| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"karl" |
| Date: |
14 Oct 2005 09:07:26 AM |
| Object: |
How secular? |
In an ideal world I think most, as atheists, would like a world where
theism and religion was an entirely private matter with no governmental
imprimatur.
But we live in the real world where religious aspects are often entangled
with secular government.
i.e Ten Commandments in the courthouse.
Swearing on the bible
School Christmas pageants.
School Easter activities
Mangers on public property etc.
So the question is how much is too much? Some will say adamantly say even
the smallest bit. But if one were looking for a compromise, where to draw
the line? Should St. Valentines Day activities be banned from school? Is it
enough to rename christmas school activities 'Winter Festival'? Indeed have
easter and christmas been secularized enough that you as an atheist can
accept the tacit governmental promotion that we see.
And what of education. Certainly no rational person will accept intelligent
design or creation science as belonging in education except as case studies
of oddball beliefs in sociology. But what of history? Or anthropology?
Studying either without referencing religious works simply can't be done.
Even though they are myths they do contain valid historical information. At
what point does this study cross the barrier of religion/state?
As for religion in schools, again, the study of religions can be secular
and is indeed necessary for the study of history both as a source and an
understanding of motivations.
Would a comparative study of religions in general, not favouring one be
acceptable? Assume a course that was a broad overview of the top 5
religions: Say jewish, muslim, christian, hindu and buddhism. Yes I know
some consider buddhism questionable as a religion per se but for this
purpose I'll include it. I would include non-belief or atheism as well but I
fear some here would accuse me of attempting to equate atheism with
religions as being just another variety.
In general I am asking where one thinks the line could reasonably be drawn -
not where one thinks it ideally should be.
.
|
|
| User: "Neil Kelsey" |
|
| Title: Re: How secular? |
14 Oct 2005 11:17:26 AM |
|
|
"Would a comparative study of religions in general, not favouring one
be
acceptable? Assume a course that was a broad overview of the top 5
religions: Say jewish, muslim, christian, hindu and buddhism. Yes I
know
some consider buddhism questionable as a religion per se but for this
purpose I'll include it. I would include non-belief or atheism as well
but I
fear some here would accuse me of attempting to equate atheism with
religions as being just another variety."
I'd say a comparitive study of religions in general, and a comparison
of religion with ATHEISM, would be a great course; and the earlier it
is taught the better.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Woden" |
|
| Title: Re: How secular? |
14 Oct 2005 02:14:50 PM |
|
|
"Neil Kelsey" <neil_kelsey@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1129306646.320239.233930@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
"Would a comparative study of religions in general, not favouring one
be
acceptable? Assume a course that was a broad overview of the top 5
religions: Say jewish, muslim, christian, hindu and buddhism. Yes I
know
some consider buddhism questionable as a religion per se but for this
purpose I'll include it. I would include non-belief or atheism as well
but I
fear some here would accuse me of attempting to equate atheism with
religions as being just another variety."
I'd say a comparitive study of religions in general, and a comparison
of religion with ATHEISM, would be a great course; and the earlier it
is taught the better.
Which is something the die hard xian fundies would fight. After all,
they wouldn't want the "truth" of xianity put down to the same level as
those other "false" religions.
--
Woden
"religion is a socio-political system for controlling people's thoughts,
lives and actions based on ancient myths and superstitions, perpetrated
through generations of subtle yet pervasive brainwashing."
.
|
|
|
| User: "karl" |
|
| Title: Re: How secular? |
14 Oct 2005 02:31:41 PM |
|
|
"Woden" <woden@charter.net> wrote in message
news:Xns96EF9B1A5E133wodencharternet@69.28.186.121...
"Neil Kelsey" <neil_kelsey@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1129306646.320239.233930@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
"Would a comparative study of religions in general, not favouring one
be
acceptable? Assume a course that was a broad overview of the top 5
religions: Say jewish, muslim, christian, hindu and buddhism. Yes I
know
some consider buddhism questionable as a religion per se but for this
purpose I'll include it. I would include non-belief or atheism as well
but I
fear some here would accuse me of attempting to equate atheism with
religions as being just another variety."
I'd say a comparitive study of religions in general, and a comparison
of religion with ATHEISM, would be a great course; and the earlier it
is taught the better.
Which is something the die hard xian fundies would fight. After all,
they wouldn't want the "truth" of xianity put down to the same level as
those other "false" religions.
It would depend on who was doing the teaching. An atheist would want a
secularist, a fundy christian a fundy, a muslim, an iman, a jew, a rabbi and
so on.
The tricky part would be having a survey that was fair to all concerned.
I think consensus on who teaches would be difficult.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Neil Kelsey" |
|
| Title: Re: How secular? |
14 Oct 2005 06:37:47 PM |
|
|
I'd be happy with teachers in the public school system teaching a
course like this. Even if they have their own preferences, anything is
better than the unchallenged indoctrination by the parents that the
different religions often benefit from now. I would think class
discussions would get pretty lively and spark some thought by children
who wouldn't normally question religious/atheist issues. Society would
only benefit from having a broad minded questioning population.
