|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 5819 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Randman's call for nonSecular education... | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2169 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
.
This message has been edited by schrafinator, 11-17-2005 06:33 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2169 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: I don't know of any secular humanist, including myself, who believes that. In fact, if anything, we have a long, long history of Christians trying to impose their religion upon everyone else in the country, right up to the present time. I mean, seriously, when was the last time you even heard of a secular humanist going door to door, trying to get people to renounce their faith? I get the Mormons, the Baptists, the Evangelicals, and the Jehovah's Witnesses coming to my door all the time. We get billboards trying to get people to believe in the Christian God, lots of televangelists, the 700 club, Capus Crusade for Christ shouting yo people on the street corner, holding silly banners, handing out pamplets that would only convert a stupid person who already believes (...but what about what it says in the Bible!?), and even a year round Christmas store in the mall who's shopping bags read "Jesus is the Reason for the Season." We are steeped, marinated, and roilling in Christianity in this country, and you have the gall and the utter lack of perspective to think that secular humanism is somehow any kind of major force in our culture. This message has been edited by schrafinator, 11-17-2005 06:44 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5819 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
There's been too much written to deal with individually today. I wish I had started in this thread instead of the other rand focused religion thread. Since you (ben) mistook what I meant in post 150, and rand is moving away from the topic again, I am going to restate the purpose of this thread again and answer some of what has been posed to me (mainly by you Ben).
Rand's position was that Biblical scripture taught from the vantage point of believers is NECESSARY for a basic education. That is what I am disputing. It is not whether religion should or should not be examined as it effected certain things (which is another issue). To me a basic education is developing core skills that will be needed regardless what field of endeavor one is to go into, or perhaps to allow a broad field of endeavours to be attempted (specialized in during later education). It may also be useful to explain the functioning of govt as that will be a part of life regardless of endeavour. Thus basic education necessarily includes language, logic, and math. Science is the application of all three to analyzing evidence and will be encountered in some degree by everyone no matter what they do, especially given the amount of chemical and technological items used in most jobs. History and geography are not necessary, but extremely useful (and I would agree to include them) so that a person can understand physical and cultural positions, and how they have changed over time leading to the situation they are in now. I do not believe detailed knowledge of historical events are useful to anyone but those who desire further knowledge in a subject. How history has been taught has changed over time, and it seems odd to say that it must be taught in explicit detail of what formed causes and events, rather than as a general survey of events. For example, I would expect Xian religion to be mentioned when discussing many of the events of the Dark and Middle Ages, especially with the rise of Protestantism. But the exact nature of what the two groups believed, and further how they read specific portions of the Bible, seems superfluous to anyone except a specialist in that area of history. I do not believe schools function as socializers. Socialization occurs with or without schools, and there is no need to have schools press any cultural agenda or vantage point on kids. That is what they have parents and the rest of their nonschool environment for. It seems that one of the larger problems our society is facing is viewing and expecting schools to be the sole source of children's understanding of their world. Much should be left to parents and their immediate community. Or maybe I should say it already is left to them, and parents are abandoning their duty in this regard. I do not see how a person will be less functional or capable of being a good and productive citizen and help drive culture forward, just because they have not been instructed in background beliefs of others from school. The numbers of beliefs and their relationships would be better left to the student to encounter as they will, rather than assume any will be more important than any other. Choosing which are important would be arbitrary and distracting to the general knowledge which is more useful. In all of this I believe an overemphasis has been made to the place of religion in history. In many times and cultures religion was a personal thing and not as public as it is now. And in some cases where it was very public, it was diverse due to its vagueness. When one gets to the point of seeing the creation of the US as a theologically driven event, one has lost perspective in history. Certainly influences could be found there and that might be interesting to study, but they were not as important as other changes and movements. Indeed rand has continually ignored where Xians picked up the thoughts he considers so important. It wasn't divine revelation from scripture, it was a change in interpretations which came from other cultures, or parts of cultures that sought some validation. Okay I have to end this here now. I'll try to get back on later. But I want to take this thread from here. What is necessary for a basic education, and why is biblical scripture necessary for this. Ben I have seen you have addressed the first question to some degree already. Maybe you could amplify it given what I have said here, and in light of what Rand was actually proposing. I apologize for anyone that feels they just got shortchanged by my response. Hopefully the greater clarity and focus for the thread will make up for anything missed. holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IrishRockhound Member (Idle past 4435 days) Posts: 569 From: Ireland Joined: |
Perhaps I can offer another perspective?
