[IP] 2 more on book burnings are next...
Begin forwarded message:
From: Simon Higgs <simon@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: November 14, 2004 2:13:24 AM EST
To: Tom Fairlie <tfairlie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: dave@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [IP] more on book burnings are next...
Hi Tom,
Well context is everything. Public schools do not function effectively,
especially if we use LAUSD as a benchmark. My assumption that faith is
a logical conclusion of study and learning comes from observation. But
then again, so do a whole pile of other things. Faith is not the
exclusive result of study and learning. Maybe we don't have the same
definition of the word "faith".
Faith is a presumption - a hypothesis - that builds over time based on
either an expected outcome or tangible results. It may be totally wrong
and part of something else - like denial, or it may be totally accurate
and can be proven. But faith is a place where one can extend his/her
trust. That may be atheism. Or it maybe religion. Or it may be a
theorem. Or it may be that tonight's date will show up. We'll leave the
ballot box out of this for now. ;-) But one thing that becomes clear is
that faith is relational. It's between you and something outside of
your immediate control. For some it's a personal relationship with
their deity. For others it's a relationship with the gas in their gas
tank and whether it will get them home.
Let me address the loving, caring, atheists. I know some. I know others
that are not. Same goes for Christians. So what? People are people.
Yes, behavior is an outworking of their beliefs but it's not the
exclusive outworking. We have choices we make every day. Some are good
and some are bad. Reputations get built by how those choices are
perceived not how they were actually executed. As an Anglo-American, I
think Jimmy Carter has been one of the best US presidents, but what he
did that made him great has, to a certain extent, been kept hidden (and
in some cases classified). He was seen as weak because he chose not to
bluster around like Reagan.
So, back to choice. Public schools have an absolute mandate to teach
one thing and one thing only. And that is simply how to learn. If it
fails that small task, then the rest of the reading, 'riting, and
'riffmatic being taught is a complete waste of time. So is every other
class or elective. I know, I've been there.
So what does learning actually mean? What is so special about learning
that teaching can't provide? Look at the test scores across the
country. Learning involves assimilating information. The core of
learning to learn is to be able to evaluate and determine the value of
the information being presented. Context. There's one tremendous
benefit - the elimination of fear of the subject matter. So
Christianity is a history lesson. Islam is a history lesson. Terrorism
is a current affairs lesson. And yes, math is still boring. I was
taught Islam, Hinduism, Christianity and other subjects at school, at
the taxpayer's expense. What is the big deal?
Spiritual knowledge exists. It's just that, knowledge. But people are
so afraid of it. So they ban the books from schools. They ban the
prayer. What exactly are they afraid of? Turning that knowledge into a
living breathing relationship with a supreme being? God asking them
personally to be a missionary? Becoming accountable for one's own
actions? Repenting of doing things that we thought were actually cool
to do? Becoming enslaved to an out-of-control organization disguised as
a religion? The Bogeyman? So much for allowing the individual their own
choice, because the public schools won't allow it.
It's knowledge that brings you through each of these situations. If you
don't have the knowledge, you don't have the choices. If Jim Jones were
around today, would you drink the Kool-Aid? Have you learnt something
from that? Today, I would have a piece of advice for Martin Luther King
from what I've learnt. I'd tell him to duck. Maybe if Jesse Jackson had
been assassinated he too would be a great man today. But no, we see the
real man, warts and all. Why? Because we have the additional knowledge.
What are public schools rejecting when they reject ID? Isaac Newton's
"Philosophiæ naturalis Principia Mathematica" for one. He did so well
too. So what are the public schools going to say if he was around
today? 'Sorry Isaac, your math is totally bogus because you started
ranting on that we "must be all subject to the dominion of One" and
then you started talking about "my God, your God, the God of Israel".
How could you be so irresponsible to our public school children? So we
reject your so-called gravity.'
This is history. This is science. This is philosophy. This is faith.
