# Why don't Fundamentalist schools...



## rmcrobertson (Dec 7, 2004)

1. Teach evolution.

2. Allow jazz music.

3. Permit students to be out alone.

What up, here, is that there's a lot of kvetching about them damn secular humanists and their political correctness, their censorship, their narrow-mindedness. Well, shoe's on the other foot, now.

What are fundamentalist Christian schools so afraid of? Why do they find it necessary to regulate every aspect of their students' lives? Why should it be impossible for some of us to teach there, though their professors are welcome at any college or university run by secular humanists or Catholics?


----------



## Melissa426 (Dec 7, 2004)

What Fundamentalist Christian schools are you  referring to?

Are these accredited colleges and universities?

Peace,
Melissa

p.s.  Would you be interested in teaching at one of them?


----------



## shesulsa (Dec 7, 2004)

I dunno. When I went to the Baptist and Lutheran schools I attended in my youth, most of them did teach some evolution, although is was debunked on faith-based instruction, did allow jazz, supervised students because that's their job (K - 8). As for censorship, we openly discussed racism and sexism and it's lack of place in the church and society. I suppose I got lucky. Of course, this was before the Fundamentalist Revolution.



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> What are fundamentalist Christian schools so afraid of?


  Free thought = free mind = free spirit



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Why do they find it necessary to regulate every aspect of their students' lives?


  Because mind control is the game of religion and the church.  It is how they are so successful at education.



			
				rmcroberson said:
			
		

> Why should it be impossible for some of us to teach there, though their professors are welcome at any college or university run by secular humanists or Catholics?


 Now that's a good question. They don't want anyone coming in to debunk their beliefs or challenge the teachers - they call it "confusing the children" which really means an interrupt in their thought-control-based instruction.


----------



## TigerWoman (Dec 7, 2004)

My daughter's college last year, baptist, allowed instrumental music but no TV in the rooms. Only allowed in the commons, so they had little outside news coming in. I had to tell her via emails like not going out alone at night because there was a rapist around attacking college age girls in her area. The school also didn't allow dancing even at someone's wedding or sitting next to each other- boy/girl on one couch.  Dancing is evil, sitting can get you pregnant but martial arts there was okay.

They were also required to attend chapel every morning which mostly was brainwashing in my opinion.  They weren't praise and worship at all but talking up missions.  Probably to get them to go on trips, she got alot of pressure on that.  Of course, we would have had to fork over alot for that to happen. As it was, fines were levied on the student if he/she missed chapel more than twice in a quarter even for studying and being sick. 

If you don't beat to their drum, a secular teacher wouldn't have a chance to teach there. Alot of money in those schools.  BTW, I sent my daughter because she was adamant about becoming a youth pastor for years.. and they are better education, no partying.   TW


----------



## Kane (Dec 7, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> 1. Teach evolution.
> 
> 2. Allow jazz music.
> 
> ...



Exactly what schools are you talking about? I went to a Christian School my elementry days and they taught evolution even before public schools teach it (5th grade). Where did you get the assumption jazz is not allowed and allowstudent to be alone? Give me an example. My school which you might call a fundel. school allowed all those things.


----------



## Ping898 (Dec 7, 2004)

Um...I learned evolution and we had a jazz band at my Catholic school. I think it differs from place to place what you will see and find and be taught. But in this day and age you can have more issues trying to teach evolution at some southern public schools than at a Fund. Christian schools.


----------



## loki09789 (Dec 7, 2004)

TigerWoman said:
			
		

> My daughter's college last year, baptist, allowed instrumental music but no TV in the rooms. Only allowed in the commons, so they had little outside news coming in. I had to tell her via emails like not going out alone at night because there was a rapist around attacking college age girls in her area. The school also didn't allow dancing even at someone's wedding or sitting next to each other- boy/girl on one couch. Dancing is evil, sitting can get you pregnant but martial arts there was okay.
> 
> They were also required to attend chapel every morning which mostly was brainwashing in my opinion. They weren't praise and worship at all but talking up missions. Probably to get them to go on trips, she got alot of pressure on that. Of course, we would have had to fork over alot for that to happen. As it was, fines were levied on the student if he/she missed chapel more than twice in a quarter even for studying and being sick.
> 
> If you don't beat to their drum, a secular teacher wouldn't have a chance to teach there. Alot of money in those schools. BTW, I sent my daughter because she was adamant about becoming a youth pastor for years.. and they are better education, no partying. TW


Sounds 7th Day Adventist like.  Honestly, it doesn't sound all that different from the monk life of old - or at least a modernization of that life style.  Each learning institution has a philosophy of education.  These religious based schools are well....religious in philosophy....

If you go to a 'liberal arts' college, you will find a different culture on that campus.  Since you get to choose/pay for where you go to school if you don't like it don't go, simple enough.


----------



## JPR (Dec 7, 2004)

I obviously cannot speak for every school, but I send my children to a Christian school so here is one man's reply in one situation.



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> 1. Teach evolution.


 Evolution is taught as a man made theory as to how we came into being. A Christian perspective is that this theory totally ignores / excludes God.



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> 2. Allow jazz music.


 We do not restrict music based upon style. But we examine the content (lyrics). If the lyrics contain offensive (profanity, violent) language it isn't allowed at school.



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> 3. Permit students to be out alone.


 I a not sure what you are referring to here. During the day, when at school, the children are supervised for safety / security sake. During the night, it is all up to their parents what they do.



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> What up, here, is that there's a lot of kvetching about them damn secular humanists and their political correctness, their censorship, their narrow-mindedness. Well, shoe's on the other foot, now.


 Not really. I think a large part of the argument / debate comes from the issue that tax dollars fund the public school system. Christians have to pay taxes (well if they want to stay out of jail they do) and therefore they feel that they have some say into what is included in the curriculum. They dont want to finance the teaching of a worldview with which they don't agree. 



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> What are fundamentalist Christian schools so afraid of?


 It isnt a fear as much as it is several debates. 1) Is secular humanism a state supported religion? 2) Does a group have a right to push for changes in a system that they finance? 3) Does a parent have a right / responsibility to specify what their child is taught, or is a childs education mandated by some other authority? 4) If a parents wishes differ from an outside authorities mandates on what is to be taught, who prevails?




			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Why do they find it necessary to regulate every aspect of their students' lives?


 I am not sure that this is what is happening. A goal of a Christian school is to prepare the students to defend a worldview based upon a faith and belief in God, the sinfulness of man, and redemption / salvation through Jesus in an environment that maybe non-receptive or even hostile toward that belief. 



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Why should it be impossible for some of us to teach there, though their professors are welcome at any college or university run by secular humanists or Catholics?


 One reason is that a Christian school is privately funded versus the public funding of many college and universities. When you privately fund something you can, within limits, teach what you want and exclude what you want. Since many Christian schools are accredited there are a set of standards that need to be met and testing that verifies performance.


   JPR


----------



## rmcrobertson (Dec 7, 2004)

Bob Jones University, which, "in the interests of stewardship," does not send out copies of their Student Handbook and bans jazz, country, and "progressive Christian," music; Liberty College. I'd also check Oral Roberts University. It's a right-wing, conservative Fundamentalist phenomenon.

Incidentally, to say that evolution is, "man-made," is exactly like claiming that the solar system is man-made.

Again, here's the question: why shouldn't these institutions have to abide by the same ideas of, "diversity," and "open-mindedness," that has been thrown at those of us who think that we should simply be teaching actual science in biology class, not Fundamentalist views?


----------



## Kane (Dec 7, 2004)

Rmcrobertson, I think you made this thread to clearly show how much yourself is a Liberal Fundamentalist. No offense if I offended you but seriously. All your posts show how much you hate religion and anything else on the Right side. You even go so far as to ignore many people's post that clearly states that their religious schools are nothing like what you extreme atheistic mindset thinks.

Oh and what is this I here about openmindness? Public schools are loads more bias than Religious schools by a long shot. They don't even teach the theory of Creationism in public schools. At least religious schools teach both sides.


----------



## heretic888 (Dec 7, 2004)

Three little things:

1) I don't know about anyone else, but I was taught about the theory of evolution --- although I doubt I understood it at the time --- _way_ before the fifth grade.

2) It is true that the theory of evolution is "man-made" in the sense that it is a mental construction created by humans to explain stuff. Y'know, kinda like... "God".

Any theory, any idea, any formulation, any thought is "man-made". Whoopdy doo.

3) The idea that the theory of evolution somehow ignores "God" (assuming there is proof for an external Deity, which there is not) or excludes "God" (assuming evolution adopts an atheistic position) is equally silly.

4) Robert can be a little zealoted about his positions, but the idea that he "hates religion" or is an "atheist" is flatly silly if you've read up on some of his posts concerning Buddhism. And, yes, contrary to popular Western opinion, Buddhism is not an "atheistic religion".


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Dec 7, 2004)

Our conception of evolution, yes, is man-made, however the actual process of evolution itself is no more artificial than the process of digestion, or respiration, or sexual reproduction.  All of these have been going on a hell of a lot longer before we came up with names or theories for them.  

I'd like to know what religious schools are saying to their students about evolution, before you claim that they're teaching both sides.  I'd also like to know how many different creation myths are supposed to be taught in public schools, so that we're teaching all sides--oh wait, I forgot, there's only the Christian creation myth, my bad.  Hey, wait a minute...


----------



## MisterMike (Dec 7, 2004)

Are there certain subjects that are required by states in order to have a valid GED or diploma? If so, I would assume that scientific theory like evolution would be taught in all schools capable of issuing diplomas.

I think a really neat class would be the "evolution of jazz"  :2xBird2:


----------



## mj_lover (Dec 7, 2004)

I when to a catholic elementary school. the only difference between the catholic school and the public system was the addition of religion class. Although the dutch reformed private school in my area was really bad for bias views, but its rare to have such fundamentaists (sp?)


----------



## rmcrobertson (Dec 7, 2004)

Sorry, Sparky--for the umpteenth time!--one is more or less a socialist green. And, sory un autre fois, not an atheist.

As for the claim that there's no prob with Fundamentalist schools, let me suggest that folks scope out three of the best-known: Oral Roberts, Liberty, and Bob Jones University.

Oral Roberts' Press Releases feature a Professor of Law well-known for his attacks on, "Darwinism." There appear to be no findable mentions of inviting, say, well-known evolutionists to the campus. Incidentally, this particular professor teaches in California, at a very prestigious "liberal," university, which answers the question of whether his views are welcome among us commies pretty well. Hm.

Liberty College's Mission Statement emphasizes their Biblical mission, of course, and goes on to tie this to their espousal of, "Western culture," "democracy," and the "free market." Apparently, no alternatives need apply. Well, be darned.

