vision2020
Contradictions: Establishment of Atheism and/or Secular Humanism as Gov't Religion?
Hello Mr. Ted Moffet,
Even though most people will not admit their religion/belief system,
the courts have recently recognized atheism and secular humanism as
religions, and this leads to a grotesque and strange tension between
the gov't and society.
"Atheism may be a religion under the establishment clause." Malnak
v. Yogi, 1977
"Secular humanism may be a religion for purposes of First Amendment."
Grove v. Mead School Dist., 1985
Given that our country now legally recognizes atheism and secular humanism
as a religions, what happens when schools desire to remove God and
Christianity from its teachings? When schools and the government remove
God and become atheistic and/or secular humanistic, is it now not violating
it's own newly established laws regarding "separation of Church and State"?
So we find ourselves in a real state of confusion and contradictions. No
wonder people are so confused about who they are, where they came from, and
what sex they want to be. If our govt can't figure it out, why should they?
Compare this with the concept of a Christian nation. A nation that admits
it is based on Christianity finds the contradictions resolve themselves quite
nicely and a beautiful harmony exists between gov't and society where the
people can prosper and grow and pursue life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness.
"By our form of government, the Christian religion is the established
religion; and all sects and denominations of Christians are placed on
the same equal footing." Runkel v. Winemiller, 1799
Regarding a case where a school was to be created but Christianity
would not be taught. "The plan of education proposed is anti-Christian,
and therefore repugnant to the law," argued the plaintiff's lawyer.
And in a unanimous opinion the following was delivered, "...Deism, or any
other form of infidelity. Such a case is not to be presumed to exist in
a Christian country...Why may not the Bible, and especially the New
Testament... be read and taught as divine revelation in the [school]-
and its general precepts expounded, its evidences explained and its
glorious principles of morality inculcated" Vidal v. Girard's Executors,
1844
Cheers!
John Harrell
--- Ted Moffett <ted_moffett@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better
http://health.yahoo.com
Back to TOC