It's all the same thing, just from different angles and points of view.
You can't separate out the bits that you personally find uncomfortable.
That is bad science.
I'm really not sure I'm worthy of inspiring someone to change for the
better. I'd love to be a great example, but I know me well enough to
know I have little confidence in that. Faith, spirituality, and beliefs
are going to live or die on their own merits. I have mine and I'm going
to stick with them. The science and math works out.
"Hitherto we have explained the phenomena of the heavens and of our sea
by the power of gravity, but have not yet assigned the cause of this
power." - Isaac Newton, Philosophiæ naturalis Principia Mathematica
Best Regards,
Simon
Begin forwarded message:
From: Tom Fairlie <tfairlie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: November 14, 2004 9:00:40 AM EST
To: Simon Higgs <simon@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: dave@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [IP] more on book burnings are next...
Hi Simon,
First of all, let me just say that I enjoy reading intelligently
written responses such as yours. I have a few friends that
are similarly educated and yet diametrically opposed to my
beliefs :-P
I think you're right; context is everything. However, after
reading your message, I can't quite tell what you are suggesting.
If you stood up at a local school board and delivered it as
a speech, I am sure that the parents would applaud and then
continue as they were -- unsure of what was just said.
However, if I try to derive a conclusion, it seems to be that
faith is or should be a normal component of a child's education.
Again, the problem with this has a lot to do with the nature of
your reply, in that you are talking philosophy while children
aren't even taught critical thinking (or *get* critical thinking)
until 12th grade.
I can teach my children mathematics simply by using blocks
or fruit or my fingers. When they're ready for multiplication,
I can show them how a local farmers estimates the number
of seeds they will need by the number of rows that will fit
in an acre. Reading, history, geography, etc. can all be taught
slowly and progressively as the child is ready for the material.
Faith, spirituality, religion, or whatever can be similarly taught.
In this regard, you are totally correct. When a close relative
died, I explained to my (younger) children about heaven and
what happens to good people when their Earthly bodies expire.
This all sounds normal, perhaps, but here's the rub: I don't
necessarily believe in heaven. This is not the place to discuss
my exact beliefs, but what I told my children was specific
enough to not only get them over an emotional hump, but to
fill their minds with images that may last their entire life and
lay the groundwork for further imagery if I (or they) so choose.
And this is why I reject the public schools taking over this
highly personal responsibility of mine. No two people are
going to have the same belief system and I'm sure that my
personal beliefs (despite the relatively benign reference to
a 'heaven'), if shared with the local school, would probably
get a lot of blank stares.
You talked about your own exposure to various religions,
but the younger student isn't going to know enough to
distinguish between them or figure out what to assimilate
as knowledge and what to feel internally as 'truth'. In other
words, teaching a child the 'important' articles of spirituality
at a young age may be either pointless or profound. The
bottom line, though, is that it's a rough course that is
a world apart from teaching them how to add or read.
Given my assumptions about early education, let's assume
then that we're talking about secondary education. I have
a daughter in high school, so this is an easy one for me
to practice on. I had a long, heart-to-heart talk with her
one day about faith and the afterlife and what it could
possibly mean or entail. She listened intently, discussed
(intelligently, I might add :-) the options, and then promptly
decided to ignore each of the theories I proposed. Instead,
she decided to believe in an 'Earth goddess'--a female deity
who would watch over her and 'mother' her to success.
As much as this conclusion bothered me (I'm an engineer;
we're supposed to draw 'logical' conclusions ;-), I have to
give her credit. I say this because her worldview, albeit a
little off the beaten track, is completely moral and healthy.
She doesn't burn incense or candles in her room and
worship a statue. Instead, she constantly seeks to spread
the love she feels inside with her peers and help them
wherever she can. She has volunteered repeatedly to be
a 'peer mediator' (problem solver) at her school.
