explicitly negate religious doctrines?

Sure--the belief in 7-day creation of the universe and mankind and the ethics of birth control, for example.

StaticAge wrote:

You cant keep children in a bubble and call it education. Knowledge in and of itself doesnt violate religious doctrine either; I would say it merely provides an option. If a religion teaches 2+2=5, I really think thats wonderful in a way, but children should at least be educated that the way most people see it, even Dostoevsky's sick and spiteful man, 2+2=4.

Some "knowledge" does violate religious doctrine.  The point, of course, is that believers will argue that it's not "knowledge," it's falsehood.

I'm an atheist, so I personally want my children to get an education as based upon logic and science and free of religious influence.  But my point is that it's not my or your place to plan out what kind of education should be taught to kids who aren't ours, nor what kind of edcuation should be taught at other people's expense, nor what kind of education should be taught by the government, where that education is going to run counter to people's religious beliefs, for all the same reasons that we generally separate church and state (it's respectful to these religious groups and it's also dangerous for your own beliefs--there are a lot of Camp David's in this country).

I think your starting from a mistaken position: that exposure to an alternative view will negate the original belief. That is totally baseless, one doesnt automatically shift their belief system because they hear something contrary to it. The shift would require choice- something no one can will upon someone else. Offering a choice does not force a selection, and the supposed "violation" or "negation" can only occur by absorbing and merging with the new knowledge; an unlikely occurance if the believers already assert the knowledge is false.

How many religions give a basis other then 'Because god said so' as the reasoning behind a commandment?  telling students about 7 day creationism is a COMPLETE waste of time, until you can come up with evidence to back it up.

the earth is flat BECAUSE GOD SAID SO!

Pro_ wrote:

Camp David wrote:

MOST AMERICANS FOLLOW SOME SORT OF RELIGION OR RELIGIOUS BELIEF
Camp David

That does not mean they have faith in their religion.  I know many prople that go to church solely for social reasons...

So? The fact that there is a hot divorced blond with big jugs that sits in the third pew at Church at 10:00 am service might be a social attraction to going to Church, but hardly changes the religious belief of parishioners, save perhaps breaking the 7th Commandment.

Camp David

StaticAge wrote:

Pro_ wrote:

I know only 2 reasons for education. 

1. to provide the background knowledge necessary to find a job
2. to provide a filter of understand about how the world works

from every filter that we use to view the world, there is a fundamental assumption that is the basis of the filter.  The assumption of science is that we can learn more about the nature of the universe's existence by using logic and observation.  (everything that happens or exists is natural by definition).  this viewpoint means that there is no such thing as absolute certainty, there is always a probability of being wrong associated with intrepertations of available data.

The assumption of religion, is that humans cannot understand the nature of existence without being told by something outside the human frame of reference(something supernatural).  This frame of reference allows for absolute certainty, only in the light of faith, if you are wrong, you dont know that you are wrong(trust in a judgement of someone or something else that you have no rational reason to trust).

There are some problems when you try to reconcile these 2 assumptions with the workforce.  If you believe that every population of animals today is descended from two individuals, on the blind faith that it is possible to get all the genetic diversity required for a sustainable population from 2 randomly selected indididuals, then you probably will not be very successfull breeding and reintroducing endangered species.

You forget one of the primary reasons it is in every nation states best interest to provide education: to socialize society and create a bulwark of allegiance. Also, any education tends to place authority in the hands of the teachers or in the source of certain positions. Certainly no one teaches students that science is flawed and probably everything in their textbooks is wrong, rather, the knowledge acts as an authority, that this is how you are to think of your world. There is often criticism made of religious persons that they dont really know anything, they just believe what they were told to from what they read in a book, unfortunately however, most secular education is the exact same process.

I guess I had more deviant teachers then you did.

charon wrote:

That aside, I think you're way too dismissive of the problem.  If public schools were teaching that there is no god, is this the position you'd take?  Granted, public schools don't do anything quite as egregiously bad.  Yet they do implicitly yet very clearly teach that God didn't do certain things (such as literally create the world in seven days), contrary to the religious beliefs of many.  Those beliefs aren't as widely or fervently held as the belief in God's very existence, but this is a difference of degree only.

Which leads directly to parents objecting to reading curriculum with images of a boy making toast because the Bible clearly states that womenfolk do the cooking. This would also be a "difference of degree," but it seems like we've got to draw a line somewhere.

Pro_ wrote:

How many religions give a basis other then 'Because god said so' as the reasoning behind a commandment?  telling students about 7 day creationism is a COMPLETE waste of time, until you can come up with evidence to back it up.

the earth is flat BECAUSE GOD SAID SO!

Excuse me? I am definitely NOT in favor of creationism being taught in schools and you have obviously no grasp on what I am talking about.