.
|
|
|
| User: "karl" |
|
| Title: Re: How secular? |
14 Oct 2005 07:49:37 PM |
|
|
"Neil Kelsey" <neil_kelsey@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1129333067.385447.253280@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
I'd be happy with teachers in the public school system teaching a
course like this. Even if they have their own preferences, anything is
better than the unchallenged indoctrination by the parents that the
different religions often benefit from now. I would think class
discussions would get pretty lively and spark some thought by children
who wouldn't normally question religious/atheist issues. Society would
only benefit from having a broad minded questioning population.
I foresee a problem though. Oh sure in cosmopolitan areas it would be a
problem but think of find true proponents of the other groups in places
like the bible belt.
Not only that I can see a downward spiral. First the atheists get tossed by
the other because it isn't a religion. Then buddhism is ganged up on by the
rest because they don't think it a real religion. One by one amidst
infighting the diverse representation gets whittled down to the last one
standing.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ben" |
|
| Title: Re: How secular? |
14 Oct 2005 02:43:53 PM |
|
|
karl wrote:
"Woden" <woden@charter.net> wrote in message
news:Xns96EF9B1A5E133wodencharternet@69.28.186.121...
"Neil Kelsey" <neil_kelsey@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1129306646.320239.233930@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
"Would a comparative study of religions in general, not favouring one
be
acceptable? Assume a course that was a broad overview of the top 5
religions: Say jewish, muslim, christian, hindu and buddhism. Yes I
know
some consider buddhism questionable as a religion per se but for this
purpose I'll include it. I would include non-belief or atheism as well
but I
fear some here would accuse me of attempting to equate atheism with
religions as being just another variety."
I'd say a comparitive study of religions in general, and a comparison
of religion with ATHEISM, would be a great course; and the earlier it
is taught the better.
Which is something the die hard xian fundies would fight. After all,
they wouldn't want the "truth" of xianity put down to the same level as
those other "false" religions.
It would depend on who was doing the teaching. An atheist would want a
secularist, a fundy christian a fundy, a muslim, an iman, a jew, a rabbi and
so on.
The tricky part would be having a survey that was fair to all concerned.
I think consensus on who teaches would be difficult.
Unitarians usually invite people of a particular faith to teach children
about other religions. A Buddhist to teach buddhism, a Catholic to
teach catholicism, etc. The decisions our children come to are their own.
Of course this is based on the liberal religous perspective that
children have a right to come to their own conclusions based on their
life experiences.
Ben
--
Squirting rubbing alcohol up your
nose is rather unpleasant.
-Sanford, ABSFG
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "George Ricker" |
|
| Title: Re: How secular? |
15 Oct 2005 09:13:09 AM |
|
|
In article <FPednVfXo5cgJtLeRVn-qg@rogers.com>,
"karl" <kona_cc@hotmail.com> wrote:
In an ideal world I think most, as atheists, would like a world where
theism and religion was an entirely private matter with no governmental
imprimatur.
But we live in the real world where religious aspects are often entangled
with secular government.
i.e Ten Commandments in the courthouse.
Swearing on the bible
School Christmas pageants.
School Easter activities
Mangers on public property etc.
So the question is how much is too much? Some will say adamantly say even
the smallest bit. But if one were looking for a compromise, where to draw
the line? Should St. Valentines Day activities be banned from school? Is it
enough to rename christmas school activities 'Winter Festival'? Indeed have
easter and christmas been secularized enough that you as an atheist can
accept the tacit governmental promotion that we see.
Since most of the holidays we celebrate have pagan origins anyway, I
don't have much of a problem with school activities that recognize those
holidays, as long as they are not explicitly religious in character.
I've never thought it was the best use of public school resources to be
holding parties and the like, but I do think history classes could take
the opportunity to teach about the origins of such holidays and so on.
And what of education. Certainly no rational person will accept intelligent
design or creation science as belonging in education except as case studies
of oddball beliefs in sociology. But what of history? Or anthropology?
Studying either without referencing religious works simply can't be done.
Even though they are myths they do contain valid historical information. At
what point does this study cross the barrier of religion/state?
As for religion in schools, again, the study of religions can be secular
and is indeed necessary for the study of history both as a source and an
understanding of motivations.
The study of history, literature, civilization in general is not
possible without referencing religion. I have absolutely no problem with
that so long as the information imparted to students is factual,
unbiased and presented honestly. Religion has played an important role
in the development of human cultures around the world. It necessarily
must be a component of any honest study of those cultures.
However, a very large caveat must be added to this. Many parents would
not want an *honest* appraisal of religion, warts and all, to be part of
the public school curriculum and might want the instruction skewed to
favor their particular point of view. And some teachers would find it
difficult to keep their own biases out of their classrooms (and yes,
that might be true of those who were nonbelievers as well as to those
who followed a religion). That said, I think it would be a worthwhile
effort as long as the emphasis was clearly on teaching and not
prosyletizing.
