TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- The stars at night are big and bright
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

The stars at night are big and bright

Deep in the heart of Texas!:

quote:

Texas School Board Adds Bible Class Wed Apr 27, 9:08 AM ET The school board in this West Texas town voted unanimously to add a Bible class to its high school curriculum. Hundreds of people, most of them supporters of the proposal, packed the board meeting Tuesday night. More than 6,000 Odessa residents had signed a petition supporting the class. Some residents, however, said the school board acted too quickly. Others said they feared a national constitutional fight. Barring any hurdles, the class should be added to the curriculum in fall 2006 and taught as a history or literature course. The school board still must develop a curriculum, which board member Floy Hinson said should be open for public review. The board had heard a presentation in March from Mike Johnson, a representative of the Greensboro, N.C.-based National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools, who said that coursework designed by that organization is not about proselytizing or preaching. But People for the American Way and the American Civil Liberties Union have criticized the council, saying its materials promote religion. Johnson said students in the elective class would learn such things as the geography of the Middle East and the influence of the Bible on history and culture. "How can students understand Leonardo da Vinci's 'Last Supper' or Handel's 'Messiah' if they don't understand the reference from which they came?" Johnson said. The group's Web site says its curriculum has received backing in 292 school districts in 35 states. In Frankenmuth, Mich., a similar proposal led to a yearlong controversy before the school board voted in January not to offer such a course. ___ http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/bible_cl...HVjBHNlYwNtcA--

Umm, separation of church and state anyone?

And I tend to wonder, just how much of Biblical history this class is going to teach? I also wonder just how much Biblical influence on history they'll teach as well? You really think they'll teach about the Spanish Inquisition? The Crusades? How 'bout our God-given right to own slaves? Or our God-given right to rape, pillage, and murder innocent Native-American women and children because that is OUR land? Or how 'bout that wonderful country and leader back in the 30's and 40's who felt so strongly about their own Christianity that they invaded pretty much everyone around them, committed genocide on the Jews by the millions while the Pope at that time sat idly by?

Something tells me they'll probably leave these little gems out.

Boy do I heart Texas! YEEEHAAAW!!!

To be honest, I don't have any problems with the advancement of religious education in schools. More to the point, I would actively encourage it. Religion is an important part of people's lives and I think it's important that people of all religious beliefs (or non-beliefs) understand what drives the beliefs of others. If these "Bible classes" were about discussing the beliefs and attitudes held by people of different faiths (including Christianity) than I would find it difficult to oppose such a move. However, when religious interest groups try to move in under the guise of religious education to proselytise to indistinguishing children freely in schools, then I begin to take exception.

From my experiences, I had to take four years of "religious education" at high-school, 3 and three quarters of which was taken up with Christian indoctrination (I had two young earth creationists during this time and had to witness a series of videos and read a series of texts explaining what a great guy Jesus was and why the Bible must - given all the evidence supporting it - be completely infallible) and half a semester taken up with brief lip-service to the other half or dozen or so major global religions. Although I was an atheist during this entire period, I also had an interest in learning about religion and - suffice to say - the education I received at school on the subject was completely useless.

My point? If these people want to educate childen about religion, then they should be quite welcome to do so. If they want to teach children about Christian texts (and Islamic texts, Hindu texts, Jewish texts, Buddhist texts etc.) then they should be encouraged. If, however, as seems to be the case here, they just want to indoctrinate children, uncritically (wonder if they're going to mention the factual / historical / inconsistency errors within the Bible for instance?), with the Christian message, then they can get fucked quite frankly. If they allowed atheists but a tenth of the time in classrooms to discuss the Humanist Manifesto that they provide to Christians to discuss the Bible then I may be singing a different tune, but as it stands, these people are only out to indoctrinate others into their own narrow-minded world-view, spitting on the wall of separation in the process, and it is the responsibility of the courts to stop them at every opportunity.

Let's hope, for the sake of Odessa and the rest of the US, that this plan never comes to fruition.

I had to take religion classes in high-school in order to graduate. I don't remember bitching and moaning on any message boards about broadening my knowledge of different cultures. I mean, fuck, it's in Odessa for god's sake. They eat, drink, and sleep football and God for chrissakes! From the article, it doesn't sound like they're teaching the kids christianity, rather they are explaining the bible to them. Plus, this doesn't sound like any sort of government mandate, rathe rit sounds like the schools/students are mostly open to the idea. Opus, you card!

