From: huggins@dss1.austin.ibm.com (Jim Huggins         (8-8305))
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: separation of church and state
Date: 20 Jul 92 15:35:09 GMT
Distribution: tx
Organization: IBM, Austin

In article <6937@lib.tmc.edu> jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>In article <1992Jul14.135406.15420@awdprime.austin.ibm.com> huggins@dss1.austin.ibm.com (Jim Huggins         (8-8305)) writes:
>>Whoah.  It sounds like you're saying that if John is opposed to providing 
>>abortion/birth control services to high school students based upon 
>>political or societal sources, then his values would be appropriate
>>teaching material ... BUT if he bases any of his values on a "religious"
>>source, then his values are inappropriate teaching material.  Frankly,
>>if I'm reading that correctly (and I may be mistaken), that's ludicrous.
>
>Why? John (apparently) wants to tell kids that doing something is wrong
>because the Bible says so. (John, if I've misunderstood, please correct me.)
>That's what I have objections to. If he wants to tell kids something is not a
>good thing to do for demonstrable practical reasons (not because they'll go to
>hell, but maybe because they'll catch an STD), that's fine.

I see your point -- but I don't think that's necessarily the case.  
(Of course, I speak only for myself here and not for John.)

I think that a lot of the 'values'-stuff in the Bible comes along with
explanations other than "Thus saith the LORD."  For example, traditional
teachings on sex outside of marriage talk of the sexual act as "two people
becoming one" -- and the subsequent pain when that bond of intimacy is
broken haphazardly.  There's also a verse in Proverbs that reads roughly
"When two divorced people marry, four get into bed" -- which reminds me
a lot of current teaching on STDs (cf. "When you have sex with someone,
you're having sex with everyone they had sex with, and so on, and so on...").

I don't want this to digress into a discussion of premarital sex --
my point is that there are teachings on values in the Bible that 
have more of an explanation than "'cuz God said so", and could be taught
without problems.

Item: The Russian and (formerly Soviet) Georgian Ministries of Education
have invited Campus Crusade for Christ (an inter-denominational Christian
outreach group) to come and teach their public school teachers about
Christianity as a basis for morality, so that they can (if they so choose)
teach the same things to their students.  I find it a little ironic
that while the US seems to be striving for a value-less education,
the former "evil empire" is actively striving to teach "Christian"
values in its schools.

>>And what happens if we turn the argument around?  John may find your
>>beliefs on the same subjects "repugnant": can he demand that they not
>>be taught in the public schools?
>
>Yes.
>See the problem? Nobody should force my kids to be taught anything that goes
>against my religious beliefs, any more than I can force the schools to teach
>other kids things that go against theirs.

But this is where the catch-22 arises.  What should we teach about sex
in the public schools?  Religious fundamentalists will assert that
all sex outside of monogamous heterosexual marriage is wrong.  
Religious progressives will assert that sexual activity is healthy
and that all consensual, protected activities should be encouraged.
How do you resolve these two opposing viewpoints?  After all, each has
their own religious believes which, as you state, should not be 
taught against ... but there's no middle ground.

>>[Tangent: Jay ... why do you assert values==religion?  There's a lot
>>more to religion that just finding a neat set of values ...]
>
>No argument about the second statement. My assertion is that people use
>"values-based education" as a smokescreen for "Christian education", and I
>will not tolerate any form of the latter in the current public school system.

Ok.  But let's be careful not to throw out the baby with the bathwater.
Sometimes I think that my belief system would be accepted by colleagues better
if I told them that it was proposed by Rush Limbaugh or George Will
or Wm. F. Buckley, Jr. than by my understanding of Christianity.
(Disclaimer: None of the above to my knowledge have made such claims ...
names of famous commentators used only for illustrative purposes.)
------
Jim Huggins