Randman's call for nonSecular education...

Neither does a statue of the Ten Commandments, but you think that is wrong, don't you?Ok, I see where you think the statue is coercive. I cannot agree and think that's lunacy. If you want to maintain that, we have nothing to discuss. A statue of the Ten Commandments coerces no one. Actually having Congress open with prayer is much more a signal of endorsement of Christianity than a statue of the Ten Commandments.

The opening with prayer is an action by individuals excercising their freedom of religion. The statue is a action by the state.

No, opening with prayer is an official act of the entire legislative body. It's not individuals but a paid chaplain as a government employee, to lead the entire session opening it with prayer.

Hi holmes,Thanks for taking the time to refocus the thread. I think it's an interesting thread. I understand. Just to clarify, my position is that it doesn't matter if it's "necessary" or not; I agree with randman that it's useful to a degree that it's worth making room for. Because of that, for me, arguing whether it's "necessary" or not is not worthwhile. Well, you can see that I disagree with you strongly on this one. Too much responsibility in the parent's hands, there has to be a system of "checks and balances" in education. It's not uncommon for parents to have a limited scope of cultural knowledge. It just doesn't work in today's globalized world.I'll expand a bit more on this below. I probably couldn't disagree more.What is the use of language? Do you mean a foreign language, literature, or study of our own native language? I assume you mean study of our first language. How is that helpful at all? Vocabulary is best learned in an applied environment; just study those applied environments. Every discipline has different jargon and vocabulary; why focus on expanding vocabulary without a specific subject area to increase it for? Maybe I'm totally missing your point... but when you say "language", what can I do but guess? As for logic... I completely disagree that the study of abstract logic better equips students with the ability to make logical deductions. The ability to apply logic is very contextual; i.e. logic is an applied subject. Even though it seems best to teach it abstractly, it just doesn't work--ability to do logic in different contexts correlates with academic experience, but not with whether you've taken a logic course¹. For those who have less education, ability in logic is extremely contextual.No way a course in abstract logic is going to accomplish what you want. Logic has to be taught in applied, contextual settings.And math... what is math good for these days? If there's one utility for computers, it's to do math for us. I don't think math inspires great creative thinking... those who are interested in mathematical subjects, such as ... math, physics, computational modelling... that's fine. But I think we teach math much more than we need to. Who needs geometry?And again, I'd strongly suggest that applied math would be much more useful than math theory. It's amazing how hard word problems are, even for those who have the necessary math. The world is word problems; if we're not teaching the skills to solve such problems, we're not teaching useful skills. Yes! An applied setting. Teaching in context. I love it. Let's do that. We need to get some information on the types of jobs that are available in the US. I have a real hard time believing that the contents of science class are useful in any jobs.Now, critical thinking, such as hypothesis testing, is a great skill applicable in all sorts of jobs. I'm all for teaching that. Science class is a good applied setting for teaching such a skill. See, to me, these are necessary. You need to situate yourself in the world, give context to your own life. Without it, I just see "big fish in a big pond" syndrome; believing that your local community is somehow representative of larger parts of the world. Not only that, but having a lack of concern... or thought about the rest of the world.Applied history and applied geography. I love it. History not as facts, but as decisions, as tangible cultures, as having an active hand in shaping the world you see before you. Teach geography as world travel, teach it in the context of neighboring countries, how they relate, what kinds of relations can exist and where they do exist, how different cultures find different ways to relate to each other. Let students personify different cultures, different relations, propose solutions to problems. Sounds ambitious... but kids can be smarter in their ADD simplified ways than adults can be... because adults create hangups for themselves. I agree. Some degree of facts need to be taught, so that a "cultural literacy" is maintained and people (past, present, and future) can communicate efficiently and accurately. But I agree with your basic point. I don't mean to be insulting... but I do feel this stance is a cop-out. Yes, it's hard to choose, yes, you're damned no matter how you choose... that doesn't mean it's right to ditch the enterprise. It just means every choice is imperfect. Making no choice is just worse.You can probably guess by now--I don't believe belief should be taught in a factual, unapplied manner. It has to be contextual, applied... teach cultures, teach differences, teach celebrations of the good sides of different cultures. Hell, make class a party every day for all I care. The most basic point is to forge an interest in other cultures, to foster the idea that other cultures aren't foreign or strange, but familiar, knowable, not a priori threatening.At the same time, as I mentioned above, it is important to give people context to their lives. I think teaching about Christianity, some historical, some cultural, is a very important part of establishing that context. This is something worth discussing with randman. I hope you can see that what I really want to be taught is what can provide useful context to people's lives, and to help them relate.

