One standard to judge them all - or a humble foreign policy?

Remove all ads!

So am I. Of course, one must be aware that the lord's prayer won't make any contribution whatsoever to "putting order in place in a school". At best, for those who do not worship that particular deity, there is indifference, and there may even be resentment. The lord's prayer is only preaching to the choir. And that choir is already having that message drilled into their heads at their church.

 

So, here we arrive at the serious statement. What exactly is meant by the "top?" I believe that the model of the vertical hierarchy is ultimately flawed, and has nothing at all to do with what God meant for us. The grand Patriarchal scheme is a sham. It has been floated about by almost every tyrant - the petty and the grand - since the beginning of recorded history. There is no doubt that we can view God as a "loving father" but the suggestion of the "top" and the bottom has nothing to do with what's in the Lord's Prayer. That part is an invention by those who wish to have a lofty place in the hierarchy for themselves (which they helped invent) and that includes the tyrannical clergy as well.

 

Splunge: It may (should?) even be something other/more than the Lord's Prayer. It may even come from non Christian sources, as long as some principal approved moral statement (A religious observance would be optional, rather than required or forbidden) is provided at the beginning of the day. Perhaps the Lord's Prayer followed by a little comment on the moral code the school expects of the student.

 

Gnarff, Atheism isn't about vanity. If you believed that God was a lie, wouldn't you want to end that lie, too? Belief systems built on lies have a tendency to crumble when the truth is revealed. Despite not viewing religion as a lie, I also don't want to see religion have a hold on society, because (1)there are many religions which contradict each other and (2)I have never seen even a tiny sliver of hard, factual evidence either proving or disproving the existence of God, let alone giving us a clue as to the nature of God (if God even exists). This doesn't make me vain. It makes me agnostic. Neither atheists or theists come to the debate armed with facts. If you were to provide me with hard, factual, irrefutable evidence of the existence or non-existence of God, I would cease to be agnostic. Most Atheists faced with hard evidence of the existence of God would cease to be Atheists, too.

Never assume that you know why a person does or believes something. Never assume someone else's intent. The only person that can tell you why they said, did, or believed something is the person who said, did, or believed it. Assuming you already know the answer without bothering to ask...if anything is vain, it's doing that.

 

Again, there is no worthwhile moral statement in the lord's prayer. All it does is pay homage to a deity that many don't believe in. Rephrase it in a non-religious way, and I might accept its relevance. Although it would end up being basically devoid of any worthwhile message.

 

To be honest, it's not what I want the schools to provide. I believe that that is the function of the parents and the Church. I think it's ok for the schools to provide moral reinforcement, but that's about it. Especially since the type of morality you are proposing is of a highly personal nature. What you are proposing is conformity and not freedom of choice.

 

I interpret the behaviour I've seen from organized Aetheist movements as vain. They challenge parts of society to change it to suit what they want.

I see that point, but I also accuse the more organized movements of not considering the consequences of their actions, and creating worse problems for society than what they already believe exists from the acceptance of what they don't believe.

Under my idea, this or any prayer would be optional--even for Chirstians. Most of the time, a set prayer (unless part of a specific ordinance) tends to draw the same reaction as a rerun on TV. For those that don't care, even the ordinance would receive that same reaction. What is important would be a statement of moral or ethical principles (Sorry Drew, I still have difficulty drawing that line between them). These would be designed to instruct students on a code or pattern of behaviour that would foster an envrionment where the mandated learning would be facilitated.

In your home, you have an obligation to keep order between the children in your care. On such a smaller scale, you have more options available, and a better insight into the individual children in your home.

Conversely, in a school, administration has an obligation to keep order between the students. By such instruction, they can maintain that order and foster an environment which would facilitate learning in areas more closely related to their mandate. Requiring some degree of compliance is necessary for this to occur. Students are still free to disobey, but they would be subject tot he consequences, ranging from detention to exclusion, according to the offence involved...

 

Gnarff - I think you are confusing school rules and morality, which have very little to do with each other. Morality is a system of ethics, which usually involves an individual choice; rules are policies that are required for one to be a part of an organized group that has a controlling mission, with a certain code of conduct, which in theory is applied to all its members evenly. Let me illustrate: I can choose to join a church, one with which I agree upon certain ethical practices. However, I have no choice regarding education. The state mandates a particular degree of education, with which I must comply. Thusly, I have no choice but to follow the rules madated by the educational system, whether or not I feel they are "moral." Now, I have the option to homeschool my children, but that requires standards again mandated by the state, and requires me to be at home. Great choice.

Keep in mind that Ben Franklin received a total of 2 years of formal education and was almost completely self-taught. So, how effective is the current system of education? I'm not saying that one cannot learn and become well-educated within the system. Only that there are options open to the idividual who is willing to think outside the box. Yet, the state makes that somewhat difficult because of a madate to conform. When school officials and politicians claim that they are fashoining "productive members for society", what do you think they really mean by that statement?

 

This is the same critique that's been used against abolitionists, suffragists, and the Civil rights movement. It's just as valid here.