Would a comparative study of religions in general, not favouring one be
acceptable? Assume a course that was a broad overview of the top 5
religions: Say jewish, muslim, christian, hindu and buddhism. Yes I know
some consider buddhism questionable as a religion per se but for this
purpose I'll include it. I would include non-belief or atheism as well but I
fear some here would accuse me of attempting to equate atheism with
religions as being just another variety.
I would have no problem with such a study, noting the caveats I've
already indicated. Certainly, I think alternatives to religion might be
taught as an element of such a course, though that need not be a
requirement.
In general I am asking where one thinks the line could reasonably be drawn -
not where one thinks it ideally should be.
What it all comes down to in my mind is this: government has no business
endorsing religions or religious concepts like "god" and no charter to
promote any particular religion or religion in general. I would
eliminate all references to "God" on our money, in the Pledge (in fact,
I think I would favor eliminating the Pledge altogether). I would
eliminate the enshrinement of religious artifacts on public grounds -
Ten Commandments displays, manger scenes and the like. I would do away
with government sponsored days of prayer and the practice of beginning
legislative sessions with prayer and so on. This applies to government
at all levels (local, state and federal).
But that does not mean individual office-holders, whether appointed or
elected, would not still be free to practice their religion. For
example, when a politician says "God bless America" at the end of a
speech, that may be an honest expression of his own religious sentiments
and shouldn't be a problem (even though some may gag when they hear it).
When the phrase is emblazoned on the side of a publicly owned building
or displayed on the grounds of a publicly owned facility, then it
amounts to a government establishment of religion.
Our government doesn't get to have a religion. It has no business
making religion its business. I think it is entirely reasonable to
insist that it stop acting otherwise.
I am also opposed to giving religious organizations preferential
treatment on taxes and the like. I have no problem with treating them as
nonprofit organizations as long as they meet the same legal
qualifications and reporting requirements as all other nonprofit
organizations.
Finally, we atheists get acused of wanting to "ban" religion from the
public square. That's not what I want at all. I want it out of the
government. But I also want to drag it into the public square and
subject it to the same kind of analysis and evaluation we customarily
give to all other belief systems.
One of the problems we have as a culture today is that once something is
regarded as a "matter of faith," then it's considered off limits to
challenge or criticism by too many people. Religious ideas deserve a
fair hearing. But they shouldn't get special treatment just because they
are "religious." An individual's personal beliefs are the business of
the person who holds them. But once those beliefs are offered as the
basis for legislation or social criticism or any action that involves
others, then those beliefs ought to be subjected to the same scrutiny
that other ideas receive, not given a pass because they are "religious."
--
George Ricker
"'God' is a penny in reality's fuse box."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Elroy Willis" |
|
| Title: Re: How secular? |
16 Oct 2005 05:45:23 AM |
|
|
George Ricker <gSPAMFREEricker@cfl.rr.com> wrote in alt.atheism
But that does not mean individual office-holders, whether appointed
or elected, would not still be free to practice their religion. For
example, when a politician says "God bless America" at the end
of a speech, that may be an honest expression of his own religious
sentiments and shouldn't be a problem (even though some may gag
when they hear it).
Does that include things like Bush saying God told him to invade Iraq,
or is he stepping over the line?
--
Elroy Willis
www.elroysemporium.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Ricker" |
|
| Title: Re: How secular? |
16 Oct 2005 08:15:26 AM |
|
|
In article <rkb4l1lrnqb095hogdsva3ncen22f0ccj0@4ax.com>,
Elroy Willis <elroywillis@swbell.net> wrote:
George Ricker <gSPAMFREEricker@cfl.rr.com> wrote in alt.atheism
But that does not mean individual office-holders, whether appointed
or elected, would not still be free to practice their religion. For
example, when a politician says "God bless America" at the end
of a speech, that may be an honest expression of his own religious
sentiments and shouldn't be a problem (even though some may gag
when they hear it).
Does that include things like Bush saying God told him to invade Iraq,
or is he stepping over the line?
When a president claims to be getting instructions from a god, it's
probably time to schedule a sanity hearing and consider how to remove
him from office. IMHO this goes more to the character and competence of
the man than any church/state issues.
His opinion about what the god he worships did or did not tell him to do
cannot be regarded as a valid basis for presidential action. Nor does it
necessarily make the action itself invalid. I don't particularly want to
get into a discussiof the pros and cons of invading Iraq. I opposed the
invasion when it was proposed and have opposed it ever since. However,
my opposition to the war has nothing to do with Bush's religious
opinions. Those opinions simply reinforce my view that the man is not
just dangerously incompetent but deluded as well.
(Caveat: I'm assuming the press reports are true and he actually said
what other people have said he said. There's always the possibility he
was misquoted or misunderstood. I don't think that's the case, but it
should be kept in mind nonetheless.)
