Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Randman's call for nonSecular education...
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 121 of 226 (260101)
11-16-2005 12:27 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by RAZD
11-14-2005 11:46 PM


LIES
YOU HAVE BEEN EDUCATED STUPID BY EVIL BIG BROTHER SINGULARITY!

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by RAZD, posted 11-14-2005 11:46 PM RAZD has not replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 122 of 226 (260108)
11-16-2005 1:04 AM
Reply to: Message 113 by bobbins
11-15-2005 9:45 PM


Re: Soviets said they were an atheist state.
Wrong again. THe Soviets didn't take as agressive action against the Orthodox church because they removed the priests and bishops they didn't liek that, and infiltrated it with spies.
What they really hated were what they called "Baptists" whom I later learned meant a much wider group of believers than what we call Baptists over here. When I was in Russia, I was not a religious person, and it struck me as odd why someone probably working with the KGB went to some lengths to swear Baptists meet in secret for orgies. Having known a few Baptists, I really had a hard time accepting that, and it was not until later I realized they were trying to smear Baptists or any independent type of church.
What you are claiming is beyond BS now and is a lie. The Soviets and other communists bitterly persecuted millions of Christians. Maybe you've heard of Richard Wormbrand?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by bobbins, posted 11-15-2005 9:45 PM bobbins has not replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 123 of 226 (260109)
11-16-2005 1:11 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by bobbins
11-15-2005 10:17 PM


Re: soviets were atheists
Read the links I provided from Wikapedia and elsewhere. Obviously they are not secular in the sense of being atheists.
But this brings up an interesting point in the manner you guys debate, which is basically dishonest. On the one hand, you deny the Soviets were an atheist state, even though they claimed they were and I have never met any expert in that area that disagrees, based on Americans or others critical of religion. Then, crash and now you here join his delusions, and enter into a claim that these states are "secular", and if atheist states are persecutors of religion, then these "secular" states would be.
But these states are not really secular. They have official religions.
More to the point, by your definitions of secular, it seems Jesus himself would be secular and nearly all Americans including all of the noted leadership in evangelicalism.
So since evangelicals also believe the state should not impose religion on people, how are they not secularists too?
Basically, your thinking is undefined and muddied.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by bobbins, posted 11-15-2005 10:17 PM bobbins has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by mikehager, posted 11-16-2005 4:21 PM randman has not replied

Nighttrain
Member (Idle past 3993 days)
Posts: 1512
From: brisbane,australia
Joined: 06-08-2004


Message 124 of 226 (260110)
11-16-2005 1:11 AM
Reply to: Message 120 by ohnhai
11-16-2005 12:24 AM


Re: soviets were atheists
Piggy-backing on Ohnhai,
The Queen is the legal and constitutional head of Australia and all laws have to be rubber-stamped by her rep., the Governor-General. But, as I`ve pointed out elsewhere, she never rings, she never writes----.
We have attempted to turn Oz into a republic, but too many toadies hang out for either a knighthood, or a telegram from the Queen when they turn 100 y.o. While our laws incorporate devices like Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights from way back,and we signed the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights,our politicians ignore the U.N. rules when it suits their purpose. We haven`t managed to frame a current Bill of Rights, and our Constitution is so rigid, it enables political parties to work all manner of dodges. While we have English common law, it ain`t worth a hill of beans when you front up to a judge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by ohnhai, posted 11-16-2005 12:24 AM ohnhai has not replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 125 of 226 (260111)
11-16-2005 1:13 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by bobbins
11-15-2005 10:29 PM


Re: Soviets said they were an atheist state.
Bobbins, that's not why communism is synonymous with atheism. One of the very first things Lenin did was declare the Soviet Union an atheist state. I've talked with true believers in Soviet communism, and there were not many left. Basically, 10% of the Soviet Union was communist, and only about 10% of those were true beleivers, and that 1% controlled the national policies.
They believed in atheism as a means of bettering mankind, sort of similar to some of the attitudes around here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by bobbins, posted 11-15-2005 10:29 PM bobbins has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by Silent H, posted 11-16-2005 5:59 AM randman has not replied
 Message 131 by nator, posted 11-16-2005 8:27 AM randman has not replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 126 of 226 (260133)
11-16-2005 5:28 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by nator
11-15-2005 8:09 AM


