From: gpalo@digi.lonestar.org (Gerry Palo)
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Reader's Digest on prayer: amusing, or scary?
Date: 10 Nov 92 15:07:12 GMT
Organization: DSC Communications Corp, Plano, TX


David Canzi writes 

>Your comments are based on a misunderstanding of what I wrote.  I
>suppose if I had worded my comments differently I would have been less
>likely to have been misunderstood.
>
>You used the following line, apparently believing it, in your article:
>
>    But banning prayer and scripture from schools violates a Christian or
>    Jewish or Sufi's Believer's rights as much or more than an atheist's
>    rights are violated by allowing it.
>
>...and this is a version of the same old lie I've been complaining about.
>There is no movement I'm aware of to forbid anybody from praying while
>in school, only to forbid teacher-led prayers.  And Christian students
>who are not led in prayer have in no way had their rights abridged.
>
>I assumed wrongly that you were supporting teacher-led prayer in public
>schools for two reasons:  (1) The line I saw above, quoted in somebody
>else's article, which is the same type of bogus argument routinely used
>by supporters of teacher-led prayer, and (2) your use of the wordoid
>"atheocracy", which is usually the cry of a religious loon seeking to
>justify government support of his religion.
>
>I didn't read through your whole article.  I jumped to a conclusion
>about your actual intentions.  Sorry.
>
>-- 
>David Canzi

David,

Apology graciously accepted.  The whole thrust of my arguments has been
that true freedom and diversity can best be reached when there is a
diversity of schools and pedagogical approaches, including the relation-
ship of a given school to religious and spiritual matters, among many
other things.  And the way to assure that nobody is forced into an 
environment they disagree with is to allow each person to choose.  In
the case of colleges, the student chooses.  In the case of elementary and
high schools the parents choose.  And intrinsic to free choice is freedom
from having to pay a double cost burden. Vouchers or tax credits are
all the same to me.

As for prayer, whether it is teacher led or done in private makes a
great deal of difference.  I oppose prayer in public schools an favor
prayer choice in free schools freely chosen.  So we do disagree on whether 
banning teacher led prayers but allowing private prayers (aside from the 
fact that it is doubtful that they are really allowed) abridges students' 
rights.  But my approach would resolve the issue in any case.

The Waldorf schools, which would be my choice were there one in my city, 
do not have prayers, except for perhaps a table grace in some circum-
stances, but the approach to pedagogy and content their very existence 
can thrive only in a free environment.
 
For "atheocracy" I might have coined "agnotheocracy" instead or "thei-
neutralocracy".  Whatever you call it, it represents a particular 
Weltanschauung that the schools impress on the minds of the children
who attend them.  My point was that one of those "ocracies" was closer
to what we have than the feared theocracy expressed by the original
poster.  But agnotheocracy today becomes theocracy tomorrow and atheocracy
the next day, as long as education is driven from the political sphere.

So, even though we disagree, I hope I do not still leave the impression
of being a religious loon.  Unfortunately good ideas are often coopted
and distorted by disagreeable people.

Sincerely,

Gerry Palo (73237.2006@compuserve.com)
--
Newsgroups: alt.atheism