Bob Jones University was the subject of a 1983 Supreme Court decision (8-1)that removed their tax exempt status. Specifically cited was that the College a) forbad jazz and interracial dating; b) admitted no African-Americans for the first five years of its history, and admitted only married African-Americans for the next five; c) took Federal money in various ways. Huh, fancy that.

One repeats: the accusation that us liberal humanists are closed-minded appears everywhere these days. In particular, this Forum has seen a repeated claim that "evolutionists," are repressive, and blind to alternatives. 

So put up or shaddap: why isn't it a tad closed-minded to allow ONLY speakers who agree with your evangelical mission on campus, to make your mission entirely a matter of inculcating Christian values to support Western culture and capitalism, or to found your University on explicit, open racial discrimination--which Bob Jones has apparently never repudiated--that helped serve as a bulwark against the mongrelization of society?


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Dec 7, 2004)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> Are there certain subjects that are required by states in order to have a valid GED or diploma? If so, I would assume that scientific theory like evolution would be taught in all schools capable of issuing diplomas.



That's a good question.  It obviously depends on the state.  Here's a site with a state by state breakdown on the requirements.

http://www.hslda.org/laws/default.asp?State=IN

I found this for Indiana:

http://www.inhomeeducators.org/laws/index.cfm

The teacher (parent or other) has no requirement for qualifications.  This is the standard as set for educational requirements:

"Instruction equivalent to that given in the public schools," Ind. Code Ann. Sec. 20-8.1-3-34. _"A school that is nonpublic, non-accredited, and not otherwise approved by the Indiana State Board of Education is not bound by any requirements set forth in IC 20 or IC 21 with regard to curriculum or the content of educational programs offered by the school."_ (Sec. 20-8.1-3-17.3)

This and documentation of 180 days of education are apparently all that is required.  Teach what you want, essentially.  Leave evolution out if you like.

The Christian kids I know are fairly well educated...except for biology and sex ed.  Their history is probably somewhat jingoistic in its orientation as well...I doubt they read much of Howard Zinn's "A People's History of the United States," or "The Jungle" by Upton Sinclair.  Probably haven't read "Founding Myths" by Ray Raphael, either.



Regards,


Steve


----------



## kenpo tiger (Dec 7, 2004)

Seems to me that privately-funded schools with a specific set of backers - i.e., Fundamentalists with a stringent set of rules - smacks of "I don't like the way you play this game so I'm going to start my own with my own rules."  And, the fundamentalists in _every_ religion are equally guilty of this.  TW, what you said about your daughter's Baptist school would fit right in with the ultra-Orthodox and Chasidic sects of Judaism, to name a couple.  I had to check to make sure of what I was reading.  Conclusion:  people want what they want and will think what they want and even pay for what they want.


----------



## Ping898 (Dec 7, 2004)

kenpo tiger said:
			
		

> Conclusion: people want what they want and will think what they want and even pay for what they want.


Sometimes you don't always have a choice.  I went to catholic H.S., went there cause I knew I was going to be some sort of math or science major and the quality of education especailly in math was 10 times better at the H.S. i went too rather than my town school.   
Sometimes you got to give people credit, I don't agree with many of the fundamentalist views or strict teachings.  I have my own interpretations and faith.  I listen to everything, but make my own choices and opinions.  I am not alone in this.  Just cause something keeps being beaten into your brain doesn't mean you agree with it or ever will no matter how many times you are told.  Yeah you have a big group that might blindly follow what they are told, but not everyone is like that and sometimes the good you get out the shcool makes it worth putting up with the bad.  And yeah my sex education may leave a bit to be desired, but I everything else I got I would put up against what anyone else learned in their non-Christian schools any day.  
It isn't perfect, but not education is, and the areas I was lacking in had more to do with bad teachers than topics not being taught.


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 7, 2004)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> I think a really neat class would be the "evolution of jazz"


This is a very common class in music schools. Of course, Jazz has only evolved over the last 100 years or so. I learned all about it at Westfield State College, Westfield, MA. .... oh, yeah ... not a fundamentalist school.

BA - Music 1986 
Classical Guitar

Mike


----------



## shesulsa (Dec 8, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> So put up or shaddap: why isn't it a tad closed-minded to allow ONLY speakers who agree with your evangelical mission on campus, to make your mission entirely a matter of inculcating Christian values to support Western culture and capitalism, or to found your University on explicit, open racial discrimination--which Bob Jones has apparently never repudiated--that helped serve as a bulwark against the mongrelization of society?


 To address your question a little more directly, I believe it is closed-minded.  However, the institutions are funded privately which means those who pay call the shots.  If they don't want to expose their children to outside or free thought, it just won't happen.  I know some of us might think this is hard to believe, that this is what some people want for their children.  Honestly, I think it is done by parents and churches in the interests of protecting children in the only way they know how - exclusivity.


----------



## auxprix (Dec 8, 2004)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> I dunno. When I went to the Baptist and Lutheran schools I attended in my youth, most of them did teach some evolution, although is was debunked on faith-based instruction, did allow jazz, supervised students because that's their job (K - 8). As for censorship, we openly discussed racism and sexism and it's lack of place in the church and society. I suppose I got lucky. Of course, this was before the Fundamentalist Revolution.


Which branch of Lutheranism? If they don't teach evolution, I'm guessing Missouri Wisconsin Synod.

-aux


----------



## shesulsa (Dec 8, 2004)

auxprix said:
			
		

> Which branch of Lutheranism? If they don't teach evolution, I'm guessing Missouri Wisconsin Synod.
> 
> -aux


 I went to Missouri Synod and ALC.


----------



## JPR (Dec 8, 2004)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> 2) It is true that the theory of evolution is "man-made" in the sense that it is a mental construction created by humans to explain stuff. Y'know, kinda like... "God".  Any theory, any idea, any formulation, any thought is "man-made". Whoopdy doo.


      My bad, poor phrase construction.  The translation from my mind, through my fingers fails sometimes.



			
				randomphantom700 said:
			
		

> Our conception of evolution, yes, is man-made, however the actual process of evolution itself is no more artificial than the process of digestion, or respiration, or sexual reproduction. All of these have been going on a hell of a lot longer before we came up with names or theories for them.
> 
> I'd like to know what religious schools are saying to their students about evolution, before you claim that they're teaching both sides. I'd also like to know how many different creation myths are supposed to be taught in public schools, so that we're teaching all sides--oh wait, I forgot, there's only the Christian creation myth, my bad. Hey, wait a minute...


 For me, it isnt a question of whether evolution (the process) exists. The natural system has an evolutionary process (natural selection, adaptation, extinction, mutation). It is a good design that I, as an engineer, appreciate and wish I could replicate in my designs because it is very robust. It is, however, a question as to the origin of the species that becomes the crux of the matter. I believe that God purposefully design man and gave him a soul not that we evolved from something else. 



			
				 Rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> So put up or shaddap: why isn't it a tad closed-minded to allow ONLY speakers who agree with your evangelical mission on campus, to make your mission entirely a matter of inculcating Christian values to support Western culture and capitalism,


 Christianitys goal isnt to support Western culture. Christianitys goal is to spread the Gospel of Jesus to the world. I acknowledge that some people, in the name of Christianity, have made it a Western culture thing. It is their mistake. A quote from Galatians 3, 28There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

 As to Christianity supporting capitalism, again I disagree. It does support a strong work ethic, but it is far more socialistic in nature since those that have are encourage to give to those that have not. Acts 2 gives the model of the early church, 44All the believers were together and had everything in common. 45Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need.



			
				 Hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> The Christian kids I know are fairly well educated...except for biology and sex ed. Their history is probably somewhat jingoistic in its orientation as well...I doubt they read much of Howard Zinn's "A People's History of the United States," or "The Jungle" by Upton Sinclair. Probably haven't read "Founding Myths" by Ray Raphael, either.


 I am not sure how biology is different except, again, as to the origin of the species. Sex education is more the realm of the parent but what is given at school really centers on sex being a gift from God to enjoy inside marriage. I know it is old fashioned but that doesnt mean it isnt valid. Doesnt mean that it is either, but it works for me.

 Ill give a read to the sources you listed to see how the history compares. I do know that there is an emphasis on Christian accomplishments in history. Believe it or not Christians have contributed more than just the Dark Ages and the Crusades to world history. 



			
				 Shesulsa said:
			
		

> If they don't want to expose their children to outside or free thought, it just won't happen. I know some of us might think this is hard to believe, that this is what some people want for their children. Honestly, I think it is done by parents and churches in the interests of protecting children in the only way they know how - exclusivity.


 It isnt an attempt to stifle free thought, but an effort to give children a base from which to explore differing worldviews. If I handed you a pair of rattan sticks and I took a pair and said lets spar, how ready (assuming you had no prior training) would you be? If I tell you that I will train you for the next X number of months in my system [what ever that is] have I stifled your free thought on stick fighting, or have I given you a frame of reference on which to build?

      [font=&quot]This has gotten long, an issue to me is how, in a pluralistic society, do we agree upon what is taught in a public school system? 

   JPR
    [/font]


----------



## raedyn (Dec 8, 2004)

I think the level of control of their students and faculty really depends on the school - both in the public and private schools. It would be unfair to say that all faith-based schools are as extreme as the ones robertson has described, but he isn't making up his examples there ARE schools that are tha controlling. Where I live, for instance, there are 2 publicly funded school systems the "public" and the "catholic" (this is pretty common across Canada I believe). 

Neither of these systems is that extreme. They main difference is the teachers in the Catholic system must be practicing Catholics, and they can be fired for lots of stuff a Public system teacher couldn't (such as living in an unmarried relationship). And everyone attending one of the Catholic schools has to take "christian ethics" classes. Otherwise the curriculum is very similar and the experience at the Catholic school isn't overly 'churchy'.

There are also private Christian schools, not supported by taxpayer dollars. These school charge tuition, have uniforms, won't allow males & females to sit on the same couch, won't allow rock music - lots of those extreme rules that robertson describes. These are very closed environments, and I'm not entirely comfortable with the whole thing. But as long as my kids don't have to go there, and my dollars aren't funding it, I can respect their right to have thier own little closed bubble over there.


----------



## heretic888 (Dec 8, 2004)

> For me, it isnt a question of whether evolution (the process) exists. The natural system has an evolutionary process (natural selection, adaptation, extinction, mutation). It is a good design that I, as an engineer, appreciate and wish I could replicate in my designs because it is very robust. It is, however, a question as to the origin of the species that becomes the crux of the matter. I believe that God purposefully design man and gave him a soul not that we evolved from something else.



Ahhh.... good 'ol anthropocentrism.



> Christianitys goal isnt to support Western culture. Christianitys goal is to spread the Gospel of Jesus to the world.



Well, "Christianity" hasn't done that in nearly 1,700 years. So, why start now??



> I acknowledge that some people, in the name of Christianity, have made it a Western culture thing. It is their mistake.



"Christianity" today _is_ a Western culture thing.



