Re: Avoiding the question

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

Ted Moffett wrote:

> 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!

Why doesn't the question also go the other direction? Why don't you see the
ordinance opponent's appeal to the eternal, ethereal Abstraction of Equality
just as religious as those you oppose? (It's roots are very religious and
neo-Platonic.) Opponents of the ordinance invoke the ghostly Abstraction of
Equality as if it were a divine command with as much religious function and
zeal as the so-called "religious" people. The Abstraction of Equality
certainly isn't empirically verifiable and seems quite unnatural. Why don't
you demand arguments for the existence of this religious abstraction in
exactly the same way as that of the other gods? The appeal to Equality is no
less religious than the taliban. Enlightenment opponents of the ordinance
don't hesitate to invoke their religious values. It's not a question of
whether but which.


>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?
>

No, there's no need to dodge because the question has been answered
countless times here.
The official civil religion is already in place, and it's not Christianity.
It's that bland Pledge-of-Allegiance being. And Christianity does not need
politics to succeed. Politics is usually the obsession of Enlightentment
sorts who think the world runs by physical causality and coercion.
The real question is why do you want to have the government impose
Enlightenment values and force others to pay for it? (see, again, the June
discussions). Why not let each view pay its own way? Let the Enlightenment
egalitarians pay for their own schools, let the Muslims pay for their, etc.


> 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.

For a minute, I thought you were speaking about those who invoke the
Enlightenment deity of Equality to impose it on the rest of us. The
objection applies the same way. The ordinance stems more from bland
conservative Republicanism than from any explicit Christian insight. The
opposition finds it convenient to conflate things into simplistic sound
bites. I'm part of the conservative Christian community and an opponent of
the ordinance. Using law to curtail proponents of Jerry Springer culture is
futile; I favor letting your Jerry Springer culture developing into its own
self-destruction. The goal of cheapening everything beautiful ultimately
comes back to haunt its advocates. Everyone gets bored and walks away.
People learn better that way anyway. I'd like to see all your abstractions
work their contradictions and reveal their own ugliness freely.

> Isn't secular
> democratic government wonderful in its tolerance for all viewpoints?
>

How is forcing other viewpoints to fund and bow before your religious
abstractions tolerance? Come on. I thought only boring Republicans said
these sorts of things these days. Enlightenment tolerance is a facade. One
of the best quotes at the recent anti-Fred Phelps rally was the claim that
"neutrality always benefits the oppressors." Amen to that. Since Robespierre
and Lenin, tolerance has always been used as a power play. If you really
favored tolerance, you wouldn't force opponents to fund public schools.


> 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.

This only seems to work because you've probably only gone to Enlightenment
paradigm schools. Yes, it's no great leap to hear Enlightenment rehearsals
of other religions and conclude that Enlightenment values are best. No
stretch. To those of other paradigms, it looks as skewed as having Muslims
explaining the virtues of the West. Try to step out of your paradigm a bit.


> 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?

Nope. Not correct.

> Your
> statements have not revealed that I have missed anything!

Except the entire June discussions on education, neutrality, and morality.
Really, you might want to take a look. A large number of people concluded
that Descartes was a fiction. It was quite fascinating for an "education"
community.


Doug Jones