Public schools in US to teach "Christian" values?

[Tricky]

As if anyone needed more evidence that the Bush II administration is trying to shove religion down our throats, The Secretary of Education Rod Paige has said that it is "important for schools to teach Christian values. " (http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/nation/1858654)

Before the apologists start shouting "he didn't say Christianity, but just their values", let me ask how Christian values differ from Jewish values or atheist values?

[ssibal]

Originally posted by Tricky
As if anyone needed more evidence that the Bush II administration is trying to shove religion down our throats, The Secretary of Education Rod Paige has said that it is "important for schools to teach Christian values. " (http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/nation/1858654)

Before the apologists start shouting "he didn't say Christianity, but just their values", let me ask how Christian values differ from Jewish values or atheist values?

I suspect the disagreement between all the denominations as to what are true "Christian values" will prevent this from happening any time soon (hopefully never).

[Advocate]

I think it was a poor choice of words. He could have said "traditional Western values" and meant the same thing but referring to culture rather than specifically religion. IMHO the religious reference was just playing to the crowd at hand. Not too smart, but not evidence of some sort of Christian conspiracy either.

[whitefork]

You'd want to ask him if "Christian values" works in conjunction with "critical thinking".

Massachusetts has this series of exams called MCAS, each of which is a hurdle for passing to the next level - details not important for the moment, but the exam has some relationship to the "no child left behind" program.

There's some controversy about "teaching to the test", so that students will be able to pass the exams, and whether that undermines the larger goal of actually educating them.

In any case, teaching to the test would, one hopes, eliminate the whole "Christian values" part of any hypothetical curriculum, unless you're going to include an ethics component to the exam.

Perhaps the Baltimore Catechism? I'd love to see how that would play out in a nice fundamentalist program.

As ssibal implies, doctrinal differences would probably kill this thing from the git-go.

One can only hope.

I'd settle for a couple values to be taught: thou shalt no beat up geeks, nor steal their lunch money, nor strongarm them for answers. Nor suspend their jockstraps from the overhead lighting.

[Mel]

Originally posted by whitefork


I'd settle for a couple values to be taught: thou shalt no beat up geeks, nor steal their lunch money, nor strongarm them for answers. Nor suspend their jockstraps from the overhead lighting.

I'd settle for that also. A little healthy respect for authority probably wouldn't cause permanent psychological damage either.

But I don't see this happening anytime soon either.

[CWL]

Originally posted by Tricky
[...] let me ask how Christian values differ from [...] atheist values?

Heh. This one would have been sure to derail the thread once upon a time. I must say, the quality of R&P has indeed improved lately...

Seriously Tricky (and I realize that I am now running the risk of derailing the thread myself so feel free to ignore me), but what do you mean by "atheist values"?

To the best of my knowledge - and as you know I consider myself an atheist - it is impossible to pinpoint any specific moral values which go along with atheism (if defined as simple "lack of belief in a god). I'm an atheist, so was Stalin. My own and Ol' Joe's values appear to differ quite a lot...

May I instead humbly propose the question "how do Christian values differ from Humanist values"?

[Brown]

I have come to the conclusion that "Christian values" is an utterly meaningless term, because no one can agree on what it means.

Honesty, integrity, trustworthiness, courtesy, tolerance, helpfulness, fair play, thrift and moderation have all been touted as "Christian values." (They are, of course, secular values and not limited to the Christian religion.)

I have, however, also heard the OPPOSITES of these values touted as "Christian values" as well.

In addition, some folks insist that "Christian values" are purely religious in nature, and pertain to faith and prayer.

But no matter what the Secretary of Education means, Barry Lynn's remark hit the nail on the head:The Rev. Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said Paige's remarks showed "an astonishing mix of disrespect for both America's religious diversity and the public schools."

[Tmy]

Hmmm let me run this through the read 'tween the lines o' meter:

::::::"Christian Values = 10 Commandments"

Oh, this used to be the land of the free... this sort of thing makes me sick. Good thing our President is a uniter and not a divider.

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by CWL
May I instead humbly propose the question "how do Christian values differ from Humanist values"?
CWL, isn't that formulation at least as problematic (for a different reason) as the other one? Humanism is so deeply rooted in Christian religious tradition in the West (Petrarch, Erasmus, More, Mirandola, Bacon and so forth) that it can rightly be said to be one of the great legacies of that tradition. Where does that leave our distinction?

[Tricky]

Originally posted by CWL
Seriously Tricky (and I realize that I am now running the risk of derailing the thread myself so feel free to ignore me), but what do you mean by "atheist values"?

To the best of my knowledge - and as you know I consider myself an atheist - it is impossible to pinpoint any specific moral values which go along with atheism (if defined as simple "lack of belief in a god). I'm an atheist, so was Stalin. My own and Ol' Joe's values appear to differ quite a lot...

May I instead humbly propose the question "how do Christian values differ from Humanist values"?
As Brown said below, the terms are basically meaningless. Values do not derive from your religion (or non-religion). Just as your atheist values differ from Stalin's, Dubya's "Christian values" differ from Jesse Jackson's. I would suspect that even humanists have a lot of points of disagreement.

[hammegk]

Jumping off the tracks completely ---

As mentioned, Values of Western Civilization sounds better, but you will be hard-pressed to differentiate those from "Christian values", imnsho.

[blackpriester]

Unfortunately, this won't be the last offense to the seperation between church and state that we have seen from this administration. it's only understandable that Pat Robertson et al want a little payback for getting young Georgie and his cronies into office...

[zakur]

To those who disagree with his position that religion has a place in the public schools, Paige replied: "I would offer critics my prayers."Gee, thanks but no thanks, you smug patronizing bastard. :mad:

[Samus]

They saved the best line for last:

To those who disagree with his position that religion has a place in the public schools, Paige replied: "I would offer critics my prayers."

Yikes!

Note that the purpose of the department of education is not to push values upon the children in public schools. In fact, history has shown us that by and large, governments do a pretty crappy job of trying to provide the moral fiber of society.

That said, I wouldn't disagree to the teaching of hard work, honesty, trust and respect in the school system. None of those principles have anything to do with Christianity, but rather, are a foundation for working with others in a multicultural society such as ours.

I, for one, am rather disappointed that he made the comments, and refuses (for the time being) to clarify or rescind them. He'll bend to political pressure, I predict within a week, and issue a statement about the issue.

Edited to add: Dang, zakur beat me to it!

[Advocate]

Would anyone have objected if he had said "traditional values of Western society"? I think a few might but much fewer, even though these same values came to Western society via Christianity and were fostered primarily by Christians. IMHO it is the religious and exclusionary nature of the comment, not the values themselves that people object to. I just wish he would save himself and the administration some trouble by correcting his comment in this way, rather than defending a poor choice of words.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Advocate
Would anyone have objected if he had said "traditional values of Western society"? I think a few might but much fewer, even though these same values came to Western society via Christianity and were fostered primarily by Christians. IMHO it is the religious and exclusionary nature of the comment, not the values themselves that people object to. I just wish he would save himself and the administration some trouble by correcting his comment in this way, rather than defending a poor choice of words.

I want to know what he means by "traditional values of Western society."

Depending on how far back you look, that "tradition" can include racial discrimination or even slavery.

Sorry, the 1950s were not such a great time if you were not a white male. I don't see it as a noble venture to return to it.

[zakur]

Originally posted by dwb
Edited to add: Dang, zakur beat me to it! Great minds think alike, but greater minds are quicker with the mouse! ;)

[Advocate]

Originally posted by pgwenthold


I want to know what he means by "traditional values of Western society."

Depending on how far back you look, that "tradition" can include racial discrimination or even slavery.

Sorry, the 1950s were not such a great time if you were not a white male. I don't see it as a noble venture to return to it.

Well the Western society bit was my line. I don't know if he would use it. I just find it less exclusive than Christian values. As for how good these values are, an example comes to mind. Nearly every society on Earth has practiced slavery at one time or another. It was this Western society that not only ended slavery within its own lands but insisted that it be ended elsewhere as well. IMHO the shortcomings you see in Western society are not limited to it, but the tradition of recognizing and correcting those shortcomings (albeit sometimes slowly) is a defining characteristic of that culture. Isn't it possible to return to the personal values of the 1950's (and previous times) without also reintroducing the prejudices of those times?

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Advocate


Well the Western society bit was my line. I don't know if he would use it. I just find it less exclusive than Christian values. As for how good these values are, an example comes to mind. Nearly every society on Earth has practiced slavery at one time or another. It was this Western society that not only ended slavery within its own lands but insisted that it be ended elsewhere as well. IMHO the shortcomings you see in Western society are not limited to it, but the tradition of recognizing and correcting those shortcomings (albeit sometimes slowly) is a defining characteristic of that culture. Isn't it possible to return to the personal values of the 1950's (and previous times) without also reintroducing the prejudices of those times?

I'm not sure I understand the difference.

In the 1950s it was considered OK by many people to discriminate against black people. How is that not a "value" of the time?

We consider it a bad prejudice now, but back then it was accepted. Back then, showing your belly button in public was bad, but it accepted now. Both reflect the values of the times.

The suggestion of having 1950s values without the prejudice basically turns into an arbitrary "pick and chose" the value you want to preserve.

The insistance on equality between black and white people is not a traditional societal value at all, but is certainly one that I hope we continue to strive for.

We need to define our values, with reference to here and now (notice that even my reference to the plight of non-white males in the 1950s is an indication of _modern_ values, and is certainly not a traditional approach)

[WMT1]

Originally posted by pgwenthold
The insistance on equality between black and white people is not a traditional societal value at all, but is certainly one that I hope we continue to strive for.

How about striving for something closer to a color-blind society, rather than insistence on anyone's idea of "equality"?


We need to define our values, with reference to here and now

Why do "we" need to define them at all? Why not just let individuals live according to their own values, to the degree that doing so does not interfere with anyone else's right to do the same?

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by WMT1


How about striving for something closer to a color-blind society, rather than insistence on anyone's idea of "equality"?


I can handle that.





Why do "we" need to define them at all? Why not just let individuals live according to their own values, to the degree that doing so does not interfere with anyone else's right to do the same? [/B]

Don't look now, but you just defined a "value."

[WMT1]

Originally posted by WMT1
Why do "we" need to do so at all? Why not just let individuals live according to their own values, to the degree that doing so does not interfere with anyone else's right to do the same?

Originally posted by pgwenthold
Don't look now, but you just defined a "value."

Um ... okay, let's try this again. What's wrong with the "value" :rolleyes: of letting individuals live according to their own values, to the degree that doing so does not interfere with anyone else's right to do the same?

[fishbob]

"All things equal, I would prefer to have a child in a school that has a strong appreciation for the values of the Christian community, where a child is taught to have a strong faith," Paige said in an interview published Monday by the Baptist Press, the news service of the Southern Baptist Convention. It is pretty clear that Paige was not talking just about traditional values of Western society.


EP sez:Good thing our President is a uniter and not a divider. Yeah - also a good thing he is not a born again twit with an agenda. That would be scary.

[Mercutio]

Maybe he need a shirt to remind him of christian values (http://www.cafeshops.com/landoverbaptist/75553) , or of Jefferson's opinion (http://www.cafeshops.com/landoverbaptist/33528) of the matter.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by WMT1


Um ... okay, let's try this again. What's wrong with the "value" :rolleyes: of letting individuals live according to their own values, to the degree that doing so does not interfere with anyone else's right to do the same?