--
George Ricker
"'God' is a penny in reality's fuse box."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: How secular? |
16 Oct 2005 09:27:40 AM |
|
|
George Ricker <gSPAMFREEricker@cfl.rr.com> wrote in
news:gSPAMFREEricker-F50950.09150816102005@news-server2.tampabay.rr.com:
In article <rkb4l1lrnqb095hogdsva3ncen22f0ccj0@4ax.com>,
Elroy Willis <elroywillis@swbell.net> wrote:
George Ricker <gSPAMFREEricker@cfl.rr.com> wrote in alt.atheism
But that does not mean individual office-holders, whether appointed
or elected, would not still be free to practice their religion. For
example, when a politician says "God bless America" at the end
of a speech, that may be an honest expression of his own religious
sentiments and shouldn't be a problem (even though some may gag
when they hear it).
Does that include things like Bush saying God told him to invade
Iraq,
or is he stepping over the line?
When a president claims to be getting instructions from a god, it's
probably time to schedule a sanity hearing and consider how to remove
him from office. IMHO this goes more to the character and competence
of
the man than any church/state issues.
His opinion about what the god he worships did or did not tell him to
do
cannot be regarded as a valid basis for presidential action. Nor does
it
necessarily make the action itself invalid. I don't particularly want
to
get into a discussiof the pros and cons of invading Iraq. I opposed
the
invasion when it was proposed and have opposed it ever since. However,
my opposition to the war has nothing to do with Bush's religious
opinions. Those opinions simply reinforce my view that the man is not
just dangerously incompetent but deluded as well.
(Caveat: I'm assuming the press reports are true and he actually said
what other people have said he said. There's always the possibility he
was misquoted or misunderstood. I don't think that's the case, but it
should be kept in mind nonetheless.)
Considering that one of the supposed witnesses to it denies that he said
it...
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"The amount of violations of human rights in a country
is always an inverse function of the amount of complaints
about human rights violations heard from there.
The greater the number of complaints being aired,
the better protected are human rights in that country."
-- Daniel Patrick Moynihan
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Elroy Willis" |
|
| Title: Re: How secular? |
16 Oct 2005 09:50:12 AM |
|
|
George Ricker <gSPAMFREEricker@cfl.rr.com> wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis <elroywillis@swbell.net> wrote:
George Ricker <gSPAMFREEricker@cfl.rr.com> wrote in alt.atheism
But that does not mean individual office-holders, whether appointed
or elected, would not still be free to practice their religion. For
example, when a politician says "God bless America" at the end
of a speech, that may be an honest expression of his own religious
sentiments and shouldn't be a problem (even though some may gag
when they hear it).
Does that include things like Bush saying God told him to invade Iraq,
or is he stepping over the line?
When a president claims to be getting instructions from a god, it's
probably time to schedule a sanity hearing and consider how to remove
him from office.
Apparently millions of Americans like hearing that sort of claim from
the president. It probably gives them a warm fuzzy feeling somewhere
in their mind, and they think "Oh boy, God is behind us!"
IMHO this goes more to the character and competence
of the man than any church/state issues.
It gets pretty fuzzy to me at that point. If the majority of people
in our country like hearing a president yammer about how he spoke to
God, then why shouldn't his words be believed and catered to?
His opinion about what the god he worships did or did not tell him to do
cannot be regarded as a valid basis for presidential action. Nor does it
necessarily make the action itself invalid. I don't particularly want to
get into a discussiof the pros and cons of invading Iraq. I opposed the
invasion when it was proposed and have opposed it ever since. However,
my opposition to the war has nothing to do with Bush's religious
opinions. Those opinions simply reinforce my view that the man is not
just dangerously incompetent but deluded as well.
(Caveat: I'm assuming the press reports are true and he actually said
what other people have said he said. There's always the possibility he
was misquoted or misunderstood. I don't think that's the case, but it
should be kept in mind nonetheless.)
I'm sure he was intimidated by other leaders claiming their gods were
talking to them, and he wanted to bolster his position, or at least
keep up, by claiming that the god of the USA was on his side...
--
Elroy Willis
www.elroysemporium.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Ricker" |
|
| Title: Re: How secular? |
16 Oct 2005 11:04:56 AM |
|
|
In article <4dn4l1tbn969ng8dd6mnipvhbmvna8bfpm@4ax.com>,
Elroy Willis <elroywillis@swbell.net> wrote:
George Ricker <gSPAMFREEricker@cfl.rr.com> wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis <elroywillis@swbell.net> wrote:
George Ricker <gSPAMFREEricker@cfl.rr.com> wrote in alt.atheism
But that does not mean individual office-holders, whether appointed
or elected, would not still be free to practice their religion. For
example, when a politician says "God bless America" at the end
of a speech, that may be an honest expression of his own religious
sentiments and shouldn't be a problem (even though some may gag
when they hear it).
Does that include things like Bush saying God told him to invade Iraq,
or is he stepping over the line?
When a president claims to be getting instructions from a god, it's
probably time to schedule a sanity hearing and consider how to remove
him from office.
Apparently millions of Americans like hearing that sort of claim from
the president. It probably gives them a warm fuzzy feeling somewhere
in their mind, and they think "Oh boy, God is behind us!"
