Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxd.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) Newsgroups: net.politics,net.religion Subject: Re: "Secular Humanism" banned in the US Schools. Message-ID: <1544@pyuxd.UUCP> Date: Sun, 18-Aug-85 18:38:17 EDT Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1544 Posted: Sun Aug 18 18:38:17 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 23-Aug-85 07:18:16 EDT References: <4141@alice.UUCP> <938@bunker.UUCP> Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week Lines: 63 Xref: watmath net.politics:10523 net.religion:7427 > Regarding the statute to ban the teaching of "Secular Humanism" > in schools which receive federal money: > > I found it quite ironic (but then, I have been > seeing irony a lot recently). Didn't the Supreme Court > recognize Secular Humanism as a religion not too long ago? > And didn't the same Court find that the Establishment clause > prohibited federal funded schools from teaching religion > (or was it just Christianity)? And wasn't that ruling the result > of the efforts of the Secular Humanists? > > But if my perceptions are correct, then there is no need to > pass a new law; the teaching of Secular Humanism should already > be illegal. > > In either case, it would be quite consistent to forbid Secular > Humanism in public schools. > > Gary Samuelson 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. The real irony here is who gets to decide what things involve secular humanism. Of course, the Christians in power. I doubt that they will simply stop teaching math and science in general. Or will they? Perhaps this is a great boon in disguise. Let's let everyone teach their own beliefs. 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 give Christianity no more than three generations to die out completely once the Christian children have stopped learning some real substantive learning. But seriously, I doubt they will excise secular humanism completely. They will continue to teach the dreaded mathematics and science. It's just "certain" ideas that the anti-human people don't like that will suffer. 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? 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. 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". Do you "compromise" by giving the reasonable child a fourth and the brat the rest? Or do you accept the reasonable solution? 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. Maybe that's what the religionists are really scared of, and the real reasion they want "secular humanism" excised from school learning: to teach such "secular humanism", such heinous horrible methods of reasoning leading to horrible non-religious conclusions, would effectively wipe out religion by the middle of the next century. -- "Do I just cut 'em up like regular chickens?" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr