The Banned said:

---

The fact that Jesus existed means we can actually attempt to look at the claims made about Him. We may arrive at different conclusion, but we can wrestle with actual facts and data, which I know is important to you.

Mohammed also existed and left behind teachings we can examine to see if they are true. The Islamic Dilemma is a great example of this.

The FSM offers none of this and is a poor comparison for that reason.

---

Right, which is why my post above explains why historicity of the FSM is not relevant to what its purpose is / was.

AGC said:

---

How does this foot with secularism? How is it humble to impose arbitrary morality via power? If you don't know what the 'best' is, and 'fair' is subjective, what basis is there for this form of government that equates with humility?

---

With any form of government, laws and rules are unavoidable. This is why I was pushing on the 'degrees of neutrality' argument earlier. Banned below, I think, generally acknowledges that position. If anarchy is the 'neutral', then sets of laws can be evaluated or compared in how oppressive they are or how close/far they are from anarchy.

My position is not to give government zero power on this issue. My position is to limit government's power as much as possible rather than permit it to be as oppressive as possible. I don't think this is necessarily in conflict with any practical practice of secularism.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

AGC said:

---

How does this foot with secularism? How is it humble to impose arbitrary morality via power? If you don't know what the 'best' is, and 'fair' is subjective, what basis is there for this form of government that equates with humility?

---

With any form of government, laws and rules are unavoidable. This is why I was pushing on the 'degrees of neutrality' argument earlier. Banned below, I think, generally acknowledges that position. If anarchy is the 'neutral', then sets of laws can be evaluated or compared in how oppressive they are or how close/far they are from anarchy.

My position is not to give government zero power on this issue. My position is to limit government's power as much as possible rather than permit it to be as oppressive as possible. I don't think this is necessarily in conflict with any practical practice of secularism.

---

But you don't know what's true. And you won't define any terms that you're using to evaluate systems. So what makes this humble rather than egotistical, since it's blindly restraining practices with no rhyme or reason, and benefits you primarily?

AGC said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

AGC said:

---

How does this foot with secularism? How is it humble to impose arbitrary morality via power? If you don't know what the 'best' is, and 'fair' is subjective, what basis is there for this form of government that equates with humility?

---

With any form of government, laws and rules are unavoidable. This is why I was pushing on the 'degrees of neutrality' argument earlier. Banned below, I think, generally acknowledges that position. If anarchy is the 'neutral', then sets of laws can be evaluated or compared in how oppressive they are or how close/far they are from anarchy.

My position is not to give government zero power on this issue. My position is to limit government's power as much as possible rather than permit it to be as oppressive as possible. I don't think this is necessarily in conflict with any practical practice of secularism.

---

But you don't know what's true. And you won't define any terms that you're using to evaluate systems. So what makes this humble rather than egotistical, since it's blindly restraining practices with no rhyme or reason, and benefits you primarily?

---

To be fair, he does have rhyme and reason... they're just subjective and tend to benefit his worldview

The Banned said:

---

AGC said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

AGC said:

---

How does this foot with secularism? How is it humble to impose arbitrary morality via power? If you don't know what the 'best' is, and 'fair' is subjective, what basis is there for this form of government that equates with humility?

---

With any form of government, laws and rules are unavoidable. This is why I was pushing on the 'degrees of neutrality' argument earlier. Banned below, I think, generally acknowledges that position. If anarchy is the 'neutral', then sets of laws can be evaluated or compared in how oppressive they are or how close/far they are from anarchy.

My position is not to give government zero power on this issue. My position is to limit government's power as much as possible rather than permit it to be as oppressive as possible. I don't think this is necessarily in conflict with any practical practice of secularism.

---

But you don't know what's true. And you won't define any terms that you're using to evaluate systems. So what makes this humble rather than egotistical, since it's blindly restraining practices with no rhyme or reason, and benefits you primarily?

---

To be fair, he does have rhyme and reason... they're just subjective and tend to benefit his worldview

---

That's squaring a circle. One has to have a base of knowledge to do so, meaning being able to find truth and define ideas. If one intends to govern by them, they must be established outside of oneself, necessarily.

Why? Because one cannot define an idea of 'oppression' to govern society without supposing 'oppression' exists outside of one's self (anyone can suffer it). Unless of course, being oppressed is the only ill in society, and no one else matters. Either way, this isn't humility. One must claim to know what's 'best' for all to support secularism, or that there's something maximized or minimized by it that is preferable to other alternatives.

Quote:

---

That has been engaged with. Your claim that it is unverifiable is equally unverifiable. We're just pulling at the threads of reality itself if we go this way. Nothing can be definitively proven because there is no test to prove "definitively proven" is a thing. We all have a faith leap to make, but you seem to believe only one of us does.

---

Yes, but as I said before, giving credit to all claims on the basis that they cannot be disproven leads to epistemological chaos as there is no way to disprove any supernatural claim from any system of beliefs. You would have to treat all religions as equally plausible. I feel strongly that a better epistemological approach relies on positive evidence and falsifiability, not just the absence of disproof.

Your statement saying we all have a leap of faith is one that I agree with. And I think both of us believe this. This point is perhaps the biggest reason why I am pushing for as little government control as possible when it comes to government advocacy of one faith over another. Every value system requires something like unverifiable belief or unverifiable assumptions. I don't' see a compelling reason why we ought to give any more control to government to police which unverifiable beliefs and assumptions people make than is absolutely necessary. My goal minimizing government control.

Quote:

---

We have an actual, documented, historical lineage. I'm not just pulling this crap out of my butt. Jesus (if He is God) left his apostles who left their successors for this very reason. I get that from your formerly protestant lens it all looks like we're making it up as we go along, because that's exactly what many protestant denoms and non-denoms do. The historical Church's claim is that God gave His power to the Church, as is spelled out in the bible. Again, I know this won't move the needle for you, but your mischaracterizing our position when you say things like this.

---

Formerly Catholic lens (for what its worth)

I have very few doubts that there is a connection between the start of Christianity and a real life person. But, history and archeology and documentation, and lineages cannot prove that God gave His power to the Church. And it cannot prove that Jesus was God or the purpose of the apostles. The problem I have is that the important claims about Christianity cannot be verified. Life I said before, Christianity is not simply the belief that Jesus existed. If it were, you could call me a Christian.

Quote:

---

I don't think I glossed over this. Objective morality is spelled out. Applications can change based on the realities of the world at that time. You didn't like that answer, but it's true. Imagine trying to detail what a moral amount of work hours is or a moral wage 1000 years ago when the concept of money, industrial revolution and so much more has changed the concept of work so drastically. I gave the example of the death penalty and the incapacity for permanent incarceration back in the day. There is a moral constant, but it must wrestle with the material facts of the day. Morality itself is not subjective. Application is. In application both sides are the same. In standard we are not.

---

I don't quite agree and I think that this is partial moral relativism. Its been explained to me that for a believer, the beliefs and the practice are inseparable. So, if the death penalty is morally wrong, its morally wrong in all cases, right? God said 'Thou shall not kill", not "Thou shall not kill, unless its an inconvenience.".

But I do think I see common ground. If the applications of what is and is not a moral way to deal with work hours, wages, or the death penalty is all subjective, then we have reason to justify our own self doubt and to justify humility regarding whether or not our preferred application of a moral objective is the best application. This, I feel, should all be reason to limit government control on these types of questions, no?

Quote:

---

I'll agree that there are degrees of separation from neutrality in your worldview, but it is only based on number of people affected. When less people are affected, it feels more neutral, but that's only a feeling if we don't have a standard by which to judge it. You have a standard, which I acknowledge. But others have opposite standards and you just sort of waive those away as if they have less standing. That's why it can feel more neutral

---

If we define neutrality, in this case, as something like zero government control - something like anarchy, then we have a standard by which we can compare different legal systems against.

I agree that the number of people affects the degree of separation from neutrality. I also want to argue that there is something to be said about 'severity of those affects'. One hypothetical law says that Muslims cannot own land. Another says that Muslims cannot own land or a business. The two laws affect the same number of people, but one law is more restrictive than the other. The more restrictive one is further from neutral. Yes?

Quote:

---

I certainly recognize the difference in goals. I would obviously agree more with B than A. So together you and I will work together to suppress the desires of A because we have the numbers. But not because A is objectively wrong, if we're using your view.

---

Correct. This isn't radically dissimilar from how our entire legal and political system work today. Who should be president? Well, lets vote on it and the most number of votes wins. This works because the purpose of voting is not to employ the person objectively best for the job. It is to employee the person who best reflects the will of the people.

Quote:

---

I've never once argued that we're oppressed and don't have the ability to practice my faith here in America, but it happens quite frequently in Canada and Europe. Praying silently in front of an abortion clinic is now a crime. Saying homosexuality is a sin is now a crime. Forgive me, but I'd rather not wait for that to happen here before speaking up. Maybe you'd come to my defense then, but it's clear the secular population in these other countries are perfectly fine watching it happen.