Re: The stars at night are big and bright

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Deep in the heart of Texas!:

*quickclap* *clap* *clap* *clap*

BTW, the Texas House also recently passed a bill banning homosexual marriages and civil unions in the State.

We do are best to keep you happy Opus

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka From the article, it doesn't sound like they're teaching the kids christianity, rather they are explaining the bible to them.

If they were "explaining" the Bible to the students - including factual errors, myths clearly borrowed from other faiths etc. - then I don't think people would have a problem with it. Do you think that's really going to happen though? Also, why should the Bible receive preferential treatment over other religious texts as though it had any more basis in truth than the others?

quote:

Plus, this doesn't sound like any sort of government mandate, rathe rit sounds like the schools/students are mostly open to the idea.

But if it's a government funded school then it doesn't make any difference. The government would still be seen to be giving preferential treatment to a specific religious faith and I shouldn't need to tell you why this would be unconstitutional.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade Do you think that's really going to happen though?

No. Not anymore than you know the opposite may happen.

quote:

Also, why should the Bible receive preferential treatment over other religious texts as though it had any more basis in truth than the others?

No. Why don't you make a motion to teach other religious texts as well? Who said it was getting preferential treatment? From the article it doesn't sound like any other texts are relevant to this argument. I have no problem learning them all, but this debate is strictly about explaining the Bible--and there are many versions of that book on its own. It is also not clear from the article whether or not this class would be mandatory, just that it would be added to the curriculum. Anyone ever heard of an elective?

quote:

Johnson said students in the elective class would learn such things as the geography of the Middle East and the influence of the Bible on history and culture.

Gasp! For shame! You mean the Bible has actually had influence on history and culture, given that it is one of the oldest and best selling "books" in modern history?! Somebody pinch me!

quote:

But if it's a government funded school then it doesn't make any difference. The government would still be seen to be giving preferential treatment to a specific religious faith and I shouldn't need to tell you why this would be unconstitutional.

I don't disagree. This sounds like a state's rights issue though. Maybe it's just me, but I have been somewhat conditioned to believe that whenever Opus says God and Texas in the same thread, he's trying to blame something on the Bush administration.

Let me clarify my stance on this as I've done in the past. I completely agree with Renegade that a religous studies course would be perfectly suitable, if not actually MANDATORY for high school graduation.

Now I think there are stipulations that must be involved here. For example, no one religion should receive additional time or preference above any other religion, and this included equal time to those non-religious beliefs of agnosticism and atheism.

I think a healthy dose of world cultures is a vital necessity to our education, considering we here in the States are about as isolationist as they come nowadays.

Unfortunately, this is clearly not the case here for this class. Now let�s also be clear � this class is not mandatory, and it is an elective, at least for now. But what�s also clear, Shakka, is that under the separation of church and state laws, you cannot �explain� any religious text, especially in what certainly appears as a preference over another text. Unless, of course, they plan to add a Buddhist course, a Muslim course, an ancient Hebrew course, a Hindu course, and so on.

You thinkin� those football lovin� cowboys will take such a course of action?

Yeah, neither do I.

I do find their arguments completely disingenuous, and I call complete �bullshit� on their intentions. For example:

quote:

Johnson said students in the elective class would learn such things as the geography of the Middle East and the influence of the Bible on history and culture. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...5042700407.html

Geography of the Middle East? Hmm, I guess if their world geography class doesn�t cover it, right?

And I believe I covered my particular gripes about the �influence of the Bible on history and culture�. You really think they will talk about this historical �influence� IN FULL CONTEXT?

Yeah, neither do I.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Now I think there are stipulations that must be involved here. For example, no one religion should receive additional time or preference above any other religion, and this included equal time to those non-religious beliefs of agnosticism and atheism.

Fuck it, that would just cost too much. You can please some of the people all of the time and you can please all of the people some of the time, but you can't please all of the people all of the time.

Seriously though, I don't disagree with your contention, though it reeks of PC, IMO. If we can't do it "all encompassingly", then we shouldn't be able to do it at all because we're leaving people out. I guess that's a general hang up with government funded schools is that they're chock full of beaurocratic BS. We shouldn't be able to teach fishing without also teaching riflery, etc, etc, etc...