Given the reflexive support for all sorts of god-talk, you may be right.
I'm hopeful the fit will past, but that's probably just wishful thinking
on my part.
IMHO this goes more to the character and competence
of the man than any church/state issues.
It gets pretty fuzzy to me at that point. If the majority of people
in our country like hearing a president yammer about how he spoke to
God, then why shouldn't his words be believed and catered to?
You may be overstating things here. I don't think the majority of
Americans like hearing a president claim to be conversing with "God."
Saying millions do is not the same as saying it's true of a majority.
The majority may not object to a president who says he (or she) prays -
I think that's probably a claim most have made. However, I don't think
the majority wants to think the president thinks he (or she) is being
told what to do by some version of a cosmic super critter. The former
may simply represent a kind of thoughtful reflection before acting. The
latter sounds like a mental illness - assuming the claim is sincere.
His opinion about what the god he worships did or did not tell him to do
cannot be regarded as a valid basis for presidential action. Nor does it
necessarily make the action itself invalid. I don't particularly want to
get into a discussiof the pros and cons of invading Iraq. I opposed the
invasion when it was proposed and have opposed it ever since. However,
my opposition to the war has nothing to do with Bush's religious
opinions. Those opinions simply reinforce my view that the man is not
just dangerously incompetent but deluded as well.
(Caveat: I'm assuming the press reports are true and he actually said
what other people have said he said. There's always the possibility he
was misquoted or misunderstood. I don't think that's the case, but it
should be kept in mind nonetheless.)
I'm sure he was intimidated by other leaders claiming their gods were
talking to them, and he wanted to bolster his position, or at least
keep up, by claiming that the god of the USA was on his side...
That may well be. Whatever the case, it's just one more reason why this
bozo isn't fit to be president of anything, let alone a whole country.
--
George Ricker
"'God' is a penny in reality's fuse box."
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: How secular? |
14 Oct 2005 09:22:08 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 14 Oct 2005 10:07:26 -0400, "karl" <kona_cc@hotmail.com>
wrote:
In an ideal world I think most, as atheists, would like a world where
theism and religion was an entirely private matter with no governmental
imprimatur.
But we live in the real world where religious aspects are often entangled
with secular government.
i.e Ten Commandments in the courthouse.
Swearing on the bible
School Christmas pageants.
School Easter activities
Mangers on public property etc.
:
You forgot the biggy!
* Tax exemption for "Church" activities.
The rest doesn't affect me negatively, as directly and undeniably as
that one.
Most atheists don't seem at all bothered by being forced to directly
fund the fundies, yet get their knickers in a twist about
philosophical ephemera.
I ask myself why?
.
|
|
|
| User: "karl" |
|
| Title: Re: How secular? |
14 Oct 2005 09:47:03 PM |
|
|
"Michael Gray" <fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in message
news:gnp0l197cvuolmf9du81eljr6qeaogp6gj@4ax.com...
On Fri, 14 Oct 2005 10:07:26 -0400, "karl" <kona_cc@hotmail.com>
wrote:
i.e Ten Commandments in the courthouse.
Swearing on the bible
School Christmas pageants.
School Easter activities
Mangers on public property etc.
:
You forgot the biggy!
* Tax exemption for "Church" activities.
The rest doesn't affect me negatively, as directly and undeniably as
that one.
Most atheists don't seem at all bothered by being forced to directly
fund the fundies, yet get their knickers in a twist about
philosophical ephemera.
I find myself in violent agreement with you. I would put up with a million
manger scenes on public property and a zillion ten commandent statuaries if
I could get the same tax free deal as churches.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: How secular? |
14 Oct 2005 10:57:56 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 14 Oct 2005 22:47:03 -0400, "karl" <kona_cc@hotmail.com>
wrote:
"Michael Gray" <fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in message
news:gnp0l197cvuolmf9du81eljr6qeaogp6gj@4ax.com...
On Fri, 14 Oct 2005 10:07:26 -0400, "karl" <kona_cc@hotmail.com>
wrote:
i.e Ten Commandments in the courthouse.
Swearing on the bible
School Christmas pageants.
School Easter activities
Mangers on public property etc.
:
You forgot the biggy!
* Tax exemption for "Church" activities.
The rest doesn't affect me negatively, as directly and undeniably as
that one.
Most atheists don't seem at all bothered by being forced to directly
fund the fundies, yet get their knickers in a twist about
philosophical ephemera.
I find myself in violent agreement with you. I would put up with a million
manger scenes on public property and a zillion ten commandent statuaries if
I could get the same tax free deal as churches.
Well, that only makes 2 of us so far...
.
|
|
|
| User: "Elroy Willis" |
|
| Title: Re: How secular? |
15 Oct 2005 07:42:09 AM |
|
|
Michael Gray <fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
karl <kona_cc@hotmail.com> wrote:
Michael Gray <fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in message
karl <kona_cc@hotmail.com> wrote:
i.e Ten Commandments in the courthouse.
Swearing on the bible
School Christmas pageants.
