From: dpage@ra.csc.ti.com (Doug Page)
Subject: Re: A few quotes from a few years ago
Organization: Texas Instruments
Distribution: world, usa, na
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 00:05:39 GMT

In article <nate.542@psygate.psych.indiana.edu>, nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:
|> dpage@ra.csc.ti.com (Doug Page) writes:
|> >nate@psygate.psych.indiana.edu (Nathan Engle) writes:
|> >|> dpage@ra.csc.ti.com (Doug Page) writes:

(stuff deleted)

|>     Oh, I'm definitely not doing that. That's why I questioned the idea 
|> that making kids follow rules in order to graduate is somehow equivalent
|> to moral instruction. I would say that it's extremely possible for the 
|> schools to not teach morality, and I would go so far as to add that it's 
|> happening this very moment. Kids are not being taught to follow the rules 
|> to protect their mortal souls. They're being taught to follow the rules 
|> so that they'll present the least possible trouble to the school teachers 
|> and administrators. If that's morality at work then I've been badly mistaken 
|> about just what morals really are.

A quick reference to Webster's again:"moral - adj. 1. Of or concerned with the
principles of right and wrong in relation to human action and character . . .
-n. 1. The lesson or principle contained in or taught by a fable, story, or
event. 2. A concisely expressed precept or general truth: MAXIM. 3. morals.
Rules or habits of conduct, esp. sexual conduct, with regard to standards of
right and wrong."

The definition of morals does not include the basis for formulating "right and
wrong". In other words, there is no requirement that that the "right and
wrong" address only "mortal sins".  Even the athiests that I know that support
an ammoral approach to teaching in public schools would not consider
themselves to be immoral (and, remember, to them there is no such thing as a
"mortal sin".)

I guarantee you that the 5th grade history book that my wife is teaching from
addresses even "higher level" morals and does so directly when it discusses the
American Revolution (taxation without representation is WRONG), the Civil War
(it is WRONG for states to secede), slavery (slavery is WRONG), the
Constitution (it is WRONG for the government to do some things and RIGHT for it
to do others), the Vietnam War (from draft dodging to the treatment of the
Vietnam Veterans), and AIDS (it is WRONG not to take care of those suffering
from this horrible disease).  The comments in parenthesis are the moral
statements made in this textbook.  I am not disagreeing with them.  I am
simply pointing out that they are in fact taught in the public schools.

|> 
|> >Whether they are learned or not, there is an attempt to teach them to 
|> >students.
|> 
|>     There's a tiny, wee little difference between morals and rules.
|> 
|> >|>     For instance, imagine that some maggot-invested, dope-smoking, long-
|> >|> haired FM rock n' roll type manages to conform to the rules long enough 
|> >|> to reach his high school graduation, but the only reason he's doing it 
|> >|> is for the short term material reward. Would you say that the conferment 
|> >|> of that diploma implies any sort of moral reaffirmation?
|> 
|> >Personell departments certainly think so.
|> 
|>     I would bet you a nickel that they'd change that opinion after a very 
|> brief interview. A hoodlum with a diploma looks very much like a hoodlum 
|> without a diploma. There might be a couple professions in which personal 
|> grooming habits can be overlooked, but in general it's distracting for  
|> customers to see maggots crawling around on their sales representative.

I agree, but a high school diploma represents little else these days.  I
should have been clearer in my reply.  Conferment of a diploma does indeed
imply a certain conformance to the standards/rules.  It is not, however, an
absolute endorsement of that conformance.  Just as there are illiterate
individuals with high school diplomas, so to there are also those who did not
learn society's standards of behavior (i.e., morals) either.

BTW, I am not saying that public school is the best place to teach/learn
morals.  I am simply pointing out that morals are in fact taught in schools.
Those who do not learn from the past are doomed to repeat it.


(stuff deleted again)

|>     You are simply being extremely selective in which "facts" you read.
|> Try browsing through some works by Paine, Jefferson, or Franklin and tell
|> me how Christian they were.

