RE: Government Schools, Modernity, & Beauty

["Doug Jones" <credenda@moscow.com>]

Melynda Huskey wrote:

> I think we've arrived at the fundamental point of disagreement here,
and it
> is an obdurate one.  The Dougs, if I may so denominate them, argue
from the
> position that every system or institution manifests a theology,
whether it
> acknowledges it or not.  Consequently, "modernity" or
"Post-Enlightenment
> thought"  becomes a de facto theological system indictable for
hypocrisy . . . 
>Any further discussion seems unlikely to get beyond the hectoring
stage--"Just admit >that you've got an ugly stealth theology," "No,
*you* just admit that non-theological >systems are possible."
> 

Well, the hint is well taken, so I'll be brief.

If the only problem is language, I don't mind what you call theological
systems -- whether philosophical systems, metanarratives, worldviews, or
whatever. They all have the same features and function the same way. And
it's hard to agree that we've come to an obdurate standoff when
Modernists just decline to answer. 

My question is sincere: can you provide a distinction between a religion
and a philosophical system that does not already assume that Modernity
is THE true worldview? We've only heard assertions, no arguments. I'm
genuinely interested in hearing a nonquestion-begging distinction. An
awful lot of local power politics assumes this can be done.

By just ignoring the question and encouraging one part of us to play
"Plantation Politics" with levies over the other is really an unhealthy
way to build a community. It will just divide local communities even
further over the coming years, all in the name of tolerance. This is no
longer the 1830s. 

Doug Jones