From: rocky@NeoSoft.com (Joe Mullally)
Subject: Re: Bush Vetoes Stupid Education Reform Bill
Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900
Distribution: tx
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 00:22:27 GMT

In article <1992Nov6.131428.25422@mksol.dseg.ti.com> mccall@mksol.dseg.ti.com (fred j mccall 575-3539) writes:
>In <Bx7zHo.Fsv@NeoSoft.com> rocky@NeoSoft.com (Joe Mullally) writes:
>
>>In article <1597@airgun.wg.waii.com> miller@hmsp04.wg3.waii.com (Griff Miller X7114) writes:
>>>In article <1992Oct30.003930.26090@watson.ibm.com> johniac@austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti) writes:
>>>>In article <1588@airgun.wg.waii.com>, miller@hmsp04.wg3.waii.com (Griff Miller X7114) writes:
>>>>|> Agreed! Extremists do no one any good by trying to force any religion
>>>>|> (including atheism) on people. 
>>>>
>>>>Atheism is not a religion.  That's like calling a vacuum a type of 
>>>>matter.
>>>
>>>No, not in the usual sense of the word. But it's still a set of beliefs
>>>that someone could attempt to impose. That's what I was trying to say.
>
>>	I think you give in too easily on this one, Griff. By definition,
>>it is arguable that atheism (denial of the existence of God) is not
>>a religion, no doubt. But, is it religious? I think, in the sense that
>>someone who touts no politick also is political in his/her anti-
>>communism, for example, atheists are religious. 
>
>But this just doesn't seem to track, Joe.  An atheist (typically) says
>there is not God (or gods) because there is no evidence for one.  I've
>always felt that this effort on the part of some religious groups to
>paint parts of religion as 'science' and parts of science as
>'religion' are extremely damaging to both.

	I think both result from the same questions. I think that 
religion should not stand in opposition to science. If, as you 
seem to imply, atheists are awaiting evidence, then I would tend
to think of that as agnosticism. I think atheists say that there is
no evidence, and never will be. Keep in mind that one's religious
posture does relate to how one interacts with the rest of the world.
An atheist deals with the world believing that there is no God. He/she
will not consider God when deciding how to act. An agnostic (as I
believe Iacco implies) covers his/her bet; he/she does not deny God.

>The only 'sane' approach consistent with not simply saying that the
>Bible is religion and not science is to say that it is speaking
>allegorically.  Unfortunately, that violates the religion of people
>who believe in inerrancy.  

	That very nearly sums up my approach. You may think I'm a 
jerk, but at least I'm sane. (-:

>>Here's what I think. They should teach
>>this: Days last 24 hours. The kid asks: "But the Bible says God made
>>(blah blah blah)". The teacher should tell the kid to ask his parent
>>to explain. She ought not say "Because the Bible's wrong.", or "Days
>>lasted billions and billions and..."  
>
>So then what answers do you score as being correct on the test?  All
>of them?  Why bother to try to teach them anything?

	Deliver data, and test the ability to retain that data,
but do not insinuate that any child must believe the data. I
didn't believe my teacher's interpretation of Shakespeare, and she
damn near failed me for it. Had she asked for reiteration of her
interpretation, I would've done so. As it turned out, she gave me
bad grades for doing a hell of a lot of research that didn't
agree with her. In the sense that that was unfair (since she asked
for analytical papers, not reiterations), grading kids on what they
believe instead of what has been taught is unfair. That is the
distinction I was trying to make.
-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Mullally (rocky@sugar.neosoft.com) PH:713-681-2495
"We need stronger death penalties..." George Bush, debate #2
Newsgroups: tx.politics