Randman's call for nonSecular education...

I am not saying Xianity has played no role in Western history, just that many things went into Western history. We've had over 5000 years of written history in the Western world. Only the last 2000 contains Xianity.Of that last 2000 years, much of it was spent with Xianity splintering into many different interpretations, such that there is not one Xian theology to be presented as set meaning for Western values. The most important events within the last 5-600 years was a revolution in thought which overthrew Xian dogma and involved a rediscovery of pre Xian ideas regarding philosophy and politics.The Enlightenment was not an explicitly Xian phenomenon, and within it we see a switch from faith to knowledge as being more important to cultural and national progress. If you debate this point, I want to see your explanation for it.Out of the enlightenment came the founding of the US as a nation. Its founding members were not evangelicals basing their ideas on Biblical concepts, but Deists using Grecian concepts of government. They explicitly placed a novel concept within the Constitution, the idea of a secular govt so as to remove the problems which had been seen throughout the millenia due to religious differences.For the last 200 plus years, the US has been developing a diverse culture, containing many different faiths. The immigrants were not invited to join the new course of Xian civilization and culture. They were invited in to a land where they could thrive no matter their religion.The simple fact is that the US is a nexus in Western history where many different cultures meet. I brought up the Chinese and the Irish and the Italians for a reason, and I could have thrown in more. Teaching that their cultures are not part of US culture is absurd and offensive.Xianity was on both sides of the slave issue. Xianity was on both sides of suffrage. Xianity was on both sides of Civil Rights. Xianity was on both sides of the Revolution. Thus there was no defining drive that Xianity gave to any of the events. It was a faith that people from all sides of an issue took with them into events.On the other hand, science and technology really did drive our culture foward. Industrialization created issues that had to be dealt with and added power. Invention put us above other nations, and into the superpower position we are in.If you have an issue with this, please explain what Xianity did to drive our culture forward in a historically significant way? How many different theologies must kids learn? By which you mean you simply do not know what role they played. Their beliefs are what allowed colonists to survive here in the first place. Their beliefs are what allowed colonies to grow, and indeed helped shape the difference between the US and Canada. Their beliefs are what allowed the US to gain vast sections of virgin territory, despite huge populations having lived there. It would be hard to understand much of the 1800s pioneer experience without knowing about native americans.If you mean they had little to do with the forming of the Constitution, and the laws within the states that would be correct. But then the Bible is absent from the Constitution as well. This I agree with. What does the Bible have to do with those? They are based on enlightenment ideas which came from pre Xian political concepts. This is a simple fact. The founding fathers are known to have been influenced by nonXian sources, and few were blatantly antiXian and more than that were antiBiblical. I already stated that Jefferson chopped up the Bible to create his own.You have a problem with that, you show me where the Bible and the Constitution share anything of importance. Who said there was less need to talk about current events? Or did you mean like what is happening right now this year?It's kind of sad how many points you skipped within my post.

---

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

oh yes, i almost forgot about the first confederation.

---

אָרַח

quote:

---

Xianity was on both sides of the slave issue. Xianity was on both sides of suffrage. Xianity was on both sides of Civil Rights. Xianity was on both sides of the Revolution.

---

And these divisions generally split denominations, too, not just Christianity in general. To discuss the role of "Christian principles" in shaping the US one would need to discuss how, for example, Christians could use "Christian principles" to oppose slavery, while other Christians could use the very same "Christian principles" to support it. I doubt that evangelicals would be very happy with a curriculum that would lead to the obvious conclusion that there are no real "Christian principles' -- that Christianity is pretty much what the individual believer brings into it.

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

I wasn't sure what you meant by your disagreement. With what I said, or with it being taught from the aspect of a believer (theology). That latter bit was certainly rand's position, which he continues to state, and raises very serious questions as to how one fits that with giving kids an education in history or literature. How does that secure anything? First of all if we are discussing it as history, there are still different versions and they meant something very different. If not just in wording then in interpretation. I was in a class which covered the Bible, you can get one which is generally representative, but not one that is exhaustive. And I may be wrong but I believe the apocrypha does not include all of the proposed writings that were excluded from the Xian Bible, but simply the set of writings which were excluded later by certain denominations. Intriguingly enough, reading the Bible is what officially put me into the agnostic camp. I took a course on Bible as literature, by a minister. By the end of the course I could never take it seriously. Yeah, it wouldn't hurt and I agree that it could be part of elective courses in lit. However it has nothing to do with basic education. For example I never read the iliad nor beowulf as part of my education in English, or history , or anything. It was probably available in some elective course somewhere, but I didn't have to take it. This is semantics. Fine to you it is literature. Unfortunately according to this same def a law book would be literature. You would not have kids read a law book in a lit class. The concept of "literature" when discussing what is taught to kids in school is a bit more tightly defined. I have read the KJV, but never in school in relation to English. I agree, but then that still does not require reading the Bible, especially as theology. And what's more there is much paganism which would had similar effects in how politics changed. I did think it was interesting that rand was lamenting what a poor education our kids are getting without proper Bible instruction and then said science was only important for scientists. Its like he hasn't been watching the news lately and seen the problem wasn't lack of history and literature, but science education in the US.