---

¹ Kurtz, Kenneth J., Gentner, Dedre, & Gunn, Virginia. (1999). Reasoning. In D.E. Rumelhart & B.M. Bly (Eds). Cognitive Science: Handbook of Perception and Cognition (2nd ed.). San Diego: Academic Press, p. 154.

---

I've never written such a long reply, and I haven't adequately argued why all this stuff belongs in school and not at home. Suffice it to say that families don't always have the necessary knowledge or perspective in order to deliver these things to their kids. And it's a critical element in a functioning society. So... sounds like something that should be mandatory to me. Put it in schools.Anyway, I'll just let you deal with what's here, and we can go forward from that. I know there are points that I've only addressed weakly, but ... best to move on as is.Thanks again for your work in summarizing and moving this forward.BenThis message has been edited by Ben, Friday, 2005/11/18 07:59 AM

Ben...meet me in chat 12:50 am mountain time

oops....116 am im there now

No, and you couldn't get farther from the truth. The laws should not be used to enforce anyone's "values". That's the point. The govt is there to provide services and protections such that you can live according to your own private value system. It is not there so that you can democratically elect your value system into power as long as you are in the majority.And the idea that Xians do not want to impose Xian morality and perspectives is patently false. Gay rights and pornography are rather obvious topics where we are discussing Xian's wanting to impose their system on others.I have yet to meet even the most avid of antitheists arguing that the govt should outlaw people saying prayers or banning bibles in their own homes. That would be the flipside of what Xians are asking for. That is not equality.Equality is you get to say and live your way, I get to say and live my way. First of all you have no idea what my opinion is on outsourcing govt services to local groups so your comments on that are pointless.Second, even assuming that a person were to agree with outsourcing it would not be discriminatory to limit funds to nonreligious orgs. As long as they say nothing about religion (for or against) then they would be secular and not conflicting with the purposes of govt service which is supposed to be neutral.If you have a problem with that you can read a bit from our founding fathers where they explicitly denied giving public monies to religious institutions to provide services that the govt is supposed to be handling.I am having a hard time understanding how you do not see that taxing people and then giving their money to religious groups (of opposing denominations) to provide a service which will end up including proselytization, is not unfair and discriminating to the taxpayer and the person receiving the public service.And I doubt you would be very happy if suddenly there were "sex based" services, where when you went in to get a service it would be scantily clad or nude service people offering to help relieve your tension on top of whatever they were supposed to be doing, and indeed hoping to help you loosen up and enjoy the service of whichever sex attendant(s) you get.You may think that seems absurd, but it is just as absurd as going in to receive a service and being told that they can help we with my "soul" and relieve my spiritual problems. Bait and switch. Go in for secular service, get proselytization.By the way this charge of yours is doubly odious as unlike secular charities, Xian charities have requested that they can discriminate against who they hire based on religious grounds. That is a blatant act of discrimination, which no other service does request or administer, and underlines that they are not interested in providing just a secular service using govt money. No, no I don't think you want to at all. You can't make things clear by throwing mud.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

You missed my reply to him, and the revision I made to my post. It was a poorly worded statement by me to be sure and I see why people read it the way they did.I did not mean imposing Xianity itself on others. However that is not mean Xians do not want, or have not tried to impose ANYTHING on ANYONE by law. Its pretty clear Xians have and do want their moral positions imposed on others by law.You don't get to have anti gay and anti free speech initiatives by Xians, and then declare not wanting to impose things by law. I'm sorry, how exactly have you been hindered in practicing your religion as your forefathers did? Specifically how has govt changed your ability to do so?You have the freedom to exercise your religion all you want. The difference is I don't have to wear the same jogging suit just to please you and allow you to pretend we are all exercising the same way. All that is being suggested (at least by me) is upholding secular govt which means no "stuff" about religion at govt facilities, besides what persons might have in their personal space.I do not support initiatives banning displays at holidays, and disturbingly to me I have heard some communities have wanted to regulate displays on private property.Frankly I do not share your "well the majority said walk into the gas chamber so let's march" attitude. If the majority tells me to do something which is against my rights then I have a right to redress that action. There is a protection for minorities in this nation. That is supposed to help YOU. Oh please. So a judge which allows homosexuals to practice their beliefs is actually allowing homosexuals to rule over you? That's pretty twisted logic.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

quote:

