Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxd.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!talcott!panda!genrad!decvax!harpo!whuxlm!whuxl!houxm!mhuxt!mhuxr!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr
From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen)
Newsgroups: net.politics,net.religion
Subject: Re: Re: "Secular Humanism" banned in the US Schools.
Message-ID: <1590@pyuxd.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 25-Aug-85 16:42:05 EDT
Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1590
Posted: Sun Aug 25 16:42:05 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 29-Aug-85 20:19:33 EDT
References: <4141@alice.UUCP> <938@bunker.UUCP> <1544@pyuxd.UUCP> <952@bunker.UUCP>
Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week
Lines: 279
Xref: linus net.politics:9993 net.religion:7069

> I don't know why I am taking the time to respond to Rich Rosen, but I am.

I don't know why either, Gary, since you swore you'd never do it again.  Perhaps
you are doing it because I have again shown major flaws in your thinking and
you seek to cover that up.

>>Leave it to Samuelson, the man who joined this newsgroup with an article
>>about how he thought this country just wasn't Christian enough for him,
>>saying that Christians were made an example of by not being given special
>>treatment.  No matter.

> Mr. Rosen becomes quite upset at what he calls "twisting" of his words.
> I wonder if anybody *really* believes that his summary of my initial
> article to this group is a fair statement of what I said.  What I
> remember (and it has been a while) saying is that Christians were,
> in some cases, not being allowed the freedom to worship (one example
> was that Bible studies in private homes were being considered illegal,
> according to zoning ordinances).

What Gary was (and is) saying is that such meetings deserve some special
treatment.  After all, this would apply to ANY religious gathering, but
Christianity, that's different, eh?  Again, your goal was to claim that
this was "discrimination", the fact that Christians were treated just like
any other religion.

> Other people responded that adherents
> of other religions were subject to the same sort of harassment.  I
> guess Mr. Rosen thinks I want Christians to be free to worship, and
> others to be harassed.  Or he wants other people to think that that
> is what I want.  Well, I suppose that that is what he wishes to believe.

Your article then (and now) refers to "CHRISTIANS (not religious believers,
just Christians) not being allowed the freedom of worship".  Let's get
serious.

>>The real irony here is who gets to decide what things involve secular
>>humanism...

> I, for one, will read documents like the Humanist Manifesto to find
> that out (thanks to whoever posted that, by the way).

And what does it say that you don't like?

>>...Of course, the Christians in power.

> The Christians are not in power, Mr. Rosen; they don't even constitute
> a majority in this country.

Not even a moral one...  ???  Come now, be serious, Christians are not a
majority in the United States?

>>I doubt that they will simply stop
>>teaching math and science in general.  Or will they?

> We were talking about the religion (philosophy, if you prefer, or
> world-view, or belief system) known as humanism.  Math and science
> are subjects which can be taught by adherents to any such system.

Ah, but science leads to conclusions like evolution, and the skepticism
that leads to agnosticism or atheism (after enough examination).  These
are among the things that these people are seeking to have removed from
schools.

>>Perhaps this is a great boon in disguise.  Let's let everyone teach their
>>own beliefs.

> Say, now that's a radical idea.  What a shame that Mr. Rosen is
> not suggesting it seriously.

I am.  See below.

>>Christians can teach only religious babble, and so-called
>>secular humanists can teach science, math, learning, objective investigation,
>>and logical thinking.
>>Of course, the opposing belief may not be taught.

> I know Mr. Rosen will not believe this, but Christianity is not
> opposed to science, math, etc.

Except when the conclusions they reach contradict the holy word of god as
determined by a book.

> Nor will he believe that science, math, etc. are *not* inherently part of
> the philosophy of secular humanism.

They are part of what the religionists seek to abolish.  After all, how
can you just avoid teaching about evolution unless you just skip over teaching
biology.  Or chemistry.  Or physics.  Or ...