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Now I think there are stipulations that must be involved here. For example, no one religion should receive additional time or preference above any other religion, and this included equal time to those non-religious beliefs of agnosticism and atheism.

Its not a course about religion or philosophy, its a course about the bible, its literature, its influence on history and today's world.

Obviously the bible has a lot more to do with American culture, history, and philosophy than hinduism or atheism. Just like the Americans have US History (and Texans learn Texas History) but don't have Canadian History or Mexican History (who say's those nations are any less important? aside from me of course ).

I'm not saying lets not make course on all the other fun stuff, but devote equal time?! Come on. What hippie PC BS is that?! What I'm saying theres a limited amount of students, time, and resources, juet like you don't have one course for French History in High School but you do say for Texas History, I wouldn't expect them to have Hindu Sacred Texts. You learn whats most applicable and directly influential to your surrondings.

Its not a freakin 40,000+ student strong university.

quote:

I think a healthy dose of world cultures is a vital necessity to our education, considering we here in the States are about as isolationist as they come nowadays.

I believe Geography and World History are actually electives as well in some school systems in Texas....

quote:

Geography of the Middle East? Hmm, I guess if their world geography class doesn�t cover it, right?

Yup, geography of the middle east. See above comment.
Its no BS, you can go through high school and learn suprisingly little if you commit to it.

quote:

And I believe I covered my particular gripes about the �influence of the Bible on history and culture�. You really think they will talk about this historical �influence� IN FULL CONTEXT?

Look, just like every subject it can be good and bad according to the instructor. Why is teaching US government or Texas government any different? Or economics for that matter? If you have a teacher who wants to preach the republican line he will and you will be the lesser for it. If you hsve a teacher who wants to preach communism, he will and you will be the lesser for it. If you have a teacher who wants to preach christianity he will and you will be the lesser for it. Every teacher is going to natrually bring with him bias to how he teachs, most teachers are good and will try and teach you despite their bias about a whole specturm of things from different perspectives. But just because some rabid pot-smoking, hybrid-driving, tree-hugging, wishy-washy liberal teachs you his politics or a red blooded communist teach you his economics doesn't mean we should ban those classes from the high school ciriculium.

Why must the 'bible' be special?

You are as bad as those you accuse if you are to ban discussion of any religious topic in school as you will be preaching a religion. the religion of no religion.

+1


Wow. Always wanted to do that. Feels so satisfying.

Q: Why don't churches pay taxes?

A: Seperation of church & state!

Churches in Odessa better start paying taxes if the public schools are going to teach religion.

Why do I have huge problems with this whole scenario? Well how does one define in the class what the Bible is? Government is going to provide a curriculum with a definition? It has quite a difference between Protestants (which I'm sure is what is favored in Odessa) and Catholics. Right there you already have a major conflict and I don't want government deciding which one to teach. That Mohler guy from good ol' Judicial Sunday recently said my religion is false and he's been a huge influence on this ccause nationwide! Or better yet, what if the school approved curriculum says something that a church has a disageement with? Well now government just got to take a stance on a religious issue! The only religion courses should be comparative ones taught objectively, teaching "the Bible" cannot possibly be objective.

On the Texas civil union banning, good idea to not let them even be foster parents! Lord knows those heterosexual parents did such a better job the kids wound up in foster care. Nothing but bigotry. Apparently the only individual freedom that should be promoted is the right to not be progressively taxed if you earn more.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus Its not a course about religion or philosophy, its a course about the bible, its literature, its influence on history and today's world.

I realize this. I was simply clarifying my stance on teaching a given religious course in high school. I wasn�t necessarily referring to this particular class.

quote:

Obviously the bible has a lot more to do with American culture, history, and philosophy than hinduism or atheism. Just like the Americans have US History (and Texans learn Texas History) but don't have Canadian History or Mexican History (who say's those nations are any less important? aside from me of course ).

I don�t deny this either. Nevertheless the line between it�s �influence�, right or wrong (slavery, genocide of native-Americans, etc.) and a religious context is a thin one, and it�s one that once again the separation of church and state is not very eager to cross.