I'm not disclosing this highly personal information to express
my pride, although there is some, but to exemplify the problem
of putting this sort of vehicle into the public schools. Can
you imagine the typical (admittedly, they don't exist) American
parent sending their kid off to a school that covers Christian
(and perhaps a few other varieties of) faith and find out that
their child now believes in what is essentially a Wiccan deity?
That teacher/principal/school board would be virtually crucified.
Perhaps this is a pessimistic assumption, but here we get
back to the whole faith/knowledge argument. Parents trust
that their children will learn how to read, how to add and
multiply, and how to write. They don't really care if Newton
is deified in the school--they're more concerned with the
basics. Beyond that, parents may be happy or proud if
their child picks up an artistic talent, a physical ability
(i.e., sports), or some other 'useful' skill. However, those
that wish to impart a spiritual education should send their
children to the appropriate private institution. There simply
is no bandwidth to provide a balanced, faith-based education
in the public schools and the teachers will certainly be
blamed for falling short of the mark when they try.
Sincerely,
Tom Fairlie
----- Original Message -----
From: "Simon Higgs" <simon@xxxxxxxxx>
To: "Tom Fairlie" <tfairlie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: <dave@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, November 14, 2004 1:13 AM
Subject: Re: [IP] more on book burnings are next...
Hi Tom,
Well context is everything. Public schools do not function effectively,
especially if we use LAUSD as a benchmark. My assumption that faith is a
logical conclusion of study and learning comes from observation. But
then
again, so do a whole pile of other things. Faith is not the exclusive
result of study and learning. Maybe we don't have the same definition of
the word "faith".
Faith is a presumption - a hypothesis - that builds over time based on
either an expected outcome or tangible results. It may be totally wrong
and
part of something else - like denial, or it may be totally accurate and
can
be proven. But faith is a place where one can extend his/her trust. That
may be atheism. Or it maybe religion. Or it may be a theorem. Or it may
be
that tonight's date will show up. We'll leave the ballot box out of this
for now. ;-) But one thing that becomes clear is that faith is
relational.
It's between you and something outside of your immediate control. For
some
it's a personal relationship with their deity. For others it's a
relationship with the gas in their gas tank and whether it will get them
home.
Let me address the loving, caring, atheists. I know some. I know others
that are not. Same goes for Christians. So what? People are people. Yes,
behavior is an outworking of their beliefs but it's not the exclusive
outworking. We have choices we make every day. Some are good and some
are
bad. Reputations get built by how those choices are perceived not how
they
were actually executed. As an Anglo-American, I think Jimmy Carter has
been
one of the best US presidents, but what he did that made him great has,
to
a certain extent, been kept hidden (and in some cases classified). He
was
seen as weak because he chose not to bluster around like Reagan.
So, back to choice. Public schools have an absolute mandate to teach one
thing and one thing only. And that is simply how to learn. If it fails
that
small task, then the rest of the reading, 'riting, and 'riffmatic being
taught is a complete waste of time. So is every other class or
elective. I
know, I've been there.
So what does learning actually mean? What is so special about learning
that
teaching can't provide? Look at the test scores across the country.
Learning involves assimilating information. The core of learning to
learn
is to be able to evaluate and determine the value of the information
being
presented. Context. There's one tremendous benefit - the elimination of
fear of the subject matter. So Christianity is a history lesson. Islam
is a
history lesson. Terrorism is a current affairs lesson. And yes, math is
still boring. I was taught Islam, Hinduism, Christianity and other
subjects
at school, at the taxpayer's expense. What is the big deal?
Spiritual knowledge exists. It's just that, knowledge. But people are so
afraid of it. So they ban the books from schools. They ban the prayer.
What
exactly are they afraid of? Turning that knowledge into a living
breathing
relationship with a supreme being? God asking them personally to be a
missionary? Becoming accountable for one's own actions? Repenting of
doing
things that we thought were actually cool to do? Becoming enslaved to an
out-of-control organization disguised as a religion? The Bogeyman? So
much
for allowing the individual their own choice, because the public schools
won't allow it.