Re: I think it's essential that Christianity be covered in secular schools...
it was a basic sort of "treat others as you would want to be treated" sort of class.
That makes no difference to me at all. This is where I do see the point that religious people make. They are getting jipped if people get to tell their kids how to behave, and why they should behave in a certain way morally, and then nothing gets mentioned from the religious perspective.
There is absolutely no such thing as an objective morality. If you believe there is, open up a thread though I have already been through this before. All morality is subjective and so the teaching of any morality, religious based or not, seems inconsistent with the idea of govt not establishing a religion.
Indeed if atheist ideologies were as numerous and well practiced as they are today, likely the Constitution would not have just said establishment of religion, but establishment of any ideology, moral or other. I suppose that's where the ninth amendment might come in.
If people want a class in current laws, or perhaps conflict resolution, that would be one thing. Teaching people the Golden Rule is another. That is the place of the parents.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by nator, posted 11-15-2005 8:09 AM nator has not replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 127 of 226 (260134)
11-16-2005 5:31 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by Mammuthus
11-15-2005 6:44 AM


Re: I think it's essential that Christianity be covered in secular schools...
ethics where all sorts of really complex dilemas were presented to the students and we had to logically justify our positions or defend a position we disagreed with etc..
Okay, that is fine. Learning how to develop and understand ethical positions is different than teaching what it takes to be an ethical person.
Quetzal, and MrHambre
Ahhhh, definitely miss them. What is MrH doing, if you are free to say? Unlike Q, he seemed to drop off rather suddenly.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Mammuthus, posted 11-15-2005 6:44 AM Mammuthus has not replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 128 of 226 (260137)
11-16-2005 5:59 AM
Reply to: Message 125 by randman
11-16-2005 1:13 AM


setting randman straight
This has gotten wayyyyyy off topic. This is about the necessity of religion within education, or perhaps the deficiency of secular only education, or perhaps even whether those wishing vouchers are actually wanting religion placed into public education (though I believe I have already shown that).
This thread is not about atheism, which is separate from secularism. I agree that education should not be fostering any viewpoint on religion, and that would include atheism. If you believe that lack of religion is tantamount to teaching antireligion, that would be a valid point to try and make within this thread. However you simply cannot assume it.
This is not about communism. I am not communist, and indeed could pretty much be described as anti communist. While you are correct that some specific communist movements held antireligious views and indeed persecuted religious people, you can also find religious communists. Communism is about how resources get divided, which is not contingent on why they should be divided that way. I think you are confusing Marxism/Leninism/Stalinism with communism.
This is not about the Soviet Union. It was not strict communist, and while you are right that there were great religious purges and an effort to clamp down on religion, Crash is equally correct that they were trying to set up the leadership and State as a replacement. It was a cult of Personality and then cult of State. As it happens, despite the repression even Stalin allowed for religion to exist in some form and even used it from time to time to gain power over the masses. That betrays any idea that it was completely atheistic. But even if it was, that would not suggest anything about secularism or the deficiencies of a secular education.
This is not about Scandinavia. You apparently have had little to no contact with people from that region. I have lived in Denmark and knew people from Sweden and Finland. While there are churches tied in (uncomfortably for me) with the State, that is an anachronism, which obviously is being changed. Your claim that most are religious was not my experience at all. Indeed I remember watching a US special with a crowd of Scandinavians where someone from the US made that statement. The Scandinavians laughed and said how pathetic US people are always trying to bring up religion. I have rarely met a more secular people, generally atheist, and when religious sort of pagan. It was refreshing to hear people discussing Norse concepts as common knowledge rather than Biblical ones. In any case, this still does not suggest anything about socialism, communism, atheism, or secularism.
Thus you are right about some things and wrong about others, but none of them are important to the topic at hand.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by randman, posted 11-16-2005 1:13 AM randman has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by FliesOnly, posted 11-16-2005 7:38 AM Silent H has replied

FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 4145 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 129 of 226 (260153)
11-16-2005 7:38 AM
Reply to: Message 128 by Silent H
11-16-2005 5:59 AM


Re: setting randman straight
Holmes writes:
Crash is equally correct that they were trying to set up the leadership and State as a replacement.
Off topic, but...you're agreeing with Crash!? I'm stunned

