Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/17/84; site mhuxt.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!js2j
From: js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag)
Newsgroups: net.politics,net.religion
Subject: Re: Schools and Churches (really 'support' for areligious moral codes)
Message-ID: <1154@mhuxt.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 13-Sep-85 14:01:25 EDT
Article-I.D.: mhuxt.1154
Posted: Fri Sep 13 14:01:25 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 14-Sep-85 06:52:55 EDT
References: <623@hou2g.UUCP> <5884@cbscc.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill
Lines: 63
Xref: watmath net.politics:10973 net.religion:7628

> >>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?
> >
> >Yes.  Religions do not have a monopoly on morality.  I've known plenty
> >which have what I would consider as questionable morality.  Religions
> >are not necessary to learn morals, although they can help (and have helped) 
> >some people.
> 
> I have never seen any moral code that could be supported appart from
> some transcendant framework (religion).

      But 'support' for a moral code, Paul, do you mean a *reason* for
following it?  (like:  God'll send you to hell if ya don't follow the rules!)
Why do you suppose that fear of punishment and hope for future reward are
the only adequate motivations humans could have for adhering to a moral 
code?  Is your opinion of human beings that low?

> Shure, religion may not be
> necessary to *learn* morals (as long as there are people willing to
> do what others expect of them without question)

      Here you've implied that no a-religious moral codes can supply 
valid reasons for *why* they should be followed.  Care to demonstrate that,
and how religious moral codes *do* supply valid reasons?

> >Evolutionary theory may not be absolutely necessary, but if you're going
> >to treat origins, teach evolution in school and creationism (whichever
> >variety you espouse) in church.  See above.  Very few (I've since been
> >corrected) churches teach evolution, leaving schools as the ONLY place
> >to learn the theory.
> 
> But why should one view be compulsory and tax supported and the conflicting
> on not?  Many churches teach nothing with regard to origins.  Students
> who don't go to church's that teach creationism or no church at all will
> only learn one side of the issue. 

       Most students will also not hear flat-earth theories seriously
taught, nor will they hear about Veliskovsky's theories.  Since serious
scientiest have overwhelmingly rejected these views, nobody minds that
they're not taught.  (except perhaps the flat-earthers or the Veliskovskiites)
Why should creationism be treated any differently?
> 
> OK, you have learned them.  But how do you support them.  How do you
> compel another to treat others as he would be treated?  On what basis
> must she accept that maxim?
> 
        First of all, I don't go around 'enforcing' the Golden Rule, compelling
people to act according to my moral standards.  That is a peculiarly Christian
pasttime.  If you were to rephrase the question: "What reasons would you give
a child for treating others as she would be treated?", I would try reasoning
with her, explaining how, in the long run, treating others nasty would make
*her* unhappy, due to alienation, etc.  How would you do it, Paul?  Say with
one of the commandments, since christians don't believe in the golden rule.
Would you warn her about hell?  Promise her heaven?  Do you see this method
as so much superior to reason that you call 'reason' no support at all for
moral codes?
> 
> Paul Dubuc 	cbscc!pmd
-- 
Jeff Sonntag
ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j
    "Roads?  Where we're going, we won't need any roads!"