Quote:
|
Originally Posted by CJW
I don't care what you think the public's schools should or should not be teaching. What children are taught should be up to their family/community and not you or an atheistic and increasingly totalitarian federal judiciary.
|
I agree--atheism should not be taught in public schools. Neither should any one religion be promoted over another.
Quote:
|
Let's face facts. In your support of the federal judiciary and their trashing of the Constitution you cannot then turn around and say, "I believe these matters must be left to parents." These are discriminations that are not being left to parents but are being made by the federal judiciary.
|
Descrimination occurs when teachers promote one religion over another, against the wishes of parents. If your child's religious education requires constant reminders of the divine, you should take that into your own hands--not ask the government to do it for you, and force it on everyone else's kids in the meantime.
Quote:
|
This is just what Thomas Jefferson predicted would happen. He argued that this would be the unbalanced branch that would become tyrannical. You are supporting what they are doing and then turning around and disingenuously saying, "Leave it to the parents." If the public schools are the publics and not some state schools run by atheistic/agnostic totalitarians then very well, leave it to the parents/community/public. But instead by what you say here it is clear that you seek to inflict your atheism/agnostism on everyone.
|
I can't make it any more clear--no, I do not want to inflict my beliefs on everyone. Atheism should not be taught in public schools. Teachers should not tell students that there is no God. You're just mad becauce you want
your religion taught, and you perceive it not being taught as a direct negation.
Quote:
|
So the federal judiciary gets to decide what parts of the Constitution are "constitutional"?! Do you realize what you're saying?
|
Yes, I realize what I'm saying. I'll clarify: The Constitution says in the 14th amendment that all citizens have equal protection under the law, and that 'No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States'. But the Bill of Rights only applies to the federal government. Therefore, according to the 14th amendment, the Bill of Rights must be applied to citizens of all states (not just D.C.). That includes the establishment clause of the 1st amendment, which seperates church and state.
Quote:
|
This is just the sort of thing that Jefferson predicted. You fail to see the tyrrany because you apparently agree with a sort of totalitarian state enforcement of atheism/agnosticism on the parents/communities/public (and on children).
|
No, I don't agree with that. Not promoting one religion isn't enforcement; teaching one religion above all others is enforcement. James Madison made an equally disturbing prediction: without a federalism in which rights gauranteed by the federal government also applied to localities, citizens' rights would be stripped away by a tyrannical majority (read the federalist papers by James Madison).
Quote:
|
Bah, you reference to "evolution" can mean anything as common as simply being born to a total explanation of reality as we know it.
|
As long as the teacher doesn't say "evolution happens...therefore there is no God" there is no encroachment. I'm sorry if the worldwide scientific community disagrees with your personal religious beleifs...but if we stop teaching evolution we might as well stop teaching that the Earth is round, because some Christians believe that too contradicts the Bible.
Quote:
|
That depends on what you mean by the propaganda word "evolution." How about we look to textbooks and see what "evolution" is and if scientists say it is founded on atheism or not?
|
Ok, sure. If it's a well-established scientific theory, it should be taught. Even if the implications of a given theory are that God does exist, I would still argue it should be taught, because what the scientific community beleives to be true (and why) is vital knowledge.
Quote:
|
Do you honestly think that he federal judiciary has a better track record when it decides to be the legislature, the executive and the total of government taking all powers away from "We the people...."?
|
If "the people" at large decide to, for example, prevent blacks from voting in the South by intimidation etc, then yes I think the judiciary is an appropriate venue to force the majority to accept the rights of a minority. That's part of the reason we have the judiciary--so it can make decisions in accordance with the Constitution, even if they are unpopular decisions. We don't live in a direct democracy for a reason.
Quote:
|
What is "restriction" the federal judiciary making all of the people's discriminations for them or parents/communities/the public making their own discriminations through the legislature? Any pretense of totalitarianism among those who blindly support an increasingly totalitarian judiciary is projection.
|
Again, the absence of any one religious indoctrination is not equivalent to atheistic indoctrination. If public schools did promote one religion--say, Islam--your right to teach your kids Christianity would be restricted, as it is directly being contradicted to your child by the government. The only 'right' that's being restricted now is your right to have government employees indoctrinate your kids into your religion for you during the day, which is a right you do not have.
Quote:
|
Neither did the Nazis say that they were extirpating traditional religions that bore the "Jewish influence" from public life. But that's still what they did.
|
Good analogy :roll: . Here's an interesting tidbit: More than 95% of politicians, legislators, judges and citizens believe in God. They don't want religion out of public life--just out of government.
