Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site sphinx.UChicago.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!beth From: beth@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (Beth Christy) Newsgroups: net.politics,net.religion Subject: Re: "Secular Humanism" banned in the US Schools. Message-ID: <1121@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP> Date: Wed, 11-Sep-85 20:00:59 EDT Article-I.D.: sphinx.1121 Posted: Wed Sep 11 20:00:59 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 12-Sep-85 11:08:32 EDT References: <5867@cbscc.UUCP> Organization: U. Chicago - Computation Center Lines: 94 Xref: watmath net.politics:10915 net.religion:7605 [G'head, I don't care, byte me] From: pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc), Message-ID: <5867@cbscc.UUCP>: >One thing that has always been considered part of the "minimum necessary" >for the survival in society and society itself are certain standards of >moral conduct. Are these unrelated to religious values? Their relation is that of coincedence. The "certain standards of moral conduct" that are "part of the 'minimum necessary' for the survival in society" are summed up quite easily and quite secularly (for want of a better word): don't do to anybody else what you don't want anyone to do to you. That moral code is not inherently religious. It is not expli- citly part of all religions, and even in those it is (coincedentally) a part of, it is occasionally contradicted (e.g. Christianity teaches that you should go out and "spread the good news", even tho you don't particularly want people trying to convert you to their religions). Furthermore, some religious values are diametrically opposed to the minimum necessary "certain standards of moral conduct", for example, those of the KKK. >As I see it, the problem with the public school's exclusion of religion >stems not from the fact that religious practice (e.g. public prayer >and religious services) and doctrine are excluded or not taught. I'll >agree that the public schools are no place for this. On the other hand, >the schools are *public*, tax supported, and compulsory. ---------- Um, not exactly. SchoolING is compulsory; attendance of public schools is not. In fact, your children don't have to physically attend any school at all. I have a friend whose wife receives prepared lessons from an authorized "school" via the mail. She spends a few hours a day teaching their 3 school-aged children the material, proctors the provided tests, and sends the "homework" and tests back to be graded and recorded. Now *that's* control over, if not content, at least biasing (although I believe they have some say in the content as well). Of course, you have to be pretty dedicated to your kids' education for that. >Why do we routinely go to great expense and inconvenience to save >individual human lives? Why must hundreds of people pull their cars >to the side of the road to let emergency vehicles through? I think >it's greatly due to the fact that traditional religious values have >placed great value on the worth of the individual. I think it's because we all know it could be us. >There are a lot >of things we take for granted that have religious roots. Many hospitals >and major universities (consider Harvard and Yale; read their original >charters) were founded by the church. Our present emphasis on education, >and advances in medicine has definite religious roots. Saying that some parts of society have religious roots is quite different from saying that society's religious. Certain cultural idiosyncrasies in western Pennsylvania have German roots, but the culture of Pittsburgh is not German. >If you personally get along fine without religion, good for you. But >your own perception can't be extended to say that society itself (in >which you've survived quite nicely) gets along fine without it. Similarly, your need for religion can't be extended to imply that society needs it. Society needs some standard of behaviour, but as I demonstrated above, that does not imply a need for religion. >>What people ARE taught is the ability to *gather and analyze* all knowledge, >>so as to make informed CHOICES about which religion, if any, to follow. >>That's why we are taught to read and to use a library, and why we, as a >>nation, value free speech. Free speech doesn't mean compulsory speech. >>Neither does freedom of religion mean compulsory religion. >> >> Scott J. Berry > >If certain information is barred from the education process, the extent of >which it can be said that any subsequent choice is informed is questionable. >Teaching the ability to gather and analyze *all knowledge* is hindered when >knowledge from certain sources and points of view are systematically >excluded. For the most part I agree with this paragraph, however. But >I'm wondering how your sentiments apply to the cumpulsory exclusion of >religious values from public space. I can't speak for Scott of course, but I would respond by pointing out that religious values, and most of what constitutes religion in general, are not *knowledge*. They're opinions/beliefs, which do not derive from general knowledge and experience, but rather rely mostly on faith. Ex- clusion of faiths does not hinder acquisition and analysis of knowledge. -- --JB (Beth Christy, U. of Chicago, ..!ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!beth) "Oh yeah, P.S., I...I feel...feel like...I am in a burning building And I gotta go." (Laurie Anderson)