From: cstone@husc8.harvard.edu (christopher stone)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,alt.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Sex Education in Public Schools
Date: 13 Jan 93 04:26:48 GMT
Organization: Harvard University Science Center

In article <C0rLC6.MJB@vcd.hp.com> thatcher@vcd.hp.com (Garen Thatcher) writes:
>christopher stone (cstone@husc8.harvard.edu) wrote:
>: In article <C0p9Iy.Avr@vcd.hp.com> thatcher@vcd.hp.com (Garen Thatcher) writes:
>
> <<<<My original post deleted>>>>
>: 
>: 1) The Puritans were not seeking religious freedom for anyone but themselves.
>     
>     All I am trying to say here is that religion is a very important
>     part of our national history. Under the guise of "seperation" there
>     are some who are tying to REMOVE the religious aspect and therfore
>     rewrite the history books. I am not sure which is worse, rewriting
>     the old books or burning the new ones. Both seem to accomplish the 
>     same thing.

I agree, providing you are truly talking about the teaching of history and
not the policy question of whether or not school prayer is justified.  But
there is a difference between removing the religious aspect and pointing
out that other philosophies, such as Deism in the case of the founding
fathers, or trnascendentalism in the case of important philosphers such
as Thooreau, have also influenced American politics and society.  But on
the whole I agree with you, the religious aspect of our nation's history
should be studied.  I would add the caveat that historians would say
it should be studied, not promoted per se (though obviously it's
legitimate to debate about whether religion has been a positive
or negative force in US history.)  But clearly the religious influences
are there and should be acknowledged, studied, and analyzed critically.
 
>: 2) If MANY MANY people believe in a God, then why can't they inculcate
>: religious values at home, where they can be most successfully transmitted?
>: Ah, you will object, the schools conspire against us by telling our kids
>: our religious values are wrong.  *BUT THAT IS PRECISELY THE POINT*.  Religion
>: menas nothing if it is not constantly questioned and challenged.  Without
>: being challenged, religion is nothing more than a "dead dogma," to quote
>: John Stuart Mill, and not a living, breathing, meaningful truth.  The role
>: of the family and household is to rebut, and most emphatically not *hide*,
>: these challenges to religion.
>:
>   I am not sure why you think that religion mean nothing if not challenged.
>   Does that mean that my relationship with a God (none specified) is not
>   meaningfull unless there are those who are telling me that God does not
>   exist and that I am fooling myself? This is not the case. If you truly
>   feel that this is true, please call me or Email me. I would like to 
>   talk to you personally about this. I do not need persecution in order
>   for religion to me meaningfull. You are very misled about this.
>
>: 3) IMHO you are confusing the free exercise of religion with the compulsory
>: exercise of religoin.  IMHO, people should be able to *voluntarily* pray in
>: school.  But voluntary means just that: voluntary, and not an officially
>: sanctioned event with time set aside specifically for the purpose of 
>: praying.  I do believe that the 1st amendment allows, and indeed even would
>: endorse, things such as before-school prayer groups as they are voluntary
>: and not coercive.  But time set aside during the day for organized prayer
>: is coercive because it sends students the message that *one specific creed*
>: is officially sanctioned.  People who are against condom distribution claim
>: (perhaps correctly, perhaps not -- I haven't decided) that such
>: distribution gives official sanction to sex.  Please apply the same reasoning
>: to school prayer.  Organized prayer gives official sanction to a particular
>: creed, in violation of the no-establishment clause of the 1st amendment
>: which the Founding Fathers themselves wrote.

>   Who said anything about mandatory prayer. I grew up with it, you did 
>   as well. Did it mess you up? NO!    What I am talking about is the
>   removal of religious significance from the textbooks and replacing it
>   with "alternative lifestyle" information. 
>   THAT IS THE ISSUE!

Well, actually, no, I did not "grow up with it," as there was no prayer
in my high school.  As for the question of whether it "messes people up," I
would say no in the case of Christians, except in the broad sense that 
people should analyze religion critically in instituions of learning.  
Analyzing religion dogmatically is the role of churches, though even
they can analyze critically if they so choose.  In the case of non-Christians,
it may "mess them up" if they feel compelled to recite prayers contrary to
their faith.  And if one religion feels persecuted, all religions could
potentially be persecuted.

I would agree, however, the that the influence of religion in our nation's
history must be addressed by textbooks.  Other historical antecedents must
be addressed too.  (Moreover, it's not necessarily a zero-sum game: we can
address both religion and "other lifestyles").  I will agree that the PC
movement may have exaggerated the role of the "other lifestyles."
(We must also take care to define "other lifestyles"...do you mean
other *cultures* or lifestyles?)

By the way, what I said above about religion also applies to the value
of tolerance: people will only be convinced of its truth by a "full
and frank discussion" and open debate, or else tolerance will be a dead
dogma instead of a living, meaningful truth.  Tolerance should not be
accepted at face value any more than any other value should be.  Only
be critically questioning values such as tolerance will we come to
accept their ultimate truth.
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,talk.politics.misc