---

Religious expression is prohibited, period,

---

You can't put up a Christmas display at your house?Answer the question.

quote:

---

Religious expression is prohibited. How can you argue that? Take the 10 Commandments thing. Personally, I don't even think of that as religious expression, but more as cultural expression, but the reasoning behind banning it is that it is a religious expression.
Same with opening high school football games with prayer, or prayer at governmental functions, Christmas displays on public property, etc, etc,...

---

So what does any of this have to do with you putting up a christmas display at your house?You can put a Christmas display up at your house, correct?You can express your religion as an indvidual citizen.Right?

Let me say, regardless of whatever I am about to write, I found your post worthwhile and intriguing... Unfortunately that is the actual topic of this specific thread. He claimed that an adequate basic education is impossible without biblical instruction from a believers point of view. That is patently incorrect to me, countered by many who have not received such education and are quite productive and those who have and are not at all productive.That is all I was intending to discuss here.But since it seems I cannot get that going, let me address where you are headed. I suspect it will at least result in some answers, and at least a bit more honest give and take.To be honest, there is a lot of stuff that I think could be worthwhile making room for in education. I think our nation has the ability to educate its children beyond minimal basics. I would not even oppose allowing more in depth study of religion within a core educational program. Its just that that is not synonymous with what is necessary for a basic education. That means it is desired for a better than basic education. Oh, we are in complete disagreement on this one. To me there is no such thing as too much responsibility in parents' hands. Education is a service provided by the community for the benefit of parents. It is not a tool used by the govt to raise children properly.I agree that parents cannot have the capability of teaching every single subject under the sun, but enculturing them is not a problem. There is no prereq for helping children understand who they are and where they are living. You seem to be asking for a specific perspective to be taught to kids. As much as I agree with that perspective and will be instructing my kids that way, I am under no illusion that others want that kind of instruction for their own children and indeed randman's desires seem to be quite the opposite. Yes, I meant the primary language though for nations whose language is not part of international trade/diplomacy, they might also be wise to learn one of those as well.Foreign languages can be useful and part of a more developed education, but truly are not necessary for an adequate education for life in one's own nation.The rest of your discussion, including both logic and math are about method of education and not what is being taught. I wholeheartedly agree that the majority of education should be taught in application rather than strict theory or terminology.In fact I was lucky in my college education to get a professor who taught logic almost primarily through application to various situations (that is arguments made in many different fieds). And whereas I used to hate word problems I eventually came to realize exactly what you said, the world is word problems.Of course I don't think there is nothing to basic theory and terminology. A combo or both is probably the best bet.In the end analysis, the subjects or tools developed would be language (the ability to communicate), logic (the ability to properly communicate/understand ideas as well as analyze relations between facts... essentially qualitative phenomena), and math (understanding the logical relation between quantitative phenomena). Apparently you aren't a do it yourselfer. Knowing geometry has been very helpful for determining quantities and measurements of materials needed. Besides which it is useful for many potential future career choices.Here's a simple word problem for you... You need to repaint your apartment because there has been some damage and otherwise you'll forfeit your deposit. Figure out how much paint you need and the cost of that paint. This includes repainting the ceiling which contains several large circular fixtures that can't be painted. Okay I'm not asking you to solve the problem, but you can see where math and geometry suddenly get more valuable. Basic chemistry and physics are useful in real life, as well as many jobs as we become more chemically and technologically advanced. I guess one does not need to have any formal training in anything, and simply be allowed to learn in real life situations. Perhaps we should move back toward guilds? Not necessarily being sarcastic with that. It's possible that on the job education has become more useful (again) than theoretical primary education.I might add that any job that involves potentially mixing chemicals, such as janitors, can benefit from knowing a bit about chemistry. I knew a dumbass who collapsed his lungs due to a lack of knowledge regarding chemicals.And by the way, ANYONE in medicine needs to know chemistry. I have never been more frightened than tutoring premed students and discovering they did not know how to properly calculate concentrations, and thus to properly dilute solutions or reach proper volumes. Them's are chemicals they put in our bodies! You NEED to do this? I don't think that's true at all. It is useful but one can have a context regarding ones life, even a proper one, without knowing about the rest of the world. I certainly believe that leaders of society should have this broader perspective, and communicate that to their representatives, but am not sure this is necessary for one to have a proper basic education.To me if one has a proper basic education one is the situated to deal with these other issues as one encounters them in real life.But don't get me wrong. I agree that this is useful and I would want my schools to include such education so that they can have a better than basic education.And in fact I think the US should think of having more programs to send kids overseas in order to experience other cultures firsthand. Exchange programs can do much to educate our population as well as educate other populations. The problem is that most other nations do have this, but the US doesn't. Agreed. I'm not sure it is worse, becausing making no choice simply means they experience culture as they normally would in life. Its not like they return to a box after school.In fact with the increase in communications technology kids are being introduced to people of different cultures, or potentially can, in ways that go beyond what they would encounter in school.I never learned a thing about society from school, and having a teacher tell me about what context my life has would generally have driven me to tune them out. Why is real life outside school less an important avenue of learning one's context? Xianity was alien to me from the first time I was taught it, up until I finally decided I couldn't fake it any more. Other than how they act toward me now, which I will pick up in papers more than from school, they have no connection to me. That is knowledge about them has not put my life in any "context".My kids could easily grow up not knowing anything about Xians, besides the fact that they exist, and do just fine. I have had friends, and indeed my current girlfriend, that knew nothing about Xianity other than they have churches and worship some guy named Jesus, and were quite intelligent and capable in what they did.Learning later about Xianity in more detail, did not make them happy in the least (it was repulsive to them), and it did not make them any better at what they did.Religion is a personal journey. It is best left that.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

