The only defense I can come up with is that we are a Judeo-Christian society and our laws are all based on things like the 10 Commandments

There's definitely a civil angle to the 10 Commandments .

That said I absolutely do not want ******ed young earth, or "Jesus is whoever you make him out to be", American protestants teaching my kids about Christianity.

CrackerJackAg said:

---

The only defense I can come up with is that we are a Judeo-Christian society and our laws are all based on things like the 10 Commandments

There's definitely a civil angle to the 10 Commandments .

That said I absolutely do not want ******ed young earth, or "Jesus is whoever you make him out to be", American protestants teaching my kids about Christianity.

---

How many of the 10 Commandments are actually reflected in our laws? No killing, no stealing, lying under certain circumstances is not okay. . . . but none of the rest of it is law. We are all free to worship different gods, take the Lord's name in vain, do whatever we want on Sunday, dishonor our parents, commit adultery, and yearn for our neighbor's goods and wife. And most Christians aren't pushing for those items to be law. In an argument that says American laws are based on Christianity, we can easily point out that there are many morals and commandments in the Bible that we neither have reinforced into law nor is anyone asking for it to be enforced as law.

Even if America is 'founded on Christian values' (whatever that means), it seems to me like there is, and always has been, a concession against enforcing Christianity. Much of what you see in founding documents or the Bill of Rights is about protecting individual freedom.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

CrackerJackAg said:

---

The only defense I can come up with is that we are a Judeo-Christian society and our laws are all based on things like the 10 Commandments

There's definitely a civil angle to the 10 Commandments .

That said I absolutely do not want ******ed young earth, or "Jesus is whoever you make him out to be", American protestants teaching my kids about Christianity.

---

How many of the 10 Commandments are actually reflected in our laws? No killing, no stealing, lying under certain circumstances is not okay. . . . but none of the rest of it is law. We are all free to worship different gods, take the Lord's name in vain, do whatever we want on Sunday, dishonor our parents, commit adultery, and yearn for our neighbor's goods and wife. And most Christians aren't pushing for those items to be law. In an argument that says American laws are based on Christianity, we can easily point out that there are many morals and commandments in the Bible that we neither have reinforced into law nor is anyone asking for it to be enforced as law.

Even if America is 'founded on Christian values' (whatever that means), it seems to me like there is, and always has been, a concession against enforcing Christianity. Much of what you see in founding documents or the Bill of Rights is about protecting individual freedom.

---

Funny thing is most states had laws against all of these thing in some form or another when the country was founded. I think the only commandments we can find that don't have a law in favor of them are the ones on coveting. Because how do you prove someone coveted something.

It's only in the mid to late 1900s that these officially fall off the books or are found unconstitutional. The more secular we became in the public square, the less people maintained their faith and the laws change to reflect this change. If anything, looking at the timeline of how those laws came to be removed is probably a point in favor of the 10 commandment crowd.

The Banned said:

---

Where that balance lies, I admittedly don't know. I'm with you in your hesitation on using the government to force one religion or another as a nation. I think had we just left it with the states as we did prior to 1937, things would have worked out better than we see today. We live in the most mobile time in history. If religion in or out of schools was a dire issue for someone, then relocation is always available. If relocation isn't worth it, then you have your answer on how important it really is to you.

---

I agree with a lot of the items you posted and so I'm only going to respond to a few points.

Quote:

---

You see removal of religion as what is "most equal" but don't realize there are anti-religious consequences. Most kids think the Big Bang theory is anti-Christian because of the way it's taught it science classes, not realizing it was actually a devout priest who first advanced it.

---

I'm open to the possibility that how the Big Bang theory is taught might need to be revisited. I don't think it was taught when I was in public school and I have probably one or two more years before my kids might encounter the idea in a class setting. I suspect we might be overestimating how much time science classes focus on this, but I'm not discounting your point - I just don't know.

Quote:

---

Most kids walk away with a sense of strict materialism after studying the sciences without realizing that most of the scientists they study did not adhere to materialism. Most were Christian, while others, like Einstein, at least flatly rejected atheism. Intentional or not, secularism acts as a filter that removes pertinent information to give a worldview that is distinctly atheistic/agnostic. Is there any wonder why the rise of atheism and agnosticism trends up in unison with secularism? It's not just "because we know more science". It's because we've intentionally removed the philosophical beliefs these influential scientists held under the guise of "fairness" and, possibly unintentionally, have taught kids atheistic worldviews for decades. Again, there is no "neutral". We're being force fed bologna sandwiches. Any tacos or pasta we want to eat has to be done in our free time, but we still have to eat the sandwich.

---

Science, at its core, is a method and is restricted to the natural and the material. As demonstrated by your point that many scientists are religious, I do not see it as being generally incompatible with religion.
Religion may propose its own methods for exploring the supernatural and immaterial, but those questions fall outside the study of science. Religion can also propose purpose or 'why' explanations to the natural and material, but that also falls outside of the study of science.

These pertinent things that are filtered out by secularism in the classroom, are they items that are pertinent to teaching science? Are they things that you wish for government employees to teach your children.

Science is not atheistic nor is it agnostic. The limits of science should prohibit it from attempting these questions. Science does require the presupposition that nature operates according to consistent laws that can be discovered and understood. This presupposition does not exclude the possibility of miracles or the supernatural. Maybe teachers can do a better job of describing this point, I don't know.

One of my reactions to reading your paragraph above, is that I wonder who you would like to see science taught differently? Should schools teach that God used miracles to create the universe and life? I don't want to force feed you bologna sandwiches. I also don't want you to force feed me tacos and then gaslight me into thinking its pasta. My fear is that you want to inject religious supernatural belief into a subject that, by its very definition, is separate from the supernatural. If 'God did it' is the correct answer to a question, then the question cannot be answered or backed up or disproven by science. Its just the wrong tool.

The Banned said:

---

Funny thing is most states had laws against all of these thing in some form or another when the country was founded. I think the only commandments we can find that don't have a law in favor of them are the ones on coveting. Because how do you prove someone coveted something.

It's only in the mid to late 1900s that these officially fall off the books or are found unconstitutional. The more secular we became in the public square, the less people maintained their faith and the laws change to reflect this change. If anything, looking at the timeline of how those laws came to be removed is probably a point in favor of the 10 commandment crowd.

---

Point taken. In your opinion, should these laws come back?

kurt vonnegut said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Funny thing is most states had laws against all of these thing in some form or another when the country was founded. I think the only commandments we can find that don't have a law in favor of them are the ones on coveting. Because how do you prove someone coveted something.

It's only in the mid to late 1900s that these officially fall off the books or are found unconstitutional. The more secular we became in the public square, the less people maintained their faith and the laws change to reflect this change. If anything, looking at the timeline of how those laws came to be removed is probably a point in favor of the 10 commandment crowd.

---

Point taken. In your opinion, should these laws come back?

---

I'd have to think more about each one individually, and then think criminally vs civilly. We're so far downstream I've never given it deep thought.

It's only incoherent because secularism is a stance on the use of government power and not directly on religion or morality itself. It's like saying you parent your children as a strict Constitutionalist. Also incoherent but that doesn't mean the term is invalid or meaningless.

You're pasting on additional beliefs to the term secularism that aren't warranted. You can believe in secularism and be of any faith or none at all because it is a political stance and not truly a religious one, though obviously there is airways some overlap.

Or are you saying a belief in Christianity means you have to support the implementation of a theocracy?

Zobel said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

I made a typo in my post above - the third option, the atheist state - should be Country C. . . .

In the context of my above post, 'secular philosophy' could be set of ethical positions based on reason and human experience rather than a religious supernatural belief.

Not trying to dodge any questions. In this hypothetical Country D, lets say that right and wrong is determined democratically by the citizens within certain guidelines set forth in an agreed upon 'Constitutional' document.

Would slavery be permitted? I don't think I fleshed out Country C enough to make that determination. For Country D, I would say that slavery is in opposition to a system that priorities maximizing the degree of freedom for individuals.

---

Reason is a supernatural thing. Human experience is just consensus.

Why should country D maximize freedom for individuals? Why should it be democratic? Why shouldn't the best men rule?

---

Why do you say that reason is supernatural? Versus being the result of a natural process and emergent property of the brain. I'm fine with your statement as opinion or as your perspective, but I don't know how we get to this position as settled fact.

I'm not sure where you are headed with your other questions about country D. I'm expressing an opinion about what I prefer rather than an absolute statement about what governments ought to do or be. Are you just looking for my justification for democracy and individual freedom?

I suggest an agreed upon definition of 'secularism'. I can find definitions of secularism that have important differences, and I think that different definitions of the word are being used here.

secularism
[ol]

the principle of separation of the state from religious institutions.

the principle of seeking to conduct human affairs based on naturalistic considerations, uninvolved with religion.

