bonduca

I also have to point out that you are quoting my statement as representative of a point I was not making. I simply wanted to redirect ManM to the original statement regarding the reading of the Laramie Project.

ManM

Ab_Normal,
It's certainly something I've wasted many hours thinking about, but I'm not really sure I have a clean solution. The 'opt-out' method won't work because it opens the door for wealthy folks to use their money as a bargaining chip. "Teach 'X' or else me and my rich
buddies opt-out and suck your funding dry." The same sort of argument can be used against vouchers too. And so I think the only real solution is to enable class choice in public schools. The school would offer parallel classes which use different worldviews as
frameworks. Such a school would also foster discussion between the people in those classes and may teach them how to cooperate with people of different beliefs. Unfortunately this isn't very practical as teachers are underpaid and overworked as it is. That's why I say I haven't thought of a clean solution yet.

Bible Humper/ SCoW,
You know, the middle is not exempt from this game either. I guess the open question is: does choosing and supporting a position make you a hypocrite?

brighid,
I'd do that, but I think social relations are far more important than any particular worldview. So when the time comes, it's off to school my kid will go. It would just be nice if I could avoid having to debrief him when he got back.

Unfortunately, in practice it ridicules everyone that makes a claim which opposes the current fad (whatever that may be at the time). David Finkelstein, a physics professor at my old college, stands on the edge of theoretical physics and borders on philosophy. He has taken a lot of flak for his ideas.

I hope that day never comes too. But I also do not want to push too far the other direction. In our zeal to prevent religious oppression we must not become what we fear.

ex-preacher,
Good question. It is quite possible to draw up charts of the universe where the Earth is the center. If someone wants to teach their kids how to do this, I have no problem with it. It's all in the way you look at it.

eldar1011,
You are correct to say that naturalism and science are not the same thing. Science is a method for creating theories. Naturalism is a worldview.

But that is not the case. A naturalist would simply revise his theories to accommodate the power of our minds to start a fire. The placebo effect is well documented. This is the case of a mental state having an impact on nature and is analogous to prayer (mental state) setting kindling on fire (having an impact on nature). But surely you don't attribute the placebo effect to anything supernatural. A theist looking at the same evidence might come to a completely different conclusion about things. And if you look at it from all points of view, you will realize that evidence supports them all. Of course a naturalistic interpretation of the evidence will not support theism, and so there will always be those who say the evidence opposes theism. But in order to really attempt to
understand the way someone thinks, you have to presuppose the same things they do.

Can you even conceive of evidence from outside the bounds of the natural world? If the laws of physics completely changed tomorrow morning, I will guarantee you that naturalists wouldn't go away. Their theories might change, but their worldview would not. And yes, there is an equivalent religious method for challenging belief. The
practice is called theology, and it happens all the time. Haven't you noticed that the majority of atheistic arguments are theological in nature?

The scientific method doesn't prove anything. It can only disprove. But as I've said, theories can change without affecting a worldview. It's only a matter of creativity.

By all of science do you mean all scientific theories? No, I don't reject all of the various scientific theories. I'm not even sure I reject evolution. But I do have a problem when someone thinks science only justifies one way of looking at the world. Creationists use science too; they just have a different starting hypothesis.

Corwin,
By allowing the government to get its talons into a church's piggy bank you are weakening the divide between them. It's just so blatantly obvious that I really don't know what else to say.

Kind Bud,
No, those terms do not refer to techniques and methodologies employed by scientists. One is a worldview and the other is theory. And every science class I have ever seen teaches scientific theory. The problem comes when theory is taught as fact. As a product of creative thinking it should not be used to dull the creativity of others.
Science encourages orthodoxy (to current theories) and subservience/obedience (to teachers) as well. The old phrase "don't rock the boat" applies to science just as well as anything else. I really don't know what to say about self-loathing. I know some religions look at self-loathing as an end in itself, but that always struck me a silly.

Science is not naturalism. You can teach science without teaching naturalism. I am not in favor of abandoning science education. Science is a great pragmatic tool for creating models describing our experience. Unfortunately, some of these models compete with each other. I just want parents to have the freedom to determine which models their children are taught.

No this is not solipsism. Maybe you meant relativism?

I never said nothing is true, nor did I say everything is permitted. I cannot question my own existence. I do not know anything about Chaos Magick, but Descartes seems to have proven that statement wrong.