> As to Christianity supporting capitalism, again I disagree. It does support a strong work ethic, but it is far more socialistic in nature since those that have are encourage to give to those that have not.



See above.



> Ill give a read to the sources you listed to see how the history compares. I do know that there is an emphasis on Christian accomplishments in history. Believe it or not Christians have contributed more than just the Dark Ages and the Crusades to world history.



Yes, they've also opposed the advent of much in the way of medical science, meteorology, democracy, space travel, and a slew of other noble pursuits.

Most of the "Christians" that have positively contributed to society have either been moderate quasi-deists (the typical brand today) --- or radical free-thinkers (Luther, Clement, Eckhart, the Unitarians, the Quakers, etc).

Laterz.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Dec 8, 2004)

First off, it's important to establish a few distinctions. If you'll look at the title of the thread, one referred to, "Fundamentalist," schools and their, "evangelical," mission--NOT "religious," schools, not "Christian," schools, not, "Catholic," schools. And not Christian teachings. If C.S. Lewis' or Thos. merton's ideas organized these schools and their ideas, we'd all be a lot better off.

"Religion," and "Christianity," are NOT synonyms, not matter how much the closed-minded might insist. Nor are, "Christian," and, "Protestant."

Second off, the fundamental issue is this: why, if these fundamentalist schools and fundamentalists have now adopted the tactic of accusing science classes of being, "bigoted," or, "closed-minded," why shouldn't the same demand be placed on them? They don't permit evolution to be taught; they don't allow other viewpoints about religion than theirs; they compel religious observances, not merely on Sundays but twice a day. So where's the open-minded-ness?

Third off--"fundamentalism," is a term, apparently, that is "bad," if we're talking Islamic fundamentalists, yet "good" if we're talking Protestantism. Yet these groups tend to share ideas--compulsory, State-enforced religious observance, censorship/indoctrination in schools, opposition to women's rights/reproductive rights/homosexuality, and a set of others. Hm.

Fourth off--Bob Jones University and the rest, alas, are not small places. Reagan's government SUPPORTED Bob Jones U, when the IRS was yanking their tax exemption because of their open racism. Oral Roberts? Condoleeza Rice taught there for quite a while, if memory serves...heard of her? Liberty University is, I believe, Jerry Falwell/Pat Robertson...you know, "The 700 Club?" The "9/11 is God's punishment for the ACLU, feminists and gays," guys?

And last. When a school STARTS OFF in 1970 with bans interracial dating, African-Americans, and jazz music, one doesn't need to be terrribly perceptive to Get the Message. No Darkies Need Apply. How much clearer could they be? Anybody seriously think they've changed all that much? They still ban jazz, as does Liberty U...they don't put their student rules up on their website. Hm. Gosh, wonder why?

And again. Why aren't fundamentalist schools willing to entertain other ideas? Every place I've gone to teach or study, there've been all sorts of different people, different ideas, different faiths--despite the recent, "O, poor poor oppressed me," that we hear and see so often from the cult of the right-wing victims led by Limbaugh, Hannity, Falwell, and the rest. Why don't these schools have to be as open-minded as the evil secular humanists?

Sure, collitch professors can be narrow-minded little twits. Trust those of us who've been around them. But unlike fundamentalist schools, there's a difference: their narrow-mindedness is NOT INSTITUTIONAL POLICY. Yet these schools end up getting tax support in various ways...and it'll get worse, what with the Prez's, "faith-based," programs.


----------



## raedyn (Dec 8, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> First off, it's important to establish a few distinctions. If you'll look at the title of the thread, one referred to, "Fundamentalist," schools and their, "evangelical," mission--NOT "religious," schools, not "Christian," schools, not, "Catholic," schools. And not Christian teachings.


 Good point. Kind of the point I was trying (badly) to make. People were answering with their experiences at other Christian schools that were not this extremist/fundamentalist. And therefore not answering yr question. But I think it is important to be clear that not al Christian schools are that extremist.



> "Religion," and "Christianity," are NOT synonyms, not matter how much the closed-minded might insist. Nor are, "Christian," and, "Protestant."


A Venn Diagram would be helpful (*g* yes, I am a mini-geek.). Protestants are a subset of Christians. You can be Christian without being Protestant, but you can't be Protestant without being Christian, right?



> Second off, the fundamental issue is this: why, if these fundamentalist schools and fundamentalists have now adopted the tactic of accusing science classes of being, "bigoted," or, "closed-minded," why shouldn't the same demand be placed on them? They don't permit evolution to be taught; they don't allow other viewpoints about religion than theirs; they compel religious observances, not merely on Sundays but twice a day. So where's the open-minded-ness?


This is a rhetorical question, right? You know people that are far out in religious nut-jobbery like this - they will somehow justify their double standards with illogic that only stands if you buy into their beliefs. Which you and I don't. I'm not sure we should be allowed to interfere in what they do in their institutions, even if we don't like it. And we shouldn't allow them to interfere in ours. Yes, of course they will TRY. They honestly believe it is their DUTY. We won't be able to shut them up, and that's fine. We just don't have to let them win.



> And again. Why aren't fundamentalist schools willing to entertain other ideas? Every place I've gone to teach or study, there've been all sorts of different people, different ideas, different faiths--despite the recent, "O, poor poor oppressed me," that we hear and see so often from the cult of the right-wing victims led by Limbaugh, Hannity, Falwell, and the rest. Why don't these schools have to be as open-minded as the evil secular humanists?


I don't think (and I might be wrong on that) that the evil secular humanists HAVE to be open-minded and diverse. It's ideological & institutional policy. These other school have a different ideology & therefore different institutional policy. 

I get why it angers you. It's not like I rejoice over it. But sometimes I think it's important to pick yr battles. If they want to raise their kids in an ignorant vaccum, that's their option. But I will not allow them to force my children to suffer the same fate.


----------



## loki09789 (Dec 8, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> 1.  Second off, the fundamental issue is this: why, if these fundamentalist schools and fundamentalists have now adopted the tactic of accusing science classes of being, "bigoted," or, "closed-minded," why shouldn't the same demand be placed on them? They don't permit evolution to be taught; they don't allow other viewpoints about religion than theirs; they compel religious observances, not merely on Sundays but twice a day. So where's the open-minded-ness?
> 
> 2.  Third off--"fundamentalism," is a term, apparently, that is "bad," if we're talking Islamic fundamentalists, yet "good" if we're talking Protestantism. Yet these groups tend to share ideas--compulsory, State-enforced religious observance, censorship/indoctrination in schools, opposition to women's rights/reproductive rights/homosexuality, and a set of others. Hm.
> 
> .


Not worth it to toucht the rest, but here goes on these points.

1.  If they were posting here, I would probably say that to them too, so what.  Two wrongs don't make a right...

2.  "fundamentalism" is just a sect of belief.  In reference to Islamic 'fundamentalist' I am more concerned about "extremist/terrorists" that justify their actions with fundamentalist beliefs.....


----------



## rmcrobertson (Dec 8, 2004)

Some of these groups are every bit as tied to violence and to the advocacy of violence as any Islamic fundamentalist school might be.

One recommends that you look up the explicit, very clear statements of the guys who've gone around shooting women's doctors and blowing up their clinics, or the various militia nut groups--they make it very, very clear just how the fundamentalism relates to their violence.

Still waiting for answers on the basic question--especially, from those who have repeatedly insisted that secularism, humanism and the rest have become closed-minded and repressive, that we ought to just let all views be represented in science classes because communities might want that.

How come us evil humanists--who have generally encouraged dissent, allowed everybody to speak, bring every idea we can get our little patty paws on into colleges and universities--need to learn to be openminded, but the folks who a) enforce their particular version of Christian fundamentalism, b) bar all sorts of ideas, c) launch direct attacks on the immorality of everybody else, d) openly state their contempt for everybody else's beliefs, e) ban jazz, rock, country and, "contemporary Christian," music, are doing just fine as they are?

Would you find it OK for a University or College to announce that they are only hiring secular humanists, and nobody who was, say, Lutheran need apply? That all employees and students must sign professions of their beliefs and their complete agreement with every principle of secular humanism?

Yet these colleges and universities--check their websites; check their job announcements--do PRECISELY this. Why's that just peachy? Why's this testify to their open-mindedness?


----------



## loki09789 (Dec 8, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Some of these groups are every bit as tied to violence and to the advocacy of violence as any Islamic fundamentalist school might be.
> 
> One recommends that you look up the explicit, very clear statements of the guys who've gone around shooting women's doctors and blowing up their clinics, or the various militia nut groups--they make it very, very clear just how the fundamentalism relates to their violence.
> 
> ...


If by 'one' you me 'you,' "I" would suggest that you examine the difference between a whack job or an extremist faction that corrupts the basic beliefs they learned from an institution and 'ties to' that actual institution itself. Did any of these 'fundamentalist' colleges say outright that you should go out and shoot abortion doctors? Did they give him marksmanship classes? Though I don't agree with the narrow mindedness, logic says that any college institution that passes on the mentallity or technicallity to commit murder wouldn't be in business long.

How many 'liberal arts' institutions have taught chem/bio studnents how to make chem/bio weapons? LOTS (here at BufState and UB both it is done in a very small way as part of certain courses/thesis study). Anthrax, Small Pox, or any number of bio-diseases that could be used in evil ways.

If one of the students went on a bio hazard rampage because they were a whack job, does that mean there are 'ties to UB/Buffstate,' as in the institution was conspiring with this whack job?

Did the USMC 'tell' Lee H. Oswald to shoot JFK, even though the discipline, skill and tactical planning that he used came from his service years?

I did answer the question: If someone where being as close minded from the 'fundamentalist' groups here in this discussion, I would say so to them as well as I have said to you and others. They aren't, so I haven't.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Dec 8, 2004)

Note: our current President has given speeches at the institution run by the writer cited below. One of his nominees to the Federal bench specifically and vocally opposes the Supreme Court's 8-1 ruling affirming the IRS's decision to remove Bob Jones University's tax-exempt status on their grounds of their fundamental racism. Here ya go...and still waiting for answers.

Congratulations Mr. President

God Has Granted America a Reprieve

By Rev. BOB JONES, III

Ed. Note: Rev. Jones sent this greeting to Bush on November 3. It is now posted on his website.

President George W. Bush
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President:

The media tells us that you have received the largest number of popular votes of any president in America's history. Congratulations!

In your re-election, God has graciously granted America-though she doesn't deserve it-a reprieve from the agenda of paganism. You have been given a mandate. We the people expect your voice to be like the clear and certain sound of a trumpet. Because you seek the Lord daily, we who know the Lord will follow that kind of voice eagerly.

Don't equivocate. Put your agenda on the front burner and let it boil. You owe the liberals nothing. They despise you because they despise your Christ. Honor the Lord, and He will honor you.