---

Apologies if I misunderstood. In my mind, this back and forth was mostly about the US. I don't have the full story on the criminality of the things you mentioned, but I'm fine taking your word for it. There are plenty of places where Christians are oppressed - no argument here. There are also places where atheists are oppressed. If that happens here, will you come to my defense?

Quote:

---

I don't mean to come across as cocky, and I try to stay as humble as I can. I know for a fact I have many flaws and failures. I have no belief that I alone am able to come up with all these answers. I submit myself to Jesus Christ and the Church He established to guide us through the moral issues of the day. I only have to answer two questions: Was Jesus God? Did He leave a Church? Maybe I've answered them incorrectly, but I don't think assuming I've answered two whole questions correctly makes me God.

I think if we were in person, we'd get along quite well. I apologize if any of this came across with a harsh tone. Just trying to get out of the office and back home, so didn't take much time to edit for tone.

---

Its not cocky or arrogant to have strong opinions or strong beliefs. I have strong opinions and beliefs as well. i also have a high degree of respect for you and your autonomy and right to have your own opinions and beliefs. This is why I want a system of laws that exerts as minimal amount of control as possible. Government controls, laws, oppression, non-neutrality are all inevitable. The best we can do, in my opinion, is try to share equally in that control.

My interpretation when someone pushes for a system of laws that advantages their beliefs over mine is that they do not value my autonomy and right to have my own opinion and beliefs. This is my objection against someone who is pushing for the minimalization of control over only one group of people while increasing the level of control against others. Thats where I see the arrogance - its the idea that some people are more deserving of their opinions and beliefs than others.

Someone said something like this before in the thread - but, if God gave us free will, who are any of us to try to impose belief on anyone else. And if government is necessary and inherently an imposition of value, should we not try to minimalize those impositions? That all sounds very libertarian of me. . . . Maybe more than actually reflects my views .

Yeah, I'm sure we'd get along fine. I come across as confrontational in these threads, but I get along with everyone.

AGC said:

---

But you don't know what's true. And you won't define any terms that you're using to evaluate systems.

---

I don't claim to know what is true, but that doesn't mean I don't have an opinion. If there are terms you need me to define, let me know. I defined good and bad a few posts ago. I'm happy to define others as long as its useful and not just an exercise in trying to use semantics to undermine my position.

Quote:

---

So what makes this humble rather than egotistical, since it's blindly restraining practices with no rhyme or reason, and benefits you primarily?

---

I accept the same level of restraining as you. It is my goal for both of us to have the same level of oppression as it relates to our ability to practice our beliefs and participate in society and culture.

I am just as opposed to having a bust of Christopher Hitchens in front of a courthouse as I am of having the 10 Commandments. And I'm just as opposed to having a public school teacher read the tenants of secular humanism over the loud speaker as I am to having a prayer read. I would rather have nothing in front of the courthouse than advantage one group over another. And I would rather have nothing read at a school event than advantage one group over another.

I want us all to be equally restrained and equally benefitted - as much as that is possible.

If I wanted a system that benefitted me primarily, I could call for the dissolving of religious rights and remove protections against religions. I'm not doing that, am I?

The Banned said:

---

To be fair, he does have rhyme and reason... they're just subjective and tend to benefit his worldview

---

Here is the way I look at the benefit my worldview thing.

Lets say I was voting on a new law that would let people with blue eyes pay no taxes. This would benefit me, but I would say this is a bad law and should not be passed. If you have brown eyes, we should be subject to the same tax laws. Both of us equally subjected to same oppression of taxes.

My worldview is not about maximizing my own advantage, me personally, or one group of people over another.

Quote:

---

This point is perhaps the biggest reason why I am pushing for as little government control as possible when it comes to government advocacy of one faith over another. Every value system requires something like unverifiable belief or unverifiable assumptions. I don't' see a compelling reason why we ought to give any more control to government to police which unverifiable beliefs and assumptions people make than is absolutely necessary

---

But this is exactly what happened. Local schools in their particular regions chose to have religious content in their schools. It was the federal government who stepped in and made them stop. You've given the federal government control over all religion rather than keeping the government out of it. Now if school taxes weren't mandatory, or in the areas where school vouchers allow people to take their tax money and apply it to a religious school, then you'd have some ground to stand on. But right now we are forced to pay for a government service that explicitly forbids religion, even if the local population wants it. And by the way, you're required to educate your children, so if you choose not to do the public school, you have to pay extra to follow the law. How much more control could you give them?

Quote:

---

The problem I have is that the important claims about Christianity cannot be verified. Life I said before, Christianity is not simply the belief that Jesus existed. If it were, you could call me a Christian.

---

It may not be verifiable in the way that you'd like, but it's not a completely subjective, personal belief. There is a middle ground there that is a far cry from the FSM. You believe that reducing harm is a reasonable stance because it seems to be correct. The Christian is at least meeting that standard.

Quote:

---

I don't quite agree and I think that this is partial moral relativism. Its been explained to me that for a believer, the beliefs and the practice are inseparable. So, if the death penalty is morally wrong, its morally wrong in all cases, right? God said 'Thou shall not kill", not "Thou shall not kill, unless its an inconvenience.".

---

Analogy: speeding endangers the public and is against the law. Great! We have an objective law based on a value we hold. Now how do we determine what the speed limit should be in one area versus another? Do we say it's 30 mph everywhere? No. We look at the particulars of that road and area, and apply a legal limit to that stretch of road. The law itself is still objective, but the application of the law varies depending on the circumstances in which it needs to be applied.

What about first responders? The value that we hold there is that what they do protects the public and speeding is no longer a danger in this situation (provided they are following the specific guidelines for these situations). You could say "you're just saying speeding is ok some times", but what I'm actually saying is that responding to emergencies is good and speeding is a part of that. I can say that because we all like the speeding when their lights are blaring, and we all hope everyone is ok. But when we see a cop speeding for the hell of it, it pisses us off because they're abusing a good thing.

Objective morality is the law in this situation. How it applies after the invention of the car may look at little different, but the law hasn't changed. The law goes hand in hand with the belief that there is an objective, natural purpose to human life. Materialism rejects this, so any attempt to show you how we can have objective morality while having some degree of subjective application is just going to look like moral relativism to you. If that's what you need to call it to find common ground, then I guess that's the best approach to take. But we will continuously disagree with the idea of moral relativism because we have certain underlying principles that can't change.

Quote:

---

I agree that the number of people affects the degree of separation from neutrality. I also want to argue that there is something to be said about 'severity of those affects'. One hypothetical law says that Muslims cannot own land. Another says that Muslims cannot own land or a business. The two laws affect the same number of people, but one law is more restrictive than the other. The more restrictive one is further from neutral. Yes?

---

I'll agree with this

Quote:

---

Correct. This isn't radically dissimilar from how our entire legal and political system work today. Who should be president? Well, lets vote on it and the most number of votes wins. This works because the purpose of voting is not to employ the person objectively best for the job. It is to employee the person who best reflects the will of the people.

---

But why a president? Why not a king? Because our forefathers 250 years ago said so? Who are they to tell me what to do? If Donald Trump crowns himself like all the left loonies fear, the only thing he's done "wrong" is not follow instructions we've been following for 250 years. And if enough loonies on the right agree with him, and he is successful, then we have no grounded basis with which we can disagree outside of our feelings.

Quote:

---

There are also places where atheists are oppressed. If that happens here, will you come to my defense?

---

Yes I would, although I'm equally unaware of what that atheist oppression looks like.


To the end of your post, I largely agree with the wording, but in practice we'll disagree. For example, you see forbidding gay marriage as a way of disadvantaging a particular people group. We would see gay marriage as completely redefining the term and forcing us to agree with the redefinition. You see government "staying out of the bedroom" and we see the government forcing the bedroom into the public domain. Nothing happens in a bubble when it's enacted on a federal level. So when we push back, we are attempting to protect our autonomy, but you see it as an attack on another's. And all of that happens despite the majority not wanting it, but they still get publicly framed as "the bad guys"

kurt vonnegut said:

---

AGC said:

---

But you don't know what's true. And you won't define any terms that you're using to evaluate systems.

---

I don't claim to know what is true, but that doesn't mean I don't have an opinion. If there are terms you need me to define, let me know. I defined good and bad a few posts ago. I'm happy to define others as long as its useful and not just an exercise in trying to use semantics to undermine my position.

Quote:

---

So what makes this humble rather than egotistical, since it's blindly restraining practices with no rhyme or reason, and benefits you primarily?

---

I accept the same level of restraining as you. It is my goal for both of us to have the same level of oppression as it relates to our ability to practice our beliefs and participate in society and culture.

I am just as opposed to having a bust of Christopher Hitchens in front of a courthouse as I am of having the 10 Commandments. And I'm just as opposed to having a public school teacher read the tenants of secular humanism over the loud speaker as I am to having a prayer read. I would rather have nothing in front of the courthouse than advantage one group over another. And I would rather have nothing read at a school event than advantage one group over another.