>>I give Christianity no more than three generations to die out completely
>>once the Christian children have stopped learning some real substantive
>>learning.

> How often the demise of Christianity has been predicted, and how
> disappointed those making such predictions must have been.

Well, I don't believe that the Christians would take this advice.  Even they
know the value of math and science, even when they disagree with the
conclusions.  It wasn't a serious prediction for that reason.  (See below.)

>>But seriously, I doubt they will excise secular humanism completely.
>>They will continue to teach the dreaded mathematics and science.
>>It's just "certain" ideas that the anti-human people don't like that
>>will suffer.

> "Anti-human"?  I used to have a list of pejoratives Mr. Rosen uses,
> but I abandoned the effort in favor of more productive uses of my
> time.  Are you aware that the use of such terms makes people tend
> not to pay attention to the other things you say?  Do you care?

I meant to type "anti-humanist", and what's more I think you're fully
aware of that, since it's a pretty simple typo.  But, come to think of
it, such people, when they proclaim that that word of god (as they see it)
is over and above human needs, they are being anti-human.

>>It's little more than an excuse to ban books, censor,
>>and teach children to be willingly led zombies.  And Samuelson is reveling
>>in it.  Need I say more?

> Personally, I think your articles would be more effective if you said
> less.  Cut down on the heat, and the light might be clearer.

That was light.  A light that needs to be cast on the real reasons behind
so-called Christian efforts to "ban" secular humanism.

>>The question is:  when faced with equal time for two forms of learning and
>>thought (1. believe on faith;  2. use objective reasoning), what basis
>>do you teach the children to use in order to decide which one to go
>>with? Objective analysis of the two possibilities?  Or faith that the (1.)
>>MUST be right.

> Mr. Rosen, of course, has an unshakable faith that objective reasoning
> is the one which should be used.  On what other grounds could one
> possibly say, "Objective reasoning MUST be right" ?  The pot cannot
> contain itself.

Indeed.  And Samuelson thinks faith must be right.  It is not a faith
in objectivity that moves me.  It is evidence that it is more accurate
than whimsical faith.

> The argument is clearly circular; to choose between faith and reasoning
> (which I consider a false dichotomy in the first place), one must
> first decide which to use to make the choice.

Exactly.  And Samuelson chooses faith, not because it is demonstrably
better (quite the opposite) but because he likes the conclusions better.
We know what term I used to refer to that.

>>Dealing with radical religionists like Samuelson on this
>>issue is like resolving a debate between a reasonable child and a brat
>>fighting over a cake.  The reasonable child says "We should each get half".
>>while the brat says "I want it all".

> Which child is being reasonable and which a brat depends on whose
> cake it was in the first place, does it not?

I would think it belonged to neither.  Does Samuelson think the world
belongs to religionists?

>>I wonder what a "radical religionist" is.

Check out article <938@bunker.UUCP> for an example.

>>Do you "compromise" by giving the
>>reasonable child a fourth and the brat the rest?  Or do you accept the
>>reasonable solution?

> Obviously, the reasonable solution is to believe some things on faith
> and others on the basis of objective reasoning.  That, of course, is
> what people really do.  For a trivial example, I maintain that each
> person accepts on faith the fact of his own existence.  No objective
> reasoning can take place without the implicit assumption that the
> reasoner exists to do the reasoning.  As I said, a trivial example;
> no doubt each person has a myriad of things he accepts without
> proof (i.e., on faith -- "the assurance of things hoped for; the
> conviction of things not seen").

Better referred to as "wishful thinking", to be sure.  When you base your
judgments of the way you perceive the world to be on "what you hope for",
you are deliberating failing to be objective, and clouding your conclusions.
Which is OK (or not) depending on your goals.  If you're not looking for
truth or reality, it's fine.

>>Certainly the notion that some people choose to believe
>>in a god should be taught in schools.  But in addition students should be
>>taught to use the reasoning tools that will enable them to evaluate and
>>make a rational decision about such issues.