Had your opponent won, I would have still given thanks, because the Bible says I must (I Thessalonians 5:18). It would have been hard, but because the Lord lifts up whom He will and pulls down whom He will, I would have done it. It is easy to rejoice today, because Christ has allowed you to be His servant in this nation for another presidential term. Undoubtedly, you will have opportunity to appoint many conservative judges and exercise forceful leadership with the Congress in passing legislation that is defined by biblical norm regarding the family, sexuality, sanctity of life, religious freedom, freedom of speech, and limited government. You have four years-a brief time only-to leave an imprint for righteousness upon this nation that brings with it the blessings of Almighty God.

Christ said, "If any man serve me, let him follow me; and where I am, there shall also my servant be: if any man serve me, him will my father honour" (John 12:26).

The student body, faculty, and staff at Bob Jones University commit ourselves to pray for you-that you would do right and honor the Savior. Pull out all the stops and make a difference. If you have weaklings around you who do not share your biblical values, shed yourself of them. Conservative Americans would love to see one president who doesn't care whether he is liked, but cares infinitely that he does right.

Best wishes.

Sincerely your friend,

Bob Jones III
President
Bob Jones University

BJIII:lw

PS: A few moments ago I read this letter to the students in Chapel. They applauded loudly their approval.

When I told them that Tom Daschle was no longer the minority leader of the Senate, they cheered again.

On occasion, Christians have not agreed with things you said during your first term. Nonetheless, we could not be more thankful that God has given you four more years to serve Him in the White House, never taking off your Christian faith and laying it aside as a man takes off a jacket, but living, speaking, and making decisions as one who knows the Bible to be eternally true.

November 8, 2004


----------



## Flatlander (Dec 8, 2004)

Robert, you are freaking me out.


----------



## raedyn (Dec 8, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Yet these colleges and universities--check their websites; check their job announcements--do PRECISELY this.


Yes.



> Why's that just peachy? Why's this testify to their open-mindedness?


 There's no one here saying that.

What's you're point, robertson? That there are bigoted people out there? We knew that already. That you don't like bigoted people? You make that clear. And there are several people here that agree with you - I'm one of them. That you think the bigots are hypocrytical? You're right, they are.

I just don't get the point you're trying to make, and who you think you're arguing against.


----------



## raedyn (Dec 8, 2004)

Yeah, the letter is freaky, Bob Jones is freaky. Agreed, Agreed.

But I still don't get your point with the whole thread.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Dec 8, 2004)

Simple.

The point has repeatedly been made, in reference to evolution and science, that "secular humanists," are closed-minded and bigoted. Indeed, the claim has repeatedly been made on this Forum that guys like me, "hate religion," that we're, "atheists," etc. etc, that we refuse to consider other viewpoints.

If you listen to the likes of Hannity and Limbaugh and Tom de Lay, one hears the same, "closed-minded," accusation repeated again and again.

So if this is something more than just a cheap tactic, why don't they have to be open-minded in the least? Indeed, why is their closed-mindedness explained as a virtue? And why, exactly, is it OK for these sorts of folks to get into positions of power in our democratic institutions?

Not necessarily putting anybody down, or any of the other convenient excuses folks use to ignore these questions. Just wantin' to know why.


----------



## heretic888 (Dec 8, 2004)

If I may interject here...

I believe the point that Robert is trying to make is one of philosophy, not legality.

Namely, the term one would give to individuals and groups that bemoan about close-mindedness and "cultural oppression" in one context, but don't actively practice open-mindedness and "cultural diversity" within their own backyard...

.... is hypocrisy. Plain and simple.

Personally, I think it'd be _great_ if these guys taught an honest take on "religious history":

- Talk about how Tertullian, who is famous for his "I believe because it is absurd" line, later turned his back on literalism to become a member of the Montanist gnostics.

- Talk about how 'Saint' Augustine, who proclaimed "I would not believe if the Mother Church did not compell me to do so", invented the concept of 'holy war'.

- Talk about how Clement of Alexandria, who is regarded as a saint within the Catholic tradition, wrote about how the "true Christian" is the intellectual gnostic --- juxtaposing them with the "primitive Christian" who relies solely in blind belief on absurd myths and stories (his words).

- Talk about how St. Thomas Aquinas, who invented the 'argument by design' everyone makes such a hubbub about, later stated that everything he had ever written "counts as so much dung". Apparently, after a mystical experience of the Divine, he was wise enough to figure out trying to "prove" God through science and reason is, well, stupid.

- Talk about why ideas from modern-age Christian sages --- Tielhard de Chardin (a paleontologist who wrote a wonderful exegesis on harmonizing Christian philosophy and the theory of evolution), Paul Tillich (who coined the idea of regarding God as 'Ground of All Being' in lieu of 'Big Daddy in the Sky'), Thomas Merton (one of those goofy ecumenical contemplative monks that seems to think meditation may not be so evil after all), Jacob Boehme (Protestant mystic), William Blake (visionary artist and poet), and John Shelby Spong ('Christianity Must Change or Die') --- are all ignored in favor of idiocy from the likes of Billy Graham, Pat Roberston, and so on.

Now, _that'd_ be an interesting school.


----------



## Melissa426 (Dec 8, 2004)

*RMCROBERTSON*

http://biology.oru.edu/servlet/page?_pageid=1647&_dad=portal30&_schema=PORTAL30&dept=BIO

This is a link to a web page from Oral Roberts University. If you read the course description to BIO II (Introductory Biology II Lecture,) it mentions "evolution " distinctly. 
Bob Jones University is not accredited by any reputable national accrediting agency that I can discover.
I am just not buying your arguments on this thread.

*HERETIC888*

Do you know positively that "fundamentalist schools" don't teach the subjects you noted? Are you currently admitted or been admitted or enrolled in a School of theology at a "fundamentalist" school? Just curious.

Peace,
Melissa


----------



## heretic888 (Dec 8, 2004)

Melissa426 said:
			
		

> http://biology.oru.edu/servlet/page?_pageid=1647&_dad=portal30&_schema=PORTAL30&dept=BIO
> 
> This is a link to a web page from Oral Roberts University. If you read the course description to BIO II (Introductory Biology II Lecture,) it mentions "evolution " distinctly.



Somehow, having the word 'evolution' listed in a generic course description doesn't seem all that convincing to me. After all, in the context of the class, 'evolution' could only be brought up in such a way as to demonstrate its full of poo.



			
				Melissa426 said:
			
		

> Do you know positively that "fundamentalist schools" don't teach the subjects you noted? Are you currently admitted or been admitted or enrolled in a School of theology at a "fundamentalist" school? Just curious.



Nope. Don't have to be.

Its obvious if you were actually familiar with _any_ of the references that I made that this kinda stuff wouldn't be taught at a fundamentalist school. Unless done with the explicit purpose of repudiating them. 

It'd kinda be like going to a fairly "liberal" school and expecting to be taught much in the way of orthogenesis in the anthropology program. Unless, of course, they were classes devoted to debunking the theory.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Dec 8, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> Did the USMC 'tell' Lee H. Oswald to shoot JFK, even though the discipline, skill and tactical planning that he used came from his service years?




I realize the point you're trying to make, but Oswald didn't learn much of anything in the Corps.  He was a radio-operator (not infantry) and ostracized by fellow Marines for being an outspoken communist.  He was courtmartialed twice, once for shooting himself in the foot and another time for starting a fight with a sergeant.  He escaped punishment another time for firing his rifle randomly into some woods.  He did time in the brig, and by the time of his discharge was doing menial labor.

I realize where you were going with that.  I simply don't want any negative credit for Oswald's assassination of Kennedy going towards the Corps.



Heretic...great post.  Any particular books you suggest for reading those details about Tertullian, Augustine, Clement, etc?  Or do I have to start with _City of God _ and work through all the other tomes?   I'm not being sarcastic here...I'm truly interested.  I'm always up for a good read on theology.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## Melissa426 (Dec 8, 2004)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Somehow, having the word 'evolution' listed in a generic course description doesn't seem all that convincing to me. After all, in the context of the class, 'evolution' could only be brought up in such a way as to demonstrate its full of poo.


Thanks for answering my question to rmcrobertson. I'd guess he wouldn't mind having words put in his mouth. But the only way to know for sure, about my question, would be to ask an ORU student, someone who has actually had the experience. Until then it's an unknown 


			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> Nope. Don't have to be.
> 
> Its obvious if you were actually familiar with _any_ of the references that I made that this kinda stuff wouldn't be taught at a fundamentalist school. Unless done with the explicit purpose of repudiating them.


Yes, you should be. You are generalizing and making assumptions about groups and individuals. As far as your condescending comment about what I may and may not be familiar with, are you familiar with the concept espoused in Matthew 5:29 regarding turning the other cheek?
I am ready, dear. Smack me again.

Peace,
Melissa


----------



## heretic888 (Dec 8, 2004)

> Heretic...great post. Any particular books you suggest for reading those details about Tertullian, Augustine, Clement, etc? Or do I have to start with City of God and work through all the other tomes? I'm not being sarcastic here...I'm truly interested. I'm always up for a good read on theology.



I dinnae have my books with me now. So, I'll have to get back to you on that.


----------



## heretic888 (Dec 8, 2004)

Melissa426 said:
			
		

> Thanks for answering my question to rmcrobertson. I'd guess he wouldn't mind having words put in his mouth. But the only way to know for sure, about my question, would be to ask an ORU student, someone who has actually had the experience. Until then it's an unknown
> Yes, you should be. You are generalizing and making assumptions about groups and individuals. As far as your condescending comment about what I may and may not be familiar with, are you familiar with the concept espoused in Matthew 5:29 regarding turning the other cheek?
> I am ready, dear. Smack me again.
> 
> ...



Oh, poopies.

1) You should know putting words in others' mouths is one of my favorite pasttimes. Right up there with 'flipping out without thinking twice'. Then again, it could just be that I have the silly notions that _public forums_ can be used by anyone. Poppycock, all that.

2) Yup, your're right. One of the strongholds of anti-evolution and anti-mysticism would lovingly dote on concepts that are directly antithetical to their systems of thought. Silly me.

Now, excuse me while I go talk to my atheist biology professor that teaches 'creation science' and my politically-correct anthropology professor that teaches orthogenesis and unilineal evolution.

Yup, yup, yup.

3) This might be a shock, but Bible quotations impress me about as much as fratboys showing how much brewskies they can down without passing out.

4) Lay the smacketh down, thus sayeth the Rock.

Ta ta.