I want us all to be equally restrained and equally benefitted - as much as that is possible.

If I wanted a system that benefitted me primarily, I could call for the dissolving of religious rights and remove protections against religions. I'm not doing that, am I?

---

The thing is, you didn't define good or bad. You just stated they had a relationship with well being, suffering, and justice, which were not defined. But there are non-theistic centered systems that allow you to determine what they are, even though such systems arrive at different conclusions with the same data. And then you said you didn't want to get into semantic arguments, which you repeat here.

But really, to argue these are things to take seriously is to say they exist outside of your head. Justice doesn't mean anything if it's purely tethered to a mob or your individual brain, aside from, 'I like this' or 'I want to do this.' Having a secular decision tree to make a determination doesn't make the idea of 'justice' defined, or true, or worth pursuing. Who cares about 'justice' if you can't tell us what it is aside from something you used utilitarianism to find, that made you or someone else feel good?

You feel no repression because you have nothing equivalent to religion. Humanism is part of the curriculum by default and design, so you don't perceive any favoritism if it isn't proclaimed over the load speaker. To not teach religion is to teach its lack of importance. The state enforces 40 hours a week of not-religion and homework to boot. It's your world, you are preferences.

Quote:

---

But this is exactly what happened. Local schools in their particular regions chose to have religious content in their schools. It was the federal government who stepped in and made them stop. You've given the federal government control over all religion rather than keeping the government out of it. Now if school taxes weren't mandatory, or in the areas where school vouchers allow people to take their tax money and apply it to a religious school, then you'd have some ground to stand on. But right now we are forced to pay for a government service that explicitly forbids religion, even if the local population wants it. And by the way, you're required to educate your children, so if you choose not to do the public school, you have to pay extra to follow the law. How much more control could you give them?

---

Is your main concern here that you feel religion in school ought to be a local decision and not a federal decision? There are issues where I assume that you are okay with federal control, right? For example, the legalization of race based slaver. Should local governments be able to legalize race based slavery if the majority of its residents want it? Why or why not? We accept that federal government has a domain of control. In the case of religion, freedom of religion is explicitly discussed in the first amendment and so it feels like maintaining that standard has always been within federal jurisdiction in some way.

How much power would you give local government to have religious content in schools? Putting a 10 Commandments poster is relatively innocuous compared to what we could be talking about? Can a local school force indoctrinate students into Christianity. Or Islam. Or atheism? Can a local school force students to renounce their chosen faith? And since we cannot separate belief from action, what actions are schools permitted to take against students?

Ultimately, I'm trying to understand your position here. How much power are you wanting to give local government? And is tyranny and oppression imposed at local levels better than if it is imposed at a federal level?

Religion and beliefs are so important to people. What is more important to you than your faith? Its more important than our racial identity or our safety and protection or our property rights or our freedom of speech or freedom of the press . . . and we protect all of those things at the federal level. The idea that we would protect all of these things at the federal level and let local governments willy nilly discriminate, or worse, people of the 'wrong' religion seems odd to me.

Quote:

---

Analogy: speeding endangers the public and is against the law. Great! We have an objective law based on a value we hold. Now how do we determine what the speed limit should be in one area versus another? Do we say it's 30 mph everywhere? No. We look at the particulars of that road and area, and apply a legal limit to that stretch of road. The law itself is still objective, but the application of the law varies depending on the circumstances in which it needs to be applied.

What about first responders? The value that we hold there is that what they do protects the public and speeding is no longer a danger in this situation (provided they are following the specific guidelines for these situations). You could say "you're just saying speeding is ok some times", but what I'm actually saying is that responding to emergencies is good and speeding is a part of that. I can say that because we all like the speeding when their lights are blaring, and we all hope everyone is ok. But when we see a cop speeding for the hell of it, it pisses us off because they're abusing a good thing.

Objective morality is the law in this situation. How it applies after the invention of the car may look at little different, but the law hasn't changed. The law goes hand in hand with the belief that there is an objective, natural purpose to human life. Materialism rejects this, so any attempt to show you how we can have objective morality while having some degree of subjective application is just going to look like moral relativism to you. If that's what you need to call it to find common ground, then I guess that's the best approach to take. But we will continuously disagree with the idea of moral relativism because we have certain underlying principles that can't change.

---

In your analogy, the objective is controlling something (speeding in this case) that endangers the public. So, should a road have a 25 mph limit or a 60 mph limit? Without objective criteria for how to evaluate 'endangerment', the speed that constitutes endangerment is purely subjective. Once city law maker could argue for a 25 mph limit based on what they think protects the public and another city law maker could argue for 60 mph based on the same objective. As long as the intention is in line with the objective, you cannot say that either law maker is 'wrong'. They are working toward the same objective, but with different application of 'endangerment'. Intention to comply with the objective becomes the metric for determining if a law is 'right' or 'wrong'. This feels like basically deontology.

Quote:

---

But why a president? Why not a king? Because our forefathers 250 years ago said so? Who are they to tell me what to do? If Donald Trump crowns himself like all the left loonies fear, the only thing he's done "wrong" is not follow instructions we've been following for 250 years. And if enough loonies on the right agree with him, and he is successful, then we have no grounded basis with which we can disagree outside of our feelings.

---

People either should have the right to govern themselves or they should not. If your position is that kings ought not to be permitted because of some external grounded basis, then you do not believe people should have the right to govern themselves, right? Or maybe you do, but just in a limited capacity.

If tomorrow, 95% of Americans voted to make Donald Trump king, then, as far as I'm concerned, he should be king. Me and my family would look to move to another country to find somewhere where our values are more protected. . . . . but, If everyone wants a king, who am I to tell them no?

This gets back to what we feel the role of government should be. Do you want a government that reflects the values of the people (eventhough those values can change over time)? Or do you want a government that is held hostage to external rules even if those rules not longer represent the people in the country?

Quote:

---

To the end of your post, I largely agree with the wording, but in practice we'll disagree. For example, you see forbidding gay marriage as a way of disadvantaging a particular people group. We would see gay marriage as completely redefining the term and forcing us to agree with the redefinition. You see government "staying out of the bedroom" and we see the government forcing the bedroom into the public domain. Nothing happens in a bubble when it's enacted on a federal level. So when we push back, we are attempting to protect our autonomy, but you see it as an attack on another's. And all of that happens despite the majority not wanting it, but they still get publicly framed as "the bad guys"

---

First off, I don't care what you call gay marriage. Call it a civil union, if you want. But, even if government uses the term marriage for same sex unions, no one is forcing you to agree with anything. You do not have to agree with a law. You do not have to think the law is correct. You do not have to change what you believe to confirm to a law. Your belief that same sex couples cannot marry is protected.

The second the government takes a stance on what a marriage is or is not, you've put it in the public domain. We've spent 10 pages talking about how laws and governments are not neutral. And so, a government that recognizes only heterosexual marriages has taken a non-neutral stance and has already 'entered the bedroom'. Government isn't 'forced into the bedroom' just because gays want equal rights. Early Americans and Christians forced it when they gave government power to recognize some marriages, but not others. Your position above is against everything you spend the last 10 pages arguing, no?

I'm sort of tired of asking the question, but what do you want government to do? Do you want government to be in the business of defining the religious holy sacrament of marriage - a bond between two people and God. . . . is this where government ought to inject itself? The second you say that government should recognize heterosexual marriages, but not same sex marriages, you have made it the government's power to redefine this sacred religious institution as it sees fit. And as was pointed out my 'your side' many pages ago - once you give government a power, you cannot complain that it begins to use it against you.

Christians get framed as the bad guys here because we are a country of "Mind your own F#%& ing business". Personal liberty and distrust of authority are inseparable from the heart and soul of the culture of this country.

Gays are not trying to pass laws that invalidate Christian marriages. It is the Christians trying to invalidate gay marriages. Whether you like it or not, in this scenario, the gays are the ones minding their own business.

AGC said:

---

The thing is, you didn't define good or bad. You just stated they had a relationship with well being, suffering, and justice, which were not defined. But there are non-theistic centered systems that allow you to determine what they are, even though such systems arrive at different conclusions with the same data. And then you said you didn't want to get into semantic arguments, which you repeat here.

But really, to argue these are things to take seriously is to say they exist outside of your head. Justice doesn't mean anything if it's purely tethered to a mob or your individual brain, aside from, 'I like this' or 'I want to do this.' Having a secular decision tree to make a determination doesn't make the idea of 'justice' defined, or true, or worth pursuing. Who cares about 'justice' if you can't tell us what it is aside from something you used utilitarianism to find, that made you or someone else feel good?

---

If I define suffering and justice, will you ask for definitions for those terms in those descriptions as well? Should I just say that I can't respond to your post until you've defined every word you just used above?

And why should I take seriously what you say if you cannot prove that your ideas about God and morality exist outside of your head. As far as I can tell, its all man made - just like every other religion. The problem in this thread that we keep coming back to is that you fail to see that the criticisms you offer for secularism apply exactly to your faith as well.

Quote:

---

You feel no repression because you have nothing equivalent to religion. Humanism is part of the curriculum by default and design, so you don't perceive any favoritism if it isn't proclaimed over the load speaker. To not teach religion is to teach its lack of importance. The state enforces 40 hours a week of not-religion and homework to boot. It's your world, you are preferences.

---

We MUST get to the bottom of this one. . . .


I believe that you want public schools to be grounded in Christian values and beliefs. But, which version of Christianity?

What are public school kids to be taught about whether or not to pray to Mary? Should they be taught to follow the Catholic tradition or Protestant? If you say that the schools should not teach it one way or the other, then you've chosen a non-neutral value proposition that says public school kids should not be taught about the appropriateness of praying to Mary. Which by default, is that you don't pray to Mary and so now you are giving the Protestant's favoritism.

What should public schools teach about which interpretation of the Holy Trinity is correct? Catholic? Mormon? Eastern Orthodox? Again, if you tell me that public school curriculum should not discuss the Holy Trinity, then you are making a non-neutral value statement about teaching the Holy Trinity. And you are showing favoritism to one side or the other and oppressing those who do not receive that favoritism


My argument is this:

Any attempt by the government to not show favoritism toward one faith tradition is not neutral and is a favoritism toward someone and an oppression of another.

Therefore, anything short of complete and absolute indoctrination of every public school child to one specific religious tradition in an attempt to not show favoritism will result in a non-neutral favoritism toward one group and oppression of another.

Do you see how ridiculous this becomes. . .

The second you say that there are some things that public school teachers should not be teaching our children, you've defeated yourself.

And so, I ask again. What exactly do you want? And what is your preferred role for public schools in terms of religious education? Do you want schools to have some vague acknowledgement of the superiority of Christianity, but not teach any specifics. Well, thats not neural. To not teach about the importance of praying to Mary or the right interpretation of the Holy Treatment is to teach its lack of importance. If Public schools do not teach EVERYTHING about religion is to teach of its lack of importance.

I'm obviously expecting you to tell me I've mis-represented your position. I just don't know how. As far as I can tell, anything short of an absolute theocracy based on your beliefs and values is showing favoritism to someone else and unacceptably results in your oppression. . . . . what am I supposed to do with this?

Quote:

---

Is your main concern here that you feel religion in school ought to be a local decision and not a federal decision? There are issues where I assume that you are okay with federal control, right? For example, the legalization of race based slaver. Should local governments be able to legalize race based slavery if the majority of its residents want it? Why or why not? We accept that federal government has a domain of control

---

Great example. It was actually outside of the federal government's control to take away race based slavery. It was also outside the federal government's control to keep other states from seceding. Hundreds of thousands of men died in order for these two powers to be given to the federal government. If you're arguing that the law should be reducing government overreach, you're relying on the best example of government overreach we have. What is more "mind your own f***ing business" than allowing the states to leave when they didn't like the conditions of the union anymore? No fault divorce, am I right?

Now I'm perfectly fine with the end result despite the illegality of it's origin. Why? Because it is objectively right. Not because it simply lines up with my personal opinion. Enforcement at all levels is going to be tyranny, just to varying levels of degrees. If we are going to impose morality upon the nation, I'd prefer it to be an objective one. If we're going with subjective morality, then local is far superior because it damages are localized. If race based slavery is not objectively wrong, then how disgusting are we for slaughtering over half a million young men to get rid of it? Where do we get the right to destroy the economic foundation of half the states in the country simply because we don't like it?

Quote:

---

The idea that we would protect all of these things at the federal level and let local governments willy nilly discriminate, or worse, people of the 'wrong' religion seems odd to me

---

Instead we let the federal government discriminate against all religions, which benefits the irreligious the most by default? This is why I think school vouchers are a good thing. Why should I pay money to an institution that is hostile to my religion, regardless of whether or not I utilize it's services? This is a service that was mandated when religion was allowed in schools. We were paying for something we wanted. The federal government took away a part of it that we wanted against our will, but left the payments in place against our will. What would you call that?

Quote:

---

They are working toward the same objective, but with different application of 'endangerment'

---

Exactly. You are able to distinguish between objective law and application at the legal level. Why can't you grant this as possible at the moral level?

Quote:

---

If tomorrow, 95% of Americans voted to make Donald Trump king, then, as far as I'm concerned, he should be king.

---

But when the majority vote to outlaw abortion, homosexual marriage, etc, they shouldn't get what they want?

Quote:

---

This gets back to what we feel the role of government should be. Do you want a government that reflects the values of the people (even though those values can change over time)? Or do you want a government that is held hostage to external rules even if those rules not longer represent the people in the country?

---

I do want a government that reflects the values of it's people. The unfortunate problem is that over the past 100 years or so, the government has continued to enforce values on the people that the people did not want and did not agree with. You should be siding with me on this one, but it would go against a number of the policy wins that the left has had through the courts, which you won't want to do.

Quote:

---

The second the government takes a stance on what a marriage is or is not, you've put it in the public domain. We've spent 10 pages talking about how laws and governments are not neutral. And so, a government that recognizes only heterosexual marriages has taken a non-neutral stance and has already 'entered the bedroom'. Government isn't 'forced into the bedroom' just because gays want equal rights. Early Americans and Christians forced it when they gave government power to recognize some marriages, but not others. Your position above is against everything you spend the last 10 pages arguing, no?

---

On the contrary, this proves my point. I'm aware that the initial position taken in America was not a neutral one. You agree that the creation of same sex marriage was also not a neutral one. That has been my main point all along: there is no neutral law. You agreed with this, just as I agreed there a varying levels of control that are closer or further from neutral.

Quote:

---

The second you say that government should recognize heterosexual marriages, but not same sex marriages, you have made it the government's power to redefine this sacred religious institution as it sees fit.

---

I didn't want the federal government to do this at all. Leave the states to do what they do, as they did in the beginning. Every state where they attempted to legalize it, it failed. The will of the people was clear. But come Obergefell, now the state's no longer had the right to define marriage as they saw fit. Now the federal government DOES tells us what we do and don't have to recognize. It is an additional power to fedgov. You could argue DOMA took a federal position on the matter for tax purposes, but states were still capable of choosing their own definitions. Now they can't.

Quote:

---

Christians get framed as the bad guys here because we are a country of "Mind your own F#%& ing business". Personal liberty and distrust of authority are inseparable from the heart and soul of the culture of this country. Gays are not trying to pass laws that invalidate Christian marriages. It is the Christians trying to invalidate gay marriages. Whether you like it or not, in this scenario, the gays are the ones minding their own business.

---

And this is the irony. You are appealing to the federal government forcing all states to change their marriage laws as "minding your own business". Do you see how crazy that sounds? A new right that had been voted against time and time again being forced upon all those states that voted is "minding their own business"? No. The government is being used as a moral agent. It always has, and always will. The question is "whose morality?"

So what do I want the government to do? Ideally it would be trying to instill values that align with objective morality. As we've essentially agreed above, application can be a tricky thing, but that doesn't mean objective morality doesn't exist. And just because one side claims an objective morality while the other doesn't, it doesn't mean the other side isn't attempting to force their morality on our side. If the federal government is going to override the will of the people to do what is "right", then I'd really like to know where they get their sense of "right" from.

You are obviously very concerned about laws that discriminate against yourself or Christians. Do you care about others being discriminated against? I recognize that this question sounds like an accusation, but that isn't my intent. I think you recognize that laws that show favoritism toward Christianity put non-Christians at a disadvantage. But, I can't find anything to suggest that you think this is not preferred. But, maybe I missed it.

Can you describe a set of policies where the federal government does not discriminate against every religion? We could model our government and laws after the Catholic tradition, but we would discriminate against non Catholics. Even this assumes that Catholics are a completely unified block. Or we could follow one of the Protestant traditions, or Mormons, or whatever. The point is that the only way to NOT discriminate against every religion is to model laws after one specific set of beliefs - and in that case, you have discrimination against all religions except one.

And its not like we can model our government roughly after a vague notion of Christian tradition. You've already pointed out that not explicitly promoting any idea is equivalent to promoting its unimportance. And so a government that roughly promotes a vague notion of Christianity is still discriminatory against every Christian.

At this point, I don't see a satisfactory system of governance for you unless it is a theocracy of your design. . . am I wrong?

What I am proposing is a system that discriminates against all religions. Equally, and as minimally as possible. The only system that would not discriminate against you is your own personal theocracy. There is no way to make everyone happy. You keep criticizing my views as being discriminatory against religion as though you have a solution that avoids it.

Why should you pay for a service that runs counter to your values? Why should I? Do you honestly think that Christians are the only people who see government spending that they object to?