It's knowledge that brings you through each of these situations. If you
don't have the knowledge, you don't have the choices. If Jim Jones were
around today, would you drink the Kool-Aid? Have you learnt something
from
that? Today, I would have a piece of advice for Martin Luther King from
what I've learnt. I'd tell him to duck. Maybe if Jesse Jackson had been
assassinated he too would be a great man today. But no, we see the real
man, warts and all. Why? Because we have the additional knowledge.
What are public schools rejecting when they reject ID? Isaac Newton's
"Philosophiæ naturalis Principia Mathematica" for one. He did so well
too.
So what are the public schools going to say if he was around today?
'Sorry
Isaac, your math is totally bogus because you started ranting on that we
"must be all subject to the dominion of One" and then you started
talking
about "my God, your God, the God of Israel". How could you be so
irresponsible to our public school children? So we reject your so-called
gravity.'
This is history. This is science. This is philosophy. This is faith.
It's
all the same thing, just from different angles and points of view. You
can't separate out the bits that you personally find uncomfortable.
That is
bad science.
I'm really not sure I'm worthy of inspiring someone to change for the
better. I'd love to be a great example, but I know me well enough to
know I
have little confidence in that. Faith, spirituality, and beliefs are
going
to live or die on their own merits. I have mine and I'm going to stick
with
them. The science and math works out.
"Hitherto we have explained the phenomena of the heavens and of our sea
by
the power of gravity, but have not yet assigned the cause of this
power." -
Isaac Newton, Philosophiæ naturalis Principia Mathematica
Best Regards,
Simon
Hi Simon,
Let's start over shall we. It's far too easy to go down
our current path and wind up making arguments that
have nothing to do with each other. Plus, I have had
this debate more than 100 times in the past few years
and that's no exaggeration.
My only points are thus:
1) We agree that religion and faith have nothing to
do with each other. Game, set, and match.
2) I disagree with your assumption that faith is a logical
conclusion of study and learning, in the context of our
public schools. For example, someone could be incredibly
bright, ethical, hard-working, and moral, yet still have no
faith whatsoever in a supreme being, a higher power, or
whatever. I personally know at least two atheists that
are an order of magnitude more moral (i.e., loving, helpful,
charitable) in the acts they do than any Christian I have
ever known.
Would you assume that these people must be subconsciously
following a higher power and don't know it? I can tell you
the answer. They are both incredibly smart, were raised to
be religious, have studied the issues at length, and have
consciously decided to be an atheist. Any attempt to have
taught them otherwise in a public school setting would
have mitigated their kind acts later in life (in my humble opinion).
The spiritual path one takes is and should be a personal one.
Trying to force such a path on young children seems not
only fruitless (in the sense that they may just as readily
reject such teachings in their teenage years as they seek
independence) but also inherently flawed because one
person's definition of spirituality, faith, or even morals is
always going to differ from everyone else's.
I believe that it is the parent's responsibility to impart a
moral sense in our children. Why I would want to outsource
that function to a public school teacher is beyond me.
You say that faith can be taught. The home is the school.
3) You argument about what is 'real', what is 'belief', and what
is 'knowledge' are all philosophical rabbit holes that can be
debated, but have little impact on the question of public
school curricula and here is why.
Suppose you wanted to expose the children in public
schools to (a) moral/ethical thinking, (b) religious principles,
(c) spirituality, or (d) general teachings related to 'b' or 'c'.
Case 'a' is easy. There used to be a show called "Ethics
in America" that is still available on VHS tape. Watch it
and you'll realize that ethics and morals can be intellectually
debated without being couched in a spiritual context.
If you wanted to apply such thinking to a younger audience,
you would just have to tailor the subject matter and the
analysis appropriately. I have no problem with any of this.
Case 'b' is possible only if every major religion is represented
in a fair and balanced way. Given the state of America's public
school system (at least from where I sit; I have 4 children in
the Midwest), I doubt that we have the teaching resources
necessary to provide such a robust and inclusive curriculum.
