Killing Innocent Children?Tax Exempt? Public School Children Pledge Under God!

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

Mr. Wilson. et. al.

First, you did not tell me what war the USA has fought that you supported.  
You have strict moral absolutes against killing innocent children, if I have 
understood you correctly, yet in many wars innocent children are killed in 
large numbers.  What war have you supported?
WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Gulf War, the current war in Afghanistan?

I'm sorry, but apparently our discussions have not matured to the point 
where you will answer a simple question?  As I stated, I am only interested 
in "honest debate based on facts and logic," but when I cannot receive the 
relevant facts, the debate cannot continue with "best results."

I am only attempting, with my tiny nearly powerless words, to persuade, not 
coerce, with facts and logic.

Concerning abortion clinics committing murder, Mr. Wilson knows this is not 
"murder" as the law defines it, or it could and would be prosecuted.  If the 
law was changed, as no doubt Mr. Wilson wants, then his point would be 
valid. I was discussing existing USA law relating to nudity and comparing it 
to existing USA law on murder, as DEFINED IN THE LAW.  I clearly stated 
this, and did not use the word "carnage."

You could also define the legality of addictive tobacco "state approved 
carnage" because addictive tobacco continues to be legal and kills 400,000+ 
a year prematurely.  But current law does not define this as "murder."  You 
do not address my point about the comparison between nudity law vs murder 
law.

"All laws are the imposition of someone's truth."  This statement hides 
tremendous complexity, like every statement, if one questions all symbology 
exhaustively, but basically I agree with it.

But I do not think the public schools teach "agnosticism," as you claim, or 
if they sometimes do, they also impose on children practices which teach the 
opposite every day of the week!  Do we not have a pledge which a vast 
majority of children in the USA cite every school day in PUBLIC SCHOOLS with 
their hands over their hearts asserting they are "Under God?"  How is this 
teaching "agnosticism?"  The US Senate recently voted unanimously to keep 
this wording in the "Pledge of Allegiance."

I read texts in the public schools, and most public schools have texts, 
especially in Literature courses, that mention God, the soul, religion and 
spirituality as they are discussed in Literature, and no one ever tried to 
convince me of the agnostic point of view, that I can recall, in these 
courses, nor do I think that now in these courses teachers make a deliberate 
effort to teach agnosticism in these discussions.  This may occur somewhere, 
but I was definitely cajoled into a monotheistic God worshiping point of 
view in the public schools every day every time I was encouraged to pledge I 
was "Under God."

Don't you receive certain tax breaks associated with your church and/or 
school for being a tax exempt religious institution?  So the government is 
giving you a tax break that must assist your religious faith, correct?  Or 
am I wrong?  You failed to mention this in your complaint to me about the 
government's coercion for you to pay for public schools.

As far as Mr. Wilson being forced to pay for the public schools, everyone 
objects to something their tax dollars pay for.  I object to my taxes going 
to support government pork to the tobacco companies so they can market their 
death dealing drugs in foreign countries, yet these government programs 
exist.

If you choose, Mr. Wilson, you can refuse to pay a certain amount of your 
taxes as a protest.  There are people engaging in this form of civil 
disobedience.  Or work to formally ban the teaching of "agnosticism" in the 
public schools.  Or work to have courses in the public schools that teach 
Christianity that Christian students could take if they so chose.

I am not altogether against such VOLUNTARY courses in the public schools, as 
long as courses teaching the religion of every religious point of view 
represented by the students in the school was available.  This might also 
include Earth Worship or Zen Buddhism, etc.

Concerning your statement that my statement about the acceptance and 
usefulness of the truths of mathematics and logic by scholars the world over 
from many different ethical and religious backgrounds was "provincial and 
naive,"  tell that to the scientists in mostly non-Christian India and 
Pakistan and China, who utilized said truths of mathematics to create 
nuclear weapons.  "Provincial and naive?"  You must be joking!

Of course I've studied Zen!  So what?  If Zen denies the validity of logical 
syllogisms, which I am not sure it completely does anyways, what does this 
prove?  That Zen is closed minded about some forms of knowledge?  Again, so 
what?  There are numerous closed minded belief systems in the world, but 
this does not change the acceptance of mathematics and logic across ethical 
and cultural traditions the world over.  I didn't state that EVERY sect of 
EVERY religion in the world accepts modern mathematics and logic.

I'm sorry, but I rather think you are discussing your own brand of theology 
when you assert notions concerning "provincial and naive" views.  I find it 
"naive and provincial" to proclaim the Bible to contain the kind of 
comprehensive perfect truth you assert that it does, while rejecting the 
possible God inspired and revealed validity of other books (Koran etc,) that 
other religious traditions around the world claim to be their source for 
truth.  In fact, I believe all religious traditions can make important 
contributions to the spiritual dimensions of human existence, and in this 
sense my views are the opposite of "provincial."

Ted

>From: Douglas <dougwils@moscow.com>
>To: vision2020@moscow.com
>Subject: Imposed truth
>Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 09:05:46 -0700
>




_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com