Regardless of it�s influence on our history, and I think it�s certainly debatable as to how good that influence might be as well as whether or not the full context of that influence will be taught, one cannot allow one particular religion to have more footing over another in our education system. Simple as that.

quote:

I'm not saying lets not make course on all the other fun stuff, but devote equal time?! Come on. What hippie PC BS is that?!

Well fuck I don�t know, perhaps it�s fucking treating ALL religious beliefs equally? Last time I checked, the U.S. is a melting pot of religions and beliefs, and not one religion is sponsored in any way, shape, or form in our government or Constitution, so I guess it�s just a thorn in one�s side like yourself to either treat all religious beliefs equally or do not treat them at all.

quote:

What I'm saying theres a limited amount of students, time, and resources, juet like you don't have one course for French History in High School but you do say for Texas History, I wouldn't expect them to have Hindu Sacred Texts. You learn whats most applicable and directly influential to your surrondings.

You really think they�re going to teach in an objective manner how the influence of Christianity in full context has on our government? If so, what the hell is the point? That although we should treat our neighbors fairly, at one point we thought it appropriate by God to go over to African nations, take people from their homes, throw them on ships where often times they would die on the way, rape the fucking women in the process, and then throw them in the fucking cotton fields, making sure they did what they were commanded to do lest they get whipped to death?

What the hell is the point of teaching �Christian influence� on our country? And what exactly is �Christian influence� on our country IN FULL CONTEXT?

quote:

Its not a freakin 40,000+ student strong university.

They don�t have to be. My point is rather than favor one religion over all the rest, better to have no religious favorings at all.


I believe Geography and World History are actually electives as well in some school systems in Texas....

quote:

Yup, geography of the middle east. See above comment. Its no BS, you can go through high school and learn suprisingly little if you commit to it.

That�s a rather poor refutation to my argument.

quote:

Look, just like every subject it can be good and bad according to the instructor. Why is teaching US government or Texas government any different? Or economics for that matter?

It�s not, PROVIDED that they teach it in the most objective manner � teach ALL influences good AND bad.

But as I alluded to earlier � what the hell is the point in the first place? How should they OBJECTIVELY define this influence, and do you honestly think they will be objective about it?

quote:

If you have a teacher who wants to preach the republican line he will and you will be the lesser for it. If you hsve a teacher who wants to preach communism, he will and you will be the lesser for it. If you have a teacher who wants to preach christianity he will and you will be the lesser for it.

Preaching Christianity invokes crossing the separation of church and state. Teaching a bias in politics does not, unless you demonstrate otherwise.

Then again bias political teaching may be against local BOE rules, local school rules, state rules, etc. Honestly I don�t know, but to lump preaching Christianity in with political teaching is erroneous of you.

quote:

Every teacher is going to natrually bring with him bias to how he teachs, most teachers are good and will try and teach you despite their bias about a whole specturm of things from different perspectives. But just because some rabid pot-smoking, hybrid-driving, tree-hugging, wishy-washy liberal teachs you his politics or a red blooded communist teach you his economics doesn't mean we should ban those classes from the high school ciriculium.

I imagine most local governments and BOE�s likely do. I fail to see the point you�re making here.

quote:

Why must the 'bible' be special?

Because any religious texts being taught in a PUBLIC classroom paid for by FEDERAL money, i.e. money that I fucking give to the government is unconstitutional.

quote:

You are as bad as those you accuse if you are to ban discussion of any religious topic in school as you will be preaching a religion. the religion of no religion.

Guess what? That�s the law, sir � no religion in PUBLIC schools paid for by the taxpayers. The fact that they are willfully breaking this law is not surprising to me, but their excuses of �influence� that the Bible has on our history I don�t buy in the slightest, nor do I suspect it will be a very objective point of view on this particular �influence�.

quote:

Originally posted by wolverine16 Q: Why don't churches pay taxes? A: Seperation of church & state! Churches in Odessa better start paying taxes if the public schools are going to teach religion. Why do I have huge problems with this whole scenario? Well how does one define in the class what the Bible is? Government is going to provide a curriculum with a definition? It has quite a difference between Protestants (which I'm sure is what is favored in Odessa) and Catholics. Right there you already have a major conflict and I don't want government deciding which one to teach. That Mohler guy from good ol' Judicial Sunday recently said my religion is false and he's been a huge influence on this ccause nationwide! Or better yet, what if the school approved curriculum says something that a church has a disageement with? Well now government just got to take a stance on a religious issue! The only religion courses should be comparative ones taught objectively, teaching "the Bible" cannot possibly be objective. On the Texas civil union banning, good idea to not let them even be foster parents! Lord knows those heterosexual parents did such a better job the kids wound up in foster care. Nothing but bigotry. Apparently the only individual freedom that should be promoted is the right to not be progressively taxed if you earn more.

