789
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 225:
Line 225: + + + + + + + +
→Basic Problem
::: So restricting a teacher from proclaiming the truth about God under the guise of remaining neutral is not being neutral, but is imposing an atheistic view on that teacher.
::: So restricting a teacher from proclaiming the truth about God under the guise of remaining neutral is not being neutral, but is imposing an atheistic view on that teacher.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:32, 5 March 2008 (EST)
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:32, 5 March 2008 (EST)
::::"You say that school prayer "...would leave out in the cold most Hindus, by implying that there was only one God", but don't explain what is wrong with this. To put it another way, what is wrong with a teacher telling the truth by saying that there is one God?"
:::::Hindus have a right to their religion as well. I thought this sort of thing was commonly understood, but let me go into it now.
:::::The Constitution clearly says that Congress shall make no law regarding an establishment of religion, and also that it shall not inhibit the free exercise thereof. Any reasonable interpretation of these words leads, I believe, inevitably to the conclusion that neither the state nor its employees should be using their positions to endorse any religion over the others.
:::::As I detailed above, any teacher speaking the "truth" would merely be them endorsing their personal opinion. For example, were a teacher to start every class by leading the children in a condemnation of the evils of religion to man, that would be the same sort of thing as leading them in a prayer. It would be an endorsement of a specific religious viewpoint by an employee of the state, sanctioned by the government in such a sense and contrary to the requirements of the Constitution. It is, after all, only what you regard as the truth to say that there is one God.
::::"Your answer to that question would presume that all religions are equal, and that therefore one should not be favoured over another. But the various religions teach contradictory things (one God, no God, etc.), so they can't all be correct, so the only way that they can all be equal is if they are all wrong."
:::::That is not logically sound, either. Consider what you are saying for a moment. You are claiming that because there are multiple viewpoints ("one God, no God, etc.") that contradict each other, that they can't all be correct. That is absolutely accurate... either there is a God or there is not or there are many. Allah or Yahweh, and so on. However, you next leap to conclude that because they can't all be correct, "the only way they can all be equal is if they are all wrong." This makes little sense. I never claimed that all religions are "equal," I instead said that everyone has a right to choose which religion to which they would adhere. There is equal FREEDOM of religion, not equal TRUTH of religion (known as "factual relativism"). Accordingly, it does not follow that all religions must be "all wrong." There is some sort of objective truth out there. But it is not the government's job to decide for you what the religious truth is. After all, bureaucracy is incompetent enough as it is... would you be comfortable with a Governmental Panel on Religious Truth deciding whether Catholicism or Shinto would be taught to your child?
::::"But if they cover the range (no god, one God, multiple gods, etc.) then at least one of them has to be correct, at least on specific questions. So your presumption that all are equal is demonstrably wrong. If one is in fact correct, then what is wrong with a teacher endorsing that? What is wrong with a teacher teaching students facts?"
:::::I never said all religions are equal. I said everyone should have equal opportunity to choose whatever religion they please. And if there was some sort of empirical study that found God, that would be one thing. But I know of nothing that has scientifically proven that Catholicism is correct and Protestantism is wrong. Teacher should not be accordingly teaching such as "fact," even if they think it is.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 21:10, 5 March 2008 (EST)