----------



## Cruentus (Dec 8, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> ....Just wantin' to know why.



Here is why...at least what I think is why the sudden push to have the religious right agenda bullied through the system...

follow the progression, because each part is a puzzle piece of the larger picture: 

#1. You have fanatical, immoral, and powerful people out there that operate under the guise of Christianity. These individuals are very bigoted, close-minded, egomaniacal, and illogical. But worse then that... they seem to be pretty hateful too, and especially hateful towards those who I learned that Christians should be trying to help the most. These are individuals like Fawell and Jones. These crazies are a minority sect among christians, and these are the guys that want to enforce christianity through the government. They don't want the government to protect our freedoms; they want a "Christian State" (and their warped version of christianity too boot).

#2. You have conservative think tanks and PR groups that are funded by wealthy entities in this country who have been working on framing things like "the liberals are taking your value's," for years; all to fit the conservative agenda of controlling the wealth of this country. Part of this strategy involves only airing what is sensational and what will sell on TV, radio, etc.. A good portion of what happeneds to "sell" (MTV & basic cable shows, reality shows, etc.) is very hedonistic compared to the values of middle america. This helps further paint the illusion of these "immoral liberals who are trying to steal your values." None of these illusionary creatures called "liberals" created by hollywood and think tanks actually operate in our government system, but none-the-less, the perception is that "they" are taking over.

#3. Because the "immoral liberals" are "taking our values," middle america looks to church for spiritual guidance on what to do about this invasion. This causes many leaders of conservative and moderate churches that generally stay out of politics to get involved and try to find some answers; and remember, many of the fairly logical church authority figures are being inundated with the "liberal myth" like their congregation and laypeople. 

With the help of their "conservative friends", the leadership comes up with key issues that are "non-negotiable" because these issues are leading to the moral decline in this country, or so they believe. These are "respect for life" as defined by "abortion, stem cell research, human cloning, and euthanasia," and respect for chastity and family life which covers issues like "gay marriage," which is believed to be a direct threat to this value. These are the basics, but the crazier you go, the crazier the pork-barrel values get; this is how you get into things like sex education, censorship, creationism in science class, etc.

So, now you have a group of people (majority of christian church leaders) who are only voting on at best 5 similar issues. Other issues like a decent wages, foriegn policy, healthcare, programs for the poor, environment, campaign finance reform, and so on are all a distant seconds to these "nonnegotiable" issues that all "values" are argued to stem from. Keep in mind that these issues were created in help by wealthy conservative leaders as well.

When you only vote based on a few core issues, it is easy for canidates and leaders to throwout some rhetoric to get your support, while they rob you blind. This is how republicans have been winning at all in the last few elections.

#4. Christians have been sold piles of manuer since Reagan by the republican party. Yet, Row vs. Wade has not been overturned, and basically very little to address their agendas has been done. Most is RHETORIC that surfaces around election time. Every election since Regean, Republicans put their token God bless America stuff on their platform, but never ACTUALLY DO anything about it when they are in office. So, the Christian voter turnout and republican support had become very laxed up until the 2000 Bush election.

Over the years, because Christian churches and groups haven't been getting their way in government, and because of the ficticious "liberal agenda" infiltrating their TV screens, Christians have been packing together. Conservative, Moderate, some liberal, and some totally crazy and hateful Christians have all been on the same side in recent years. This means that good logical and good Christian people and nutcases like Bob Jones are riding the same warship, and have been for a few years now. And...when a bunch of groups pact together to form one big ship crew, too often the fanatical nutballs are the ones steering that boat.  

#5. Because of #4, Carl Rove (probably) can be accredited for figuring out that an additional 80 million or so votes from the Christian right exist out there...and these votes would be needed by the Bush administration to win. So, this administration worked hard over the last 4 years to make sure that Bush was presented as a very Christian fella. They worked hard to paint the picture that this fictitious group of liberals were gonna steal 'merican values. And, they did it through the churches. The church authority, who created the nonnegotiables with their wealthy conservative leaders were very much in the business of getting this word out to the church members around election time. I was attending church (Catholic) at the time of this last election, and even local Catholic church leadership, which is not known for fanaticism, was basically saying that if we don't vote for Bush, then we're sinning and probably shouldn't recieve communion. 

All this because of the vast campaign by the Bush administration to steal another election. And, it worked. 80 million or so of the Christian right voted Bush because they were told that they'd better if they believed in Jesus.

Well, with that election also came many promises to Christians (and Christian nutballs) from conservative canidates all over the country.

#6. So, we now have a conservative Republican dominated government; the same party that made many promises to the religious right.

Well...now guess what? Nothing comes for free...and the religious right, who gave the election to the republicans this last time around, are wanting to collect. And, you know what else? There will be NO EXCUSES for abortion to be legal still in 4 years. There are no excuses for the FCC to allow hedonistic TV programs to be aired. There are no excuses for creationism to not be back in the schools, for "under God" to not be put back into the pledge again, for the 10 commandments not to go on every step of every courthouse, for it to be legal to beat up fags again, and so on and so on. No excuses for the religious right agenda to not be met this time around.

So that is "why". That is why there is the recent push to put creationism in schools, to have "biblical norms" to be applied to legislation, and so on. The religious right wants their promises paid in full, and the fanatics are in charge.

* conclusion* So, that is "why" there is this recent illogic revolving around religion going around. This is why the push to go back to puritianism. The religious right were used to rally the masses to get Bush elected again; and now they want their promises paid in full. And those who are working the hardest to have these promises paid just happened to be the fanatics who want an enforced christian state.

So, one of two things will happened in the future years. One is that our government will fail to protect our rights and give in to the empty promises that conservatives have been feeding the religious right all these years. If so, all hell will break lose, and "america the beautiful" will become the oppressors (again). And all I will have to say to the sorry saps that fell for the conservative values trap is, "I guess that sometimes you get what you pray for," 'cause I gaurantee that most of the people who voted Bush based on "christian values" won't actually like these results if they are ever enforced. Two is that our government will succeed in protecting our rights, and the religious right will not be able to collect on the majority of the conservative empty promises. I believe that this is the most likely scenario. If this happeneds, then I can say to all those sorry saps who fell for the trap is #1. I told you so, and #2. STOP voting on a select few issues when those issues are only being used to control your money.

So, we'll see what happeneds, but so far, I consider this mess to be a loss for real americans who simply want freedom and opportunity for themselves and their kids in this country...

Paul


----------



## Cruentus (Dec 8, 2004)

Disclaimer on above:

#1. The word "Church" only speaks to christian churches in general, and not favoring any one of the many sects.

#2. When I say "conservatives," I don't intend to point the finger at the many americans with values or political ideology that go under the label. I am talking specifically about religious right and the wealthy 1% who are in bed together.

#3. I had to simplify a few things, or my post would have been even LONGER. As one can see, these answers are not easy to simplify...

Paul


----------



## Rich Parsons (Dec 9, 2004)

Tulisan said:
			
		

> #2. When I say "conservatives," I don't intend to point the finger at the many americans with values or political ideology that go under the label. I am talking specifically about religious right and the wealthy 1% who are in bed together.



I thought it said something somewhere about being in bed with another  :idunno:


----------



## Cruentus (Dec 9, 2004)

Rich Parsons said:
			
		

> I thought it said something somewhere about being in bed with another  :idunno:



Yes...(I can see Rich's new pickup line now, "hey...wanna be conservatives?")


----------



## Melissa426 (Dec 9, 2004)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Oh, poopies.
> 
> Now, excuse me while I go talk to my atheist biology professor that teaches 'creation science' and my politically-correct anthropology professor that teaches orthogenesis and unilineal evolution.


Well, my college days are several years past.  So, instead all I can do is wistfully remember the countless hours spent in the biology dept at my small midwestern Baptist college, but I honestly don't recall a thing said about creation science. 
Maybe I was downing too many brewskies, though I wasn't a frat boy. I wasn't terribly restricted in any extra-curricular activities, though maybe I should have been :ultracool. I remember dancing and playing cards!  oh, the horror!  

I probably learned the whole evolution thing in Ecology class.  
But then again, what I remember most from that class was the time I caught a water snake on a field trip. :uhoh: 
Aaah, such fond memories.

Now a days my intellectual pursuits are fairly limited, mostly to continuing ed studies (for my job) and twice a week Bible studies at church. Our next focus is the power of prayer in modern day.  If  you're ever in the neighborhood, you're welcome to join us.

Peace,
Melissa


----------



## heretic888 (Dec 9, 2004)

> Well, my college days are several years past. So, instead all I can do is wistfully remember the countless hours spent in the biology dept at my small midwestern Baptist college, but I honestly don't recall a thing said about creation science.



Please remember we're not talking about "Christian" schools here --- just a particular variety, namely the handful that Robert constantly brings up.



> Our next focus is the power of prayer in modern day.



Yes, a very interesting subject. Lotsa cross-cultural data on that little ditty.

Laterz.


----------



## loki09789 (Dec 9, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Note: our current President has given speeches at the institution run by the writer cited belowEd. Note: Rev. Jones sent this greeting to Bush on November 3. It is now posted on his website.
> 
> President George W. Bush
> The White House
> ...


The POTUS has given speeches at all kinds of colleges/institutions.... so WHAT!  Taking this point out of context is paranoia at it's best.

He got a letter from a man with an agenda ....like THAT hasn't happened a million times.  The REAL concern is what did the POTUS do with this letter/information/idea?  Chances are not much more/less than he does with other letters...


----------



## Tgace (Dec 9, 2004)

GASP!! Do you think he has an agenda?


----------



## loki09789 (Dec 9, 2004)

Tgace said:
			
		

> GASP!! Do you think he has an agenda?


Uh oh, you wrote me a letter...now you control my mind!  I will now ignore my sworn duty, job description, legal parameters of my job/powers (which Bush has yet to be impeached for if he as gone so far as people are saying....) to be manipulted ONLY by this sector of the community....

I was waiting for Bush to show up in this or the other thread on Fundamental religion.....


----------



## heretic888 (Dec 9, 2004)

> Uh oh, you wrote me a letter...now you control my mind! I will now ignore my sworn duty, job description, legal parameters of my job/powers (which Bush has yet to be impeached for if he as gone so far as people are saying....) to be manipulted ONLY by this sector of the community....



*shrugs* He's been doing that for four years running. So, why stop now??


----------



## PeachMonkey (Dec 9, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> The POTUS has given speeches at all kinds of colleges/institutions.... so WHAT! Taking this point out of context is paranoia at it's best.


 So which context should we take it in that the POTUS, a self-proclaimed fundamentalist Christian, gave a speech at a university that bans interracial dating, jazz, and African-American students?

 Or does that sort of atrocious record fall under the "so WHAT!" category when we're dealing with white, anglo-saxon Christians?


----------



## loki09789 (Dec 9, 2004)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> So which context should we take it in that the POTUS, a self-proclaimed fundamentalist Christian, gave a speech at a university that bans interracial dating, jazz, and African-American students?
> 
> Or does that sort of atrocious record fall under the "so WHAT!" category when we're dealing with white, anglo-saxon Christians?


And JFK as a self proclaimed Catholic, living from the wealth that was seeded by a bootlegging origin, was being atrocious if he spoke at a Catholic College?

How about a complete list of colleges/instititutions that the POTUS speaks in during a given year.  If the POTUS spoke at a 'Black College' (a college that is geared toward creating a sense of pride and strength in and for the Afro-American community) does that mean he is automatically affiliated with those values and ideas?


----------



## PeachMonkey (Dec 9, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> And JFK as a self proclaimed Catholic, living from the wealth that was seeded by a bootlegging origin, was being atrocious if he spoke at a Catholic College?


 Can you give me a list of Catholic Colleges JFK spoke at that banned interracial dating and didn't admit "darkies"?  Thanks.



			
				loki09789 said:
			
		

> If the POTUS spoke at a 'Black College' (a college that is geared toward creating a sense of pride and strength in and for the Afro-American community) does that mean he is automatically affiliated with those values and ideas?


 Yes.  That's the *point*.   He speaks at those institutions in order to reach out to those constituencies, and to associate himself with them.

 You can't have it both ways... to use these speeches as political tools and then quickly dissassociate yourself from them when the heat comes down.

 Well, actually, you *can* have it both ways, particularly when you're a politician, and especially when the right-wing attack machine will cover your every move... but intelligent people shouldn't let you get away with it.


----------



## loki09789 (Dec 9, 2004)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> Can you give me a list of Catholic Colleges JFK spoke at that banned interracial dating and didn't admit "darkies"? Thanks.
> 
> 
> Yes. That's the *point*. He speaks at those institutions in order to reach out to those constituencies, and to associate himself with them.
> ...


What is the speech about? Is it a plea for reform of those practices? Just because he is there doesn't mean that he is 'one of them.' It just means he is there. Remember, those who are religious or at least recognize moral lessons from the Bible/NT know that even Jesus sat with the sinners to break bread - it is WHY he is there that counts, not just that he is there.

By this logic if I give a self defense demonstration at the local Jewish center and now I am 'Jewish?' I am there, physically present in association with these people and would be there because 1. Sharing my expertise/values...., 2. Exposure/recruitment for students...

If I do another demo at a Native American event, am I now "Native American?"....

Does my presence at either of these things automatically mean that I am affiliated with them, share ALL their ideals or their philosophy?

A cop talks to a known drug dealer for info, does that mean that he is also a drug dealer?  Does it automatically mean that the cop shares the same values/beliefs as the drug dealer simply because they are there together communicating?

The logic here is a little thin.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Dec 9, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> By this logic if I give a self defense demonstration at the local Jewish center and now I am 'Jewish?'


 No, because:

 1) You're not a politician
 2) You're not giving a speech to a political constituency, you're giving a self-defense demonstration
 3) You haven't advertised yourself as being Jewish

 ...but continue to throw up straw-men all you like.  At some point I'll probably get tired of knocking them down.


----------



## kenpo tiger (Dec 9, 2004)

By this logic if I give a self defense demonstration at the local Jewish center and now I am 'Jewish?' 
Nope.  Takes a lot more than that. We're very picky. 

I also don't think that's quite the same as the POTUS accepting an invitation to be in a highly visible situation at a highly questionable location vis-a-vis his beliefs.  One might very well assume that his sympathies lie with the institution and its policies/beliefs.  If Bush felt it would be nonadvantageous to his image/popularity/whatever, he would have declined the invitation.  One could also assume that his advisors approved of his appearance.


----------



## Flatlander (Dec 9, 2004)

We are drifting here, folks.  I really don't think that Bush is relevant to the topic.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Dec 9, 2004)

"Biology is the study of life and, as such, relates to all aspects of human life on earth. Our students are stimulated to acquire a working knowledge of biological systems to be able to address biological challenges that affects their daily lives. One aim in our program is to integrate our Biblical faith with our study of the biological sciences. The faculty strongly espouse that their faith in Christ does not impede their scientific endeavors; rather, it encourages them to elucidate the majesty and glory of God as revealed through the workings of His biological Creation. Thus, we consider a vocation in biology as a God-ordained calling into the study of the wonders of His Creation. Another goal is to train students to use scientific and critical thinking skills to accurately discriminate between scientific facts and pseudoscience."

Biology Home Page, Oral Roberts University

C'est magnifique, mais ce n'est pas la science.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Dec 9, 2004)

This is from an alumnus of Bob Jones University--a strong SUPPORTER of the institution.

 JONES University


IS BJU ANTI-CATHOLIC?

In 1996, Bob Jones University invited several conservative Republican presidential candidates to speak at the school; several of them did, including Alan Keyes.  His speech was kind and moving; he made quite a few followers among the student body and faculty.  In 2000, Bob Jones again invited several candidates, and again Alan Keyes was among them.  This time, his tune was completely different; in that speech, as well as in following debates and nationally televised interviews, he strongly criticized BJU for their "anti-Catholic" position as well as criticizing George Bush for speaking there.  The press gleefully took his charges and ran with them, in an attempt to divide the Republican party and hurt Bush's chances in areas of high Catholic population such as Michigan -- where he lost the primary (Ironically, Michigan sends more students to BJU than any other state).  Remarkably, Keyes invited a BJU musical group to perform at a Keyes rally in South Carolina.

On February 22, 2000, Dr. Bob Jones III made the following statement at a banquet in Atlanta, paraphrased here: "Bob Jones University is not anti-Catholic, or anti-Mormon, or anti-Buddhist.  We are anti-Catholicism, just as we are anti-Mormonism and anti-Buddhism.  We love the Catholic; we stand against the false religion that leads him astray."

If you search the official BJU website, you will find many articles referencing many different religions.  While Catholicism is mentioned, it is certainly not singled out; in fact, Mormonism would seem to have many more references.  Bob Jones University holds to the belief that the Bible is our standard of authority, and any church which does not agree with God's Word is therefore to be opposed.  Catholicism holds many positions contrary to God's Word, so BJU will stand against it as a false faith.

BJU does not hate Catholics nor discriminate against them in any way. BJU has had Catholic students; when my wife was a student, there was a Catholic freshman in the room next to hers. The girl found a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ a few weeks into the year. If you were to visit BJU and wear a big sign that said "I am Catholic," I can guarantee that you would be treated with the utmost sincere kindness and generosity -- just as you would be treated if you did not wear the sign. I'm sure people exist who hate Catholics, but they absolutely are not at BJU. BJ has strong rules and stronger punishments for any student or faculty who display prejudice of any kind against people of other faith or race. This is crucial because BJ is non-denominational and accepts students of many faiths, as long as they are willing to agree with the University Creed. If students or faculty exhibited the attitudes and actions toward Catholics which have been claimed, they would be immediately expelled, no questions asked.

If you have further interest in the views of BJU, please read these articles:
How to Recognize False Religions by Dr. Bob Jones III
If I Were a Roman Catholic by Ian Paisley

The Rev. Ian Paisely, it should be noted, is head of a violent, para-military Protestant self-defense group in Northern Ireland.

Here's another, equally hilarious, "debunking," of what the writer takes to be some unfortunate myths about BJU:

BJU has a dormitory named for Bibb Graves, a Grand Dragon of the Ku Klux Klan?

Several people have asked me about this, and it is a fair objection which deserves an answer.  A quick review of who Bibb Graves was should answer it satisfactorily. 
1. Bibb Graves' history 

David Bibb Graves was born in Alabama in 1873.  He was a Colonel in the US Army during World War I; he was Governor of Alabama for two terms (1927-31, 35-39).  He was a progressive Democrat.  Bibb Graves died in 1942.  

2. Bibb Graves' history in relation to BJU 

Bibb Graves was governor-elect of Alabama when Bob Jones, Sr. decided to start Bob Jones College in Florida.  Mr. Graves was a solid supporter of Dr. Jones' evangelistic campaigns, and was fully in support of the new college.  He took part in the initial groundbreaking ceremony and became a member of the executive board.  As a businessman, he was the negotiator for the new property when the school moved to Tennessee.  He was a close friend of Bob Jones, Sr. and invested a great deal of his time, money, and experience in the school.  When Bob Jones College relocated to South Carolina, the school named one of the first two men's dormitories after him.  Dr. Jones Sr. did not approve of all his progressive politics, but they were still close friends.  

3. Bibb Graves' history in relation to politics 

Bibb Graves served two terms as governor of Alabama and was prepared to run for an unprecedented third term when he died.  He was respected by virtually everyone on all sides, in an incredibly rough era when there was great racial and social division in the state.  Graves was a social Democrat who was in favor of the New Deal and massive government spending.  He was loved and respected as a kind, forgiving man with genuine concern for the people of Alabama.  He was instrumental in making changes which allowed the civil rights movement to happen; most famously, he opened Alabama's juries to blacks, which lead was then followed by other southern states.  The respect that Alabama had for Governor Graves is evidenced in the state colleges which have buildings and streets named after him:  University of Alabama, University of North Alabama, University of West Alabama, Jacksonville State University, Alabama A&M University, Judson College (a women's-only school), and Troy State University - as well as many elementary and high schools throughout the state.  

4.  Dixie Bibb Graves 

Dixie Graves, the wife of Bibb Graves, was fully in support of Bibb's social reform policies and took on an issue of her own -- the suffrage movement.  She became president of the Alabama League of Women Voters and eventually became Alabama's first and only female U.S. Senator.  In the Senate, she gave the first speech ever by a woman Senator.  She actively fought for child labor amendments, human welfare agencies, and literacy groups.  

5. Bibb Graves' history in relation to the KKK 

Bibb Graves joined the Ku Klux Klan in the late 1800s when they were a religious group promoting a national ban on alcohol and returning the Bible to the schools.  He did indeed become Grand Dragon the Alabama Chapter of the Ku Klux Klan, and was in that position at the time he was first elected Governor of Alabama.  However, the KKK had shifted focus from the time he had joined from religious activism to racial activism.  As he saw this change happen, he quit his position in the group and cancelled his membership.  Governor Graves was very active in civil rights legislation, and quickly lost the support of the KKK.  When he ran for his second term, the KKK actively campaigned against him.  A study of Bibb Graves makes it clear that his early support for the KKK had nothing to do with the race issue, and he left the KKK when he saw what it had become.  

6. Summary 

One may fairly ask why the government-funded state colleges in Alabama still honor a former Grand Dragon with buildings named after him, and I think the answer is clear.  Bibb Graves did more to help the civil rights movement in Alabama than any of his contemporaries.  His connection with the KKK had nothing to do with race.  He has been judged on the content of his character, and found worthy of honor.   When we look back in time, it is easy to forget that we know "the rest of the story."  Bibb Graves should be measured by his beliefs, activities, character, and morals -- and when we view him that way, I find that honoring him with a building name is not only acceptable, but worthy. 

