nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 127:
Line 127: + Line 234:
Line 235: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
→Basic Problem: Reply to TomMoore.
::::::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:13, 5 March 2008 (EST)
::::::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:13, 5 March 2008 (EST)
::::::::::So because the government would be inevitably be endorsing a "religion" in any case, it should default to endorsing Christianity because that is the majority religion. Is that a fair understanding of your position? [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 22:35, 5 March 2008 (EST)
::::::::::So because the government would be inevitably be endorsing a "religion" in any case, it should default to endorsing Christianity because that is the majority religion. Is that a fair understanding of your position? [[User:Feebasfactor|Feebasfactor]] 22:35, 5 March 2008 (EST)
::::::::::: It ''should'' default to endorsing Christianity because it's the correct religion, but in practice a government will tend to reflect the wishes of its people, so in that case should endorse Christianity because it's the majority religion in a given country. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:51, 6 March 2008 (EST)
The creative attempts to justify classroom prayer are illogical and self-contradictory:
The creative attempts to justify classroom prayer are illogical and self-contradictory:
::::"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?"
::::"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)
:::::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)
:::::: "''Hindus have a right to their religion as well.''": According to who? Your answer from your following comments seems to be "according to the law", and this may be so, but we are talking about what ''should be'' the case, not what ''is'' the case. As such, we can ignore what the law or constitution currently says as well as how it is interpreted.
:::::: "''I thought this sort of thing was commonly understood...''": That's the common view that atheists and similar have propagated.
:::::: "''As I detailed above, any teacher speaking the "truth" would merely be them endorsing their personal opinion.''": This doesn't make sense. If a teacher "speaking the truth" says that Australia is in the southern hemisphere, are they "merely...endorsing their personal opinion"???
:::::: "''It is, after all, only what you regard as the truth to say that there is one God.''": No, it's only postmodernist thinking that says that such things are dependant on your viewpoint rather than being factual.
:::::: "''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.''": And I never disputed—and even endorsed—''that point''. But that wasn't the point. That comment was not in relation to what people have a right to believe, but to what a government school can teach. As I said above, a school teaching that God exists does not mean that you are forcing someone to believe it. So teaching it and being free to believe or not believe ''are two separate things''. We were talking about the former, and you replied by repeating the latter.
:::::: "''But it is not the government's job to decide for you what the religious truth is.''": Why not? They teach many other things as truth; why not also teach which religion is true?
:::::: "''would you be comfortable with a Governmental Panel on Religious Truth deciding whether Catholicism or Shinto would be taught to your child?''": Assuming they are not the only two options, then yes, I would be quite comfortable with that, ''as long as they came up with the correct answer''.
:::::: "''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.''": Are you saying that the only things that schools can teach are things that are ''scientifically'' proven? In that case, you might as well close down the schools, because science is unable to ''prove'' anything. And even apart from that, does that mean that you don't teach the history of the Roman Empire, because we only know about it from ancient documents, not ''scientific proof''? Or that the right way to spell "cat" is c-a-t, because it's not been ''scientifically'' proven?
:::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:10, 6 March 2008 (EST)
This is becoming difficult to follow, so I am unindenting.
1. ''Your answer from your following comments seems to be "according to the law", and this may be so, but we are talking about what ''should be'' the case, not what ''is'' the case. As such, we can ignore what the law or constitution currently says as well as how it is interpreted.''
Clearly we are approaching this from different views, then. I was not arguing a hypothetical "if we lived in a theocracy" sort of thing, I was arguing about school prayer in America. I will happily cede the point that, if we lived in a Christian theocracy, it would only be appropriate for teachers to lead the students in prayer. My objections and arguments stand, however, when it comes to America, which is governed by those Constitutional clauses. I actually also happen to believe that, yes, everyone should have freedom of religion. If you do not, as it seems, that would simply be a fundamental difference of ethics between us.
2. ''If a teacher "speaking the truth" says that Australia is in the southern hemisphere, are they "merely...endorsing their personal opinion"???''
You appear to believe that the existence of a certain sect's god is as empirically proven as the location of Australia, but I have to venture that such does not seem to be the case. Otherwise there would be no Catholics or Protestants... we would just be able to take a microscope to God.
Regardless, this is a tangential issue, with little bearing on the matter at hand and great capacity for derailing.
3. ''No, it's only postmodernist thinking that says that such things are dependant on your viewpoint rather than being factual.''
...well, that's actually not "postmodernism," it's "factual relativity," as I said above. Postmodernism is a very distinct school of thought based around the theory that an examination of the false dualities in our language and the wide variety of what is not said, as revealed by a study of the "differance" and the privileging of speech over writing, can lead to an understanding that any given text cannot be said to have a single definitive interpretation. It's a little much to go into in an aside on a discussion on an online encyclopedia, but suffice to say that the two are very different.
4. ''As I said above, a school teaching that God exists does not mean that you are forcing someone to believe it. So teaching it and being free to believe or not believe ''are two separate things''. We were talking about the former, and you replied by repeating the latter.''