I think we can all agree that Ireland is about as religious as a country can get, considering our very long history of Catholicism. So what is the Irish experience of education regarding religion? Ok, in primary schools to start with, religion classes went through the generic fluffy stuff in the Bible, hymns, ceremonies, whatever. The vast marjority of the students are Catholic anyway, so we'd get this at Mass on Sunday too. This is based on the permission of the parents; Church of Ireland families usually send in a request that their kids not participate. In my primary school, this meant that they'd go read a book from the little school library (full of really good titles, I remember reading Matilda and George's Marvellous Medicine). In secondary school, things get a little more serious. Religion classes (maybe twice a week I think) are where you discuss current issues like divorce or abortion; other religions of every kind like Islam and Buddhism; and, most importantly, it was a chance for students to take a break and talk about how they were doing in school, maybe blow off some steam. In my final year of secondary school, we were taken on a religious retreat - which was nominally religious, but really was to give us a break from studying for our final exams and give us a chance to all be together as a class before we'd go off to different colleges or abroad. Religion in Irish secondary schools is all about supporting the students rather than teaching. I came out of it knowing, if you'll excuse the phrase, bugger-all about Scripture, and I can safely say that I got one of the best educations it's possible to recieve in the western world. I studied the history, warts and all, in history class. I've gone on to do a degree and more. So implying that one has to learn excessively about any religion, regardless of its cultural impact, in order to recieve a good education and be successful is simply not true. As we can see, Ireland has a remarkable standard of education and does not do this. I would call it indoctrination, and I would be very suspicious of anyone who suggests this. The Rock Hound "Those who fear the darkness have never seen what the light can do." |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
You fail to realize that private evangelism or stuff like that has no bearing in the discussion. What secularists have done is reinterpret the 1st amendment that suppossed to guarantee the state passes no laws respecting religion and does not prohibit any religious expression, and that includes public expression, into a law that prohibits and bans religious expression, declaring de facto secularism as the official religion/ideology of the nation, and that is something you believe, contrary to what you have claimed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Adminnemooseus Administrator Posts: 3974 Joined: |
Or is there already a suitable topic lurking out there?
First Amendment Center | Freedom Forum Institute might be a good starting point reference. Adminnemooseus New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.
Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures Thread Reopen Requests Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6408 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Wrong again, randman. There is lots of public expression of religion going on, and no evidence that it is being prohibited.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5819 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
You fail to realize that private evangelism or stuff like that has no bearing in the discussion. It bears on discussion. Evangelists are interested in conversion and do want to use govt agencies to help that process. That is part of the concern here and indeed was a concern back with our founding fathers. They had much negative things to say about evangelists and attempts by them to use govt for their ends.
What secularists have done I don't want to pull out a no true scotsman argument, but this isn't quite accurate. I agree some activists have gone way too far and there is an oppression of religion being enacted in some cases. That is not close to the amount of religious oppression of others, but obviously neither are right. Secularism is not a religion, though atheism will end up being secular in nature. I think you are confusing rabid atheism with a portion of what they are involved with and would espouse as part of their philosophy. Religious people can have a secular govt, and a secular education system. There are religious groups dedicated to that idea. holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2169 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: How are you prevented from practicing your religion? (also, please note my sig...) This message has been edited by schrafinator, 11-17-2005 04:29 PM "History I believe furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance, of which their political as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purpose."--Thomas Jefferson There is no greater threat to civil liberties than an efficient government. -jar
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Can you rephrase your question to make it relevant to the topic? If not, I see absolutely no reason to consider your posts worth responding to and may respond to some or may ignore others.
The simple fact is "randman" is not listed as an entity in the Constitution. If are asking where religious expression has been prohibited, I think I already answered that, and you know of examples yourself such as banning Christmas displays, prayers at public events, etc,...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Evangelists are interested in conversion and do want to use govt agencies to help that process. OK, prove that. Name the evangelists that want to use government agencies to help evangelize and name exactly how they want to use government agencies to evangelize, please. The simple fact is, by what you guys claim, Christians ought not to be able to use the highways because it's public land, and heaven knows those Christians are travelling to churches, prayer meetings, etc,...trying to convert people, and we can't have the Dept. of Transportation subsidizing religion. And speaking of that, utilities are quasi-governmental in the sense of the government is entagled with them via regulations, and so really we can't have phone lines and power going to churches, or Christian homes. This message has been edited by randman, 11-17-2005 04:35 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2169 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: You aren't allowed to put up a Christmas display at your house?
quote: People can pray all they want at public events. If the event isn't a government-sponsored event, there can be all the group prayer they want. If it's a government sponsored event, then people can pray privately all they want. You can pray all the damn day and night for all I care.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Can you explain the relevance to your question?
Let me put it this way. Jim Crow laws did not affect my freedoms, but they were still wrong. This message has been edited by randman, 11-17-2005 05:14 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Religious expression is prohibited, period, and the Constitution states "Congress shall make no law...prohibiting the free exercise of religion." The courts have interpreted the Constitution to mean the free exercise of religion is prohibited if it includes public officials.
How much clearer can it be?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Religious expression is prohibited, period No, it's not. I'm calling you out on this one, because I know you're making these things up.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024