School Easter activities
Mangers on public property etc.
You forgot the biggy!
* Tax exemption for "Church" activities.
The rest doesn't affect me negatively, as directly and undeniably as
that one.
Most atheists don't seem at all bothered by being forced to directly
fund the fundies, yet get their knickers in a twist about
philosophical ephemera.
I find myself in violent agreement with you. I would put up with a million
manger scenes on public property and a zillion ten commandent statuaries if
I could get the same tax free deal as churches.
Well, that only makes 2 of us so far...
Would you put up with it if the churches started having to pay taxes,
instead of you becoming tax exempt?
--
Elroy Willis
www.elroysemporium.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "karl" |
|
| Title: Re: How secular? |
15 Oct 2005 07:34:03 AM |
|
|
"Elroy Willis" <elroywillis@swbell.net> wrote in message
news:mds1l1l9o0ol18g8h7e06503jc98h4v0j1@4ax.com...
Michael Gray <fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
karl <kona_cc@hotmail.com> wrote:
Michael Gray <fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in message
karl <kona_cc@hotmail.com> wrote:
i.e Ten Commandments in the courthouse.
Swearing on the bible
School Christmas pageants.
School Easter activities
Mangers on public property etc.
You forgot the biggy!
* Tax exemption for "Church" activities.
The rest doesn't affect me negatively, as directly and undeniably as
that one.
Most atheists don't seem at all bothered by being forced to directly
fund the fundies, yet get their knickers in a twist about
philosophical ephemera.
I find myself in violent agreement with you. I would put up with a
million
manger scenes on public property and a zillion ten commandent statuaries
if
I could get the same tax free deal as churches.
Well, that only makes 2 of us so far...
Would you put up with it if the churches started having to pay taxes,
instead of you becoming tax exempt?
In a revenue neutral world where I would pay less? In New York minute.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Elroy Willis" |
|
| Title: Re: How secular? |
15 Oct 2005 08:39:03 AM |
|
|
karl <kona_cc@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis <elroywillis@swbell.net> wrote in message
Michael Gray <fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
karl <kona_cc@hotmail.com> wrote:
Michael Gray <fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in message
Most atheists don't seem at all bothered by being forced to directly
fund the fundies, yet get their knickers in a twist about
philosophical ephemera.
I find myself in violent agreement with you. I would put up with a
million manger scenes on public property and a zillion ten commandent
statuaries if I could get the same tax free deal as churches.
Well, that only makes 2 of us so far...
Would you put up with it if the churches started having to pay taxes,
instead of you becoming tax exempt?
In a revenue neutral world where I would pay less? In New York minute.
It's something to consider. I'd definitely like to see churches taxed
like other businesses, but then they'd also be able to endorse
particular politicians, iirc, and we might end up worse off than we
are now, who knows...
--
Elroy Willis
www.elroysemporium.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: How secular? |
15 Oct 2005 05:58:45 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 15 Oct 2005 13:39:03 GMT, Elroy Willis
<elroywillis@swbell.net> wrote:
karl <kona_cc@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis <elroywillis@swbell.net> wrote in message
Michael Gray <fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
karl <kona_cc@hotmail.com> wrote:
Michael Gray <fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in message
Most atheists don't seem at all bothered by being forced to directly
fund the fundies, yet get their knickers in a twist about
philosophical ephemera.
I find myself in violent agreement with you. I would put up with a
million manger scenes on public property and a zillion ten commandent
statuaries if I could get the same tax free deal as churches.
Well, that only makes 2 of us so far...
Would you put up with it if the churches started having to pay taxes,
instead of you becoming tax exempt?
In a revenue neutral world where I would pay less? In New York minute.
It's something to consider. I'd definitely like to see churches taxed
like other businesses, but then they'd also be able to endorse
particular politicians, iirc, and we might end up worse off than we
are now, who knows...
I had the very distinct impression that the Churches were endorsing
politicians right now!
And vice-versa!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Elroy Willis" |
|
| Title: Re: How secular? |
16 Oct 2005 05:22:51 AM |
|
|
Michael Gray <fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis <elroywillis@swbell.net> wrote:
karl <kona_cc@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis <elroywillis@swbell.net> wrote in message
Would you put up with it if the churches started having to pay taxes,
instead of you becoming tax exempt?
In a revenue neutral world where I would pay less? In New York minute.
It's something to consider. I'd definitely like to see churches taxed
like other businesses, but then they'd also be able to endorse
particular politicians, iirc, and we might end up worse off than we
are now, who knows...
I had the very distinct impression that the Churches were endorsing
politicians right now!
And vice-versa!
They're not supposed to, according to the IRS. :)
--
Elroy Willis
www.elroysemporium.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: How secular? |
15 Oct 2005 05:57:09 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 15 Oct 2005 12:42:09 GMT, Elroy Willis
<elroywillis@swbell.net> wrote:
Michael Gray <fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
karl <kona_cc@hotmail.com> wrote:
Michael Gray <fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in message
karl <kona_cc@hotmail.com> wrote:
i.e Ten Commandments in the courthouse.
