Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site cbscc.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!cbsck!cbscc!pmd From: pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) Newsgroups: net.politics,net.religion Subject: Re: "Secular Humanism" banned in the US Schools. Message-ID: <5810@cbscc.UUCP> Date: Wed, 28-Aug-85 22:00:31 EDT Article-I.D.: cbscc.5810 Posted: Wed Aug 28 22:00:31 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 30-Aug-85 09:47:33 EDT References: <4141@alice.UUCP> <938@bunker.UUCP> <161@gargoyle.UUCP> <5766@cbscc.UUCP>, <699@cybvax0.UUCP> Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories , Columbus Lines: 152 Xref: watmath net.politics:10705 net.religion:7494 >In article <5766@cbscc.UUCP> pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) writes: >> In 1965 the Supreme Court heard *United States vs Seeger* and opined >> that any belief can be classified as religious if it is "sincere >> and meaningful and occupies a place in the life of its possessor >> parellel to that filled by the orthodox belief in God". The primary >> theologian consulted was Paul Tillich who defines the essence of >> religion as "ultimate concern". This case also dealt with the >> conscientious objector issue regarding the draft. > >Thus, in order to teach the essence of religion, we must teach that >something is of "ultimate concern". More to the point: If someone has a belief which she regards as being of such concern personally, it may be regarded as a religious belief. I would say the nearly everyone holds beliefs that could be counted as religious on this basis. >> It seems to me that the secularists want it both ways. When it becomes >> beneficial to have one's beliefs viewed as religious, the wear the >> religious mantle. When it comes to keeping certain ideas out of the >> public schools, however, that's different. Then you're only religious >> if you believe in God. The Humanist Manifestos proclaim the religious >> nature of humanism, though many humanists avoid the term. > >The Humanist Manifestos state their ideas of ultimate concerns. I personally >would oppose teaching these as ultimate concerns in public schools. >(I am an agnostic, not a humanist, and feel that some statements in the >Manifestos are mistaken.) Just as I would oppose teaching that Jesus is >Lord in our public schools. I don't see the Humanist Manifesto being >taught as ultimate concerns in public schools, but I do see a horde of >Bible-thumpers who've been doing that for centuries trying to continue >their unconstitutional practices. I think it would be best to oppose either the exclusion of, or the exclusive teaching of, any point of view that is in conflict with other views. Exclusion of some views from the classroom because of religious bias while conflicting views are taught indirectly teaches the such conflicting views are either wrong or irrelevant. There are a lot of things that have been banned that the Framers would not have considered unconstitutional. I agree with the person (claiming to be a fundamentalist Christian) who essentially said that no point of view should be banned outright from public schools. If you go around banning things because they are religious in nature, are you gaurenteed to have something that is not religious left (if you have anything at all left)? I don't think so. Even if there was a purely non-religious, ideologically neutral standard for what ideas may have exposure in the public schools, what would give that ideology the right to have exclusive treatment in the public schools? If the state is going to make education compulsory and regulate that education (even church sponsored schools and home schooling), what right does it have to ban any point of view on the existence of God, moral standards, or theories of creation vs evolution? >> Some don't >> bother to hide fact that they consider the public classroom to be >> the primary vehicle for the promulgation of their views. John Dunphy's >> statement in *The Humanist* (Jan/Feb 1983) is classic: >> >> I am convinced that the battle for humankind's future must be >> waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers who >> correctly perceive their role as the proselytizers of a new faith: >> a religion of humanity that recognizes and respects the spark of >> what theologians call divinity in every human being. These teachers >> must embody the same selfless dedication as the most rabid >> fundamentalist preachers, for they will be ministers of another >> sort, utilizing a classroom instead of a pulpit to convey humanist >> values in whatever subject they teach, regardless of the educational >> level--preschool day care or large state university. > >Frankly, I think he is overzealous but accurate. It is next to impossible >to separate the instructor from the subject material. Use of the classroom >as a pulpit is entirely inappropriate, but you cannot entirely shut off >the transfer of values while employing human teachers. But introducing religious bias as a requirement for whether ideas may or may not be taught in public schools, gives license to those who would have their beliefs labled as non-religios to have exclusive representation in the schools. Teachers who pray over their meals in front of students sometimes get in trouble. Why should this be? Why should there even be any effort to shut off the transfer of values based on what the teacher believes? One teacher communicates the fact that belief in God is relevant in her life another may imply that it is not. Why must public eduction be sterilized of religious influence? Such sterilization does communicate (albeit in a subtle way) that such beliefs are irrelevant. This maybe why some people expect religious belief to die out within a few generations. The state is gaining more control over the teaching of our children. Can the content, or lack thereof, have no effect on future society? >> In the original article, JJ mentioned Issac Asimov as one who was upset >> over the "ban" of "secular humanism" from the public schools. Maybe Asimov >> has more to worry about than the teaching of evolutionary science. The >> American Humanist Assoc. voted him "humanist of the year" in 1983. The >> following year Steven J. Gould received the award. This information I >> received after subscribing to an often cited (by some ... evolutionists >> anyway) anti-creationist journal called "Creation/Evolution". Turns out >> the editor of that journal is (or was) executive director of the AHA and >> writes and anti-creationism column in *The Humanist*. Perhaps the connection >>between evolution and religious belief isn't as contrived as many imagine. :-) > >Close, but you've got it reversed. Organized skeptics form a fairly small >society, who are very quick to oppose religious interference in politics, >science, etc. And who is there to oppose the interference of organized skeptics? They are pushing their own agenda. They advocate certian teaching have exclusive sway in the public schools in opposition to the ones of which they are skeptical. When these skeptics turn out to have a religion of their own, who opposes them? >> Personally, I think its about time they did something to prevent secularism >> from being the only religious ideology allowed a voice in the public schools. > >Show us where secularism is being taught as an ultimate value in the schools. By serving as the sole standard that determines what is taught in the public schools. >> As Richard John Neuhaus (not exactly a fundamentalist) points out in his >> recent popular book "The Naked Public Square", the idea that religion can >> be excluded from the public square is a myth. Some religion will fill the >> void; the tacit religion of our "pluralistic" society is secularism. The >> only purpose for its non-religious cloak is to exclude other religions from >> its primary sphere of influence. > >All our constitutional guarantees are myths. Your every constitutional >right can be violated. The goal is to make as fair an approximation as >can be reasonably arrived at. Saying "you can't be ideal, so let's make >it worse" is fallacious "solution" being suggested. A fair approximation to a myth? Why should anyone bother with that goal? >If some "religion" will fill the void, is the solution then to throw away >"the [government] shall make no laws concerning an establishment of religion" >because it is an impossible ideal? Or shall we attempt to follow the spirit >of that ammendment by doing the best we can? Prohibiting teaching of ultimate >values in public schools is a practical procedure: eliminating all teaching of >values is ridiculous. I don't believe our constitutional gaurantees are myths. But anyway, I think you have my point backwards. I'm advocating that a plurality of beliefs be allowed into the public square. This does not make things worse in my opinion. When the government takes it upon itself to exclude certain points of view by religious bias, it is making a law concerning the establish- ment of religion. What ever you teach will have an effect on the ultimate values people hold. All people hold values that can be considered ultimate. >Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh -- Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd