Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site bunker.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!ucbvax!decvax!ittatc!bunker!garys
From: garys@bunker.UUCP (Gary M. Samuelson)
Newsgroups: net.politics,net.religion
Subject: Re: Re: "Secular Humanism" banned in the US Schools.
Message-ID: <952@bunker.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 23-Aug-85 16:48:58 EDT
Article-I.D.: bunker.952
Posted: Fri Aug 23 16:48:58 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 25-Aug-85 02:05:50 EDT
References: <4141@alice.UUCP> <938@bunker.UUCP> <1544@pyuxd.UUCP>
Organization: Bunker Ramo, Trumbull Ct
Lines: 173
Xref: watmath net.politics:10633 net.religion:7467

I don't know why I am taking the time to respond to Rich Rosen,
but I am.

> Leave it to Samuelson, the man who joined this newsgroup with an article
> about how he thought this country just wasn't Christian enough for him,
> saying that Christians were made an example of by not being given special
> treatment.  No matter.

Mr. Rosen becomes quite upset at what he calls "twisting" of his words.
I wonder if anybody *really* believes that his summary of my initial
article to this group is a fair statement of what I said.  What I
remember (and it has been a while) saying is that Christians were,
in some cases, not being allowed the freedom to worship (one example
was that Bible studies in private homes were being considered illegal,
according to zoning ordinances).  Other people responded that adherents
of other religions were subject to the same sort of harassment.  I
guess Mr. Rosen thinks I want Christians to be free to worship, and
others to be harassed.  Or he wants other people to think that that
is what I want.  Well, I suppose that that is what he wishes to
believe.

> The real irony here is who gets to decide what things involve secular
> humanism...

I, for one, will read documents like the Humanist Manifesto to find
that out (thanks to whoever posted that, by the way).

> ...Of course, the Christians in power.

The Christians are not in power, Mr. Rosen; they don't even constitute
a majority in this country.

> I doubt that they will simply stop
> teaching math and science in general.  Or will they?

We were talking about the religion (philosophy, if you prefer, or
world-view, or belief system) known as humanism.  Math and science
are subjects which can be taught by adherents to any such system.

> Perhaps this is a great boon in disguise.  Let's let everyone teach their
> own beliefs.

Say, now that's a radical idea.  What a shame that Mr. Rosen is
not suggesting it seriously.

> Christians can teach only religious babble, and so-called
> secular humanists can teach science, math, learning, objective investigation,
> and logical thinking.
> Of course, the opposing belief may not be taught.

I know Mr. Rosen will not believe this, but Christianity is not
opposed to science, math, etc.  Nor will he believe that science,
math, etc. are *not* inherently part of the philosophy of secular
humanism.

> I give Christianity no more than three generations to die out completely
> once the Christian children have stopped learning some real substantive
> learning.

How often the demise of Christianity has been predicted, and how
disappointed those making such predictions must have been.

> But seriously, I doubt they will excise secular humanism completely.
> They will continue to teach the dreaded mathematics and science.

Which are not part and parcel of secular humanism, no matter what
you wish to believe.

> It's just "certain" ideas that the anti-human people don't like that
> will suffer.

"Anti-human"?  I used to have a list of pejoratives Mr. Rosen uses,
but I abandoned the effort in favor of more productive uses of my
time.  Are you aware that the use of such terms makes people tend
not to pay attention to the other things you say?  Do you care?

> It's little more than an excuse to ban books, censor,
> and teach children to be willingly led zombies.  And Samuelson is reveling
> in it.  Need I say more?

Personally, I think your articles would be more effective if you said
less.  Cut down on the heat, and the light might be clearer.

And I don't think reveling is the right word; if I did, I would
have used it.  I said I found it ironic.  My dictionary doesn't
mention the connection between the two terms.  Actually, I don't
think the government should be in the education business.

> The question is:  when faced with equal time for two forms of learning and
> thought (1. believe on faith;  2. use objective reasoning), what basis
> do you teach the children to use in order to decide which one to go
> with? Objective analysis of the two possibilities?  Or faith that the (1.)
> MUST be right.

Mr. Rosen, of course, has an unshakable faith that objective reasoning
is the one which should be used.  On what other grounds could one
possibly say, "Objective reasoning MUST be right" ?  The pot cannot
contain itself.

The argument is clearly circular; to choose between faith and reasoning
(which I consider a false dichotomy in the first place), one must
first decide which to use to make the choice.

> Dealing with radical religionists like Samuelson on this
> issue is like resolving a debate between a reasonable child and a brat
> fighting over a cake.  The reasonable child says "We should each get half".
> while the brat says "I want it all".

Which child is being reasonable and which a brat depends on whose
cake it was in the first place, does it not?

I wonder what a "radical religionist" is.

> Do you "compromise" by giving the
> reasonable child a fourth and the brat the rest?  Or do you accept the
> reasonable solution?

Obviously, the reasonable solution is to believe some things on faith
and others on the basis of objective reasoning.  That, of course, is
what people really do.  For a trivial example, I maintain that each
person accepts on faith the fact of his own existence.  No objective
reasoning can take place without the implicit assumption that the
reasoner exists to do the reasoning.  As I said, a trivial example;
no doubt each person has a myriad of things he accepts without
proof (i.e., on faith -- "the assurance of things hoped for; the
conviction of things not seen").

> Certainly the notion that some people choose to believe
> in a god should be taught in schools.  But in addition students should be
> taught to use the reasoning tools that will enable them to evaluate and
> make a rational decision about such issues.

And Mr. Rosen, no doubt, would like us to believe that he could
(and would?) present such issues as belief in God objectively.
Not likely.

> Maybe that's what the religionists are really scared of
> and the real reason they want "secular humanism" excised
> from school learning:...

To claim to know what "religionists" (I forget -- did you ever
define that term?  I think you did, and I denied that I fit
the definition you invented, which of course had no effect
on your propensity to use it) are "really" scared of and the
"real" reason they want what they want is just a tad presumptuous.
Some Christians are concerned that some people with authority in
the public school system want to undermine the beliefs these
Christians have attempted to teach their children.  (I wonder
where they would get such an idea -- from people who "revel"
in the prospect of wiping out religion within three generations?)

Now, Mr. Rosen doesn't think that parents should have a say
in what their children are taught -- mustn't "impose" on them,
you know -- so the only alternative is that the state should
mandate what everyone is taught.  No thanks.

> ...to teach such
> "secular humanism", such heinous horrible methods of reasoning leading
> to horrible non-religious conclusions,...

It is not surprising that a philosophy which rejects religion
out of hand leads to non-religious conclusions.

> ...would effectively wipe out
> religion by the middle of the next century.

Mr. Rosen's desire to wipe out religion is quite clear.  Once that
is accomplished, he will find that there are people who disagree
with him on other issues.  Then, I suppose he (or his successors)
will endeavor to wipe out these other undesirable thought patterns.

Gary Samuelson
ittvax!bunker!garys