The same alumnus and supporter goes on to explain that Bob Jones did indeed have a policy against inter-racial dating--and suggests that it still does--but explains that this was in no way whatsoever racist. It was simply part of the University's ongoing attempt to educate students about the perils of "one-worldism."

One can only stand in awe at this level of convolution....course, you'd do it to, if you had to justify naming a dorm on your school after a Grand Dragon. One absolutely loves the note that Dr. Jones' only objection to this guy had to do with his, "progressive politics." But particularly sweet is the assertion that, "Graves joined the Ku Klux Klan in the late 1800s when they were a religious group promoting a national ban on alcohol and returning the Bible to the schools---" what with the period 1890-1920 marking the high water mark for the highest numbers of lynching per year throughout the United States. 

No doubt the Klan had nothing to do with them. And good to see another piece of the long, honorable history of the, "returning the Bible to the schools," movement.

And nothing closed-minded at BJU.


----------



## Cruentus (Dec 9, 2004)

I mentioned the Bush administration not to turn this into a conversation about him; really many republican elected officials are also to blame. How politics fit into the picture is very pertinent to this conversation.

There is no conspiricy; it is just the way it works. Politicians try to find votes, and in the process they make many promises to special interest groups. The republican party made promises to the christians right, which is how they dominated this last election. Now that there is a republican dominated government, the christian right want to collect on these promises.

Part of the question, I think, was why the recent push to get religion in the government and our schools. The above explains why.

Paul


----------



## loki09789 (Dec 10, 2004)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> No, because:
> 
> 1) You're not a politician
> 2) You're not giving a speech to a political constituency, you're giving a self-defense demonstration
> ...


Straw man.....hmmmmm.

Your criticising my use of analogy as you are applying a "Guilt by association" logic form opinions?

Let me use an analogy that may be more to your liking/comprehension than when I changed Bush to JFK and Fundamental to Catholic, and you didn't catch because you were asking for citation....of an analogy.

As a MA instructor, it may not be political, but I would have an 'agenda' for being at that Jewish center. I would have a 'goal' for being there. Bush giving a speech at any institution is doing so for an overall agenda/goal. Nice hair splitting to avoid addressing the other points though.

Analogy coming!:

I am part Japanese/Okinawan. I am publically recognized as such. I run for office and give a speech in the course of a week at a Japanese community center (with a clear set of ideals that raise public eyebrows in some way) as well as at the JEWISH CENTER, a local college, a Rotary Assocation dinner and a Teachers union assemblage....

Each of those groups has different dynamics/values/philosophies. I am not 'automatically' affiliated, condoning, converting or 'guilty by association' simply because I give a speech at these places.

NOTE:  The time, locations, characters in the above are theoretical and NOT REAL for the purposes of illustrating a point.

Simple question:
Do you think that the content and message of the speech given at any/all of these settings would be an important thing to consider before assigning affiliation/approval/sympotico?  Generally speaking, being there might not 'look good' but it isn't enough to 'condemn' you IMO.

Isolate this one speech and don't look at the entire schedule, fine....awefully 'subjective' in perspective though when you don't consider context, content, timing....and lots of other stuff.

If our legal system ran this way, boy would we be in trouble...."You were there, therefore you are guilty"....

And, again, isn't this the type of 'guilty by association' mentallity that got Jesus in trouble according to NT teachings? Even if you don't ascribe to Christian faith, there are still 'moral values' that can be learned from that particular part of the story...

See what I did, I used a biblical and a political reference....I didn't separate my church and 'state'

"Hey, you got your church on my state!"
"Hey, YOU got your state on my Church!"


----------



## heretic888 (Dec 10, 2004)

> And, again, isn't this the type of 'guilty by association' mentallity that got Jesus in trouble according to NT teachings? Even if you don't ascribe to Christian faith, there are still 'moral values' that can be learned from that particular part of the story...



Actually, if you are going by the New Testament, then Jesus got into trouble because he claimed Unity with the Divine. "I and the Father are One", and all that.

The speculation that Jesus was in trouble because he was a purported political insurgent is not supported by the literature. "Give unto Caesar what is his", and all that. In the story, Pilate wanted to let Mr. Jewish Ghandi go, but the Jewish authorities of the time --- pissy about this feller proclaiming God-Union --- would have none of that.

Granted, I don't believe for a second that a historical "Jesus Christ" actually existed. But, you get the point.


----------



## loki09789 (Dec 10, 2004)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Actually, if you are going by the New Testament, then Jesus got into trouble because he claimed Unity with the Divine. "I and the Father are One", and all that.
> 
> The speculation that Jesus was in trouble because he was a purported political insurgent is not supported by the literature. "Give unto Caesar what is his", and all that. In the story, Pilate wanted to let Mr. Jewish Ghandi go, but the Jewish authorities of the time --- pissy about this feller proclaiming God-Union --- would have none of that.
> 
> Granted, I don't believe for a second that a historical "Jesus Christ" actually existed. But, you get the point.


Generalization.

I was referring to Jesus, according to NT literature, associating with known tax collectors/prostitutes 'low lifes' by the Pharisee and some everyday members of the Jewish community of his day.  It is one of many of the things that he came under fire for doing within the text.  If I remember correctly, his response to such criticism was something like "these are the people who need men the most, why shouldn't I be there?"

My point in this reference was to illustrate that just by being there or by being a member under the general community heading of 'fundamentalist' is not enough IMO to condemn Bush, or anyone of being 'guilty of the same mentallity.'


----------



## PeachMonkey (Dec 10, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> Your criticising my use of analogy as you are applying a "Guilt by association" logic form opinions?


 I was criticizing your analogy because it's not applicable.  As a martial arts instructor, you don't use space at a Jewish center because you have an 'agenda' to convert the Hassidim to kung-fu badasses... you're using it because it's a community space made available to you.  As a politician, however, when you speak to Jews at a Jewish fund-raising event, you have an agenda to reach a Jewish audience.  Any "hair-splitting" you mention is a projection.



			
				loki09789 said:
			
		

> Do you think that the content and message of the speech given at any/all of these settings would be an important thing to consider before assigning affiliation/approval/sympotico? Generally speaking, being there might not 'look good' but it isn't enough to 'condemn' you IMO.


 I think it's always important to consider the content and message of the speeches and support given by both the speaker you mention and the parties to whom he/she speaks.  To take your analogy further, however, if that Japanese advocacy group had a strident anti-Caucasian policy that suggested that whites were subhuman and that dating and marriage between Asians and whites was unacceptable, I would find giving a speech to that group to be abhorrent, no matter what the content of the speech. 

 And the fact that the group happens to be buddy-buddy with the candidate would make me feel a bit icky, just as it does with the strong evidence of Bob Jones' happy support and cohabitation with the Bush Administration.



			
				loki09789 said:
			
		

> If our legal system ran this way, boy would we be in trouble...."You were there, therefore you are guilty"....


 Speaking of straw men.  You're rather fond of them on this issue.



			
				loki09789 said:
			
		

> Even if you don't ascribe to Christian faith, there are still 'moral values' that can be learned from that particular part of the story...


 Are there any Christian moral lessons that tie to the concept that a truly moral individual should not consider power at any costs to be a good thing?  And that leveraging the power of racist scumbags to get into power isn't the most moral of paths for the righteous man?


----------



## loki09789 (Dec 10, 2004)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> 1.  I was criticizing your analogy because it's not applicable. As a martial arts instructor, you don't use space at a Jewish center because you have an 'agenda' to convert the Hassidim to kung-fu badasses... you're using it because it's a community space made available to you. As a politician, however, when you speak to Jews at a Jewish fund-raising event, you have an agenda to reach a Jewish audience. Any "hair-splitting" you mention is a projection.
> 
> 
> 2.  I think it's always important to consider the content and message of the speeches and support given by both the speaker you mention and the parties to whom he/she speaks. To take your analogy further, however, if that Japanese advocacy group had a strident anti-Caucasian policy that suggested that whites were subhuman and that dating and marriage between Asians and whites was unacceptable, I would find giving a speech to that group to be abhorrent, no matter what the content of the speech.
> ...


1.  Reading Comprehension, in the analogy I was doing a demonstration for the purpose of expressing my 'values' through martial arts AND a little recruiting...not using it as a base of operations.....  Politician or not, agendas are being pushed.  I was mistaken on the hair splitting comment because you didn't really understand the analogy.

2.  And what if the content of the speaker/me/Bush/anyone is simply an expression of a set of values that are his and his alone (even if those values share a common basis with the group - it still can be different), or is a plea for reformation in those abhorable values/practices?  You contradict yourself here because at the beginning you say content counts, then you say that just giving a speech and being there is 'icky' regardless of what the speech contains.  So, which is it?

3.  Or maybe you are not open to the analogies because you are so fixed on your position on this issue that any point will not be acceptable to you?

4.  Again, just 'cuz they say it is that way, doesn't mean that the speaker at their place agrees, that the content of the speech (which you acknowledged has to be considered) will be automatic support/approval of the total package of values that the institution holds dear.


----------



## Flatlander (Dec 10, 2004)

Mod Note:

Please keep this discussion on topic.  Feel free to start a new thread on the significance of venues and audiences of politcal speeches with regards to political motivations.

Thank you for your attention.

-Dan Bowman-
-MT Moderator-


----------



## Melissa426 (Dec 10, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> Each of those groups has different dynamics/values/philosophies. I am not 'automatically' affiliated, condoning, converting or 'guilty by association' simply because I give a speech at these places.
> 
> 
> Simple question:
> Do you think that the content and message of the speech given at any/all of these settings would be an important thing to consider before assigning affiliation/approval/sympotico? Generally speaking, being there might not 'look good' but it isn't enough to 'condemn' you IMO.


 
OFF TOPIC (sorry, Flatlander, I had it typed before I saw your post:asian: )

If I speak to a bunch of prisoners with the express purpose of introducing them to the Christian way of life and having a definite agenda, will I be accused of associating with and therefore condoning the actions of rapists, murderers, thieves, and gangsters? I have heard the prisons are among the most racist of social environments. Does that make me a racist if I want them to be included in my Christian community?
Hmmm.

Peace,
Melissa


----------



## heretic888 (Dec 10, 2004)

Melissa426 said:
			
		

> If I speak to a bunch of prisoners with the express purpose of introducing them to the Christian way of life and having a definite agenda, will I be accused of associating with and therefore condoning the actions of rapists, murderers, thieves, and gangsters? I have heard the prisons are among the most racist of social environments. Does that make me a racist if I want them to be included in my Christian community?
> Hmmm.



So, if I am to understand you correctly, Melissa....

You're saying that if Bush's speech was about the virtues of religious ecumenism and racial acceptance --- which I sincerely doubt --- then it'd be okay?? But, elsewhise...


