vision2020
RE: Government Schools, Modernity, & Beauty
On Thu, 6 Jun 2002, Mike Lawyer wrote:
> Subject: Re: Government Schools, Modernity, & Beauty
>
> Dear Debi, It is nice to read your letters and to see that, except for
> a few emotional outbursts, you are a very intelligent and thoughtful
> person.
Oooo. Now no getting emotional. Because we all know emotional =
irrational = bad. Did you realize that was very "modern" of you to scold
someone for some percieved "emotional outburst" and not using rationality
Why are emotionsmade to be repressed in decision making? What is inherent
about emotions that make them something we need to control, instead of
express? Why must we divorce our rational selves from our emotional
selves? Maybe if we used some emotions, like compassion and love, we
could avoid many of the world's problems.
> However, you don't seem to be reading the Dougs very carefully. Nothing
> you've said above, about freedom of choice and where you get to send your
> kids to school, has been in any way denied by the Dougs. In fact, one of
> the Dougs said he wouldn't mind if there were private schools of every
> stripe on every street corner (or something like that).
What a wonderful idea. Instead of trying to get along and work together
for the common good of humanity we can all just educate our own children.
Isn't it wonderful that Doug will allow us to start our own schools, but
he wouldn't help us with funding. I'm not impressed.
> People should get to choose where they send their kids to
> school...Hey, that's just what you said. The Dougs are also not
> disagreeing with you when you say, "worship your way while I worship
> mine." It appears to me that the problem is trying to put these two
> ideas together in the same brain.
But this doesn't excuse them from their social responsibility as members
of humanity to help educate everyone. Just because they choose to send
their children to a Christian school, doesn't mean they can cut off the
rest of world (over 60% whom are not Christian).
> Many of us have a compartmental brain. We think worship is something
> we do on Sundays and education is what we do on Monday through Friday
> early in the day. Worship and education are two different parts of
> life that never get together, or at least shouldn't ever get together.
> But what the Dougs are saying is that all of life is filled with the
> ramifications of what we think about God-worship. If we worship Allah,
> it will show up in how we live our lives-every day, all day. If we
> worship modernism, it will show up in how we live our lives-every day,
> all day. If we are Christians, it will show...oh, you get the point (I
> hope).
I agree that your beliefs can be pervasive and that all experiences can be
spiritual, and I don't think anyone is really disagreeing with the Dougs
here. We just think that the Christian way of interpreting this
spirituality is not the only way and should not dominate over others.
Just because some people aren't Christian doesn't mean they don't
understand spirituality.
> Washing dishes is a religious experience. Going to school is a
> religious experience. Chatting with friends is a religious experience.
> All of life is related to God and is religious in nature-including
> education. Since this is true, when you say that people can worship
> when they want, in the way they want, there is a basic
> misunderstanding that this means on Sunday mornings. But worship
> pervades our lives, everything we say and do is immersed in worship.
> When a woman worships the god of self-preservation and assertion and a
> Christian comes along and says that she must bow her knee to Yahweh
> and his Christ, she gets all worked up. The Christian has just
> "forced" her religious beliefs on another and this violates freedom of
> religion (or so the saying goes).
No one is saying that. "Forcing" religious beliefs would be obligating
them to go to church, or burning them at the stake (like in medival
Europe) or making them pay for a school that only looks at the world from
one view point, in this case, Christianity, with the penalty of jail if
they don't pay.
But this is exactly the kind of
> thing the Dougs are saying is happening in the government schools. The
> Christians believe that God does matter and that he does have
> something to say about all of life, and every area of life, and the
> government schools are saying that this is not so. They are making a
> religious statement and demanding that the Christians submit to their
> religious viewpoint. The Dougs agree with you that "if you don't like
> the system, get out." They would agree with you when you say that
> everyone should worship the way they want. Where they disagree with
> you is that they don't think they should have to pay for your worship.
Another example of how you are trying to cry foul by the "Intolerance of
intolerance is intolerance" argument. Although I think one thing that is
a concern the Dougs have that I would be concerned with too, from another
prespective, is the fear of religious dominance is so strong with some
people they would have discussions about religion in the classroom
totally taken out. I think its okay to discuss religion in class as long
as all (or as many as possible) religions and beliefs are given equal time
and none are said to be better than the other. Pluralism is the key here
(I won't let them turn it into a bad word).
> You should have to pay for your own worship and the Dougs should pay
> for theirs. When you require, on penalty of loss of property, that
> they pay for your religious education you are doing the opposite of
> what you espouse. You are requiring that they worship your god, or at
> least financially support your worship. While preaching freedom of
> choice, you are happily expecting that everyone pay for your choice.
> While preaching freedom of religion, you are happily expecting that
> everyone pay for your religious beliefs. The Dougs are simply trying
> to get you to see and admit that this is the case. Also, while the
> Dougs think in a certain way with respect to philosophy and religion I
> haven't noticed them trying to force you to change the way you think.
> They seem to be pretty consistently allowing you to think the way you
> want. They are just trying to get you to act consistently with the way
> you say you think. I hope I haven't made things muddier than they
> already were. But it seemed that you were missing the Dougs points and
> that maybe I could help.
>
> Mike Lawyer
Again, my point has been made previously and in other emails. No one is
trying to get anyone to think any particular way. I never felt "preached
to" (until maybe the Yahweh thing above), at least not by the Dougs. The
issue is actually much more practical in nature, how to pay for education.
The Dougs (as they respresent one side of the issue) want to be able to
educate they way they want to, and don't want to spend resources on other
ways of educating. My perspective (and that of others as I have seen from
this debate) is that, although they are welcome to start their own schools
and things (much like they have) they can't avoid still being human and
thus responsible to humanity to a degree. Part of that responsiblity is
helping everyone get an education. So the issue is paying for something,
not what people think. I don't think it ever really was.
Daniel Kronemann
Back to TOC