Falling short of the goal, which is far too easy, will inevitably
lead to rampant bias in what is taught and will invariably lead
to an increase in intolerance and polarization--two things we
need to combat, not encourage.
Case 'c' is much more problematic than 'b'. I suppose it's
possible to cover such a topic, but the demand on the
teacher is severe. I can just imagine one teacher talking
about the rapture and another talking about some Far East
philosophy and a third discussing the benefits of polygamy.
Given the incredibly high bar that would have to be set,
this is realistically a non-starter.
Case 'd' appears to be where ID attempts to insert itself,
although I tend to view it as 'b'. The problem here, just as
in Bush's Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives,
is the inherent bias such a system will promote. In other
words, how many teachers are going to cover Islam and
the teachings of Mohammed? How many children are
going to feel wrong or ashamed because they don't get
or don't agree with what the teacher is pushing. Again,
this is an issue for the home.
4) Let me explain my 'belief' argument again (perhaps fruitless,
assuming that you're going to equate Einstein's equations with
Pat Roberton's predictions--not that you did, but there you go :-).
The scientific community has built upon itself over centuries
(and against the church, btw) and has created a body of knowledge
that allows me to drive a car to work, use a computer to create
incredibly complex devices, microwave my food, listen to high-
fidelity music wherever I go, keep in touch with my wife and
children through a wireless network, react to my baby crying
(on a monitor) when I'm out of earshot, and read about world
events with the click of a mouse button. I believe in these
scientists because I use the fruits of their labor every day.
People like Dr. King require more belief. If I completely disbelieved
in him and his work, I could try to write him off as just another
charismatic speaker. However, millions of Americans look up
to him not just as a leader, but as someone who fought to
change the legal system to finally end discriminatory practices.
Thus, if I have even a small belief in him and his work, I can
easily attribute a lot of good to what he did and the impact he
had on society.
My last example, Dr. Dobson, requires the most faith; not just
because he accomplishes little, but because his subject is faith
itself. The analogy is the scientist who talks about science itself.
Stephen Wolfram, a reputed genius and the inventor of the
popular software program Mathematica, wrote a book a couple
of years ago called "A New Kind of Science". In this book, he
described a new paradigm that was intended to put the entire
scientific community on its ear and change the way scientists
work. Perhaps his tome will be accepted some day (Einstein had
to wait years for people to simply confirm his math, let alone
agree with him), but the truth is that is currently an exceedingly
large paperweight.
Whereas Wolfram selfishly pursues knowledge (even if flawed),
someone like Dobson pursues an agenda that is selfish in the
sense that it serves only his own purposes. If Wolfram is
completely wrong, it has no impact on me. If he's right, I can
only benefit. If he's wrong, but the scientific community
mistakenly follows it, then they may hurt themselves, but will
eventually right the ship over time.
In Dobson's case, his agenda can neither be declared right
or wrong because someone will always lose whether there
is a benefit or not. This is because his tactics polarize rather
than unite. He possesses the 'truth', yet becomes a hate monger
when challenged. He is a child of God, but apparently believes
that only half the electorate is worthy of similar status. My point
here is that it takes pure faith, in both Dobson and his narrow
message, to derive a benefit from him.
You could easily argue that Dobson is an extreme example,
and you'd be right. However, history books are stuffed with
examples of what goes wrong every time faith (or religion)
mingles with the apparatus of the state. Instead, I believe
that the only way to inspire someone to change for the
better is to live your life as an example to them. Famous people
like Bill Bennett (former drug czar) tried to take the shortcut by
writing pamphlets like "The Book of Virtues" without making the
sacrifices necessary to live up to them. When his million-dollar
gambling addiction was exposed, he denied that it was a problem
at all. My point here is to let faith, spirituality, and beliefs live
or
die on their own. We don't need to incorporate any of this into
public schools.