Quote:

---

So what do I want the government to do? Ideally it would be trying to instill values that align with objective morality. As we've essentially agreed above, application can be a tricky thing, but that doesn't mean objective morality doesn't exist. And just because one side claims an objective morality while the other doesn't, it doesn't mean the other side isn't attempting to force their morality on our side. If the federal government is going to override the will of the people to do what is "right", then I'd really like to know where they get their sense of "right" from.

---

With whose objective morality? Do you speak for God?

And what does a government aligned with objective morality look like? You've already established that a government policy that does not take a position, has actually taken a position because neutrality does not exist. And in taking a non-position, government has actually taken a position against religion.

For example, if you feel that it is appropriate to pray to Mary and the government does not have a policy on whether you should pray to Mary, that means that government is advocating you don't pray to Mary and you are being discriminated against. Right? Because a government policy that says you can choose to pray to Mary or not pray to Mary is not neutral and apparently just as discriminatory as saying you must or must not pray to Mary.

Without a willingness to compromise, you create this situation whereby anything other than a theocracy built around your personal views is an unacceptable discrimination against you. So, are you advocating for a 'Banned Theocracy'? Or do you accept compromise as necessary?

[edit] Or do you accept compromise in the form of different opinions of applications of what you see as objective truth?

So, I don't think you've answered the question about government should do. Vague statements about following objective truth isn't an answer that I'll accept here.

Quote:

---

You are obviously very concerned about laws that discriminate against yourself or Christians. Do you care about others being discriminated against?

---

I'm merely acknowledging that someone is getting discriminated against (based on your definition of discrimination) in every instance, so we have to make a value judgement on who should or shouldn't be discriminated against. You see yourself as taking neutral stances and I'm merely trying to show you that you are still discriminating, and you don't seem to care. My sole focus is to shatter your illusion of neutrality. I think I've succeeded

Believe it or not, I'm not advocating for anything like a theocracy. I think you and I agree in many ways on how the government should operate in a diverse population. The problem is you don't see how it is discriminating against all religions equally but is not in any way discriminating against secular materialism. It is by default allowing material secularism to have the prominent position in policy making, and you don't recognize that your view is given pride of place. The standard right now is you should leave your faith at home and assume a faithless position in the public square. Anytime a Christian view is invoked, all of sudden we're imposing morality, completely ignoring that the non-Christian side was already attempting to impose a moral position. Right now, your view is the beneficiary of our discrimination. Agnosticism and atheism should be equally discriminated against, no? They're just another answer to the question of "Is there a God?", but they get treated as the default neutral from the government's perspective. Do you disagree?

You should be able to identify this by the way you sidestepped my (in my opinion) very reasonable view on school vouchers. If you want your dollars to go to a materialist education, then do that. But something tells me you'd object when I want my dollars to go to a religious education because that would cause a separation of church and state problem. I'm offering as close to your neutral as you can get in this one microcosm of government. If government is going to mandate schools, then mandate they be secular, then you have a leg up on 100% of religious people.. You get the education you want for your kids at the cost of taxes, while to provide the education for their kids that religious want comes at the cost of taxes + tuition. We're discriminated against at the benefit of your worldview being taught, yet you see it as neutral.

Quote:

---

And what does a government aligned with objective morality look like? You've already established that a government policy that does not take a position, has actually taken a position because neutrality does not exist. And in taking a non-position, government has actually taken a position against religion.

---

Maybe I did a poor job of identifying this earlier, but you keep equating religion with morality. They are not synonymous. So if a policy is put in place to talk about praying to Mary or not praying to Mary, that would be a religious/doctrinal issue. In that case, taking a neutral stance does not affect morality at all. Heretical or orthodox maybe, but not morality. Talking about things like child labor laws, fair tax rates, etc are not religious. They are moral. While our particular denominations may have something to say about how to apply the moral truth to the problem of the day, so does your non-religious view. It's not "religious" in nature. This is highlighted when you say:

Quote:

---

With whose objective morality?

---

Objective morality is objective. It's not mine or yours. While we may understand objective morality (like an objective law against speeding) by divine revelation, natural law, etc., the application of it (what speed in which areas) are topics of debate, and yes, compromise. It may surprise you to hear that St Thomas Aquinas made a potential concession for prostitution. Did he say it was objectively evil? YES and clearly. But he also said that there could be issues where civil reasons would merit leaving the evil in place FOR A TIME and phased out as it could reasonably be done. The objective is the objective. How to get there is subjective.

Quote:

---

So, I don't think you've answered the question about government should do. Vague statements about following objective truth isn't an answer that I'll accept here.

---

I think compromise in government is very important. But how do you define compromise? Look at the way you responded to my pushback on gay marriage. Your response, from my perspective, can be summarized as: "sit down, shut up and stop complaining. It's not a big deal. You lost and the other side won, and any issue you have with it are personal issues." Nevermind all the downstream affects that you assume aren't there, and will downplay once brought to light.

So what do I want government to do: leave it to the most local population to figure out. Will some local populations F it up? Definitely. But at least the screw up is localized to them. Working on the hearts and minds of the people, without invoking government interference, is easiest at the local level. That's not your position. You seem perfectly fine with the unelected branch of the federal government forcing states to step in on positions you think should change. The difference between you and me is that you are claiming that the position you advocate for is based off of nothing other than your personal opinion and those that agree with you. You are so certain these things need to be changed, yet you claim you are just a neutral party, humbly attempting to see all sides. How can you make a definitive statement like you did on gay marriage, discriminating against all religions, etc. if it's just your opinion? Wouldn't the humble option be offering an opinion and leaving it up to a vote? Instead, you champion the forceful overturning of the legal and legitimate votes of the majority, simply because you believe it to be the right thing to do, all while acknowledging that there is no objective truth on these matters. And I reiterate: you apparently don't even see it.

So what does a government following objective truth do? The same thing you're currently doing, but without pretending or deluding themselves that they're taking a neutral position.

Quote:

---

I'm merely acknowledging that someone is getting discriminated against (based on your definition of discrimination) in every instance, so we have to make a value judgement on who should or shouldn't be discriminated against. You see yourself as taking neutral stances and I'm merely trying to show you that you are still discriminating, and you don't seem to care. My sole focus is to shatter your illusion of neutrality. I think I've succeeded

Believe it or not, I'm not advocating for anything like a theocracy. I think you and I agree in many ways on how the government should operate in a diverse population. The problem is you don't see how it is discriminating against all religions equally but is not in any way discriminating against secular materialism. It is by default allowing material secularism to have the prominent position in policy making, and you don't recognize that your view is given pride of place. The standard right now is you should leave your faith at home and assume a faithless position in the public square. Anytime a Christian view is invoked, all of sudden we're imposing morality, completely ignoring that the non-Christian side was already attempting to impose a moral position. Right now, your view is the beneficiary of our discrimination. Agnosticism and atheism should be equally discriminated against, no? They're just another answer to the question of "Is there a God?", but they get treated as the default neutral from the government's perspective. Do you disagree?

You should be able to identify this by the way you sidestepped my (in my opinion) very reasonable view on school vouchers. If you want your dollars to go to a materialist education, then do that. But something tells me you'd object when I want my dollars to go to a religious education because that would cause a separation of church and state problem. I'm offering as close to your neutral as you can get in this one microcosm of government. If government is going to mandate schools, then mandate they be secular, then you have a leg up on 100% of religious people.. You get the education you want for your kids at the cost of taxes, while to provide the education for their kids that religious want comes at the cost of taxes + tuition. We're discriminated against at the benefit of your worldview being taught, yet you see it as neutral.

---

You make it sound like some great victory that you got me stop using the term neutrality to describe a government position. Nevermind the fact that I immediately conceded (8 pages ago) to my descriptor as being technically incorrect. And for the last 8 pages I have been advocating for government policy 'closer' to neutral . . . since absolute neutrality doesn't exist. But yeah, you got me on a technicality.

Quote:

---

The problem is you don't see how it is discriminating against all religions equally but is not in any way discriminating against secular materialism.

---

Secularism by itself is not a set of values. At most you can say it is a statement about the value of the role of religious belief in government, but nothing more. Secularism is not a position on gay marriage, abortion, contraception, the death penalty, or any of the items we are talking about here. It is simply the idea that government should not be an extension of the church.

You can certainly say that secular humanism is a set of values that touches on these items. But, I'm not asking that the government take a formal position on the morality of any of these items based on the superiority of my beliefs. People can vote on positions for those issues. I don't have to like the results of the vote, but in most cases, I can accept the will of the people and I can continue advocating for the things I think should or should not be implemented. Every society requires compromise between citizens for it to function.

The argument that if laws permit something or the argument that not teaching that something is moral or immoral is equivalent to an endorsement of one side leads to nonsense. Its on par with saying that anything that cannot be disproven is therefore true. For example, the government does not forbid me from worshipping Satan. Does that mean our government endorses Satanic worship? And my school when I was a kid and my kid's current school never talk about the morality of necrophilia. I guess that means public schools are promoting necrophilia, right?

