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!linus!decvax!bellcore!petrus!sabre!zeta!epsilon!gamma!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!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: <5885@cbscc.UUCP> Date: Thu, 12-Sep-85 13:12:43 EDT Article-I.D.: cbscc.5885 Posted: Thu Sep 12 13:12:43 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 14-Sep-85 04:03:10 EDT References: <5867@cbscc.UUCP> <1121@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP> Reply-To: pmd@cbscc.UUCP (unix-Paul Dubuc,x7836,1L244,59472) Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories , Columbus Lines: 104 Xref: linus net.politics:10240 net.religion:7198 I think I've covered many of Beths points in the "Schools and Churches" article I just posted. But I'll cover some others here: In article <1121@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP> beth@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (Beth Christy) writes: >>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. This depends on the state you live in. The control exercised over the content of the courses also varies. The word "authorized" is the operative word. Who does the authorizing? To what extent does it go. Recently in Nebraska the pastor of a church and some teachers were jailed and the church's school padlocked because the church refused to have it's teachers certified by the state. This even though the kids attending that school did consistently better on aptitude tests than their public school counterparts. In some states the board of regents standardizes the final exams in many highschool courses (e.g. New York). Should a student have to the "right" answers about evolution in order to pass a regents course in high school? Yes, you have to be exceptionally dedicated to take the options you propose. But why should it be so tough to go around the state? Does your friend get a break on the taxes she pays to support the public schools to compensate for all the work she has to do? >>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. And we all know that it isn't us in any particular case nor would it necessarily ever have to be us. Saying "it could be me" does not provide any support for the "golden rule". It's just as true to say "it probably won't happen to me". We don't know the future. >>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. So on that basis could you exclued a German's point of view from public policy. That is what is happing with points of view that are branded "religious". >>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. I don't think you have demonstrated the justification for morality. (See my other article for more on this). >>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. That is your opinion of course. My complaint is not with the whole sets of what you distinguish as religious values based on faith and knowledge based on general experience (I would object to the idea is that religion is not generally known or experienced.) but rather where the two might intersect. I think the distinction you make here is not actually very great, or even one that is often made in the average person's mind. >Exclusion of faiths does not hinder acquisition and analysis of knowledge. What about the faith that knowledge may be acquired and analyized? -- Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd