From: dpage@ra.csc.ti.com (Doug Page)
Subject: Re: Lifestyle Choices and Secular Reasoning
Organization: Texas Instruments
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 19:38:40 GMT

In article <1993Jan19.230443.5544@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>, tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin) writes:
|> In article <1993Jan19.185820.14952@csc.ti.com> dpage@ra.csc.ti.com (Doug Page) babbles:
|> >In article <1993Jan17.090634.3937@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>, tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin) writes:
|> 
|> >Come on Tom, go on down to the library and get yourself a copy of HMI and HMII
|> >and you will find that according to both that what you are suggesting here is
|> >to teach Secular (i.e., no god other than man) Humanism. 
|> 
|> I agree that much of what is taught is commensurate with the beliefs of
|> this so-called religion.  However, that is not the same as teaching the 
|> religion itself.   For example, where do our modern schools teach
|> "there is no god other than man" as an irrefutable fact?   And if I
|> teach something from physics, and it happens to be a little easier to
|> RECONCILE with the beliefs of Secular Humanism than with Catholicism,
|> does that mean the SOURCE was Secular Humanism?  Not neccesarily.
|> 
|> 
|> >                                                         You will also find,
|> >as I have posted the quotes for you before, that it is the secular humanists
|> >who have declared war on any who disagree with them.
|> 
|> Gosh, I thought the inquisition came first.   Silly me.   But this
|> finger pointing is a fruitless exercise.

So true.


|> >|> By the way,  did you ever check your refernce that the Supreme Court
|> >|> has declared Secular Humanism a religion?  Want me to do it for
|> >|> you?  Or do you think you have it right this time?
|> >
|> >Don't waste the time Ted.  I gave Tom the references over six months ago
|> >of the SC decisions refering to both secular humanism as a religion.  He
|> >ignored them.  Tom will ignore the truth even if you do his research for him.
|> 
|> Doug,
|> 
|> 	Funny...  it seems that I have been doing a lot more research than Ted,
|> and in fact, I have been doing Ted's research for him.  Yet you slam me
|> for lack of research.   Could it be that you are chosing to slam me not
|> because I haven't been going to the library but simply because
|> you don't happen to "like" what I am saying???  (remember, it was Ted Krueger 
|> (not me) who parroted  misquotes (or simply lied to us)).  And yet you 
|> accuse ME of not being too concerned about the truth when I have been 
|> the one who has actually done the work??    Low blow, and not commensurate
|> with the value of 'truth' you are advocating.

Point well taken.  Ted does seem to be working from secondary sources alot.


|> So what about my ability to accept the fact that our Supreme Court
|> has deemed Secular Humanism as a religion?  Y ou will note that (partly 
|> due to your efforts) I have changed my tack with regard to this arguement.  
|> I am no longer arguing the dubious proposition that Secular Humanism is 
|> a religion.  I am now arguing "prove to me that they are teaching this 
|> religion rather  than ideas commensurate with many religions, including 
|> this one".  (Admittedly, I am holding my final agreement in abeyance,
|> but I have temporaily conceeded that point for the sake of discussion).

I regret that I do not currently have the time to do the necessary research to
defend either atheism's (Malnak v. Yogi, 1977) or secular humanism's
(Grove v. Mead School District, 1985) protection under the 1st amendment as
the US SC's opinions indicate/imply (see also: Epperson v. Arkansas, 1968; and
Waltz v. Tax Commission, 1970).  I do not agree with these opinions of the
Supreme Court, but consider that if I debated them with someone such as
yourself that is somewhat "unyielding", that I would better understand both
sides.


|> If you want to argue this point, lets have at it.  If you simply want to cast
|> false accusations, then please, do something anatomically impossible
|> with your head and lower orifices.

Touche'

***  The opinions are mine and do not necessarily represent those of my  ***
***  employer.                                                           ***
Xref: sparky alt.rush-limbaugh:14655 alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:13312