Uh, it would be far more hypocritical to say that something is wrong and then not say a word when it is put out in the public.

DigitalChicken,
No sir, I am not. I believe in a transcendent God Who can not be wholly identified with nature. My dualism separates God and nature, not spirit and matter. We are fully a part of nature, and so we play by nature's rules.

We observe that certain mental states have an impact on health. I'm not so sure prayer or a shamanic dance are as worthless as you suggest.

theyeti,
And that is just semantics. If something mentions something other than nature we toss it in the religion bin. If it doesn't mention God we toss it in the theory bin. But every single one of these ideas provides a way of interpreting the world. There really is not much of a difference.

Uh, I don't see them playing neutral here. From the article: "Glover, of the Family Policy Network, said his group would oppose the assignment less if the university presented 'other data' on homosexuality as part of its discussions." It looks to me that they just want their side to be heard.

Wyz_sub10,
Sorry I missed you the first time around.
Evolution and genetics are both indoctrination. The evolutionary theories I am most concerned about resemble archeology and philosophy much more than genetics. Do you think declaring a set of bones to be the missing link is more akin to genetics or archeology?

eldar1011

ManM,

Thank you for taking the time to formulate patient and civil responses. It's almost refreshing.

I will say that I agree that science is not necessarily naturalism, though the two are very closely linked. As you yourself said, you can teach one without the other.

Therefore, I'm not entirely sure what your problem is with evolution (in fact, you aren't quite sure if you even have a problem with evolution per se).

My best guess is that you wish for parents to choose which worldview should be applied to their children. It's either that or children should be taught EVERY worldview.

Frankly, I can't see how such a system can be implemented in public schools. I don't think it is at all feasible.

theyeti

Your calling it semantics is just semantics. There are well defined qualities that differentiate a scientific theory from a religious precept; not the facile interpretation that you throw on it. This is why the Supreme Court has ruled the way it has. Creationism may be "a way of interpreting the world", but it is not science, and when scientific principles are used to test it, it fails miserably. The only way it can be construed as valid is if one purposely ignores scientific reasoning and gives priority to biblical authority. Now maybe you think that all truth is relative, as creationists arguments ironically lead one to believe, but public school science classes should not be a free-for-all for anyone with "a way of interpreting the world". There are standards for judging the quality of theories, otherwise we'd still be back in the dark ages.

It's a play! A play by defintion is something that an author creates to express his or her views. Do these jackasses really want every artisitic expression to be ruined with "equal time" from any given extremist who doesn't like it, regardless of the validity of those complaints? The "other data" that the AFA talks about is all lies, just like creationism. They've made it perfectly clear why they hate homosexuality, and they hate it so much that a play which shows sympathy for a murdered gay man is denounced! Theater critics, who are notoriously difficult to appease, have given the play rave reviews; the AFA only cares about its furthering its ideology. The AFA is attempting censorship, plain and simple, and they are being disgusting hypocrites in the process.

theyeti

brighid

Here is the problem – as a private, religious organization they don’t have the right to tell a public university that it’s teachings and policies must adhere to any religious morals that aren’t in line with current scientific findings. If they are worried about their own children (which they seem to be more worried about other people’s children) they can make a case in point. They can choose to have their children removed from said university, but as men and women who are NO longer minors those “children” have the right to make their own decisions. Do they factually demonstrate that other information isn’t provided and is there any reason why this particular play MUST discuss the “other” side of the issue that the average persons is already VERY familiar with?

Furthermore, requiring the reading of a book or play is not tantamount to coercing a person to adhere to, or adopt ANY viewpoint. It is exposing them to a different view-point and their instance that a public university adhere to their religious moral grounds, by preventing the reading of this book about the life and horrendous death of a homosexual man should be seen as serious overstepping of bounds by a group that is unaffected by this action. The students, faculty and staff came to the conclusion to distribute this book so why should this organization have ANYTHING to say about it?

This group cries that reading of the book about the Quran is religious indoctrination, yet the oppose this book on “religious” grounds. How is that not forcing their religious indoctrination into a public environment? Again, a clear demonstration of their hypocrisy! Homosexuality goes against their religious teachings, so it can’t be taught in public, secular schools…. Hmmmmmm…. OK! Sure, they just want a balanced view and that’s why they are seeking to shut it down and have not offered a competing text to balance out this view.

It seems the University carefully discussed this issue and a member of the staff had this to say: “I think students need to understand that that kind of broad speech that makes an enemy of part of our population without being backed up by reason has potentially very bad consequences," said Coleman. "I'm not saying I want students to think the same way as I do about the acceptability of being gay, but I want them to think through their positions."

HOW horrible! They want people to THINK through there decisions and be presented with a side of the equation that has been summarily suppressed and that is uninformed and not based on fact... Those f*ing liberals!


Brighid

[ September 05, 2002: Message edited by: brighid ]</p>

Ab_Normal

ManM, thanks for the reply.

ManM

eldar1011,
The issue boils down to the war of ideologies. I have a problem when the option to choose is taken away. In this specific case, a college student who believes homosexuality is immoral will be coerced into reading material he might not want to be exposed to. Sure, he could drop out of college and move away. But really that is analogous to the old "This is a religious country and if you don't like it you can move to Canada" routine. I brought up naturalism and evolution to highlight the fact that we all choose our positions. Supporting those positions (and fighting against opposing ideas) is not hypocritical at all.

It is conceptually simple: have different classes which approach the same subject from different viewpoints. SCI-101A and SCI-101B would both count as a science requirement, but would be taught in different ways. The parent and/or student would be able to choose which one should be taken. As an example, when I was in college, Georgia Tech offered Calculus 3 for CS majors as an alternative to regular Calc 3. Both counted as a Calc 3 credit, but the emphasis was placed on different things. The key point is that there are options. In the case that motivated this topic, there are no options on the table. The Laramine Project is required reading.

theyeti,
Sure, falsifiability is one of those qualities. Now what would falsify evolution? When I ask this, I don't mean it on a personal level (eg what would falsify it for you). What would falsify evolution in such a manner so that no one at all would be able to say we evolved? Science works by making a hypothesis and testing it. With respect to evolution, we cannot make a definitive pass/fail test. Now if evolution is considered to be scientific, surely you must see why I don't really distinguish between science, philosophy, or religion.

Yes it is a play. It's a play that people are being forced to read. Artists don't usually impose their expressions on unwilling people. If you are going to force feed someone, at least have the decency to give them the choice what to be fed.

Censorship? They said they wouldn't be so upset if their views could be heard as well. That's not censorship, but an invitation to discussion.

Ab_Normal,
No problem.

ex-preacher

Being coerced into reading material you might not want to be exposed to is the heart of a decent college education. What are you afraid might happen to someone who actually read something they disagreed with? Afraid they might change their mind? Is your ideology that weak?

Corwin

This might be true and you might have an argument... if everyone else didn't have to pay said taxes. However, everybody else DOES have to pay these taxes. It's religious groups that get off tax free, and the rest of us have to pay higher taxes to make up for the loss. You're taking the position that the establishment clause essentially gives religious groups a free ride. This is not the case. To give religious groups a break over secular groups, (such as not taxing religious groups when secular groups are taxed) breaks down the wall of separation.

Now... supporting our society by taxing churches while eliminating taxes for everybody else would be just as bad... but expecting churches to pay their fair share of the tax burden isn't any sort of breach of the wall. It's a case of 'no special or preferential treatment for religious groups,' which is exactly what the establishment clause demands.

brighid

Man M,

If you read the article you would have read that students with moral or religious objections to the rule may be exempted from reading this. I find it unfortunate, that without ever having read the play that anyone objects to on the basis that it discusses the violence perpetrated on a man because of his sexuality. That is truly, truly sad.

It is specifically those people who should be exposed to the humanity behind the sexuality and that although you may find their inherent sexuality immoral, the disgraceful, hateful, violent way that boy was murdered should be the focus and not have his murdered pushed under the rug because, he as all men are, sinners.

It is also a COLLEGE setting, not an elementary school. There will be open and frank discussion about hatred, intolerance and the violence that stems from bigotry and ignorance. Replace homosexual with Jew, Black, woman, or child and the end result is the same. The hatred that caused the murder of Matthew Shepard was vile and wrong and THAT is what needs to be addressed. His sexual orientation, racial makeup, or anything else is IRRELEVANT to the subject at hand. It only serves to obfuscate the obvious and detracts from the ability to solve the problems that breed this kind of hatred in the 1st place. Unfortunately, the hatred of the homosexual, the hatred that dehumanizes to the point that murder is acceptable to a person just so happens to stem from your religion. That is what they are stifling.

B