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by Silent H, posted 11-16-2005 5:59 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by Silent H, posted 11-16-2005 8:56 AM FliesOnly has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 130 of 226 (260161)
11-16-2005 7:55 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by randman
11-15-2005 1:51 PM


Re: I think it's essential that Christianity be covered in secular schools...
quote:
Not all Christians are Catholics, and not all Catholics are Christians (although most probably are. The two are not the same.
Actually, all Catholics are, indeed, Christians. It's only some kinds of Catholic-hating Protestants that classify Catholics as non-Christians. I was raised Catholic, and everyone I knew in church always though of themselves as Christian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by randman, posted 11-15-2005 1:51 PM randman has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 131 of 226 (260169)
11-16-2005 8:27 AM
Reply to: Message 125 by randman
11-16-2005 1:13 AM


OK, let's teach the Bible in public schools
Let's go ahead and extensively teach the Bible, over many years, to all public school children as you urge, randman.
Which Bible?
And who's interpretation of which Bible?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by randman, posted 11-16-2005 1:13 AM randman has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by Silent H, posted 11-16-2005 8:51 AM nator has replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 132 of 226 (260175)
11-16-2005 8:51 AM
Reply to: Message 131 by nator
11-16-2005 8:27 AM


Re: OK, let's teach the Bible in public schools
Which Bible? And who's interpretation of which Bible?
Essentially he's already answered this. It appears that he is interested in as many views being taught as possible.
He doesn't seem to care if more than his own is taught, as long as it is Xian. This is as he sees Western and US history being the tale of emerging Xian theology, rather than a culture with many factors outside of religion, and a decreasing guiding role of religion within that culture.
I think the more pertinent question is if they are to be taught that the diverse views that appear are equal offshoots, or if there is actually a progression, moving from faulty to more correct belief systems?
One answer will open the door to other faiths being taught previous and concurrent with Xianity, the other will likely kill off any support he might get from other Xians.
Frankly I don't see all the religious instruction he suggests getting taught in the limited timeframe he sets, which already takes up too much time.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by nator, posted 11-16-2005 8:27 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by nator, posted 11-16-2005 9:33 AM Silent H has replied
 Message 136 by jar, posted 11-16-2005 11:42 AM Silent H has not replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 133 of 226 (260177)
11-16-2005 8:56 AM
Reply to: Message 129 by FliesOnly
11-16-2005 7:38 AM


Re: setting randman straight
Off topic, but...you're agreeing with Crash!? I'm stunned
We agree on many things, indeed I'd say probably most things. Its just that we disagree on some fundamental (perhaps theoretical) issues which tend to come out as issues are explored. And then where we disagree we do so strongly.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by FliesOnly, posted 11-16-2005 7:38 AM FliesOnly has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 134 of 226 (260191)
11-16-2005 9:33 AM
Reply to: Message 132 by Silent H
11-16-2005 8:51 AM


Re: OK, let's teach the Bible in public schools
quote:
Essentially he's already answered this. It appears that he is interested in as many views being taught as possible.
I don't know if I believe this.
If we are going to teach "The Bible" then what does that mean, exactly? There are many different versions of the Bible, and many more interpretations of each of those versions. Some of them vary widely, and each claim that there's alone is the correct interpretation.
It is impractical to teach all of them, or even many of them, so only a few can be chosen to teach.
What I want to know from randman is, which ones should we teach?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by Silent H, posted 11-16-2005 8:51 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by Silent H, posted 11-16-2005 11:23 AM nator has not replied
 Message 139 by randman, posted 11-16-2005 2:19 PM nator has not replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 135 of 226 (260212)
11-16-2005 11:23 AM
Reply to: Message 134 by nator
11-16-2005 9:33 AM


Re: OK, let's teach the Bible in public schools
I don't know if I believe this.
I asked essentially the exact same thing you asked and pointed out what you just said. His answers seem to suggest that any and all are fine, as many as possible to be sure.
Even Arach seemed to agree something like that was possible, though I agree with you that it is an impractical notion, and there will end up having to be a line drawn.
What I want to know from randman is, which ones should we teach?
As long as he is willing to have any and all, even if we cannot practically do so, I am not sure what importance this question holds. I think there are greater ramifications in how they are chosen and what those choices are supposed to imply, rather than that some get cut out.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by nator, posted 11-16-2005 9:33 AM nator has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024