Quote:
|
Governments are guided by religion, i.e. systems of belief, period. It is only a matter of what the beliefs are, not whether beliefs will guide government.
|
Fair enough. But the beleifs on which our government is founded are in the Constitution and the men who wrote it--not in the Bible (the Bible was an influence, as were the writings of John Locke, and many ancient non-Christian philosophers).
Quote:
|
Notice how merely praying to God in schools and/or mentioning God and/or mentioning the metaphysical (e.g. Intelligent Design) is not a "religion" that the state is adopting. Theism is a philosophic issue that is part of some religions.
|
Atheism is also a philosophic issue that is part of some religions. And teachers can mention the metaphysical--there are even classes dedicated to teaching about different religions/philosophies. But to declare to the students that one religion/philosophy is right over all the others is wrong.
Quote:
|
But look how far you go in supporting a federal judiciary that is tending to fascism. And I don't use the word fascism lightly as some stigma word. It has philosophic meaning and it is an increasinly fascist oligarchy that you apparently support whole-heartedly. In fact, it seems that you believe that if we don't let the this oligarchic state make all of our discriminations for us then disaster will result in which we'll all run around making evil intolerant discriminations. Where do you get this sort of phobia from and from whence comes this blind faith in the judiciary?
|
Before the judiciary stepped in, people (especially in the South) were making evil intolerant discriminations against blacks (highly religious Chrsitian people, no less). And I do not support all of the judiciary's decisions whole-heartedly--please do not put words in my mouth.
Quote:
|
There is a reason that atheism correlates to totalitarianism. It is the same sort of reason that you are so utterly blind of how you inflict your atheistic/agnostic views on others. Certain issues of philosophy and religion are too important to deal with in a totalitarian way. One way or another they must be left to parents and the community. If that means giving you your taxes back so that you can seek out a way to educate your kids in a way that you see fit. So be it.
|
That's how it is right now--if you want your kids exposed to your religion constantly by their teachers, go send them to a private Catholic school.
Quote:
|
You are working from a set of false options. But again I note that atheistic totalitarians are the exact same people seeking to limit options and then saying, "THe options are limited, so indoctrinating atheism/agnosticism is the only safe bet." So they rationalize discriminating against all believers in the favor of some little minority based on a set of false options. If you really think it is dangerous for your kids to learn anything that even smacks of God in school then you could certainly find an atheistic school. Seeking to limit everyone's options and then saying that you're supposedly victimized if they disagree with this sort of totalitarianism would be immoral.
|
Kids can learn things that 'smack' of God, and they can learn things that don't 'smack' of God. The important thing is that they get an education in math, science, social studies, and english without the 'totalitarians' promoting one religion over another to your kids while their at school.
Quote:
|
Well, the Golden Rule is a part of various religions but not a part of others. So it would be discriminatory against some minorities to teach it and it must be extirpated.
|
No, because no one could learn anything at all if kids can't get along in school and be respectful to teachers. Learning can still take place whether or not one believes in God or any other deity though.
Quote:
|
See how the new atheistic totalitarianism works? Frankly, it's the same old thing. And I note your reference to the "Jewish influence." That's pretty much it, isn't it? You're fine with everything but that. Christianity sans the Judeo part, as long as Christianity is merely some social gospel similar to Marxism, fine. That's not the "religion" that atheists/agnostics really seem to have a problem with. No, typically it's the "Jewish influence" like the Ten Commandments, etc. This would all sound very familiar if you were familiar with history. But apparently you're not. If you were then it is doubtful that you would be following the pattern you're following here.
|
I don't have a "problem" with "the Jewish influence" any more than you have a "problem" with it. You are implying that because I don't agree with Jewish beliefs I'm prejudiced against Jews, which is absurd. I'm not "fine" with "some social gospel similar to Marxism" either. Please don't put words in my mouth.
Quote:
|
Evolutionism in its grand Darwinian narrative is a mythological narrative of those with a Nature based religion. And what is actually in the textbooks on this issue is far from science, in fact it is fraud.
|
You and science will just have to agree to disagree on this one. Go to the evolution forum for this one.
Quote:
|
Because of the length I won't go into this now. I mentioned frauds presented as established scientific facts in textbooks in order to promote atheism/agnosticism. That is one way. If you want the examples I can provide them.
|
Yes, I do want the examples.