5) I didn't get what you mean when you said:
"Saving the innocents? Consequences and accountability? Religious
crusades?
That is all for now. Fingers are tired.
Tom Fairlie
----- Original Message -----
From: "Simon Higgs" <simon@xxxxxxxxx>
To: "Tom Fairlie" <tfairlie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "David Farber" <dave@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, November 13, 2004 4:30 AM
Subject: Re: [IP] more on book burnings are next...
Tom,
With all due respect, I think you're missing out on several
important aspects of the issue at hand and my response to it.
First of all, equating science to religion on the basis of both
being 'knowledge' is outside the borders of this discussion.
Then it's hardly a discussion. It's either knowledge or it's not.
Banning
knowledge simply on the basis of it's content is well outside the
borders
of a true education. Part of a decent education is to learn the true
value
of knowledge and place it in proper context with other knowledge.
Knowledge
and facts are different animals. Do you know what you know? Do you
know if
what you know is fact or fiction?
Our public school system is intended to prepare our children
to become productive members of the workforce and that's all
there is to it.
Then, in the real world, it's a total failure and not meeting that
objective. But, hey, I live in Los Angeles, home to the most
dysfunctional
school district in the world.
It was nice when they used to teach kids about
the 'arts' and put on plays and such, but unless you live in
the suburbs, that's mostly gone today.
I think your equation also fails once you mention the word
'belief'. I don't have to 'believe' in Einstein or Newton in order
to derive benefit from their knowledge.
Yes, you do. You have to believe in their theories and proofs to derive
benefit. Conversely, you have to disbelieve them to reject them.
Either way
you expressed a measure of faith. Not necessarily in them, but in their
work.
In the middle ground,
I *would* have to at least partially 'believe' in the work of
someone like Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. in order to consider
him a great man. (I do.) However, one could hardly consider
someone like Dr. James Dobson a good man unless they had
*total* belief in him and his acts. (I don't.)
You're expressing greatness in proportion to how much faith you have
in a
person. You've rejected Dobson because you don't/won't have 100% faith
in
him, yet you are willing to accept far less than 100% from MLK. It just
sounds like you're prejudice.
Furthermore (and speaking of Einstein), he proved that
everything is relative in terms of your point of view
(Cf. Special Theory of Relativity). It was a radical thought
at the time and yet nobody challenged it once it was understood.
I suspect that you might doubt this sort of orthodoxy, but
the irony here is that Science (capital "S") and the [real]
scientists who practice it actually challenge long-held beliefs
and adapt them or improve them over time. Of course, there
is often a lot of inertia to overcome and scientists can certainly
be bullheaded about change, but nonetheless, their feedback
look reinforces the quality of their work.
Sounds like a basis of faith to me. Faith in Relativity and the
relationship of space and time. Much of our confusion results from the
assumption that time and space are things that exist independently of
faith. Remember that the next time you walk on water.
The fact that organized religion (and Christianity, to be specific)
demonstrates very little of this introspection, leads them to adopt
a very absolutist worldview. Perhaps consistency is maintained,
but at a high cost; and in reality, few practice it. Many is the
Christian who preaches the sanctity of life for the unborn fetus
and yet champions the death penalty; glorifies our military
adventures against Islam while ignoring the innocent civilian
casualties; sees nothing wrong with capitalism while millions
go without their basic human needs being met.
Saving the innocents? Consequences and accountability? Religious
crusades?
You're confusing Christianity with the actions of some American church
goers. Sad but true. This is the classic confusion between religion and
Christianity.
You bring up Darwin's twilight regrets. I hadn't read that about
Darwin, but given the world in which he lived, are you sure that
he wasn't bemoaning the use of his theories by eugenicists?
Not in that specific context, but they may be included along with the
Linnean Society of London as well as the Royal Society of London and
the
British Association for the Advancement of Science. All of them
contributed.