Religion is not the structure upon which this society is built. In fact, God was mentioned in the Constitution of the United States of America exactly zero times. Further, most of our founders were only nominally Christian...if they were even Christian at all. A great many were Deists, and we had our fair share of Agnostics and Atheists, too. Sure, we had a few devout Christians in the mix, but the complaints, if any, that they had about our 100% secular Constitution were obviously over-ruled by the majority. Until 1954, God was not mentioned in our pledge of allegiance.* Our constitution further specified that religion cannot be used as a test for holding public office and also required that all states with officially sanctioned religions reverse that policy. Atheists and the non-religious aren't trying to force religion out of its rightful place in our government. Religious groups are trying to force their way in.

*Which means that, once again, it is the Religious groups fighting tooth and nail to keep God in the pledge (and not the people seeking its removal) who are actually bucking tradition in trying to change the words of the Baptist Minister who wrote the thing -with no mention of God- back in 1892.

 

Rules don't go far enough, and only really come into play after someone breaks them. The disruptions have already taken place. Morality would be included in an effort to get people to do the right thing and not break the rules in the first place...

But it does offer a convenient means with which to include such morality boosting (not too far different from what you teach your children, just providing a textbook to teach from)...

Even scarier, they are trying to push it out of society. I find a lack of beliefs more frightening than anything anyone actually believes.

 

That "textbook" has been used to support war, slavery, and segregation; and to oppose women's suffrage and equal rights. Frankly, any textbook so easily abused to justify such horrors is in serious need of a re-write. As a textbook, the Bible sucks. Fortunately, the Bible isn't actually a textbook (and was never intended to be), so no re-write is necessary.

Bull****. Atheists aren't trying to stop Sears from putting up a Christmas display. They are trying to stop schools from reciting the Lord's Prayer. They are trying to stop the state from endorsing specific religions. Stopping the church from worming its way back into the state and trying to purge religion from society are not the same thing.

 

I think you are reaching here. Rules are similiar to laws. If you break them, you will more than likely suffer the consquences. It is fear of those consquences that keep many from breaking those rules, or laws, in the first place. I agree, there are a lot of people who keep the rule of law because they feel it is the right thing to do, the moral thing to do. But if you believe that all people will follow exactly the same morality, and not break any rules or laws, then you really don't need either of them in the first place. But like I commented, you are reaching beyond anything that has a test in reality.

Gnarff - Let me comment once again: Not all people are going to agree upon the same moral code. So who decides?

 

The book or abuse of authority by those who preached from it? It's important to seperate the men from the doctrine...

But who are they to tell an individual school how to do their job? If a school WANTS to include prayer or teachings from the Bible in an effort to create an environment where students may learn the state mandated curriculum, then who gives an Aetheist the right to interfere? With the responsibility to ensure such an environment, should come the authority to do the job as they see fit--even to the point of telling their critics where to shove their objections.

But as you tear down the authority, then the fear of consequences goes with it. Responsibility and authority must go hand in hand. Take away authority, and responsibility goes unfulfilled. Put the authority in the hands of those not responsible, you get a chaotic, ineffective mess.

How about those with the responsibility to keep order? In a home, it's the parents (My roof, my rules, you don't like it, there's the road). In a school, it's the principal (A little pep talk before the day to set the tone for the day, corrective measures to deal with offenders, so that they learn the morality that they want to establish under their responsibility). In a nation, it's the government (Here's a guidebook. We're not endorsing any one branch of this religion or any given preacher. If you don't believe, then you are free to practice whatever you believe, but don't interfere.)

It's a refusal to institute order from the top that causes chaos at the bottom. While I still accuse some Aetheist movements of attacking religion without proposing a solution to problems it kept under control, I also see Christianity as complacent, being too lazy to seperate their faith from the abuses of religious authority in the past. For this to work, Christians must focus on the teachings, not power over others. It's almost paradoxical--those who seek to abuse religion to gain power over others tend to drive people away from religion and what gives them the influence in the first place.

 

Charged to keep order by whom? Just who are these autocrats who would decide right from wrong for the rest of us?

Just for the sake of our argument, we should keep our language fairly constant. Since parents is plural, rather say "our" roof, "our" rules). So , what if the parents are "aetheists?" And they instruct their children that prayer is immoral, because it is false? Now they go to school and your principal says," pray, it's the moral thing to do." Even more so, what if one parent is an aetheist and the other is a devout Chirstian? Which parent does the child believe holds the correct morality?

Oh, yeah. Now, there's a great source for morality. But sarcasm aside, you already know the government of the US has declared prayer uncontitutional in public schools. So there is really no problem there, regarding what the "authority" has already decreed regarding order for the masses. By your own standard, prayer should not be allowed in public schools as long as the authorities disapprove of it beng there.

Most problems usually come from the top down, not from the bottom up, as you point out. It's usually not a "refusal," but incompetence and corruption at the top that causes chaos at the bottom - all those fine, upstanding, paragons of morality at the top usually cause the problems.