[/ol]

kurt vonnegut said:

---

I suggest an agreed upon definition of 'secularism'. I can find definitions of secularism that have important differences, and I think that different definitions of the word are being used here.

secularism
[ol]

the principle of separation of the state from religious institutions.

the principle of seeking to conduct human affairs based on naturalistic considerations, uninvolved with religion.

[/ol]

---

I would quibble with the first definition. I'm using the word to mean the removal of religion from the political. I think the 2nd definition is an entailment, though not the only one, of my definition. Laws should be a reflection of reality. We need first principles to make law. If we base the law on purely naturalistic considerations, the law is a self fulfilling prophesy wherein a thing is good if you decide it is.

Quote:

---

Science is not atheistic nor is it agnostic. The limits of science should prohibit it from attempting these questions. Science does require the presupposition that nature operates according to consistent laws that can be discovered and understood

---

This is the most interesting part of the dilemma. Presuppositions themselves are philosophical in nature and can't be proven. That should be an important part of the discussion. I think it's fair to say we aren't going to do a deep dive on where it all comes from, but discussing something like 'there are a number of explanations people offer on this, ranging from "it just exists" to an intelligent designer and several options in between. For now, we'll say each of these explanations can work with the data that we'll study and we're intentionally avoiding those why questions.' I don't think offering a very generic intelligent designer as an option would give preference to one religion or another.

You may assume that's essentially what's already happening, but it doesn't work that way in practice. When you act as if the constants are just constants that don't need a cause themselves, you are assuming the materialist world view by default. This is why philosophy can't be decoupled from science. It can't be decoupled from anything really, but as science has the most real world impact, that one is most important in my view.

I think there could be some sort of happy medium there, even if I can't perfectly outline it. I know there are Christians with old earth vs young earth disagreements, so even teaching some sort of "Christian science" is still going to cause disagreement and should be avoided. But ignoring that we are inherently bringing a philosophical view to our science causes issues as well.

Rocag said:

---

It's only incoherent because secularism is a stance on the use of government power and not directly on religion or morality itself. It's like saying you parent your children as a strict Constitutionalist. Also incoherent but that doesn't mean the term is invalid or meaningless.

You're pasting on additional beliefs to the term secularism that aren't warranted. You can believe in secularism and be of any faith or none at all because it is a political stance and not truly a religious one, though obviously there is airways some overlap.

Or are you saying a belief in Christianity means you have to support the implementation of a theocracy?

---

Christianity has it's own social doctrine that doesn't align with secularism. What you're saying violates the principle of non-contradiction. You can't practice Christianity and not practice Christianity at the same time.

The fact that you believe something does not align with your religious beliefs does not make that thing inherently religious. For instance, we don't consider the crime of theft to be a religious matter even though the Bible has laws forbidding it.

Furthermore there are lots of Christians who would disagree with your take on secularism. What it comes down to is you insisting that Christians and Christianity are entitled to rights and privileges granted by the state but denied to all others. Secularism is merely the idea that no, we shouldn't grant some people special rights and privileges based on their religion.

The Banned said:

---

This is the most interesting part of the dilemma. Presuppositions themselves are philosophical in nature and can't be proven. That should be an important part of the discussion. I think it's fair to say we aren't going to do a deep dive on where it all comes from, but discussing something like 'there are a number of explanations people offer on this, ranging from "it just exists" to an intelligent designer and several options in between. For now, we'll say each of these explanations can work with the data that we'll study and we're intentionally avoiding those why questions.' I don't think offering a very generic intelligent designer as an option would give preference to one religion or another.

You may assume that's essentially what's already happening, but it doesn't work that way in practice. When you act as if the constants are just constants that don't need a cause themselves, you are assuming the materialist world view by default. This is why philosophy can't be decoupled from science. It can't be decoupled from anything really, but as science has the most real world impact, that one is most important in my view.

I think there could be some sort of happy medium there, even if I can't perfectly outline it. I know there are Christians with old earth vs young earth disagreements, so even teaching some sort of "Christian science" is still going to cause disagreement and should be avoided. But ignoring that we are inherently bringing a philosophical view to our science causes issues as well.

---

I don't know this for certain, but I think that most public schools probably do a poor job of explaining the presuppositions and the limits of science. And I think its important for students to understand this (at an age appropriate stage). I also think that understanding the philosophical underpinnings of the scientific method is going to be a difficult concept for most children. Its a difficult concept for most adults.

Its not that I personally assume constants are just constants that don't need cause or explanation. Without a demonstrable natural explanation for how the constants are what they are, I think the public school explanation should run along the lines of 'we don't know, but there are different ideas that include natural and supernatural explanations.' This isn't promoting one idea over the other, is it?