Now, you can say that a city painting its crosswalks as a rainbow is a violation of my rule - and I'd agree. And then I'd say that Christmas trees on public land is equally a violation. It would be an exhausting task to demand that we completely scrub all symbolism from public land and I think most people are okay with it within reason. I don't put Satanic goat statues in the public land in front of your church. You don't put the monuments to religious law in front of a courthouse, and we're all good. Or we can go the harder way and if you demand rainbows be removed from a crosswalk, then I'm going to demand we get rid of 'In God We Trust', the use of the Bible in government oaths, Christmas trees on public land, etc.

The problem I have here is that too many Christians view any discrimination against Christianity as some great injustice while any discrimination against anyone else is . . .. well, who gives a ****, they're wrong so who cares, right? You want all the respect in the world, but aren't willing to give any back in return. Because you're right and I'm wrong. And you know that you're right because you just do.

Quote:

---

The standard right now is you should leave your faith at home and assume a faithless position in the public square. Anytime a Christian view is invoked, all of sudden we're imposing morality, completely ignoring that the non-Christian side was already attempting to impose a moral position.

---

I think it depends on the situation. In a lot of cases, I think you are drawing a false equivalence between imposing a belief that someone should be oppressed and imposing a belief that someone should not be oppressed. For example, lets say that one lawmaker says we should make practicing Islam illegal and throw all Muslims in jail and another said we should allow people to practice Islam. Both are trying to impose a moral position. But, lets not pretend there is any other similarity between the two positions beyond the fact that they are both technically value statements. Now, I recognize that no one is calling for all Muslims to be jailed. . . . But, I have yet to convince anyone to acknowledge a difference between a restrictive law and a protective law.

With that said, what is the display of your faith that is being excluded in the public square. Is the concern for the general public? Or is it in the realm of public policy? If the Christian view in question is that another group should have their rights restricted because they have the wrong religion or values, I'm not going to be very sympathetic to you.

But, there may be places where I am sympathetic. And if you have zero sympathy for where I feel I'm being excluded from the public square, why should I feel inclined to act on my sympathy. Again, Christians pretend that they are the only group in this country facing discrimination. If you want to be heard, you might need to be quiet long enough to hear someone else.

Quote:

---

Agnosticism and atheism should be equally discriminated against, no? They're just another answer to the question of "Is there a God?", but they get treated as the default neutral from the government's perspective. Do you disagree?

---

Again, agnosticism and atheism are not a set of values and so this is not the right comparison.

Should secular humanism being equally discriminated against. 100%. Yes.

Quote:

---

You should be able to identify this by the way you sidestepped my (in my opinion) very reasonable view on school vouchers.

---

Not intentional. I remember you mentioning vouchers and having thoughts and then not putting them down. Yes, vouchers is a reasonable attempt to deal with the problem we are discussing. In theory, I don't have any issues with it. As it has been proposed or implemented in some areas still has plenty of issues, but in theory, I think its fine.

I don't think it completely solves the issue. To say that it does I think assumes that people all fall into a few neat boxes. All you have to do is image a situation where you have a small town with 200 school age kids which include some mixture of Catholics, Baptists, Jews, Methodists, Muslims, Hindus, Atheists, etc. Its not reasonable to build a school for every group. A voucher system may permit parents to choose a school closer to their values, but there is still going to be compromise and acceptance of public funds being used to teach your child something you disagree with.

The other thing I think it has the potential for is further isolating us from one another. Maybe you don't live near a school that you like, so you move to a place with like minded people. And everyone else does the same and we're left with a segregated society. This is just a personal belief, but I think exposure to other beliefs and value systems helps us grow and helps us understand one another. if your child goes 18 years before meeting someone with a different faith. . . . I think thats a huge disservice. Again, personal opinion.

Quote:

---

Objective morality is objective. It's not mine or yours. While we may understand objective morality (like an objective law against speeding) by divine revelation, natural law, etc., the application of it (what speed in which areas) are topics of debate, and yes, compromise. It may surprise you to hear that St Thomas Aquinas made a potential concession for prostitution. Did he say it was objectively evil? YES and clearly. But he also said that there could be issues where civil reasons would merit leaving the evil in place FOR A TIME and phased out as it could reasonably be done. The objective is the objective. How to get there is subjective.

---

If we all agreed on what objective morality was and just disagreed on application, I think that I would agree with you.

Quote:

---

I think compromise in government is very important. But how do you define compromise? Look at the way you responded to my pushback on gay marriage. Your response, from my perspective, can be summarized as: "sit down, shut up and stop complaining. It's not a big deal. You lost and the other side won, and any issue you have with it are personal issues." Nevermind all the downstream affects that you assume aren't there, and will downplay once brought to light.

---

I hope my responses was not 'sit down, shut up, and stop complaining'.

But, lets talk about compromise as it relates to gay marriage. The position that same sex persons should not have equal rights to others is not compromise. What compromise are you willing to allow here?

And who determines if the downstream affects are good or bad? There are 340 million people in this country and I say we all get 1 / 340,000,000 of a say. Christians don't get a bigger say. Atheists don't get a bigger say. We all get the same say.

I often don't like what I see in society. But, my response is not to want to make it legal to repress the things I don't like. My response is to use my 1/340,000,000 say to encourage things toward what I think is a better way. And I succeed or I don't. What I'm not going to do is be sad that some people don't agree with me. I'd rather have people disagree with me than be forced to agree with me.

10 commandments being required as a display in classrooms is an absurd mistake, as it opens the door to other groups insisting their religious beliefs be similarly exhibited, if nothing else. I also don't want/understand why someone would want a public school teacher discussing adultery with kindergarteners though.

I don't mean it as a victory. You keep trying to pin me on policy positions, which was never my intent. That's why I keep reiterating all I was initially searching for was to prove the neutrality point.

Quote:

---

You can certainly say that secular humanism is a set of values that touches on these items. But, I'm not asking that the government take a formal position on the morality of any of these items based on the superiority of my beliefs. People can vote on positions for those issues

---

I did say secular materialism, not just secularism, to be fair. Humanism is fine if you prefer that. But you ARE asking the government to take a formal position on morality. It's why I brought up the gay marriage thing. People repeatedly voted against it and the government, through the courts, said this is a right due to all for the sake of fairness. "Fairness" is a moral issue. The whole reason our country was founded was because the colonists felt they were treated unfairly when each man was created with inalienable rights. Tax rates may have been the hot button issue, but tax rates don't start revolutions. "Fair" and "right and wrong" do. The whole thing is a moral issue, but you don't seem to see it.

Quote:

---

The argument that if laws permit something or the argument that not teaching that something is moral or immoral is equivalent to an endorsement of one side leads to nonsense. Its on par with saying that anything that cannot be disproven is therefore true. For example, the government does not forbid me from worshipping Satan. Does that mean our government endorses Satanic worship?

---

We used to have blasphemy laws and those were stripped away as well. Again a topic that you see the government taking a neutral position on, but it didn't These laws were in place at the passing of the 1st and 14th amendments. It's not until later that these laws are struck down from DC. The government is intervening to say the satanic worship is a valid worship that should be allowed. You yourself said that you're ok with cannibal death cults, as long as they don't actually practice murder or cannibalism. 70-250 years ago you would have been laughed out of the building. But regardless, the government did not stay neutral or follow the will of the people. They enforced their secular values on the people using the exact same laws that had been previously used to allow Christian values.

Quote:

---

You don't put the monuments to religious law in front of a courthouse, and we're all good. Or we can go the harder way and if you demand rainbows be removed from a crosswalk, then I'm going to demand we get rid of 'In God We Trust', the use of the Bible in government oaths, Christmas trees on public land, etc.

---

If it's all subjective and neither you nor I can be objectively right, why don't we put it up to a vote? Just like we did all the other times and the Christians won. But that won't do will it? You agree with might makes right, but when you aren't the "might" you appeal to "right" to overrule the "might". I'm fine with agreeing to disagree on a personal, you and me kind of level. But on a societal level, how else do we do that other than vote?

Quote:

---

You want all the respect in the world, but aren't willing to give any back in return. Because you're right and I'm wrong. And you know that you're right because you just do.

---

You are celebrating the forceable overturning of valid laws in order to get what you want and expect there to be a respect given to your movement? That's fine, as long as your movement is doing the "right" thing. You know for a fact that the overturning was correct because you just do, right? We're two sides of the same coin, which is what I keep driving at. Only one of us admits to it though.

Quote:

---

But, I have yet to convince anyone to acknowledge a difference between a restrictive law and a protective law

---

.

I acknowledged this earlier. The problem that arises is the fact we appeal to an underlying morality when we choose what to restrict or protect. I agree that tolerance, to a degree, is the right way to go. At the very beginning of Christianity taking hold in the Roman Empire there were degrees of tolerance. Jews got a bit of a pass. Most Pagans didn't. All depended on the degree to which they publicly conflicted with the Christian values of the times. Christianity was heavily persecuted prior because it also conflicted with the values of the times.