Swearing on the bible
School Christmas pageants.
School Easter activities
Mangers on public property etc.
You forgot the biggy!
* Tax exemption for "Church" activities.
The rest doesn't affect me negatively, as directly and undeniably as
that one.
Most atheists don't seem at all bothered by being forced to directly
fund the fundies, yet get their knickers in a twist about
philosophical ephemera.
I find myself in violent agreement with you. I would put up with a million
manger scenes on public property and a zillion ten commandent statuaries if
I could get the same tax free deal as churches.
Well, that only makes 2 of us so far...
Would you put up with it if the churches started having to pay taxes,
instead of you becoming tax exempt?
It's not either/or.
Black/white.
Or Zero sum.
That's neocon 'rationalization'.
It does *not* resolve to a swap between tax and tablets, exemption or
easter.
You have presented a false choice worthy of a rabid creationist.
But I won't accept it, let alone be seen to take it.
What I was saying, is that all this other stuff pales into
insignificance until churches are stopped from legally stealing my
money, and spending it without any representation from me.
Whittle away the list starting with the MOST important, not the LEAST.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Elroy Willis" |
|
| Title: Re: How secular? |
16 Oct 2005 05:33:09 AM |
|
|
Michael Gray <fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis <elroywillis@swbell.net> wrote:
Michael Gray <fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in alt.atheism
karl <kona_cc@hotmail.com> wrote:
Michael Gray <fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote in message
karl <kona_cc@hotmail.com> wrote:
i.e Ten Commandments in the courthouse.
Swearing on the bible
School Christmas pageants.
School Easter activities
Mangers on public property etc.
You forgot the biggy!
* Tax exemption for "Church" activities.
The rest doesn't affect me negatively, as directly and undeniably as
that one.
Most atheists don't seem at all bothered by being forced to directly
fund the fundies, yet get their knickers in a twist about
philosophical ephemera.
I find myself in violent agreement with you. I would put up with a million
manger scenes on public property and a zillion ten commandent statuaries if
I could get the same tax free deal as churches.
Well, that only makes 2 of us so far...
Would you put up with it if the churches started having to pay taxes,
instead of you becoming tax exempt?
It's not either/or.
Black/white.
Or Zero sum.
That's neocon 'rationalization'.
It does *not* resolve to a swap between tax and tablets, exemption or
easter.
You have presented a false choice worthy of a rabid creationist.
Oh dear!
But I won't accept it, let alone be seen to take it.
What I was saying, is that all this other stuff pales into
insignificance until churches are stopped from legally stealing my
money, and spending it without any representation from me.
Whittle away the list starting with the MOST important, not the LEAST.
So what's your plan, if you could have it your way?
--
Elroy Willis
www.elroysemporium.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Azrael" |
|
| Title: Re: How secular? |
15 Oct 2005 12:34:47 AM |
|
|
On this day Fri, 14 Oct 2005 10:07:26 -0400, "karl"
<kona_cc@hotmail.com> wrote:
In an ideal world I think most, as atheists, would like a world where
theism and religion was an entirely private matter with no governmental
imprimatur.
But we live in the real world where religious aspects are often entangled
with secular government.
i.e Ten Commandments in the courthouse.
Banned
Swearing on the bible
Banned
School Christmas pageants.
Banned
School Easter activities
I might let this one go, there are pagan festivals near this time and
for the most part it is a fertility holiday (f**king like bunnies, and
eggs) and candy.
Mangers on public property etc.
Banned
So the question is how much is too much? Some will say adamantly say even
the smallest bit. But if one were looking for a compromise, where to draw
the line? Should St. Valentines Day activities be banned from school?
Valentines Day was happening long before the church gave a St. to it.
It was an old Roman holiday(tradition) where child came down from the
mountains in the spring and had sex with their loved(?) one. The
church viewing sex as evil made it giving a card or note to the one
that you loved. Was it actual attributed to a roman god/goddess I
don't know, I would keep it as a secular holiday.
Is it enough to rename christmas school activities 'Winter Festival'?
As long as no baby jesus, manger, wise men etc. No problem
Indeed have easter and christmas been secularized enough that you as an atheist can
accept the tacit governmental promotion that we see.
Christmas is a conglomeration of many different winter festivals, none
of which has to do with the birth of a god child. Long live Kris
Kringle. It's the religious overtures that get me riled up.
I would bet that 90+% of the religious fuddies don't even know whence
certain religious holidays come from.
And what of education. Certainly no rational person will accept intelligent
design or creation science as belonging in education except as case studies
of oddball beliefs in sociology. But what of history? Or anthropology?
Studying either without referencing religious works simply can't be done.
Even though they are myths they do contain valid historical information. At
what point does this study cross the barrier of religion/state?
As for religion in schools, again, the study of religions can be secular
and is indeed necessary for the study of history both as a source and an
understanding of motivations.