They're not teaching religion, they're teaching about the cultural influences of a particular book. It sounds like more of a history class than anything. Teaching religion would be teaching specifically about Episcopalianism, Catholicism, Islam, Buddhism, Ba'hai, etc. And in all honesty, I doubt there are many, if any, classrooms in America that are sub-university level that would spend an entire semester teaching about 1 particular organized religion. One of the classes I took in high-school was called "religions of the world" or something. It was basically an equal opportunity class. Looking bac, we talked less about Christianity than anything because we were predominately Christians and didn't need to be spoon fed anything else about it. We learned about some crazy shit that I have since forgotten because the class was such a bore to me.

As usual, you guys are blowing this out of proportion before all of the facts are in. The Bible is a book, Wolverine. It's not that hard to define. I have several of them in my house. I can take a picture and send it to you if you require physical evidence of what it is. The Bible does not preach one specific religion.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka The Bible does not preach one specific religion.

*blink*

You being serious?

Well I'll assume you mean one specific type of religion within Christianity. Which may certainly be true, but as Wolverine was stating - therein lies the problem with teaching Christianity as a whole - a million different interpretations within this one religion on a million different parts of the Bible itself.

I am particularly skeptical that they will simply teach the "historical influences" of this book without stepping over into a bit of proselytization. I think my sentiments on this are quite warranted. To me this is merely a media line to feed to the public.

But even more to the point - as I was telling Yoepus, what exactly are these "influences", and are we to really expect them to teach these "influences", bad and good, in an objective manner? I'm quite incredulous.

Maybe I am being jumpy a bit, but I do tend to find this class and course content quite pointless, and I don't like having my taxdollars pay for it either. I guess we'll wait and see exactly what material is being taught.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka They're not teaching religion, they're teaching about the cultural influences of a particular book. It sounds like more of a history class than anything. Teaching religion would be teaching specifically about Episcopalianism, Catholicism, Islam, Buddhism, Ba'hai, etc. And in all honesty, I doubt there are many, if any, classrooms in America that are sub-university level that would spend an entire semester teaching about 1 particular organized religion. One of the classes I took in high-school was called "religions of the world" or something. It was basically an equal opportunity class. Looking bac, we talked less about Christianity than anything because we were predominately Christians and didn't need to be spoon fed anything else about it. We learned about some crazy shit that I have since forgotten because the class was such a bore to me. As usual, you guys are blowing this out of proportion before all of the facts are in. The Bible is a book, Wolverine. It's not that hard to define. I have several of them in my house. I can take a picture and send it to you if you require physical evidence of what it is. The Bible does not preach one specific religion.

I have a Bible in my house as well. There are different types, so they're going to have to choose one (e.g. St. James) and they teach different sects of the same religion, since it's pretty clear the New Testament will be included. I hardly think it's a coincidence that it happened to be a book that is the centerpiece for Christianity they chose for teaching "cultural history." And if this is just about teaching "cultural history" and not about moving toward religious teaching why aren't people screaming "WAHOOOO! Mrs. Smith's 3rd grade class is going to add cartography to their Friday class!" the same way people here (and many religious groups) are so excited about learning about cultural history?

I completely agree with Wolverine, Opus and Renegade.

Shakka and Yoepus, this is quite obivously a move to indoctrinate kids. Like Wolverine said, they're going to have to pick one bible, out of the many out there. Not only are they giving christianity a prefenrence over other religions, but also one sect over all others. Even if there was any intenion of "educating" kids about various religions, it would be freakin impossible to cover all of them and you'd end up having a pointless class. In order to understand any religion, you have to study in a fair amount of detail the religious texts for that religion, and possibly the history of it too.