You mean like how the American colonists tore down the "authority" of Parliament and the King of England? And that is probably the real difference between us: As an American, I consider myself, and other Americans, as heirs of the Revolution, which generally holds authority with a degree of suspicion. All power is given by the consent of the governed and may be taken back at the will of the People.

But the point is: The desire is liberty not conformity - It is, as Thomas Jefferson remarked, "unobstructed action according to our will." The limits of our actions are not determined by "authority" but by the individual and equal rights of others. The limits of my will ends at the start of yours. The Law is there to protect those rights. Otherwise, the Law is only the instrument of tyrants, in opposition to the will of the individual.

 

If you think the only people trying to halt the erosion of the separation of church and state are atheists, you must live under a rock. Aside from atheists, pretty much every minority religion under the sun reaps the benefits of separation of church and state. Without it, you wouldn't even be allowed to practice your own faith. The separation of church and state you so love to attack is the very reason that the nations of the west are not being torn asunder by sectarian violence like the middle east. If church and state cease to be separate, minority religions like the LDS faith will be oppressed. You've obviously never thought this through.

 

Well I don't quite agree with that statement. I think all nordic countries have a state church which is the evangelic lutheran church. In Finland both the Finnish Orthodox Church and the Evangelic Lutheran church are state churches. Not that other religions are in any way oppressed because of it, but it does give these religious groups some benefits over others.

 

OK. But is education in the theology and practices of the state church compulsory? Are children required to attend religious education classes in the state religion? Are people required to follow the it? Can the church over-rule the legislature? If it can't, despite having a state religion, you still have a fair degree of separation between church and state.

 

Children are required to attend religious education in some form but there is a separate secular programme for those who aren't member in the state churches. Basically children are forced to attend religious education if they are members of the state churches from which they are not able to resign without their parents consent until the age of fourteen.

The state church in a way is able to over-rule legistlation as the President of Finland by default becomes the overhead of the evangelic lutheran church.

But yeah I see your point, the thing is though that I don't think Gnarf supports any complete abolishment of the separation of Church and State, just some parts of it. What I myself wanted to point out that some co-operation between Church and State is not some one way path to suicide bombing and religious turmoil.

 

Ideally, parents would have more than just one school to choose from, and would be able to send their children to a school where the moral teachings are in line with what they teach. If that is not feasible, send them to the least objectionable school and instruct the kid not to laugh too loudly while the prayer is read. It goes back to sitting quietly while others observe. In most cases, any prayer would be given over the PA system anyway...

Big mistake there. I think it should be the individual school administrator (principal) who makes that decision, not some brown-noser in a goofy looking robe (Secular or Religious, the line works in both cases).

So in addition to the guts to make a decision, you have to have the wisdom to make a right decision? And since perhaps most people with common sense avoid politics like the plague, we get the crooked or stupid...

Actually, that works. At first, they had a document (I forget what they called it) that described what the government could and couldn't do. They made it a point of limiting what the government could do to the point where they were the laughing stock of the world. England, France and Spain all treated them with a lack of respect within a few short years of the Treaty of Versailles. It was not until an authoritative Constitution was written and ratified that they became a nation with any control over their own sovreign territory...

But to what point is authority necessary to ensure that the freedom of the whole is not threatened by the desires of the few that don't give a damn about the rest of them?

But the state is not mandating any specific religion. The individual school is deciding what to teach in order to sculpt the environment they want. It's teaching the philosophy not the theology. Further, if the school wants to avoid religious influence, that's okay, but I still ask them to include a daily statement to re-enforce the moral tone they want int heir school. It is possible to teach morality outside of religion, someone just needs the guts to stand up and make it public.

If a religion wanted to conduct themselves in such a manner, they could stir up a ton of trouble before they are stopped. Perhaps not violence per say, but still just as bad (Fred Phelps anyone?).

That could easily happen even without the government endorsing it. I would be surprised if the government sanctioned every mob that attacked an early Mormon settlement...

Actually, I have. True seperation of Church and State proscribes all religions. Can it be democracy when portions of the population are arbitrarily ignored because their affiliations are not allowed to influence government in any way shape or form. Is it still democracy when the politicians won't wait until after the election to ignore the people?

While I would not argue for the state to outright endorse a religion, I would expect that politicians that want to maintain good relations with a religion to listen to them on many issues. I'm suggesting that the individual school should have the right to set the moral tome of their institution, that's all.

I think a differentiation of terms is called for here.

Theology is talk of God (or the gods, as the faith in question believes), the cosmology (Creation story for example)... Basically, teachings pertaining to divinity, religious authority and the like. Talking about Christ's birth and death would qualify.

Philosophy, on the other hand, is the how ought we live. It is principles by which we should guide our actions (like the 10 commandments, Paul's council on Charity, Chirst's teachings on how to behave).

It is the philosophy that I advocate, not the theology.

Thank you. I was trying to suggest that such co-operation may reduce the risk of anarchy as well.

 

You do realize that, with that (accurate) statement, you've just discredited everything else you've said in this thread, don't you?