I would accept very little religious teaching in school except for as
a comparative study. Kind of like the comparative study of
political/economic systems:
Democracy-Free Market
Democracy-Planned Market
Communist-Free Market
Communist-Planned Market
It could even be a part of a Social Studies (I think in modern
parlance it's called Global Studies, but I'm old) class.
I remember learning of Greek, Roman and Norse gods during my SS
classes when talking about their respective countries but never being
asked to answer questions about the gods themselves it was like extra
information to fill in the gaps.
One could teach of:
Polytheism the various pantheons both east and wets
Monotheism like the Jewish, Islamic faith
and Poly-monotheism like Christianity, and even the structures of
each. I would be opposed to testing students on any of the religious
books/teachings of any of these religions.
Would a comparative study of religions in general, not favouring one be
acceptable? Assume a course that was a broad overview of the top 5
religions: Say jewish, muslim, christian, hindu and buddhism. Yes I know
some consider buddhism questionable as a religion per se but for this
purpose I'll include it. I would include non-belief or atheism as well but I
fear some here would accuse me of attempting to equate atheism with
religions as being just another variety.
I would think you would need to include some philosophy and atheism in
the class to tell the students that quite a few people throughout the
world believe in no religion or deity and that reason and logic and
basic human thought and emotion are all that they need to live their
lives.
If one were to teach this class they should tell the horrors
perpetrated by religion upon believer and none believer alike. One
could also point out that faith without evidence even in supposedly
secular regimens like Nationalistic Germany and Communist Soviet Union
can perpetrate the same horrors.
In general I am asking where one thinks the line could reasonably be drawn -
not where one thinks it ideally should be.
In a secular country the line should be no government backed religious
endeavors. I would also include removing the Chaplin corps from the
military and to not have a priest open the sessions of congress.
Azrael
The thiest/diest defense:
1)I believe in god, ergo god exists
2)I believe in god, ergo I know what god wills, wants, the path to god, etc.
3)I believe in god, ergo I am right/correct
4)You don't agree with me, you are wrong (see 1,2,and/or 3 above)
5)You dont' beleive as I do then you are wrong (see 1,2,and/or 3 above)
6)You want proof of god? (see 1,2,and/or 3 above)
7)You have evidence god does not exist (see 1,2,and/or 3 above)
8)If you don't believe as I do you are wrong (see 1,2,and/or 3 above)
There was no "before" the beginning of our universe, because once upon a time there was no time.
John D. Barrow
Question #1: If I get im my spaceship and fly to the very edge of the universe what do I see out the front window?
Since I have learned that the known universe that we speak of, the one that is billions of years old, is just a speck on the entirety of the physical universe that expanded 2^100 in size within moments of the creation of the entirety of space/time, I must conclude that the patch of it that we can perceive is like a grain of sand upon a beach and therefore other macro universes such as ours also exist outside of our ability to perceive them.
Question #2: What is the most mass/matter that a black hole can obsorb and what happens after it reaches that point and trys to absorb more matter?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "J Forbes" |
|
| Title: Re: How secular? |
14 Oct 2005 09:46:10 AM |
|
|
karl wrote:
In general I am asking where one thinks the line could reasonably be drawn -
not where one thinks it ideally should be.
I think the system we have in the US is pretty good, although it does
take a long time to get matters settled, and there are some matters
that can't be settled to everyone's satisfaction.
Things are the way they are because that's about the only way there is
to protect everyone. Banning religion is just as evil as forcing it on
people.
Jim
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory Gadow" |
|
| Title: Re: How secular? |
14 Oct 2005 10:16:09 AM |
|
|
J Forbes wrote:
karl wrote:
In general I am asking where one thinks the line could reasonably be drawn -
not where one thinks it ideally should be.
I think the system we have in the US is pretty good, although it does
take a long time to get matters settled, and there are some matters
that can't be settled to everyone's satisfaction.
Things are the way they are because that's about the only way there is
to protect everyone. Banning religion is just as evil as forcing it on
people.
And just as unconstitutional.
But remember: except in the delusions of the religionists, no one wants to ban
religion in the public sphere. What civil libertarians want is to enforce the
prohibition against government endorsement of religion. That is what the
constitution requires. The only questions that remain are How big is the gray area
between accomodation and endorsement, and How should we handle items in that gray
area?
--
Gregory Gadow
techbear@serv.net
http://www.serv.net/~techbear
"Without faith we might relapse into scientific or rational thinking,
which leads by a slippery slope toward constitutional democracy."
- Robert Anton Wilson
.
|
|
|
| User: "J Forbes" |
|
| Title: Re: How secular? |
14 Oct 2005 11:19:08 AM |
|
|
Gregory Gadow wrote:
But remember: except in the delusions of the religionists, no one wants to ban
religion in the public sphere. What civil libertarians want is to enforce the
prohibition against government endorsement of religion. That is what the
constitution requires. The only questions that remain are How big is the gray area
between accomodation and endorsement, and How should we handle items in that gray
area?
since it's a gray area, it's always going to be fought over...I'll let
the courts settle it, since I don't have much choice!
Jim
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