Quote:

---

Again, agnosticism and atheism are not a set of values and so this is not the right comparison. Should secular humanism being equally discriminated against. 100%. Yes.

---

Agnosticism and atheism are truth claims that lead to values like secular humanism, and are the default position of government entities today. If you have a school that says "our values include tolerance, kindness, openness, diligence" blah, blah, blah and does all of this without God as a source for these values, then you by default have agnostic or atheist value systems. If we have a government who says this is right and that is wrong, while removing God as the source of right and wrong, you by default have a secular humanist government. You say you understand there is no neutral, so I must not be doing a good job of explaining this point.

Quote:

---

This is just a personal belief, but I think exposure to other beliefs and value systems helps us grow and helps us understand one another. if your child goes 18 years before meeting someone with a different faith. . . . I think that's a huge disservice.

---

This is a thread saying child exposure to the 10 commandments shouldn't be allowed, but you think children should be exposed to other belief systems? I agree children should be, but it's a bit ironic when taken in the context of this thread

Quote:

---

But, lets talk about compromise as it relates to gay marriage. The position that same sex persons should not have equal rights to others is not compromise. What compromise are you willing to allow here?

---

I would suggest you review the history of the gay marriage debate. The idea of a civil union alternative was utterly rejected by the "pro" side wherever it was offered. The goal was always marriage in a synonymous way as heterosexuals. Even in states like Massachusetts where they got civil unions, the push was for marriage anyway. There was never a compromise to be given. Legal rights were the battleground, but the agenda was legitimacy of a moral truth claim. And we can tell this because same sex attracted people had just as much right to get married as you or I… just not a person of the same sex. Marriage was a right of every single individual prior to Obergefell… just not the definition of marriage that some people wanted. A man could have entered into a legal contract on a house with another man. He could have willed his belongings to another man. He could have named another man his power of attorney. None of that was enough.


I don't mean to be doom and gloom here and say we can never get along, no matter how much it may seem like it in a post like this. I think the best way to get along is to keep things as local as possible. Yes, some people will have their issues in each area. Yes, there will be some balkinazation. But if we don't go that route, then we'll continue to compete for our morality through the legal system.

nortex97 said:

---

10 commandments being required as a display in classrooms is an absurd mistake, as it opens the door to other groups insisting their religious beliefs be similarly exhibited, if nothing else. I also don't want/understand why someone would want a public school teacher discussing adultery with kindergarteners though.

---

The door is always open for groups to demand special treatment for their set of beliefs. There's literally nothing new under the sun. We'll either accommodate them, or we won't, but we get to choose.

I'll pretend you think having a poster of the 10 commandments in a classroom means kindergarten teachers are going to be discussing adultery with their students. If this is something you're concerned about, why in the heck would you have your children in the public schools? Why would you trust their teacher as far as you could throw them if you think they're the kind of people who'll use this as an opportunity/excuse to have age inappropriate discussions with your children about sex? It says more about you doesn't it? At that point you're just saying "oh sure my child's teacher is a perverted weirdo but, I feel good about it as long as the 10 commandments aren't posted in the classroom".

Bob Lee said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

10 commandments being required as a display in classrooms is an absurd mistake, as it opens the door to other groups insisting their religious beliefs be similarly exhibited, if nothing else. I also don't want/understand why someone would want a public school teacher discussing adultery with kindergarteners though.

---

The door is always open for groups to demand special treatment for their set of beliefs. There's literally nothing new under the sun. We'll either accommodate them, or we won't, but we get to choose.

I'll pretend you think having a poster of the 10 commandments in a classroom means kindergarten teachers are going to be discussing adultery with their students. If this is something you're concerned about, why in the heck would you have your children in the public schools? Why would you trust their teacher as far as you could throw them if you think they're the kind of people who'll use this as an opportunity/excuse to have age inappropriate discussions with your children about sex? It says more about you doesn't it? At that point you're just saying "oh sure my child's teacher is a perverted weirdo but, I feel good about it as long as the 10 commandments aren't posted in the classroom".

---

You're making/refuting a number of arguments I am not making, I think.

The issue is I don't think religion should be taught in public schools, full stop. That includes all religions where the line is crossed occasionally/often in different districts/schools/classrooms nationally; global warming, Marxism, GLBTQ+ politics, islam, infanticide, you name it. The issue I have is that this brings religion directly into the classroom, where I don't think we have screened/qualified teachers to be theological instructors. From a policy perspective, I thus just don't agree with it.

I don't think parents should have a duty to take their kids out of school to preclude religious instruction, which would be the other rational option seemingly implied. And make no mistake, there are teachers, including in Texas independent school districts, whom I expect have already mocked the 10 commandments before their students, as required to be exhibited. I don't endorse/support that either, but the knock-on effects of this executive order are not all positive, including from a Christian perspective, imho.

nortex97 said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

10 commandments being required as a display in classrooms is an absurd mistake, as it opens the door to other groups insisting their religious beliefs be similarly exhibited, if nothing else. I also don't want/understand why someone would want a public school teacher discussing adultery with kindergarteners though.

---

The door is always open for groups to demand special treatment for their set of beliefs. There's literally nothing new under the sun. We'll either accommodate them, or we won't, but we get to choose.

I'll pretend you think having a poster of the 10 commandments in a classroom means kindergarten teachers are going to be discussing adultery with their students. If this is something you're concerned about, why in the heck would you have your children in the public schools? Why would you trust their teacher as far as you could throw them if you think they're the kind of people who'll use this as an opportunity/excuse to have age inappropriate discussions with your children about sex? It says more about you doesn't it? At that point you're just saying "oh sure my child's teacher is a perverted weirdo but, I feel good about it as long as the 10 commandments aren't posted in the classroom".

---

You're making/refuting a number of arguments I am not making, I think.

The issue is I don't think religion should be taught in public schools, full stop. That includes all religions where the line is crossed occasionally/often in different districts/schools/classrooms nationally; global warming, Marxism, GLBTQ+ politics, islam, infanticide, you name it. The issue I have is that this brings religion directly into the classroom, where I don't think we have screened/qualified teachers to be theological instructors. From a policy perspective, I thus just don't agree with it.

I don't think parents should have a duty to take their kids out of school to preclude religious instruction, which would be the other rational option seemingly implied. And make no mistake, there are teachers, including in Texas independent school districts, whom I expect have already mocked the 10 commandments before their students, as required to be exhibited. I don't endorse/support that either, but the knock-on effects of this executive order are not all positive, including from a Christian perspective, imho.

---

Why did you home in on adultery in particular?

The reason you're giving for why religion shouldn't be taught in schools is that teachers aren't qualified. So, if there were qualified religion teachers, you'd be in favor of teaching it in schools?

I am the American born child of non-Abrahamic parents who come from a non-Abrahamic culture, people, and faith. And I think I would've GREATLY benefitted from being taught religion in school. My parents didn't know much about Christianity or Judaism or Islam nor did they have enough free time to look into other religions and teach them to me in a meaningful way.
Because of my personal interest in metaphysics and history, I learned a lot about Christianity and particularly its history. And yet half the stuff you people talk about goes over my head on this board. I'm not Christian nor am I looking for spiritual guidance, but on a human level I want to understand people; and respect and appreciate them on their level. What people think and what informs those thoughts are important to know and religion is a MAJOR part of getting to that end.

If I could influence education policy in regards to religion, I would do the following. Every high school has a world geography or social studies or world something class in which the students have to learn about the world already. Instead of memorizing some trivial things about different places or demographics for an exam, I'd have a month or two dedicated to learning the world's religions. And I would reach out to different denominations and have them send someone to speak to and do Q&A with the class.; think of it like a field trip that comes to the classroom. There would be a robust vetting process for the person coming in. Official channels would be ideal; for example reaching out to the archdiocese to represent the Catholic Church.

In some ways the person coming and speaking to the class would be "selling" their religion. But the Q&A would be the longest and most meaningful part of it. And its so important because it would be a safe place to ask questions. The person would be able to field difficult questions and leave a positive impression on the students. For example, if a kid asked a the Muslim rep: "why do you want to kill us all?" or if a kid asked the Jewish rep: "Why do you kill the Palestinians?" the representative would handle those in a positive way; without taking offense and without being defensive. The interaction ITSELF, gives the students a positive idea of other people and the knowledge from it makes them actual informed citizens. I would happily have a naturalist/physicalist atheist from a philosophy dept or a even a scientist to represent that group. I realize that there's 1000s of denominations of everything, but if we had 8-10 speakers come in like I'm suggesting, it would be appropriate for ~75% or them to be representing Christian Denominations. That's the extent to which we are a Christian Nation. The people who came out of something like this would be informed citizens of the country and the world!

Quote:

---

Why did you home in on adultery in particular?

The reason you're giving for why religion shouldn't be taught in schools is that teachers aren't qualified. So, if there were qualified religion teachers, you'd be in favor of teaching it in schools?