Re: The stars at night are big and bright

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Umm, separation of church and state anyone?

exactly, which means secular humanism too. but lets keep that quiet. nobody knows secular humanism is a religion and that are trying to take over the school system to indoctrinate today's youth. hypocrites.

Re: Re: The stars at night are big and bright

quote:

Originally posted by ::TranceVanDyk:: exactly, which means secular humanism too. but lets keep that quiet. nobody knows secular humanism is a religion and that are trying to take over the school system to indoctrinate today's youth. hypocrites.

No, it's not a religion. And they're not indoctrinating kids eighter. And no, I'm not a secular humanist, in case you were wondering.

Re: Re: The stars at night are big and bright

quote:

Originally posted by ::TranceVanDyk:: exactly, which means secular humanism too. but lets keep that quiet. nobody knows secular humanism is a religion and that are trying to take over the school system to indoctrinate today's youth. hypocrites.

You haven't demonstrated in any way in the past how "secular humanism", i.e. teaching without any religious concepts, is somehow also a "religion".

What have you to add to this conversation at present?

Re: Re: Re: The stars at night are big and bright

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z No, it's not a religion. And they're not indoctrinating kids eighter. And no, I'm not a secular humanist, in case you were wondering.

http://members.aol.com/Patriarchy/d...sm_religion.htm

the supreme court has stated that secular humanism is a religion and many prominant humanists themselves have admitted it to be a religion.

quote:

You haven't demonstrated in any way in the past how "secular humanism", i.e. teaching without any religious concepts, is somehow also a "religion". What have you to add to this conversation at present?

give me a chance to do it before slamming the door in my face. what do u mean, what do i have to add?? if i have an opinion contrary to yours, i should just shut up about it?? mine are just as valid as yours...

Re: Re: Re: Re: The stars at night are big and bright

quote:

Originally posted by ::TranceVanDyk:: http://members.aol.com/Patriarchy/d...sm_religion.htm the supreme court has stated that secular humanism is a religion and many prominant humanists themselves have admitted it to be a religion.

And the Supreme Court REFUSED to hear the 1994 Peloza case, which clearly stated:

quote:

. . . neither the Supreme Court, nor this circuit, has ever held that evolutionism or secular humanism are �religious� for Establishment Clause purposes. Indeed, both the dictionary definition of religion and the clear weight of the caselaw are to the contrary. The Supreme Court has held unequivocally that while the belief in a divine creator of the universe is a religious belief, the scientific theory that higher forms of life evolved from lower forms is not. [Edwards v. Aguillard (1987). Peloza, p. 521.]

Which means the ruling of the 9th Circuit was upheld BY the Supreme Court.

Furthermore, your second source stated:

"Secular Humanism is a religion "for free exercise clause purposes," and it is not a religion "for establishment clause purposes"

Well first it was shown not to be a "religion" by the Circuit courts and SC in '94, as it is "both the dictionary definition of religion and the clear weight of the caselaw are to the contrary".

But second, what fucking straw man is "for free exercise clause purposes?" WTF is that? You can exercise pretty much anything you choose provided that you do no harm to others (i.e. invoking riots, etc.), which is exactly the point of the 1st Amendment.

And the entire argument here rests on "for establishment clause purposes", so your source really doesn't have much of an argument at all.

What's more, the 2000 D.C. Circuit court case of Kalka v. Hawk stated:

quote:

The Court�s statement in Torcaso does not stand for the proposition that humanism, no matter in what form and no matter how practiced, amounts to a religion under the First Amendment. The most one may read into the Torcaso footnote is the idea that a particular non-theistic group calling itself the �Fellowship of Humanity� qualified as a religious organization under California law. [It cited, among others, Peloza�s holding that secular humanism has never been held to be a religion.]

So it's plainly clear that this is NOT recognized by the courts as a religion of any sorts.