The teacher is a representative of the state, as an employee of the state. In their role as teacher, by espousing any religious beliefs they are implicitly supporting them. Thus, it would be the state supporting those religious beliefs. This is severely compounded by the intended position of the teacher as the figure of authority and voice of knowledge and wisdom in the classroom... ideally, a teacher should impart not simply raw knowledge, but also a manner of critical thinking and approaching the world. Accordingly, a teacher using this position, and the fact that they are indirect representatives of the government, means that they are strongly endorsing particular religious views if they espouse them in the classroom.
5. ''Why not? They teach many other things as truth; why not also teach which religion is true?''
I assume you are being facetious. This would be incredibly unconstitutional. Further, I should point out that a good teacher does not, in fact, teach anything as "truth." A good teacher instructs his students to question the accepted facts being given, with a wise and skeptical eye. In science, for example, nothing is sacrosanct "truth," since under the scientific method everything is open to question as long as evidence can be presented. Similarly, in history nothing is assumed to be ironclad truth, and interpretations of events can very widely. These are, of course, ideal scenarios... we often have many teachers who unfortunately think they are some sort of repository for divine accuracy, with the arrogance to decide what "must" be the "truth."
6. ''Assuming they are not the only two options, then yes, I would be quite comfortable with that, as long as they came up with the correct answer''.
That would be the great caveat, wouldn't it? ;) I think you take my point. Or I hope you do, anyway.
7. ''Are you saying that the only things that schools can teach are things that are scientifically proven? In that case, you might as well close down the schools, because science is unable to prove anything. And even apart from that, does that mean that you don't teach the history of the Roman Empire, because we only know about it from ancient documents, not scientific proof? Or that the right way to spell "cat" is c-a-t, because it's not been scientifically proven?''
I was using the colloquial sense of "prove," as I think you probably were aware. You seem to be taking a pretty personal tone to this... let's try to keep it civil, please.--[[User:TomMoore|TomMoore]] 13:21, 6 March 2008 (EST)
: 1. Neither was I arguing for a theocracy (rule by God). I was arguing in the context of a democracy, but I was arguing, as I said, for what ''should'' be (in a democracy), not what ''is'' (in America). I would also point out that the original intention of the Constitutional amendment was not to prevent religion (Christianity) being implicitly endorsed by government agencies, and that it is only activist judges (and lobbyists) who have ''interpreted'' it to mean something different. That being the case, it would not be going against the constitution (as opposed to court ''interpretations'' of the constitution) to return to that. If you think that I was rejecting freedom of religion, either you still aren't properly reading what I write, or you are using the term differently to me. I specifically said above that I endorsed the right of everyone to choose their religion. Surely that indicates that I believe in freedom of religion?
: 2. I wasn't trying to equate evidence for the location of Australia with evidence for God. I was pointing out that there was nothing improper about a teacher speaking the truth. Not everything is proved to the same degree of certainty, and just because God's existence is not proven in precisely the same way as the location of Australia doesn't mean that it's not sufficiently certain. And by the way, Catholics and Protestants ''agree'' on the existence of God; it's other details that they don't agree on. And that point is irrelevant anyway. Just because someone ''doesn't'' agree on something doesn't mean that it's an open question. If that was always the case, then ''everyone'' would consider the existence of goo-to-you evolution to be an open question, because different beliefs exist about it!
: 3. That's not my understanding.
: 4. That's a non-answer as far as my point was concerned, which is that the teacher is not ''forcing'' anyone to believe.
: 5. No, I'm not being facetious, and as I've already said, I'm (a) not talking about the ''existing'' situation with the constitution, and (b) it is not really the constitutional situation anyway, but court misinterpretation of it. Did teachers never teach you that two plus two equals four? Nor that America is a republic? Or did they teach them as ''opinions'' rather than ''truth''? Of course they taught them as truth! "''In science, for example, nothing is sacrosanct "truth," since under the scientific method everything is open to question as long as evidence can be presented.''": In theory. In practice, evolution at least is sacrosanct and not open to question.
: 6. "''That would be the great caveat, wouldn't it? ;) I think you take my point. Or I hope you do, anyway.''": Did you get my point? That the anti-Christians argue that you shouldn't teach God as truth ''because it's religion'', not ''because it's not true''. In other words, to them the truth of it doesn't matter, or else they ''presume'', without warrant, that the truth is necessarily indeterminable. My point is that the question should be ''is it true?'', not ''is it religion?''
: 7. No, sorry, you ''were not'' using it in "the colloquial sense". You specifically used the terms "empirical study" and "scientifically proven".<!-- And for those Really Wrong people: Neither did he talk about "mathematical proof" nor "logical proof", so I wasn't replying in those contexts. -->
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:32, 7 March 2008 (EST)
== Quote Mined ==
It just occured to me Aschlafly that you actually quote mined my comment in the above debate. I said -
"What I am trying to point out is that if there are other avenues (like I stated above with lunchtime bible study (or Koran study even?), school chapel etc) then there is not a need for any classroom prayer of any kind"
To which you replied -
"So your statement that "there is not a need for any classroom prayer of any kind" is a bit like saying "there is not a need for a textbook or a teacher, or for water in a desert."
Not only did just use a small section of what I said, you also took it right out of context.
I thought only liberals/evolutionists did that?
[[User:MetcalfeM|MetcalfeM]] 15:21, 6 March 2008 (EST)