---

Because I don't think murder being wrong is too tough/controversial for most K-5 teachers to explain, and picking an example to specify the analyses is how rhetorical discussions work.

One could go to the local baptist church in whatever Texas city you are located in (I'm picking on Baptists only because I grew up one and in general they have/used to read the Bible more than many denominations) and find a diversity of theological opinions about any given book in the Bible. It's not that current public schools teachers aren't qualified to what I would expect would be my personal standard for theological instruction, it's that there is no consensus in the public for such qualifications. I have muslim/hindu neighbors who would take issue with various doctrines that flow from the 10 commandments directly, for example. I also don't want kids taught it's ok that mohammed married a 9 year old, and sometimes rape or sex with animals is fine because it's in the Koran (oh btw, teachings violative of the 10 commandments. There's also this little constitutional issue as to separation of church and state).

But instead of narrowing the discussion, why not broaden it? In no way are they going to be ready to then move on to the sermon on the mount/beautitude paradoxes, either, which of course expand on the commandments. It's just setting teachers/schools up for more arguments they are not well positioned to 'win' is my position. One can't open the Pandora's box of religious instruction/ethics for children and then draw a line and say 'that's all we can think/say about that subject.'

Y'all have me on the leftist side here and it is genuinely frustrating, lol.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Look at us, agreeing on stuff!

---

Genuinely a bit maddening. It is funny, though.

nortex97 said:

---

Quote:

---

Why did you home in on adultery in particular?

The reason you're giving for why religion shouldn't be taught in schools is that teachers aren't qualified. So, if there were qualified religion teachers, you'd be in favor of teaching it in schools?

---

Because I don't think murder being wrong is too tough/controversial for most K-5 teachers to explain, and picking an example to specify the analyses is how rhetorical discussions work.

One could go to the local baptist church in whatever Texas city you are located in (I'm picking on Baptists only because I grew up one and in general they have/used to read the Bible more than many denominations) and find a diversity of theological opinions about any given book in the Bible. It's not that current public schools teachers aren't qualified to what I would expect would be my personal standard for theological instruction, it's that there is no consensus in the public for such qualifications. I have muslim/hindu neighbors who would take issue with various doctrines that flow from the 10 commandments directly, for example. I also don't want kids taught it's ok that mohammed married a 9 year old, and sometimes rape or sex with animals is fine because it's in the Koran (oh btw, teachings violative of the 10 commandments. There's also this little constitutional issue as to separation of church and state).

But instead of narrowing the discussion, why not broaden it? In no way are they going to be ready to then move on to the sermon on the mount/beautitude paradoxes, either, which of course expand on the commandments. It's just setting teachers/schools up for more arguments they are not well positioned to 'win' is my position. One can't open the Pandora's box of religious instruction/ethics for children and then draw a line and say 'that's all we can think/say about that subject.'

Y'all have me on the leftist side here and it is genuinely frustrating, lol.

---

Again, if you're concerned about your child's teacher's ability to navigate a conversation about the 10 commandments with a kindergartener, get them out of that school immediately. I would argue that you can't be considered to be educated in any meaningful sense in the West if you don't know the 10 commandments. It's that fundamental to our history and way of life.

Do you think consensus in a country of Muslims, Christians, Atheists, Hindus, Jews, and others is a reasonable standard?

If inclusion in society means inclusion in absolutely anything and everything, then inclusion in society is inclusion in nothing at all. I don't really care about what grievances Muslims have with the state of our public schools to the extent I don't share their concerns. They can go pound sand.

Quote:

---

It's that fundamental to our history and way of life.

---

Can you find me where the framers spoke about the 10 commandments, specifically?

Sapper Redux said:

---

Quote:

---

It's that fundamental to our history and way of life.

---

Can you find me where the framers spoke about the 10 commandments, specifically?

---

The way you've framed the question I have a feeling you wouldn't accept writings about the Bible, examinations of conscience or sin and repentance, His precepts, or the system of morals and religion He left us. So I guess not? The question is a red herring in any case. At best, it's an argument from silence which seems preposterous considering the body of work from the framers of the declaration, constitution and Bill of Rights.

ETA: can you find me where the framers talked about how the author of morality is anything other than divine AND posited a system of moral precepts in conflict with the 10 commandments?

Bob Lee said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Quote:

---

It's that fundamental to our history and way of life.

---

Can you find me where the framers spoke about the 10 commandments, specifically?

---

The way you've framed the question I have a feeling you wouldn't accept writings about the Bible, examinations of conscience or sin and repentance, His precepts, or the system of morals and religion He left us. So I guess not? The question is a red herring in any case. At best, it's an argument from silence which seems preposterous considering the body of work from the framers of the declaration, constitution and Bill of Rights.

ETA: can you find me where the framers talked about how the author of morality is anything other than divine AND posited a system of moral precepts in conflict with the 10 commandments?

---

You are specifically saying the 10 commandments are fundamental to our history and way of life as Americans. To such an extent that the commandments should be hung as posters in every classroom. So I'm not asking about philosophical precepts or tangential ideas you can tie to the commandments in some vague way. I'm asking for specific references to the 10 commandments and their importance to the formation of the United States. If they are so important they must hang in every classroom then surely you can find evidence of their importance to the people who designed our government.

Sapper Redux said:

---

Bob Lee said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

Quote:

---

It's that fundamental to our history and way of life.

---

Can you find me where the framers spoke about the 10 commandments, specifically?

---

The way you've framed the question I have a feeling you wouldn't accept writings about the Bible, examinations of conscience or sin and repentance, His precepts, or the system of morals and religion He left us. So I guess not? The question is a red herring in any case. At best, it's an argument from silence which seems preposterous considering the body of work from the framers of the declaration, constitution and Bill of Rights.

ETA: can you find me where the framers talked about how the author of morality is anything other than divine AND posited a system of moral precepts in conflict with the 10 commandments?

---

You are specifically saying the 10 commandments are fundamental to our history and way of life as Americans. To such an extent that the commandments should be hung as posters in every classroom. So I'm not asking about philosophical precepts or tangential ideas you can tie to the commandments in some vague way. I'm asking for specific references to the 10 commandments and their importance to the formation of the United States. If they are so important they must hang in every classroom then surely you can find evidence of their importance to the people who designed our government.

---

From an address by William Samuel Johnson to his graduates as president of Columbia:

You this day. . . . have, by the favor of Providence and the attention of friends, received a public education, the purpose whereof hath been to qualify you the better to serve your Creator and your country. You have this day invited this audience to witness the progress you have made. . . . Thus you assume the character of scholars, of men, and of citizens. . . . Go, then, . . . and exercise them with diligence, fidelity, and zeal. . . . Your first great duties, you are sensible, are those you owe to Heaven, to your Creator and Redeemer. Let these be ever present to your minds, and exemplified in your lives and conduct. Imprint deep upon your minds the principles of piety towards God, and a reverence and fear of His holy name. The fear of God is the beginning of wisdom and its [practice] is everlasting happiness . . . . Reflect deeply and often upon your relations with God. Remember that it is in God you live and move and have your being, that, in the language of David, He is about your bed and about your path and spieth out all your ways that there is not a thought in your hearts, nor a word upon your tongues, but lo! He knoweth them altogether, and that He will one day call you to a strict account for all your conduct in this mortal life. Remember, too, that you are the redeemed of the Lord, that you are bought with a price, even the inestimable price of the precious blood of the Son of God. Adore Jehovah, therefore, as your God and your Judge. Love, fear, and serve Him as your Creator, Redeemer, and Sanctifier. Acquaint yourselves with Him in His word and holy ordinances. . . . Go forth into the world firmly resolved neither to be allured by its vanities nor contaminated by its vices, but to run with patience and perseverance, with firmness and cheerfulness, the glorious career of religion, honor, and virtue. . . . Finally, . . . in the elegant and expressive language are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report, if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things" and do them, and the God of peace shall be with you, to whose most gracious protection I now commend you, humbly imploring Almighty Goodness that He will be your guardian and your guide, your protector and the rock of your defense, your Savior and your God.

From a letter by John Jay
The Bible is the best of all books, for it is the word of God and teaches us the way to be happy in this world and in the next. Continue therefore to read it and to regulate your life by its precepts

Benjamin Rush, "A Defence of the Use of the Bible as a School Book," Essays, Literary, Moral & Philosophical (Philadelphia: Thomas & Samuel F. Bradford, 1798), 112.
The only means of establishing and perpetuating our republican forms of government is the universal education of our youth in the principles of Christianity by means of the Bible

Roger Sherman. Correspondence to Samuel Hopkins
It is the duty of all to acknowledge that the Divine Law which requires us to love God with all our heart and our neighbor as ourselves, on pain of eternal damnation, is Holy, just, and good. . . . The revealed law of God is the rule of our duty

Got it. So not one single mention of the 10 commandments. Thanks.