By adding the restriction that it does not interfere with anyone else's right to do the same, you are creating a value judgement.

Now, to be clear, it's not that I disagree with your proposal, but am just noting that you are imposing a value when you require that it does not interfere with others' rights to set their own values.

This is the type of value that I think we should agree to share.

[NullPointerException]

People who can't seperate their faith from their government functions shouldn't be allowed to have power. This is the key element in forming a theology. Fill places of power with "men of faith" and then rewrite the laws to allow a theology. Look at the middle-east and southwest Asia. Whenever they get enough Muslims in one country they try and overthrow the government and establish a theocracy. I think Egypt has a problem with this right now, and Turkey just started down that path. Heck I bet Afghanistan is already well on it's way to reverting to a theology.

[CWL]

Originally posted by Tricky

As Brown said below, the terms are basically meaningless. Values do not derive from your religion (or non-religion). Just as your atheist values differ from Stalin's, Dubya's "Christian values" differ from Jesse Jackson's. I would suspect that even humanists have a lot of points of disagreement.

You are right of course. I would still argue that "atheist values" is way more hollow (in fact I would argue that it is a meaningless proposition) than "humanist values" or "christian values". This is however a parenthesis in the ongoing discussion.

Carry on, Sir.

[WMT1]

Originally posted by pgwenthold
By adding the restriction that it does not interfere with anyone else's right to do the same, you are creating a value judgement.

Is this intended as a criticism? If not, what's your point?


Now, to be clear, it's not that I disagree with your proposal, but am just noting that you are imposing a value when you require that it does not interfere with others' rights to set their own values.

So, it's somehow imposing a value to argue against the imposition of values??? :confused:

[Smalso]

I think Paige made it clear which "Christian" values he means. He is a Baptist who was speaking to Baptists and he later said:

From the article: He also said his faith is integral to his work.

[Advocate]

Originally posted by pgwenthold


I'm not sure I understand the difference.
I guess I am more referring to the values that shape our policies rather than the specifics of the policies themselves. I would say that one of these values is that of equality. This concept was enshrined in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution many years earlier and came from the Western tradition long before that. Yes, it has taken a long time to bring the idea into practice, but it was a start. What other culture made that start? What other culture ended not only slavery in its own lands but abroad? I think we may be defining "values" differently. IMHO modesty is a value. Whether or not showing the belly button is considered modest is more of a custom than a value. The particulars may change over time, but the core values IMHO should not. Unfortunately, I think we have lost a lot of our traditional values and not only the customs.
In the 1950s it was considered OK by many people to discriminate against black people. How is that not a "value" of the time?

We consider it a bad prejudice now, but back then it was accepted. Back then, showing your belly button in public was bad, but it accepted now. Both reflect the values of the times.

The suggestion of having 1950s values without the prejudice basically turns into an arbitrary "pick and chose" the value you want to preserve.
Of course. To some extent we must always "pick and choose" when trying to restore and/or preserve what was good about a past era while making things better in the current one. I am saying that we should not throw out values of our heritage simply because the customs did not live up to them.
The insistance on equality between black and white people is not a traditional societal value at all, but is certainly one that I hope we continue to strive for.
IMHO the value in that instance would be a more broad one of the equality of all people. This is one that has existed in Western culture for centuries, despite its poor implementation record. It is also one that is not often found elsewhere (although there are exceptions). There are many values like this. It is these values that I am talking about.
We need to define our values, with reference to here and now (notice that even my reference to the plight of non-white males in the 1950s is an indication of _modern_ values, and is certainly not a traditional approach)
Maybe we are just arguing definitions here. I would say our values should remain unchanged, but the way we apply them must adapt to current circumstances and we should always try to improve them. If we abandon our traditional values, then by what criteria can we measure the success of failure of our policies. IMHO it is exactly the system of values I am supporting that forced us to recognize that our policy of discrimination against non-white people was in conflict with our value of equality.

Anyway, I think this has strayed a long way from the original topic. Shall we create a new thread or is there much left to say about the original comment by Secretary Paige?

[Advocate]

Originally posted by fishbob
It is pretty clear that Paige was not talking just about traditional values of Western society.

Apparently I missed that part and was giving him too much credit. :(

[Advocate]

Originally posted by NullPointerException
People who can't seperate their faith from their government functions shouldn't be allowed to have power. This is the key element in forming a theology.

I think you mean "theocracy". And I don't think seperating one's faith from one's position is required, otherwise no one who really believes in any religion could serve in any office and that would be as much a religious test for office as any other. What I think needs to be avoided is forcing adherence to that faith on others. Unfortunately, Secretary Paige seems to have trouble with that as well.

[Kodiak]

I'm all for teaching ancestral piety and empathy. If those are "Christian" values, this agnostic/atheist doesn't care...

[Smalso]

Originally posted by Advocate


I think you mean "theocracy". And I don't think seperating one's faith from one's position is required, otherwise no one who really believes in any religion could serve in any office and that would be as much a religious test for office as any other. What I think needs to be avoided is forcing adherence to that faith on others. Unfortunately, Secretary Paige seems to have trouble with that as well.

Very well said. There are so many faiths that believe that, as a part of that faith, they must force it on others. They believe that it is God's work and by doing so, they are doing God's will.

Originally posted by Kodiak
I'm all for teaching ancestral piety and empathy. If those are "Christian" values, this agnostic/atheist doesn't care...

Filial piety is (or has been) a hallmark of Japanese society. I wouldn't mind it one bit either.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by WMT1

So, it's somehow imposing a value to argue against the imposition of values??? :confused:

You didn't just argue against the imposition of values. You have proposed allowing individuals determine their own values _provided_ that they don't infringe on others. By doing so, you have placed a value judgement on the values that they have.

Not that I disagree with your principle, but I am just saying that it is a value that we all must agree to share.

Consider, those who would like to outlaw homosexuality would not agree with the premise. Hence, you are "imposing the value" that their values are not acceptable.

[WMT1]

Originally posted by WMT1
So, it's somehow imposing a value to argue against the imposition of values??? :confused:

Originally posted by pgwenthold
You didn't just argue against the imposition of values. You have proposed allowing individuals determine their own values _provided_ that they don't infringe on others. By doing so, you have placed a value judgement on the values that they have.

Not that I disagree with your principle, but I am just saying that it is a value that we all must agree to share.

So, is that a yes or a no?


Consider, those who would like to outlaw homosexuality would not agree with the premise. Hence, you are "imposing the value" that their values are not acceptable.

Only if you want to stretch the meaning of words to the breaking point. Otherwise, all I'm doing is challenging the imposition of their values onto others. Of course, answering the question I asked might help clear this up for you.

[Lemastre]

Mentioning "Christian values" in connection with public schools quickly catches the attention of those of us who tend to be on the lookout for creationism and other religious incursions into public areas.

In Texas, and probably in other states, proposed public school textbooks are examined by a committee before being accepted. Texas buys a lot of books, and publishers will provide texts tailored to the state's wishes in various ways. Any "Christian values" to be promulgated in the public schools should also be carefully written out and submitted to the committee. They should pass local inspections, too. That way, we have a better idea of what is being taught in regard to values of that sort.

This commmittee doesn't guarantee that textbooks contain entirely accurate information, but it does monitor the sort and slant of material passed along to students. Some fundamentalists often appear before the committee to promote creationism or point out anitchristian bias, but they seem to have indifferent effect on the texts. I guess they believe they're just trying to see that Christian values get included.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by WMT1


So, is that a yes or a no?


If your position was to let everyone define their own values, then no, it would not be imposing values.

But that isn't what you have done. By imposing some restrictions onto the "acceptable" values, a necessary step, mind you, then you are by definition imposing certain values on the society.

In this case, the position that it is wrong to impose on others' rights to chose their own values is a value judgement in itself. That is not a universally accepted notion.

[WMT1]

Originally posted by pgwenthold
If your position was to let everyone define their own values, then no, it would not be imposing values.
But that isn't what you have done.

Sure it is. Sorry if you're having trouble with this, but everything I've posted is consistent with people defining their own values. The only objection is when they seek to impose them on others. You apparently continue to have trouble understanding the difference between the imposition of values, and objecting to the imposition of values.

By imposing some restrictions onto the "acceptable" values, a necessary step, mind you, then you are by definition imposing certain values on the society.

But that's not what I'm doing. The only "restriction" I'm "imposing" is that they can't impose their values on others.

In this case, the position that it is wrong to impose on others' rights to chose their own values is a value judgement in itself. That is not a universally accepted notion

Who cares? Few notions are universally accepted. Do you agree with this one, or would you like to argue against it?

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by WMT1


But that's not what I'm doing. The only "restriction" I'm "imposing" is that they can't impose their values on others.


So you are imposing _your_ restriction on them. You just admitted it.


Who cares? Few notions are universally accepted. Do you agree with this one, or would you like to argue against it? [/B]

I have said I agree with it. Not imposing on others' rights to determine their own values is a value that you and I share. But I also acknowledge that it is part of my values, and not everyone shares that view.

I have never disagreed that your position is a good one to have. My only disagreement is with your assessment that it is not a result of your value system to impose the restriction on others.

[WMT1]

Originally posted by WMT1
But that's not what I'm doing. The only "restriction" I'm "imposing" is that they can't impose their values on others.

Originally posted by pgwenthold
So you are imposing _your_ restriction on them. You just admitted it.

You seem to be looking for a "gotcha", but it's a little too early to do a victory dance just yet. Did you notice the quotation marks in my statement? I was using the word only because you did. I hardly consider restricting people from imposing their values on others to be an imposition in itself. I thought that would be clear by now.

Who cares? Few notions are universally accepted. Do you agree with this one, or would you like to argue against it?

I have said I agree with it. Not imposing on others' rights to determine their own values is a value that you and I share. But I also acknowledge that it is part of my values, and not everyone shares that view.

I'm pretty sure I haven't taken issue with these conclusions. The imposition part, however, is another matter.

I have never disagreed that your position is a good one to have. My only disagreement is with your assessment that it is not a result of your value system to impose the restriction on others.

If you're going to refer to my "assessment", please get it right. I haven't denied that support for such a restriction is a result of my values, only that such a restriction is an imposition. You yourself seemed to agree with me at one point.

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by dwb
I, for one, am rather disappointed that he made the comments, and refuses (for the time being) to clarify or rescind them. He'll bend to political pressure, I predict within a week, and issue a statement about the issue.

Looks like you were right (http://www.cnn.com/2003/EDUCATION/04/10/paige.religion.ap/index.html). Anyone expecting a retraction or apology will be disappointed, though.

[Samus]

From that CNN article:

William Bennett, education secretary under President Reagan and author of "The Book of Virtues," came to Paige's defense.

"He'd prefer to have a child in a school that has a strong appreciation for the values of the Christian community. Who's opposed to that?" Bennett said. I would be opposed to that! Most of the staunch Christians I've come across tend to be arrogant and look down upon those that do not share their beliefs. Is that the kind of attitude you want to perpetuate in public schools? If you're non-Christian, your value system is somehow wrong?

Grrr...

[hammegk]

Originally posted by dwb
...If you're non-Christian, your value system is somehow wrong?



Too many here want to shoot the messenger -- religion -- for the moral sytems that are inherent in religions. Which of the 10 commandments do you not feel is a moral value all should follow (feel free to replace god in 1,2, & 3 with "Human Ideals")?

Yeah, that darn Golden Rule --- damn Xian morals anyway. ;)


The good news is one of our leading materialists/atheists I believe is preparing The Book: Morality of Secular Humanism. Perhaps Bill will contrast & compare the differences between the ideals of Xian morality & his sec-hum ideals. (Damn people just won't follow rules, will they? :D )

[WMT1]

Originally posted by hammegk
Too many here want to shoot the messenger -- religion -- for the moral sytems that are inherent in religions.

Actually, for some of us, it's the moral authoritarianism inherent in so many religions.


Which of the 10 commandments do you not feel is a moral value all should follow?

"Thou shalt have no other gods before me."
"Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image"
"Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain."
"Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy."

Does this help?


Damn people just won't follow rules, will they?

If the only basis for a rule is someone else's religion, why should they?

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by hammegk
[B]

Too many here want to shoot the messenger -- religion -- for the moral sytems that are inherent in religions. Which of the 10 commandments do you not feel is a moral value all should follow (feel free to replace god in 1,2, & 3 with "Human Ideals")?
[/q]

"Do not have any Human Ideals before ..."
"Do not take the name of Human Ideals in vain"

Huh?

And in some cases it is ok to lie, and even kill. If your parents are bad people, I don't think that "honoring" them is all that noble of a gesture. Coveting, in fact, makes our entire economy run.



Yeah, that darn Golden Rule --- damn Xian morals anyway. ;)


Personally, I don't like the Golden Rule. It gives masochists an excuse to abuse others.

I prefer the Wiccan version: Do what ye will, but harm none.

IOW, don't do unto others that you would not have done unto you.


The good news is one of our leading materialists/atheists I believe is preparing The Book: Morality of Secular Humanism. Perhaps Bill will contrast & compare the differences between the ideals of Xian morality & his sec-hum ideals. (Damn people just won't follow rules, will they? :D )

Mine are simple. They are from the Book of Bill and Ted.

1. Be excellent to each other.
2. Party on, dudes.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by hammegk

Which of the 10 commandments do you not feel is a moral value all should follow (feel free to replace god in 1,2, & 3 with "Human Ideals")?
I covered this in some detail here (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=373421&highlight=commandment#post373421).

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Tricky

I covered this in some detail here (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=373421&highlight=commandment#post373421).

Well, gee, maybe I should have asked you ... but I didn't. :D

Originally posted by pgwenthold


"Do not have any Human Ideals before ..."
"Do not take the name of Human Ideals in vain"

Huh?
Yeah, my bad. I should have looked 'em up, realizing what a literal (mis)interpretation would be.

ONE: 'You shall have no other gods before Me.'

Redone for you: 'You shall obey no moral principles other than secular humanism.'

TWO: 'You shall not make for yourself a carved image--any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.'

Redone for you: 'A statue of the The Book is NOT the book.'

THREE: 'You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.'

Redone for you: 'Do not curse people with Secular Humanisms'. ;)

FOUR: 'Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.'

Redone for you: 'Praise the day The Book was done'.


And in some cases it is ok to lie, and even kill. If your parents are bad people, I don't think that "honoring" them is all that noble of a gesture. Coveting, in fact, makes our entire economy run.

Personally, I don't like the Golden Rule. It gives masochists an excuse to abuse others.
You approach the level of Jack Handy deep thoughts with those.


1. Be excellent to each other.
2. Party on, dudes.

See if you can get the meaning of the Golden Rule. It's exactly your 1. & 2. I'd say. :)

You know, treat others as they would like to be treated, not necessarily the way you like to be treated. Yeah I know, those masochists sure make it tough!

[Tricky]

Originally posted by hammegk

Well, gee, maybe I should have asked you ... but I didn't. :D
Well maybe you thought this was your private messages... but it isn't. :D

Yeah, my bad. I should have looked 'em up, realizing what a literal (mis)interpretation would be.

ONE: 'You shall have no other gods before Me.'

Redone for you: 'You shall obey no moral principles other than secular humanism.'
About the stupidest thing I have ever heard. You use whatever moral principles that seem right to you, regardless of the origin. In fact, refusing to use a good moral principle because it didn't come from the approved source is wrong.


TWO: 'You shall not make for yourself a carved image--any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.'

Redone for you: 'A statue of the The Book is NOT the book.'
Nope. Still not a moral principle. To what book are you referring?


THREE: 'You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.'

Redone for you: 'Do not curse people with Secular Humanisms'. ;)

How about, "don't curse people". Of course, "taking the Lord's name in vain" does not necessarily mean cursing. In my opinion, taking the Lord's name in vain includes asking God to help your football team win.


FOUR: 'Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.'

Redone for you: 'Praise the day The Book was done'.
What day is that? (and again, what book?) And how is this a moral principle?

So, ham, your question
Which of the 10 commandments do you not feel is a moral value all should follow? has been answered. At least 3 of the commandments are not moral values, and many of the others are quite situational.

[Dancing David]

From the AP on News.yahoo.com

<<Paige hastily called a news conference after growing concern about comments first reported by the Baptist Press, the news service of the Southern Baptist Convention.


"The reason that Christian schools and Christian universities are growing is a result of a strong value system," Paige was quoted as saying. "In a religious environment the value system is set. That's not the case in a public school, where there are so many different kids with different kinds of values." >>

This seems to say that really he feels that the schools problem are created by diversity. They are not caused by lack of funding created by white flight to the suburbs, nor are they caused by the religious fight with science.

This guy is Toady Supreme for the Great Poo-Bah

peace
dancing david

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Tricky

About the stupidest thing I have ever heard.
Thnak goodness for the about, but what do you cite as "more stupid"? (Please don't use one of your own posts -- no fun there.)

You use whatever moral principles that seem right to you, regardless of the origin. In fact, refusing to use a good moral principle because it didn't come from the approved source is wrong.

Er, duh ... that's my point. Some folks aren't even willing to admit a principle exists since they don't like the source.


Nope. Still not a moral principle. To what book are you referring?
Please pay attention. The Book, Bill's book: Morality of Secular Humanism (I haven't heard lately how its going though; probably still a work in progress -- maybe still just planned. :D )


How about, "don't curse people". Of course, "taking the Lord's name in vain" does not necessarily mean cursing. In my opinion, taking the Lord's name in vain includes asking God to help your football team win.
I really do enjoy people who take things so literally. Don't you?


What day is that? (and again, what book?) And how is this a moral principle?
OK, I give up. It isn't. Perhaps something better will occur to one of us so we don't have to scrap it.

So, ham, your question
has been answered. At least 3 of the commandments are not moral values, and many of the others are quite situational.

Thanks for the input, Tricky. ;)

[Checkmite]

If you disregard the ones about God, the Ten Commandments aren't really all that bad.

But the problem is, the Ten Commandments aren't the end-all, be-all of Christianity. There are many other interpretations as to what exactly "Christian values" are; for some, these include "righteous" intolerance. Ask Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell their idea of "Christian values".

And yes, I know for certain that Robertson and Falwell don't represent the majority of Christians in the world, or even in the United States. So aren't I building a strawman? Why even mention them?

I mention them, because they undeniably do represent the majority of people who decry the "secularization" of the United States and push actively for the introduction of their take on religion into public schools. It is their idea of "Christian values" that will be forced on our kids.

That is unacceptable.

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Originally posted by Tricky
.... the Bush II administration is trying to shove religion down our throats

Open wide!:p

I am glad I live in a largely secular country (Canada). The separation of church and state is cherished here. Sometimes the occassional politician lets his religious views or faith guide his platform and policies, but most people are quick to realize what their motivations and biases are.

Americans have a situation at the moment where the people in the most religious western democracy in the world have to decide: How much leeway are we going to give the current adminstration in allowing the merging of church and state?
How much leeway are Americans going to give their politicians when they merge statements of faith into their policies?

Consider:

the need for Bush to all but declare that the US is God's champion in the war on terrorism and against anti-democratic nations.

Bush all but declares the US will defeat the Evil in this world because God is on the side of (the Godly) GOOD, the coalition of the willing, and democracy (I did not know the three were synonomous).

Bush prays publicly, and there appears to be a growing incursion of Bush's faith in his policies and his public addresses, assuring all that he, his administrations policies, administration, and actions are godly.

BTW Thank you Ipecac for posting the link to

http://www.suntimes.com/output/eb-feature/cst-edt-ebert05.html (http://)

in your thread called :

Ebert on the pledge issue

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by dwb
They saved the best line for last:

To those who disagree with his position that religion has a place in the public schools, Paige replied: "I would offer critics my prayers."

Yikes!



...feel....compelled....to...go...to...church..... must....praise...the....lord.....

What is happening to me, what strange force is acting up me?

[fsol]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/feature/story/0,13026,933055,00.html

The battle for American science
Creationists, pro-lifers and conservatives now pose a serious threat to research and science teaching in the US, report Oliver Burkeman and Alok Jha

[BillyTK]

On the one hand, the great social reforms of the UK over the past few centuries were the result of people imposing their Christian beliefs onto others--at least by acting on the belief that all men are equal in the eyes of God--which led to the repeal of slavery and to laws to improve workers' conditions.

But on the other hand, these people didn't attempt to impose complete obedience to their faith as a condition of those reforms. There's an irony that a leader who has gone to war on fundamentalist theocratic dictatorships is attempting to create similar conditions back home...

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by BillyTK
On the one hand, the great social reforms of the UK over the past few centuries were the result of people imposing their Christian beliefs onto others--at least by acting on the belief that all men are equal in the eyes of God--which led to the repeal of slavery and to laws to improve workers' conditions.

But on the other hand, these people didn't attempt to impose complete obedience to their faith as a condition of those reforms. There's an irony that a leader who has gone to war on fundamentalist theocratic dictatorships is attempting to create similar conditions back home...
How can you say that equality of all men is a "Christian belief" when it was not accepted by a very large number of Christians throughout history?

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin

How can you say that equality of all men is a "Christian belief" when it was not accepted by a very large number of Christians throughout history?

Besides, is the "equality of men" acceptable? What about women?

It is certainly clear that the equality of women is not a "Christian value" (especially if you read the bible - yes, the New Testament).

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin

How can you say that equality of all men is a "Christian belief" when it was not accepted by a very large number of Christians throughout history?

...because it was accepted, and acted upon, by a group of christians known as the Society of Friends, or the Quakers.

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by BillyTK

...because it was accepted, and acted upon, by a group of christians known as the Society of Friends, or the Quakers.
But slavery was accepted, and acted on by many Christian groups. Is that also a Christian value?

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by pgwenthold


Besides, is the "equality of men" acceptable? What about women?
Our ancestors didn't understand PC language ;). From religioustolerance.org (http://www.religioustolerance.org/quaker.htm):
every person - male or female, slave or free is of equal worth

It is certainly clear that the equality of women is not a "Christian value" (especially if you read the bible - yes, the New Testament).
Well, again according to religioustolerance.org, Jesus was a bit of a gender revolutionary (http://www.religioustolerance.org/cfe_bibl.htm), but it seems subsequent Christians were a little more... conservative in their views and chose to ignore this side of his teachings.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin

But slavery was accepted, and acted on by many Christian groups. Is that also a Christian value?

I don't know. Did those christian groups promote slavery as part of their christian beliefs?

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by BillyTK

Our ancestors didn't understand PC language ;). From religioustolerance.org (http://www.religioustolerance.org/quaker.htm):


Um, nice and all that, but not very biblical. Paul is _very_ clear about his view of women, and it isn't nice.



Well, again according to religioustolerance.org, Jesus was a bit of a gender revolutionary (http://www.religioustolerance.org/cfe_bibl.htm), but it seems subsequent Christians were a little more... conservative in their views and chose to ignore this side of his teachings.

That's because they were in fact listening to the teachings of Paul.

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin

How can you say that equality of all men is a "Christian belief" when it was not accepted by a very large number of Christians throughout history?
I think it's useful here to distinguish values from beliefs and practices. While plenty of Christians throughout history have practiced slavery, in fairness to the Christians I don’t think slavery can properly said to be a Christian value, or a “value” at all for that matter, in the sense of a prized quality or abstract principle that influences our conduct insofar as we apply it to the facts and circumstances of our lives. Even the belief that slavery is ethical is not a value per se; it’s a moral assessment – a conclusion resulting from an attempt to apply abstract values to concrete issues. The conclusion is obviously flawed, but need the flaw inhere in the value?

Individual human dignity has always been a Christian value, for example, based on the precept that human souls are created equal in dignity before God. However, the proper application of this principle has been hampered at various times in history by combining it with deficient factual premises (e.g., blacks aren’t really human beings) or errors in reasoning (e.g., that the principle of equality of souls before God need not imply equal treatment of individuals in society). Thus, slavery in the Christian world did not result from a faulty value; rather, it was a case of underdeveloped moral reasoning and scientific understanding preventing a legitimate value from being properly applied.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by pgwenthold


Um, nice and all that, but not very biblical. Paul is _very_ clear about his view of women, and it isn't nice.

But Jesus was very clear about his, and the Quakers are even more clear about theirs. Which is the point I was making :p

That's because they were in fact listening to the teachings of Paul.

What a b@st@rd, eh? Even though Paul seems confused (http://www.religioustolerance.org/nfe_bibl.htm) on what his teachings of women are:

...most liberal theologians have concluded that many of the writings attributed to Paul and Peter were in fact written by anonymous authors, often long after Paul and Peter died. They base these conclusions on internal evidence, and references to the books by other Christian leaders.
[...]
If we accept the interpretation of many liberal theologians, then some of the books attributed to Peter and Paul were actually written much later by anonymous authors. Thus, many of the anti-female passages attributed to Peter and Paul actually reflect the policies of the developing church, as late as 150 CE - almost a century after Paul's death.

Edited to fix tags

[Kodiak]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin

How can you say that equality of all men is a "Christian belief" when it was not accepted by a very large number of Christians throughout history?

I believe "equality of all men" became a standardized christian belief right around the time of the Crusades. ;) :D

[hammegk]

http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/bminiter/?id=110003339

What Mr. Paige actually said wouldn't seem all that controversial to mainstream Americans: "All things being equal, I would prefer to have a child in a school where there's a strong appreciation for values, the kind of values that I think are associated with the Christian communities, and so that this child can be brought up in an environment that teaches them to have strong faith and to understand that there is a force greater than them personally."

Shall I start a poll to see how many atheists raise their hand to proclaim "there is no greater force than me (that is, whoever is speaking) personally"?

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by hammegk
http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/bminiter/?id=110003339



Shall I start a poll to see how many atheists raise their hand to proclaim "there is no greater force than me (that is, whoever is speaking) personally"?

For the most part, it's dad with the belt.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by hammegk
http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/bminiter/?id=110003339



Shall I start a poll to see how many atheists raise their hand to proclaim "there is no greater force than me (that is, whoever is speaking) personally"?
There are lots of "forces" greater than me. Heck, a measly old atomic bomb has significantly more force than me.

But we are talking about morality, not force. From what "higher force" do you get your morality?

While probably unintentional, Paige has clearly made his position known that he things that Christianity is a greater source of morality than other religions and beliefs.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Tricky

While probably unintentional, Paige has clearly made his position known that he things that Christianity is a greater source of morality than other religions and beliefs.

Actually, he did not. He did state that, other things being equal, values "associated with the Christian communities" are worthy as a background for teaching.

Also from the cited article:
Public-school students would be able once again to read and openly debate the letter Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptist Association on Jan. 1, 1802, in which he described the First Amendment as a "wall of separation between church and state." Responding to a letter from the Baptists complaining about Congress and state governments declaring days of prayer and fasting, Jefferson argued that the First Amendment permits government-supported religious expression, which, he argued, in no way interfered with the Baptists' right to believe or practice their religion. Jefferson--the deified deist of the left--ended the letter: "I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessings of the common Father and Creator of man."

LOL at those who think Jefferson was not religious, and that religion & politics can and do breach the "wall", since that appears how he felt it should be.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by hammegk
Actually, he did not. He did state that, other things being equal, values "associated with the Christian communities" are worthy as a background for teaching.

Well that just makes his position worse, Hammegk. It indicates that Paige believes that even if other communities are just as moral and ethical, in fact are in all other ways identical to Christian communities (that's what "all other things being equal" means), the "values" of the Christian community somehow make them better.

[Smalso]

I personally don't give a rat's ass what Jefferson or any of the other "founding fathers" believed. The simple fact is that the United States cannot and must not have an official state religion or any system that smacks of it. Paige was out of line, bigtime.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Tricky

Well that just makes his position worse, Hammegk. It indicates that Paige believes that even if other communities are just as moral and ethical, in fact are in all other ways identical to Christian communities (that's what "all other things being equal" means), the "values" of the Christian community somehow make them better.

No, I don't agree with your assessment on that either.

