Quote:
dk: Agreed, I would say we disagree but our disagreement isn’t about reason. I would like schools to teach the truth, but believe truth resonates soulfully with emotion from a complex constructive union of faith, reason, experience and law.
gravitybow: I'm still confused on whether you're advocating some kind of universal religious truth or some narrower christian truth. When you say it "resonates soulfully with emotion," only the latter fits your postings so far. Even if I agreed with your premise that this truth is derived "from a complex constructive union of faith, reason, experience and law," how in the world are schools suppose to present this? Your faith is not a Buddhist's faith is not a Hindu's faith, etc.
|
dk: In a pluralistic society the privatization of religion only isolates people to spread ignorance, suspicion and fanaticism. The impenetrable wall writes a prescription for religious bigotry. Students shouldn’t be forced to celebrate religious differences, but they can benefit by sharing universal human themes that transcend time, cultures and civilizations. For example Buddhist Shinto Shrines, Christian Easter, Hindu Nataraj, Native American’s sweat huts, etc... all symbolize rituals of renewal. If atheists/agnostics find renewal in vacations then they can share their travel experiences. In my opinion the problem isn’t truth or skepticism, but the exercise of liberty to deny the beliefs of others without a good reason.
Quote:
|
gravitybow: There's no way to distill mutually exclusive beliefs into a generalized religious truth that resonates soulfully with each individual. Its impossible to construct this type of truth from a multiplicity of competing truths. BTW, are you expecting this truth taught at school to match the truth as you've learned it in church? Wouldn't this type of education be best presented in an individual's church, synagogue, or mosque? Without equivocating religion with christianity, what are you really saying?
|
dk: I don’t want to distill anything except a more perfect union. Impenetrable walls are ill named, and at best provide a temporarily cooling off period, but not without risk and a high cost. Once isolated people may drift farther and farther apart until ignorance, fear, suspicion and hostility leaves violence to rule the day. In a sense the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans were once walls that protected the Americas from Europe and Asia, but failed. Did the Iron Curtain, Berlin Wall, Great Wall of China or the Roman built Antonine Wall protect anyone from their neighbors? To me it seems absolutely ludicrous to build artificial wall around religion to protect people form some imaginary threat. After a time a wall in and of itself can be reason enough for hate and violence.
Quote:
dk: Clearly truth isn't a simple intellectual matter that can be taught from a book. I’m not sure its possible to secularize education outside of the hard sciences without becoming a hypocrite, cynic or both.
gravitybow: Clearly this type of quasi-truth can't be taught at all. I'm not sure its posslible to add religion outside of the hard sciences without setting one faction against another if not the school system. What school needs that?
|
dk: I actually agree, public displays of religion will generate friction between diverse religious factions. But since when did friction become a justification for government action? When did it become government’s job to eliminate social friction that drives change? In a free country people don’t hide their differences, they find ways to defuse, mitigate and adapt within the context of a participatory democracy united under the law. This idea that everybody must kiss everyone else’s ass only makes a union of brown noses tainted by foul smell.
Quote:
dk: You can deny the crisis in education has anything to do with demise of the nuclear family, and that’s exactly what most secularists do, but the only advocates of the nuclear family over the last 40 years have been traditional Christians.
gravitybow:...versus...
|
dk: The alternative is to recognize the principle of subsidiarity, or that problems are best resolved at the lowest equitable level. Yes, Catholic immigrants suffered under a WASP dominated public education system. On the other hand, in response Catholic immigrants built a vast parochial school system that has become the bootstrap by which millions pulled themselves up from the depths of poverty. I doubt you’ll find a social studies book on American History that recognizes contribution because sociology focuses on centralized top down big government solutions. I grew up being taught that social reform justified violence, and when I grew up found that’s simply untrue. For example the breakup of the WARSAW nations and finally the Soviet Union was almost completely non-violent, precisely because the revolution’s leaders found the principle of subsidiarity suited to the cause of Solidarity.
Quote:
dk again:
Now it appears the nuclear family and good public schools are inextricably linked. Sad to report, but traditional religions of Judism, Muslims, Christians, Hindus, and Buddhists have been hammering out this message for 40 years. The message being, “its family stupid”.
gravitybow:.OK, which is it?
|
dk: I honestly don’t understand the question.
Quote:
dk:
You seem to think that the world will come to an end if school districts are given the liberty to resolve religious problems. I don’t think so.
gravitybow:. You don't know anything about my position. Where have I ever said or given you this impression? When I say "challenge", I don't mean "bring a lawsuit." The first thread I ever started on these forums was Fellowship of Christian Athletes invitation . I wasn't looking to start any litigation, not even close, but I never got a satisfactory resolution either. Check the date of the first post: about a week before 9-11. With the explosion of religiosity in the weeks that followed, the last thing I wanted was to raise anyone's ire. Yet the example you provided begins with a court challenge. That's not my starting point.
|
dk:. I apologize for any mischaracterization.
Quote:
dk: Many have been persuaded that the key to public education is a stable nuclear family.
...and...
By and large the Great religions all agree upon the basic secular necessities for a good life in a modern society; 1) a living family wage, 2) a moral family and community and 3) honest meaningful work. As you already know the devil is in the details.
gravitybow:. That should have been the beginning and thrust of your dialogue. The devil is indeed in the details when you factor in religious sentiments. Not everyone wants to ride on your bird wings of Faith and Reason. Keeping the devil and gods separate from the state has been the best course and a long-running victory for all parties.
|
dk:. The concern is whether a student in a public high school could fashion an essay, speech, book report or term paper on the basis of faith and reason without being censured. This is a can of worms and the constitutional courts have placed public schools in the position of being censures.
01-31-2003, 06:29 AM