Quote:
|
It is not a matter of if the government is going to be guided by religion but what type of religious philosophy the government is going to be guided by. I guess I will have to keep repeating this. There is no sense in moving on until this inane belief in neutrality is done away with. There is no neutrality in belief. Even if you believe that you don't believe something that is still a belief. And it seems that atheists/agnostics are the first people to inflict such beliefs on other people using the state. I would disagree with you if you said, "I believe that the state should be agnostic/atheistic." But I would respect you more than when you say, "I think that the state must be neutral." putting a level of disingenuous inbetween your philosophy and what you advocate that the state do. What if I were to argue that, "THe state must be neutral...." while it was clear that I thought the "neutral" view was Christianity?
|
Christian religious doctrine clearly refutes other religions. If public schools teach one religion over all others, all the other parents of different religions will not only have to teach their kids their religion--in addition, they will also have to
refute what the kids have been taught in school by the government. This is a detriment to the authority of the school itself as a source of learning for students and it restricts the rights of parents to not have local OR federal government telling their kids their religion is wrong.
Quote:
|
It has plenty to do with it. And in supporting vouchers you're actually following through in deed the notion, "I want parents to decide." But in supporting the judiciary making all of our discriminations for us (which is the role they want to take on) you fall away from that. And note the judiciaries view of vouchers in which they still want to mangle the Constitution (some parts we'll adhere to, others we won't, etc.) in order to inflict their views on everyone. (Rather than having their viewpoint limited to the Constitution.)
|
They may conflict with your views of the Constitution, but not "the" view of the Constitution. The judiciary is meant to have room for interpretation in the Constitution. For example, the founders said Congress shall make no law "restricting freedom of speech". What, exactly, constitutes a "restriction of speech" is left up to the judiciary. The Constitution was meant to be flexible, (though only to a degree, i.m.o.).
Quote:
|
Hmmm, that seems to be what the moderators of these forums do. A religious philosophy is criticized and they literally throw themselves in front of it and then claim some sort of personal attack. There can be no discussion this way because anyone can claim to take things personally. And anyone can make any unverifiable personal claims on an anonymous forum to claim to take offense to pretty much anything. At any rate, I said atheistic philosophy and that's pretty clear. If you take offense to philosophic disagreement with and criticism of atheistic philosophy then so be it.
|
First of all, I am not a moderator. Second--you and I are the ones debating, not you and "atheistic philosophy". By bashing it so much, you imply that I ascribe to the "atheistic philosophy" that you characterize, but I do not. You can rail against Naziism, Marxism, and totalitarianism all you want, but I am not any of those three--please stick to debating my arguments, not theirs.
Quote:
"You don't need to teach about God, Allah, Jehova, Jesus, Buddha, etc to have discipline."
Yes you do. And that is quite simply the end of it.
|
First of all, even if that were true, we could compromise--public schools could teach them all for educational purposes without promoting one above all others. Secondly, you do not need to teach those things to have discipline, you need rules, punishments, and rewards.
Quote:
|
As to the personal argument you made. Of cousre you will take personal offense to saying anything of it, I suppose. But you did make it personal by citing yourself as evidence. Note the irony of an atheist who just finished Catholic school saying, "See, you don't need the metaphysical for discipline." All this really proves is that atheists can live off of the moral capital of others, just as you live off the moral capital of America. But your purely physical type of "philosophy" is totalitarian in its very nature.
|
First off, I didn't say I took offense to it. I merely asked politely that you not imply I believe something when I haven't stated as such. For example, in this last quote of yours--I'm not sure what philosophy you're talking about, but it isn't mine. My philosophy acknowledges that in order to get along, we are going to have to respect others' rights to their religious beliefs. This is democratic/pluralistic in its very nature. On the other hand, a "purely metaphysical philosophy" that doesn't acnkowledge other beleifs is totalitarian by its very nature. Some examples include but are not limited to: the Pharoahs, the Roman Emperors, Medieval Kings, Japanese Emperors, and almost every ruler in history who claimed to rule by some kind of divine authority. All or most of these examples of religion-based government were neither just nor moral--in fact they were downright savage.
Quote:
|
It is very likely that if that moral capital was not there and so ingrained in you and if you were in an atheistic society you would join fellow totalitarians in their purely physical focus.
|
It is very likely that anyone--you, me, whoever--without ingrained morality raised in a totalitarian society would focus purely on the physical. But you greatly mischaracterize my philosophy. I do not "deny" the metaphysical--I only realize that what was thought to be metaphysical is in fact physical. Our thoughts, in fact, are physical particles in a brain made out of matter. There is no greater spiritual world which justifies our physical thoughts any more than it justifies our hands or our feet or our favorite color. Still, that is not to say one should "deny" one's own thoughts just because they are physical--I wouldn't deny my own hands or my favorite color, after all. So I do not "deny" supposedly metaphysical things like equality and freedom (although ironically, theocracies and most Christian governments in history have denied those things--THAT is totalitarianism).
