Avoiding the question, Contradictions: Establishment of Government Religion?

["Ted Moffett" <ted_moffett@hotmail.com>]

Doug Jones et. al.

Regarding your claim that I am "punishing the list" by not following past 
discussions, let me assure you I am fully aware of the parameters of these 
debates, and have for years heard the same arguments you are making.  Your 
statements have not revealed that I have missed anything!

Allow me to explain!

My question about the public schools was just an example of one way among 
many that an official government religion could be mandated.  Using religion 
to mandate style of dress is another, like Islamic countries which mandate 
the veil for women in public, a clear case of official government religion 
controlling people by law.  Hmmmmm.... there couldn't be a parallel here in 
the case of the new nudity ordinance in Moscow, could there?  Of course not!

But I will respond to your statements about education.
It appears from your answer that if you do not think Christianity should be 
taught in the public schools, that you do not support establishing an 
official government religion?  You seem to dodge the question by simply 
saying that you don't believe in public schools, because education is 
"inherently religious."  So I must ask my simple question again which was 
the whole point of bringing up teaching an official government religion in 
the public schools:

Do you support establishing an official government religion?

You seem to miss the logic in the context of this discussion, which is that 
there are people who do not want certain relative Christian values of one 
particular sect of Christianity (there is great disagreement among 
Christians as to the details of Christian morals and practices, just talk to 
a Catholic or a Baptist or a Lutheran etc. and find out) to be controlling 
government in a manner that suppresses the civil rights etc. of other 
religions or viewpoints.  Applying this statement to our current debate 
about the Moscow nudity ordinance, which you seem to forget is what this 
discussion is about, there are many in the Moscow community who disagree 
with what they perceive as a heavy handed attempt by one viewpoint (a 
particular branch of Christianity) to push it's agenda on the whole 
community.  Everyone has a right to promote their viewpoint in a Democracy, 
ideally, so we are equal in this respect, don't you agree?  Isn't secular 
democratic government wonderful in its tolerance for all viewpoints?

But really you contradict yourself when you say that "Education is 
inherently religious and the current "neutral" enlightenment worldview ... 
should not be imposed..." and then state that no religion should be taught 
in public schools.  For one thing, the so called "neutral" enlightenment 
worldview is anything but neutral on many issues.  This is a misstatement of 
your oppositions viewpoint, one of the most common tactics to win a debate.  
But I'll put that aside for the moment to ask how can you make such a strong 
statement about how education should proceed and then not advocate reform of 
the public schools to stop what you state is the wrong approach to 
education?  Do you mean to say you don't care that the children in the 
public schools are receiving an education that you clearly state is 
seriously flawed?  The public schools are not going to be dismantled, as you 
seem to hope.  What if a large percentage of the population wanted an 
education that offers religious diversity of teachings in the public 
schools, where children learn about all the worlds major religions, where 
every student's religious background is respected and taught?  This approach 
has always seemed to me to offer the best education about the real world we 
live in than either teaching only one "true" religion in a doctrinaire 
religious school or teaching no religion at all.  And it fulfills your wish 
to have education involve religion when you stated that "education is 
inherently religious."  I completely agree that religion should be taught in 
the public schools: all religions in great detail with a emphasis on empathy 
and understanding of all spiritual traditions, which all have profound 
values and insights to offer!!!!

Would you support the public schools if the teaching of a wide range of 
religious viewpoints and practices in the public schools was part of the 
regular curriculum?   I suspect not.  I suspect that you believe that only 
your set of religious values are the correct ones, and teaching children to 
respect all religious viewpoints would lead to moral chaos.  Am I correct?  
But is it not possible to find a moral core of commonality among the world's 
religions?  A large subject I will not explore now, but the question is 
worth investigation.

Ted

as "\>From: "Doug Jones" <redenda@moscow.com>
>To: "'Vision 20/20'" <vision2020@moscow.com>
>Subject: RE: Establishment of Government Religion?
>Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2002 15:35:49 -0400
>
>Ted Moffett wrote:
>
> > To give a specific example: Do you think Christianity should be
>mandated to
> > be taught in the public schools as the official religion of the USA?
>I
> > think this would be an excellent test of whether you support a true
> > government mandated RULE by the Christian religion.  Or do you support
>the
> > teaching off all religions in the public schools, assuming you would
>support
> > the teaching of any religion at all.
>
>Ted, you apparently missed a long laborious discussion on this topic
>earlier in the summer. You may want to check the archives so as not to
>punish the list more. The short answer for some of us, no, no mandated
>Christianity in the public schools because the government should not be
>in the public school business in the first place. Education is
>inherently religious, and the current "neutral" Enlightenment worldview
>it assumes should not be imposed on other religions either.
>
>Doug Jones
>




_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com