But go ahead & tell me, what other "community values" would you rather see in US schools? And why are those "in all other ways identical to (the values of) Christian communities"?

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by hammegk


No, I don't agree with your assessment on that either.

But go ahead & tell me, what other "community values" would you rather see in US schools? And why are those "in all other ways identical to (the values of) Christian communities"?

I prefer the values of Bill & Ted:

1) Be Excellent to Each Other
2) Party On, Dudes!

Or perhaps, the Wiccans:

Lest ye harm none, do as ye will

In fact, the Wiccan creed is preferably to the golden rule, which gives masochists free reign to abuse others.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by pgwenthold


I prefer the values of Bill & Ted:

1) Be Excellent to Each Other
2) Party On, Dudes!

Or perhaps, the Wiccans:

Lest ye harm none, do as ye will

Do you think the source of these ideas as expressed might have been xianity? I suspect so.

In fact, the Wiccan creed is preferably to the golden rule, which gives masochists free reign to abuse others.

And here I thought the Golden Rule wanted one to treat others as they wished to be treated, not as oneself likes to be treated.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by hammegk


Do you think the source of these ideas as expressed might have been xianity? I suspect so.

No, it was Bill and Ted.




And here I thought the Golden Rule wanted one to treat others as they wished to be treated, not as oneself likes to be treated.

Then you apparently do not know the Golden Rule:

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

[hammegk]

Originally posted by pgwenthold

No, it was Bill and Ted.
Er, ok. If you believe that, no problem to me.



Then you apparently do not know the Golden Rule:

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
Even better than knowing it, I actually understand what it says. Your interpretation has caused a lot of heartache, I'll agree.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by hammegk


No, I don't agree with your assessment on that either.

But go ahead & tell me, what other "community values" would you rather see in US schools? And why are those "in all other ways identical to (the values of) Christian communities"?
It was Paige who used the term, "all other things being equal", not I. As to community values, well there is a lot of variability in "Christian Communities". Some of these CCs have very low tolerance for other religions, which I consider a negative value. However, as we all know, the thing that makes a school good is community, and especially parental involvement. Again, I see a mixed bag among CCs. Some are good, some not so good, very much like any other type of community. What I want to know is what is special about Christianity that makes their schools better than the otherwise equal non-Christian schools.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by hammegk

Even better than knowing it, I actually understand what it says. Your interpretation has caused a lot of heartache, I'll agree.


In the context in which JC used it, it is clear that the comparison was to be made against oneself.

"Love they neighbor as thyself."
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

JC understood that people need to refer to themselves in order to learn how to treat others. People love themselves, and know how they want to be treated. He advises then treating others the same way, with yourself as a reference.

How much should you love others? As much as you love yourself.
How should you treat others? As you want them treat you.

The Wiccans, otoh, make the same realization but they use the passive approach.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Tricky

.... What I want to know is what is special about Christianity that makes their schools better than the otherwise equal non-Christian schools.

Gee, I think what you'd really like to discover is that an xian school is worse.

Look around at the children you know -- compare the result of schooling with xian values to schooling in sectarian institutions -- and draw your own conclusions. Then put your money where your mouth is in which group of kids you'd rather associate with, hire, promote, etc.

Originally posted by pgwenthold


In the context in which JC used it, it is clear that the comparison was to be made against oneself.

"Love they neighbor as thyself."
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
Ok, we can agree to disagree. Which method do you suppose works best in practice. (Isn't there something about the plank in your own eye before you complain to the neighbor about the mote in his?)

[Mercutio]

Tricky & hammegk--as i understand it, one difference between Xian and public schools is that public schools have more mandates--they can't kick out the behavior-problem kid, they can't refuse to school the special-needs kid. Oh, but they can recruit the top scholars and athletes with scholarships...but of course, this has nothing to do with Xian values, only with winning football games.

I would like to see, if the voucher-types get their way, the Xian schools play by the same rules. Hey, maybe they will win--I wish them well. Until then, we cannot say, because they are servicing two very different populations.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Mercutio
Tricky & hammegk--as i understand it, one difference between Xian and public schools is that public schools have more mandates--they can't kick out the behavior-problem kid, they can't refuse to school the special-needs kid. Oh, but they can recruit the top scholars and athletes with scholarships...but of course, this has nothing to do with Xian values, only with winning football games.
Correctamundo!. Private schools do not have to deal with problem children. They can simply kick them out. Public schools do not have this luxury (except in extreme cases).

Secular private schools can also do this. If we were to observe the results between secular private schools versus parochial private schools, you might come to the conclusion that people with money have better values. Certainly their children perform better on tests.

But I grew up in the Bible Belt (Alabama). At least 90% of the childeren came from Christian homes. The few that didn't (a few Jews and a few of various oriental religions) performed at least as well, and usually better than the "Christian" children. Now you can argue that Southern Baptists don't infuse children with proper "Christian values" if you like, but if you get to pick and choose which Christian values are okay, then you are skewing the result.

So what about it, Ham? Do children of Christian parents do better in public school than children of non-Christian parents? According to Rod Paige, they should.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Tricky

So what about it, Ham? Do children of Christian parents do better in public school than children of non-Christian parents? According to Rod Paige, they should.

Neither I nor Mr. Paige made any such declaration. Nice shift from a discussion of "values" to how well individuals apply or mis-apply them.

Still your turn:
"Look around at the children you know -- compare the result of schooling with xian values to schooling in sectarian institutions -- and draw your own conclusions. Then put your money where your mouth is in which group of kids you'd rather associate with, hire, promote, etc."

BTW, the disaster in public school systems, imo, is one result of multiculture secular humanism pressure to dilute all value sets to equality and meaninglessness.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by whitefork
...........................

Nor suspend their jockstraps from the overhead lighting.

Or at minimum, not with them in it...:D