The official acts of congress are known as "Acts of Congress". Can you identify which, if any, act of congress has to do with opening with prayer?As far as I know, this is simply part of their working procedures, and not in any way an official act.----------I'll make my position clear. I would much prefer that there were no chaplain, and that there were no opening prayer. The congressmen should offer their prayers in private. The employment of a chaplain and the opening with prayer is an arrogant political act, and has little to do with the religious beliefs of the participants.

In your case, yes, but that's not Robertson's position. He actually believes that they should not be allowed to hold office. No, in fact, I can deny federal funding to any group who promotes religious belief. Your constant attempts to conflate secularism with some kind of religion are ludicrous in the extreme; you still haven't responded to that logical contradiction. It's wrong for them to minister on the highways, and I think they should pay the same gas taxes everyone else does, but you still haven't explained how a busload of people barreling down the highway constitutes a religious expression.You dilute your own point with these ridiculous extremes. Sure. But I pay to use them. Do churches? Is that how "equal rights" works for you? That is, if I go into Best Buy and pay for a widescreen TV, your concept of equal rights demands that they just give you one for free? Well, they're demonstratably not under a seperate sphere; church personnel can be tried for crimes committed in the church, to churchgoers; churches can have their tax-exempt status revoked.If you can have a church with a McDonalds in it, we're not talking about "seperate spheres."

holmes,Thanks for the reply. By the way, I forgot to paste in my reference to my claims on logic. Hopefully I'll remember to do so after writing this reply. (Now realizing the unlikelihood of that)... consider this a pre-re-failure apology. Oops!I'm a big believer in starting new threads, so that others can participate. My purpose of talking about classes was to show where we can fit in teaching about Christianity.. now it looks like we're moving into the realm of "Education: what is it for and how should we do it?"I think I'll start a PNT and try to move this discussion there? THat way more people can participate. And sorry about misunderstanding the purpose of the thread.I'll look forward to responding to your new thread. I have a lot to say! Again!Ben

Keeping government out of the affairs of religion includes keeping religion out of the affairs of government. If you allow religion to be an influence on government, then government will start to be an influence on religion.Which isn't to say that people of religion can't have their input into the government. For example, one can advocate that murder should be against the law because such is good for society as a whole, but you shouldn't be advocating that murder should be against the law because it is against one of the 10 commandments.Moose