> And Mr. Rosen, no doubt, would like us to believe that he could
> (and would?) present such issues as belief in God objectively.  Not likely.

As seen in Samuelson's summart of his own original article, the only "fair"
hearing in his view would be one that holds Christianity up as the absolute
truth.  After all, any other "hearing" would show flaws in it, and he certainly
doesn't want THAT.

>>Maybe that's what the religionists are really scared of
>>and the real reason they want "secular humanism" excised
>>from school learning:...

> To claim to know what "religionists" (I forget -- did you ever
> define that term?  I think you did, and I denied that I fit
> the definition you invented, which of course had no effect
> on your propensity to use it) are "really" scared of and the
> "real" reason they want what they want is just a tad presumptuous.

I said maybe.  The above was a speculation.  Yes, I defined religionist
as did the dictionary, and you have continued to fit the definition.

> Some Christians are concerned that some people with authority in
> the public school system want to undermine the beliefs these
> Christians have attempted to teach their children.  (I wonder
> where they would get such an idea -- from people who "revel"
> in the prospect of wiping out religion within three generations?)

And with good reason:  they have taught them a biased and bogus set of
beliefs contrary to real reality.  Not just *different* from "norms" (as
with customs of ethnic groups), contrary to reality.  Indeed, I "revel" (maybe
too strong a word, perhaps "be pleased to see") in religion dying out
from disuse.  I have repeatedly said that it is not my wish to forcefully
eradicate religion.  To do so would make us no better than they are.
To let it drop dead of its own weight as more and more people are
informed, would certainly prove better.  Of course, it is possible
that dispensing of such information through education may be seen as
an attempt at eradication by some.

> Now, Mr. Rosen doesn't think that parents should have a say
> in what their children are taught -- mustn't "impose" on them,
> you know -- so the only alternative is that the state should
> mandate what everyone is taught.  No thanks.

"The state"?  Parents should and do have a say in what their children
are taught.  It's a shame that parents who want to teach their children
a set of beliefs regardless of their relationship to reality exercise this
right all too much, producing non-thinking children (and later adults)
as a result.

>>...to teach such
>>"secular humanism", such heinous horrible methods of reasoning leading
>>to horrible non-religious conclusions,...

> It is not surprising that a philosophy which rejects religion
> out of hand leads to non-religious conclusions.

It's even less surprising that a philosophy that assumes the existence of
god in a particular form leads to conclusions about the existence of god
that match those assumptions.  But of course, Gary is not assuming, he
knows the truth about the existence of god.  I will let him do so in the
reply article that is sure not to follow because he will never respond
to a Rich Rosen article again.

>>...would effectively wipe out
>>religion by the middle of the next century.

> Mr. Rosen's desire to wipe out religion is quite clear.

I said that the methods of education described above would "effectively
wipe out religion".  As I've said many times before, eradicating religion
by force is not a goal nor a desire of mine, though Samuelson would like
you to think because it aids him in his perpetually manipulative style
of rhetoric and argument.

> Once that is accomplished, he will find that there are people who disagree
> with him on other issues.  Then, I suppose he (or his successors)
> will endeavor to wipe out these other undesirable thought patterns.

Yes, Gary, we're all heinous fascists for wanting to encourage teaching of
"thinking before believing" ideas.  Once we've "forcibly" stoppoed people
from wishful thinking about gods, we'll turn our evil hands towards other
wishful thinking beliefs like ...   Only a true scholar of fascistic
manipulation would go out of his way to twist words to imply that those
who support teaching rational thinking in schools are out to forcibly
crush other ideas like the purveyors of Nazi genocide.  If your ideas
are sound, Gary, after some rigorous examination, they will hold up.  If not,
they won't.  That's the "force" with which "I" (??) will "wipe out"
fallacious thinking.  The stronger force of all.
-- 
Popular consensus says that reality is based on popular consensus.
						Rich Rosen   pyuxd!rlr