---

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

Exactly.

---

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

with the bit about reading it from the aspect as a believer. but that's different than theology -- one can teach what various theologies ARE without teaching to believe the theology. it's the difference betweem comparitive religions and seminary. not as history, per se. as part of history, maybe. but it's neither a history textbook nor a science textbook. exactly. lots of people think they know what the bible is about. they probably don't. a good honest class on it might be a good thing. i did read parts of beowulf. it's actually a really good starting place since it's one of the earliest english stories. ok, lets talk about another law, as opposed to "the law." what about the code of hammurabi? why should we study that? it's not literature, it's the code of a society. i think we had some of the kjv psalms in one of my english books. no, but it's good to know what the theology of those groups WERE. usually, it has very little to do with the bible. now, lutheranism... i did appreciate the irony myself.

---

אָרַח

That would be part of history, like the magna carta, not literature. In any case, I'm note sure anyone actually ever gets taught exactly what it says, just that it is a list of laws.As far as theology goes. I believe rand was using the term in the style of seminary, rather than comparitive religion. That seems to be the case when he keeps talking about instruction from the point of view of a believer.Comparative religion might really be a nice elective in education. I knew people with degrees in that and found some of the stuff they studied quite interesting.

---

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

OK, randman, let's say that we do as you advise and spend years and years of time teaching American schoolchildren all about the Bible....which Bible?And who's interpretation of that Bible?

what about THIS ONE?

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

actually, i've read some of it in literature class, as well as history. and we did learn some of the things it said, because some of the things it said are the foundation of modern law.the bible has a similar role in history, and is (and should be) taught accordingly. yes, i'm trying to explain to him why one is ok, but the other isn't.

---

אָרַח

FLAT EARTH? YOU ARE EDUCATED STUPID. BOW BEFORE THE SUPERIORITY OF NATURE'S HARMONIC TIME CUBE

---

אָרַח

afterall, no other movement in history has been as violent, intolerant, misogynistic, destructive of other societies, cultures, customs and knowledge or has done more, and is currently doing more, to keep people in ignorance.While there is much I admire about Christianity, it is also essential that all facets, those good and those bad, be presented to all the young kids in the US.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

there's only one problem ... it's falsified by the analemmaNot all days are exactly 24 hours long. It's a problem with ellipses.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

jar, you get called out on this every time, but you keep stating it. Is it some sort of self-hatred since you claim to be a Christian?The fact of the matter is more people have been killed in the name of atheism (communism) than anything else? The numbers are staggering, 60-110 million in the Soviet Union alone. Solzienitzen claimed the higher end, I beleive, and estimates are fairly wide as records have been lost, but it's staggering. Stalin make the Inquisition pale in comparison.Mao in China, the communists in Cambodia, Vietnam, etc,....killed far more than religiously motivated wars, unless you want to admit their anti-religion of secularism was a religion all of it's own.But even throughout history, I think the claims of Christianity being one of the primary causes of genocide, etc,...is demonstrably false, even for false Christianity.For example, in American history among non-Indians, the worst war was the Civil war which had next to nothing to do with Christianity. And often when the Indians were killed, Christian missionaries were the only ones standing up for them, trying to see they would be protected. I think one can hardly blame the greed that produced the Indian slaughters then on Christianity.Let's take some of the worse killings, the Crusades. They hardly compare to Ghengis Khan or some other maruading conquerers in scope.The Catholic genocide against non-Catholic "heretics" was indeed brutal, but still pales in comparison to Rwanda for example.So basically, your statement is pure BS.This message has been edited by randman, 11-15-2005 01:19 AM

Actually, most of what I was refering to is not the Roman Catholics but rather the Protestants, people like John Knox, Henry, Elizabeth, Reverend Dole. Christian Missionaries that pulled Native American children into Missionary schools, changed their names, cut their hair, destroyed their culture, refused to let them speak their language or practice their religion.The Roman Catholics too come in for criticism. Look at what they did to the cultures in the Americas. For burning all the books of the Aztecs and Incas.But killing people is not the whole problem. The big issue is that Christianity tends to destroty cultures. Unlike Islam which has historically been very tolerent of other cultures and religions until very recently, or Judaism that has been the subject of Christian Pogroms for millenia, or Budhism, Christianity has had a tradition of total intolerance.In addition, there are issues such as the misogynistic traits that can be seen even today.No, we need to teach the little kids the truth, so that hopefully, as they grow up, should they choose to be Christians, they purge the Faith of folk like Pat Roberston, Jerry Falwell, Benny Hinn and others.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion