From: nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle)
Subject: Re: A few quotes from a few years ago
Organization: Psych Department, Indiana University
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 13:49:23 GMT

dpage@ra.csc.ti.com (Doug Page) writes:
>nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:
>|> hulsey@dbsun.uucp (hulsey) writes:
>|> >In article <1992Sep8.225801.18365@csc.ti.com
>>|> >   dpage@ra.csc.ti.com (Doug Page) writes:

>I did not write this, Jim did.

    Quite right. I lost the previous attribution line in my editor and 
goofed it up trying to patch the line back in. I extend my full and humble 
apologies.

>[my question]
>|> >>So where is the establishment clause in these cases?
>|> >
>[Jim's "answer"]
>  
>|> >It seems that anything scientists say that does not fit into your belief
>|> >window becomes "secular humanism."
>|> 
>[Mr. Engle's answer "for" me]

    Now, now. Mr Engle's answer was exclusively "for" Mr Engle. This being 
a public thread I took the liberty of shoving my oar in.

>|>     Well, not everything, but most of it. After all, if these scientists 
>|> are remiss enough to fail to consult Holy Scripture before making their 
>|> pronouncements then they're bound to make some mistakes, right?

>Wrong!  I use the term "secular humanists" to those who have either referred
>to themselves as such or to those who's expressed world view matches that of
>the Humanist Manifesto II (1973) as published in "The Humanist".

>Once again, I posted quotes covering the 1600s through the late 1800s which
>claimed that this nation was founded upon Christian principles. I have had 
>my views (or at least what some think that they are) attacked, 

    Sorry about that, but that's part of public debate. My ideas get 
"attacked" sometimes too, but I look on it as an opportunity to spot 
weaknesses in my own arguments.

>I have 
>entered into a discussion as to whether or not morals are taught in the 
>public schools, having proved that they in fact are, 

    Honestly I must disagree with you on this point. You've made what you 
consider to be a strong case, but I don't find it particularly convincing.

>I have then had my "views" attacked again, it even appears that there are 
>those who conceed that I have in fact shown that this nation was founded 
>upon Christian principles, 

    Hmmm, do I detect a slight change of wording here? I thought your 
original thesis was that this nation was founded "as a Christian nation", 
not that it was founded on Christian principles. If you had stated your 
case in those terms to start with I might never have gotten into this 
debate, except maybe to note that there are some "Christian principles" 
(like respect for individual rights) which are not exclusive to 
Christianity. That's the reason for my monotonous repetition of my belief 
that, Christian foundations or not, there is room in this country for 
people with other belief systems than just those based on Christianity.

>I have asked "oponents" if they thought murder 
>was wrong (which they said they did) and then asked them why and received 
>no answer (not even a three year old "because").

    Sorry, but I thought it was just obvious. Murder is wrong because it 
results in tremendous loss and waste. We spend a great deal of time and 
effort educating and nurturing our citizens, and murder results in the  
total waste of that investment. Call it a societal "property right" if 
you like. Society has vested interests in protecting the individuals it 
has engendered.

    I know that there are all kinds of scriptural reasons given against 
murder, but murder is one of those things which is easy to demonstrate to 
be societally detrimental even without recourse to religious texts. It's 
just common sense (mixed in with a little cost-effectiveness accounting).

>  Noone has attempted to 
>rebut the quotes that I presented with historic facts, they simply 
>countered them with their opinions (which they have a right to, of 
>course).

    I have no reason to assume that you just made up all of those quotes, 
nor do I question the sincerity with which they were written. All I've 
tried to say is that their opinion was evidently not unanimous amongst 
all of the framers of our Constitution.

>  Discussion, debate, and reason should help shape a world view and 
>help us understand the views of others but evidently the views of those I 
>have been addressing is based upon a "faith" that lacks any reason of its 
>own (or at least one that they understand themselves).

    Perhaps.

--
Nathan Engle                        Software Juggler
Psychology Department               Indiana University
nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu      nengle@copper.ucs.indiana.edu