After all, his half first cousin, Francis Galton, was the pioneer of
eugenics and helped make the latter half of the 19th century and
the first half of the 20th a living hell for tens of millions of
people--
most famously the Jews under Hitler. This is the further irony of
Darwin; that his theories are laughed at by people who seem to
think that Social Darwinism is perfectly acceptable. Hardly a
Christian concept by my definition.
One last thing on Darwin; his theories certainly do hold up to
scientific scrutiny. Remember that Darwin proposed theories,
not proofs.
Then why are Darwin's theories taught as proofs and without the
benefit of
alternative theories?
While scientists have been poking and prodding
his work for more than a century and important anomalies have
been found and studied, the vast majority of scientists aren't
ready to throw the baby out with the bathwater. By contrast, the
folks behind ID took one of Darwin's anomalies (the complexity
problem), ignored the scientific theories that may explain it
(e.g., the law of big numbers, et al), and then used it as a pretext
to push Christian teachings as opposed to scientific reasoning.
Look from the other side, the scientist with a faith has to reconcile
that
somehow. There isn't an ulterior motive, there is simply another
theory or
proof in the equation which has to be accounted for. More data to
extrapolate from.
I can't take such debate seriously, since it is by definition un-
scientific and has such an obvious ulterior motive.
Yeah, but those are two very unscientific reasons to reject a theory or
proof. You are guaranteed the wrong results because you don't have all
the
data. We're back to knowledge you have eliminated instead of putting
it in
context.
Assuming that you're not clumsily falling into this trap and
sincerely
want religion taught in our public schools, then I guess we could
be persuaded towards this thinking if the education included all of
the major religions of the world and a fair analysis--with the pros
and cons--of each.
And the problem you have with that is what exactly?
I don't have a problem with this at all, which is why I suggested it.
Of course, this suggestion is tongue-in-cheek, since almost nobody
I know is interested in debating such topics. The overwhelming
majority of people I know who have truly studied religion have
little or no interest in talking about their faith as a subject of
debate.
Extrapolating this to the community at large would seem to indicate
that this debate would go nowhere fast and would only seek to
inflame people on both (all?) sides. You implied that I'm against
such a debate, while the truth is that I'm against such a non-starter
of a topic.
Speaking of which, you implied that I was 'silly' for allegedly
ignoring your theory that teaching our children basic skills would
inevitably lead to their discovery of a higher power. Pure nonsense.
You have data to back that up? ;-p
Every person operates uniquely and their modus operandi cannot
be so easily predicted. Personally, my own belief that there is a
higher power came not from school, science, or the Catholic school
(and church) in which I was raised; I came upon that discovery through
personal intuition and spiritual maturity--both ways that cannot be
taught no matter hard you or anyone else can possibly try.
You learnt, didn't you? Then you can't say that it can't be taught.
Everything that can be learnt can be taught. But we're back to putting
knowledge in it's proper context.
However,
by undertaking such an educational effort, you or the professional
proselytizers you seem to support would be embarking upon a costly
and risky mission that: will certainly be very inefficient; is
inherently
prejudiced against a large percentage of the population; may stimulate
the opposite effect in many children; and will inevitably be borne by
taxpayers that have no idea about or interest in such outcomes.
Ah, now I get it. That's fear talking. Fear of brain washing. Fear of
indoctrination. Fear of lifestyle accountability. Fear of loosing
individual choice. All rational reasons. However, you need to
recognize the
difference between religion and faith. Religion breeds cults and is
over
all highly unhealthy. Faith breeds self-sacrifice and service to the
community. You've just got to know the difference. And don't confuse
religion with Christianity. They're polar opposites.
Thus, who is being the silly one here?
So when do I get a choice where my taxes are spent?
Sincerely,
Tom Fairlie
PS. Sorry for ending this note on a quasi-insulting tone.
However, you started it. :-)
Thbbttthhhttt... ;-p
Best Regards,
Simon Higgs
-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/