If you will double check my original post you will see that I did quote
Jefferson.  As I alluded to, and as has been posted by others Jefferson should
be considered a Christian (or at least not a "main-line" Christian, whatever
that is).  His Deism was however based however loosely on the Bible.  Remember
that his own state of Virginia (as well as several other states which
ratified the Constitution) had its own official state religion at the time
that it ratified the Constitution and that it continued to do so for some time
after.  Remember, the Constitution actually only says that CONGRESS shall
pass no laws establishing a state religion or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof.  I am not a proponent of a "state religion", I only point this out to
emphasize the fact that the historical consensus did not believe in the
separation of church and state as introduced by Jefferson.  Perhaps this is
precedent for local school boards and parents to have been able to determine
what was correct material to be taught in their schools.

(more stuff deleted)

|>     Now then, I busily bustle off to stage left where I've left my copies 
|> of the works of Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson. Just as an exercise, 
|> let's also read what *those* guys said about the founding of our nation.
|> It's a fact that there were both men who said that the US *was* founded 
|> as a Christian nation, and also men who said that it was *not*.

I'm looking forward to what you come up with.  I don't deny that they exist, I
only question whether or not they speak for the founding fathers.  (Sounds a
little like what you think of the quotes that I posted doesn't it?) 
Jefferson's quotes can be interpreted many ways, especially when taken out of
context because of his strong deism.

|>     Just as a simplistic measuring stick, I suggest looking at the laws 
|> specified by those founders, and I can't help but notice that those laws 
|> were not copied verbatum from the Bible.

This is one of the reasons that I claim that the US was founded on Christian
principles rather than Judeo-Christian principles. The New Testament states
that we are in the age of grace and as such are not bound by the Old Testament
Law.  It is, rather a guide to show us right from wrong.  The Old Testament
clearly points to a theistic state, whereas Christ said to render unto Caesar
that which is Caesar's and unto God that which is God's.

(more stuff deleted)

|>     Now it's you who's trying to place words in my mouth. Please notice 
|> that I never accused you of wanting to establish a repressive religious 
|> regime. I *did* intend to imply that it would be a mistake to embrace 
|> Christianity as the one state religion of the US, and that it would be a 
|> mistake to assume that the US was founded as a "Christian" nation. There 
|> were a lot of reasons for the foundation of the US, some of which (but not 
|> all of which) were religious.

I did not intend to place words in your mouth.  I guess that I misunderstood
what you were saying.  Believe it or not, I too do not believe that the US
should have a state religion.  I also agree that the US wasn't founded only
for religious reasons.  I simply wanted to answer those who were stating
that religion and Christianity in particular had nothing whatsoever to do with
the founding of this nation.  I was attempting to point out that Christianity
was the world view which underlied what the founding fathers were founding. 
And, yes, this included Jefferson and Franklin albeit indirectly.

(more stuff deleted)
|> 
|>     Nor can you. Some of the founding fathers were *not* Christian 
|> and did *not* want the US to be founded in the image of the European 
|> theocracies from which they and their ancestors had fled.
|> 
|> >What deviation?  I refer you to the 1892 Supreme Court decision in 
|> >my original post.  Disagree with what the justices wrote if you like, but 
|> >stop pretending that they did not write it and stop pretending that the 
|> >precedent that they based it upon did not exist.
|> 
|>     Hey, keep your shirt on, Methuselah. I have never denied that 
|> there were a few Christians amongst the founding fathers. All I've really
|> tried to convey is that the founders of our country and the framers of 
|> our constitution were not unanimous in their Christian faith. Some of our
|> founders were irreligious in the extreme, and I think they would choke if 
|> they heard you talking about how the US was founded as a "Christian nation".
|> The US was founded as a *free* nation, no matter whether the citizens are 
|> Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims or even Christians.

OK, my shirt's back on.


Doug Page


*** The opinions are mine and do not necessarily represent those of my ***
*** employer.                                                          ***
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:5008 alt.rush-limbaugh:4193