And about that footnote by that one judge:

quote:

Attorneys know full well that a mention in a footnote amounts to �dicta,� but not to a �holding.� This footnote does not establish any law whatsoever. Moreover, the use of this quote by those who try to prove secular humanism is a religion takes it entirely out of its context and forty years of subsequent interpretation. Among the cases cited as precedent for the dicta in this footnote is Washington Ethical Society v. District of Columbia (D.C. Cir. 1957). That case regarded the classification of an organization as a tax-exempt not-for-profit. In holding that the Ethical Society deserves such classification (the court reversed and remanded to the district court) the Supreme Court held that the legislative purpose of the tax-exemption statute was �to grant support to elements in the community regarded as good for the community,� and thus, although the Ethical Society did not demand a belief in a god, it should be accorded the status of a �religious� organization to promote the broad public purposes of the statute. http://www.secularhumanism.org/libr...epsell_19_4.htm

and,

quote:

"But," you might ask, "even if secular humanism isn't a religion for legal purposes, isn't it really a religion in practical terms?" No. Look at it this way: Suppose Justice Black had been writing about an issue of interstate commerce in agricultural products, and in a footnote he included "apples" in a list of root crops. He would be wrong. It wouldn't matter what laws were involved-apples are fruits, not roots! As a factual matter, he was partly wrong about Buddhism because some branches of Buddhism do worship the Buddha as a deity. And he was wrong about secular humanism. Secular humanism is not a religion by any definition: There are no supernatural beliefs, no creeds that all humanists are required to accept, no sacred texts or required rituals. Humanists are not expected or required to have "faith" in what is said by any authority, living or dead, human or "supernatural." http://www.secularhumanism.org/libr...ry_18_1.01.html

Aside of the fact that by definition it seems pretty self-evident what so-called "secular humanism" means.

quote:

give me a chance to do it before slamming the door in my face. what do u mean, what do i have to add?? if i have an opinion contrary to yours, i should just shut up about it?? mine are just as valid as yours...

Validity is derived from supporting evidence. The act of giving an opinion alone might be no greater than mine, but the evidence to support your assertions have not held up very well. Sorry if I�m a bit of a shithead on this, but this is one of those few misconceptions that get under my skin pretty deep.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z Shakka and Yoepus, this is quite obivously a move to indoctrinate kids.

Yes, it's quite obvious isn't it? Opus posted one extremely brief, not terribly specific article about a proposal and the cat is out of the bag, right? I was thinking of inventing a new game--it's a big idea of mine--it's called "Jump to Conclusions". You see there are conclusions and you jump to them...er, eh, mmm.


It's OK, you're all going to hell anyway. I'll see you there.

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Yes, it's quite obvious isn't it? Opus posted one extremely brief, not terribly specific article about a proposal and the cat is out of the bag, right? I was thinking of inventing a new game--it's a big idea of mine--it's called "Jump to Conclusions". You see there are conclusions and you jump to them...er, eh, mmm. It's OK, you're all going to hell anyway. I'll see you there.

Okay, I do admit that I am being a bit judgemental.

But c'mon here, Shakka - we're talkin' Odessa, Texas - West Texas for cryin' out loud. I've been around plenty of small towns here in Kansas and throughout the Midwest for that matter to know exactly where small towners feel about their religious beliefs.

Am I really being that jumpy, or are you perhaps being a bit naive on what they'll likely be teachin'?

Or to go to the middle of the road, maybe it's a bit of both? How's that?

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Yes, it's quite obvious isn't it? Opus posted one extremely brief, not terribly specific article about a proposal and the cat is out of the bag, right? I was thinking of inventing a new game--it's a big idea of mine--it's called "Jump to Conclusions". You see there are conclusions and you jump to them...er, eh, mmm.

"I once saw one person that looked like he could be on welfare, and he had a nice car. So therefore everyone on welfare is rich, so we should cut welfare spending."

Re: Re: Re: Re: The stars at night are big and bright

quote:

Originally posted by ::TranceVanDyk:: http://members.aol.com/Patriarchy/d...sm_religion.htm the supreme court has stated that secular humanism is a religion and many prominant humanists themselves have admitted it to be a religion.

I am Roman Catholic. I am against this because I don't want government involved with my religion and setting any policies relating to it, because then they have say in my religion and those of others. I wanted to study about my religion, so I chose to go to a Catholic University, where the religious agenda is set by the Roman Catholic administration. Public school students should have the right to religious free speech and to individually practice their religion, including praying in school, but the school itself should not be involved in setting religious context. Look at the 10 Commandments issue, for instance, how do you get around the fact that while there are some good moral statements there, you're also having government post to obey the Sabbath & believe in God? Opposition to such efforts doesn't mean I or anyone else against this has to be an atheist.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.