Quote:
|
This is where the masses are to be conditioned through propaganda methods manipulating the emotional/physical (i.e. visceral emotions) and so on. People who disagree must be liquidated, physically. All is physical, so politics must deal with things in a physical way. Politics is medicalized, people who disagree are "sick" or "infected." You see, there is no such thing as a metaphysical disagreement and everything is viscerally/physically personal. That is, after all, all the person is. Your philosophy supports totalitarianism to its very core. It defines totalitarianism. It seems like you simply don't know history.
|
It seems you, in fact, don't know history. Most totalitarian governments operated on the meyaphysical belief that the ruler(s) were either given authority by God/the gods or were actually a god incarnate. Because they deny the physical world, brutal acts of oppression and injustice were justified by a believed "greater good" done in the spiritual world. The theocracies of the Middle East, for example, are religious intolerance "to its very core"--they "define" a government in which one religion must be upheld and all others stamped out by religious fanatics who can't accept diversity. I would encourage "the masses" to think for themselves rationally to discover and improve morals, rather than blindly follow the tryanny of ancient religious codes which deny and brutalize the physical world because these actions are believed to be required by an imaginary spiritual world.
Perhaps you have forgotten the majority of European history..."religious totalitarians", because all they care about is supposed salvation in the after life, committed the most despicable acts of torture and execution to get people to admit to being, for example, secretly Jewish during the Inquisition. This kind of brutality was justified, in their religious dogma, because it saved souls in the afterlife. American democracy was a step away from the religious totalitarian governments of old and a step towards a pluralistic, secular, rational government.
Quote:
|
If there was a vast international pattern of Christians around the world all coming to the same conclusion that Christianity calls for racism then common sense would indicate that there is something in Christianity itself causing this phenomena.
|
At many times in history, there were vast international patterns of Christians launching Crusades, fighting pointless wars over how many sacraments there are, and oppressing Jews (yes, Jews were oppressed by Christians for hundreds of years before the Nazis came to power). It wasn't Christianity itself that was causing this, but the religious intolerance/non-secular attitudes of the culture in which Christianity resided.
Quote:
|
There is a vast international pattern of Muslims around the world coming to the same conclusin that Islam calls for terrorism. It seems to me that a reasonable person would think that there is something in Islam itself causing this phenomena.
|
A reasonable person might think that initially, until he realizes that the fundamentalist Islam of today is as brutal as Christianity was in the Middle Ages. Islam generally exists in third world countries where culture is still trying to catch up with the Western world--they are intolerant of other religions and not as secular as we have (thankfully) become.
Quote:
|
Nope, they generally didn't. This was a problem for them in elections so sometimes they did. In their own writings and so on they did not. Christianity bears the "Jewish influence," after all. Other things you said could stand some correction. But you have quite a laundry list to be dealt with. Only on some of it do you have a point. E.g. the Oklahoma city bombing, etc.... but if that is supposed to be the evidence of a comparable vast international pattern of Christian terrorism then you have a long, long way to go. Either you don't understand the depth of the pattern of Islamic terrorism or you are very phobic with respect to Christianity and don't understand how shallow that pattern is.
|
The Christian pattern of violence is shallow now (in comparison to Islam), yes, because Christianity is based in the Western world which has become increasingly secular and tolerant of other religions. Third world countries, in many ways, still exist in the Dark Ages of religious intolerance. Before the Western world became (more) secular, Christians were at least as violent as modern day Muslim fanatics. It isn't a matter of which religion (Islam or Christianity) so much as it is what time period and what degree of religious tolerance in the culture at large.
Quote:
|
Given your notion about how if Christianity influences the state "DISASTER!!!" will result, I suspect the latter.
|
When did I say that if Christianity influences the state disaster will result? I just don't think Christianity should be taught in public schools over all other religions. Most Americans agree with me.
Quote:
|
And note that Christianity already influences the state by bringing up the notion of separation of church and state in the first place.
|
First of all, if that was true, any argument promoting the teaching of one religion over others in public schools would be decidedly un-Christian, because it violates the "Christian" principle of seperation of Church and state. Secondly, if Christianity came up with the notion of seperation of church and state, it also came up with the notion of rule by Divine Right, an utterly totalitarian (and often violent) monarchy that was the norm in Christian nations for centuries (Christianity didn't come up with the notion of seperation of church and state--this came from non-Christian Enlightenment principles during the 18th century). By the way, the Islamic rulers of the Middle Ages were MUCH kinder to their non-Muslim subjects than Christian rulers were to non-Christian subjects. Islam, it seems, practiced religious tolerance in government far before Christians picked up on it.
05-28-2004, 12:03 AM