----------



## rmcrobertson (Dec 10, 2004)

So to sum up, there's no problem with the President of the United States, a) giving speeches at schools with dorms named after Grand Dragons and policies that are explicitly racist; b) accepting contributions and support from such people; c) nominating judges to the Federal benches who believe that the IRS shouldn't have pulled BJU's tax-exempt status. 

Huh. Must just be me.

One wonders at what point Hizzoner will go to one of these places and give a speech chiding them for their open bigotry and religious intolerance (we did READ the parts on Ian Paiseley and on false religions like Catholicism, didn't we?) and at least mentioning the weirdness of banning jazz (dat DEBBIL music!) as he did with the Urban League during the campaign. Or perhaps it's only black people who need the moral guidance.

Meanwhile back at the studio, here's a little number goin' out to all you good folks from those evil Commie rats, "Nation," magazine (publiched proubdly in and for this country since the 1860s), and their, "The Daily Outrage," column:

** Next year the Bush Administrations plans to spend $270 million on abstinence-only education. As a result, here are some remarkable lessons school children ages 9-18 may learn as part of their curriculum: half of gay male teenagers tested positive for AIDS; the HIV virus spreads via sweat and tears; abortions lead to suicide and sterilization; and touching one's genitals can result in pregnancy. Our favorite stat from the report released by Congressman Henry Waxman (D-CA): A 43-day-old fetus is a "thinking person." Before that it's just a likely Bush voter. 

** Last year seven-year-old Marcus McLaurin of Lafeyette, Louisiana, informed a fellow 2nd grade classmate in the recess line that he had two mothers. "Gay is when a girl likes another girl," he reportedly said. The teacher, Terry Bethea, promptly sent Marcus to the principal's office. "I sed bad wurds," Marcus wrote on an explanation form for his mother Sharon Huff. The next day Marcus was forced to repeatedly write "I will never use the word 'gay' in school again," during a behavioral clinic at 6:45 am. In a surreal twist, the teacher is now suing the mother for $50,000 in defamation damages. Fittingly, "union, justice, and confidence" is Louisiana's state motto. 

** Meanwhile, Rep. Gerald Allen of Cottondale, Alabama, plans to introduce legislation banning novels with gay or bisexual characters from all state public libraries. If passed, even universities across Dixie would be forced to remove Southern classics like Alice Walker's "The Color Purple," Fanny Flagg's "Fried Green Tomatoes" and Tennessee Williams "Cat On a Hot Tin Roof." Ken Walker of the gay rights organization Equity Alabama says Allen is trying to become "the George Wallace of homosexuality." By 2010 Allen wants to ban every book featuring single mothers. 

** Goodbye abstinence and homophobia, hello creationism. The Dover Area High School in southern Pennsylvania recently became the first public school in America to mandate the teaching of "intelligent design," informing biology students of the "gaps/problems" in the theory of evolution. "Evolution--is that Darwin theory?" asked a shocked 16-year-old. "I don't know what he's thinking." Intelligent design sidesteps the Supreme Court's 1987 ban on teaching creationism in public schools by attacking evolution without mentioning the Lord . For a sign of things to come, click here to see how God created the exploding giraffe. 

No problems there that one can see. Bring on the weaseling.


----------



## PeachMonkey (Dec 10, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> The Dover Area High School in southern Pennsylvania recently became the first public school in America to mandate the teaching of "intelligent design," informing biology students of the "gaps/problems" in the theory of evolution.


 But Robert, I didn't think anyone actually advocated replacing science with religion in the biology classroom?

 Oh, wait, wrong thread.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Dec 10, 2004)

OH. There are no problems with the State legislature mandating the teaching of pseudo-scientific theories in biology classes.

Again, the general point here is that all these claims of, "fairness," and, "open-mindedness," are simple smoke and mirrors. These folks are about as open-minded as the Puritans, which--to their credit--they make as clear as clear can be. 

Bob Jones University is an excellent illustration of the agenda. No outlawing of Catholicism, why gosh no, heaven forfend--just unrelenting presszion until the devotee of idolatry sees the light. No racism, why no not us nohow no way--we only ban jazz, keep dorms named after Grand Dragons, in the interests of opposing one-worldism. One is tempted to get in to the issue of self-hatred, since these guys also ban country music and contemporary Christian tunes....but let it pass. 

But does anybody really think that ideas like evolution are presented fairly and openly? How? Their professors must sign statements of faith before being hired. Anybody honestly think you go in to the library, and all the books, from Harry Potter and Judy Blume through to Einstein's letters on peace and Robert Ingersoll's sermons are there? 

C'mahn.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Dec 10, 2004)

Student expectations at BJU:

http://www.bju.edu/prospective/expect/general.html


I could never go to school there.  I'd die on the vine.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## Flatlander (Dec 11, 2004)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Student expectations at BJU:


Wow.  Humans send their children there?  Unbelieveable.  I mean, I believe it exists, but I can't believe there is a market for this.  Yikes.


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 11, 2004)

Flatlander said:
			
		

> Wow. Humans send their children there? Unbelieveable. I mean, I believe it exists, but I can't believe there is a market for this. Yikes.


There is a chapter in Al Franken's latest book, in which he, and one of the Harvard students who were assiting him with his book toured Bob Jones University, as potential students. The story he tells is actually very flattering to the individuals who attend the school. The student / tour guide walked them through the entire campus, never letting on that he recognized Mr. Franken. At the very end of the day, the student appealed to Mr. Franken to not ridicule their beliefs. I believe most people of faith are similarly genuine. 

It's those who feel they must push their beliefs on others, the evangalists, that bother me. I understand that evangalism is often part of the required service to their faith, but its imposition on others is contrary to our societies rules.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 12, 2004)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> So which context should we take it in that the POTUS, a self-proclaimed fundamentalist Christian, gave a speech at a university that bans interracial dating, jazz, and African-American students?
> 
> Or does that sort of atrocious record fall under the "so WHAT!" category when we're dealing with white, anglo-saxon Christians?



Avowed "conservatives" have to blow that stuff off in order to justify themselves.  It's a symptom of the apathetic state to which we have fallen.  Unbelievable as it may sound, people can choose to go and learn at these institutions...that sounds pretty American.  Will these beliefs become more prevelent in our country?  The signs are foreboding...


----------



## rmcrobertson (Dec 12, 2004)

Today's hilarity is:




"Impact of a young-earth creationist apologetics course on student creation worldview"

by Tom Henderson, Steve Deckard and David A. DeWitt

Summary


"Science educators holding an evolutionary worldview are concerned about the teaching of young-earth creationism (YEC) and generally oppose its presentation in public schools. This paper examines the influence of a YEC apologetics course on creation and evolution worldview attitudes of Liberty University students. The Creation Worldview Test (CWT) was administered and a total scale score, along with three subscales scores in theology, science and age, were analyzed. Student pre-test scores indicated some weaknesses, suggesting departure from a solid YEC worldview. Following the course, students shifted significantly toward stronger agreement with the YEC position in total score, science and age. The results demonstrate that when Christian college students are taught from a YEC perspective, they shift toward stronger beliefs in YEC."

The full article, among whose authors is a present Professor of Biology at Liberty University, goes on to detail precisely how to teach students "Young Earth Creationism," in a fashion that cuts way, way down on those pesky doubts. It can be found at answersingenesis.com, and I recommed reading the whole darn thing....

One doesn't know whether to laugh or cry, especially given the veneer of science and statistics applied to this nonsense....

Again, one would be very interested to read an explanation of precisely how this sort of thing supports the notion, which we hear so often on right-wing talk shows, that it's the creationists who are the open-minded, strictly scientific arguers...


----------



## heretic888 (Dec 13, 2004)

Statistics don't lie.

But, liars can do statistics.


----------



## Brother John (Mar 24, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> 1. Teach evolution.
> 
> 2. Allow jazz music.
> 
> ...


I'd say that the primary reason that things are different is that you are comparing a private to a public school.
Besides, the christian K-12 near my home is rather known for it's Jazz ensemble. Their pretty good. (Which is good for me, I love jazz)

Rules are different between public and private schools. IF you wanted and had the means you could open a school that taught people to be communists.
(not that you would, just talkn)

Your Brother
John


----------



## ginshun (Mar 24, 2005)

rmcrobertson, you are the one who is all about acedemic freedom.  Isn't being able to decide what not to teach just as much a part of that as being able to decide what to teach?

 Personally I think going to a college like that would be terrible, but if that is the type of college experience/education that someone wants, who am I to tell them otherwise?


----------



## heretic888 (Mar 24, 2005)

ginshun said:
			
		

> Personally I think going to a college like that would be terrible, but if that is the type of college experience/education that someone wants, who am I to tell them otherwise?



I assume you're using a very liberal (no pun intended!) definition of "education" here. 

As for telling people what they should learn, as a college student myself I consider it a grave disservice teaching fellow students a point of view that is not accepted whatsoever in the academic field in question, and then go on presenting it as if its "the one-and-only truth".

'Lil thing called integrity.  :asian:


----------



## rmcrobertson (Mar 24, 2005)

Of course I'm all for academic freedom. This means: a) teaching everything possible, and not letting narrow-minded Fundamentalist beliefs block that; b) respecting the best work in various disciplines, rather than hiding it from students because it doesn't agree with one's religious beliefs.


----------



## ginshun (Mar 24, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Of course I'm all for academic freedom. This means: a) teaching everything possible, and not letting narrow-minded Fundamentalist beliefs block that; b) respecting the best work in various disciplines, rather than hiding it from students because it doesn't agree with one's religious beliefs.


 But could it also mean a) teaching what you see fit, and not letting narrow minded, politically correct, liberals influence that b) being able to judge for yourself what is the best work in your discipline, and teaching that based on your own beliefs, not letting what others think about it influence what you teach.

 Don't get me wrong, I am not for the religous stuff taught at the schools to which you are refering.  I would much rather have the teacher that you described, but if you truely believe in academic freedom, doesn't it have to work both ways?

 I would think that your core belief system, whatever it may be, in some way influences what you teach your students.  Is it wrong for the same thing to shape another teachers lessons, just because his/her belief system happens to be very different than yours?


----------



## PeachMonkey (Mar 24, 2005)

ginshun said:
			
		

> But could it also mean a) teaching what you see fit, and not letting narrow minded, politically correct, liberals influence that b) being able to judge for yourself what is the best work in your discipline, and teaching that based on your own beliefs, not letting what others think about it influence what you teach.


 What you're suggesting is not protection from "politically correct liberals" shoving anything down your throat, but a world where the religious do a disservice to science, to fact, and even to progress.  Call it want you want, just don't call it "academic".


----------



## ginshun (Mar 24, 2005)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> What you're suggesting is not protection from "politically correct liberals" shoving anything down your throat, but a world where the religious do a disservice to science, to fact, and even to progress. Call it want you want, just don't call it "academic".


 
 Again, I am not advocating this way of teaching, I thought I made that clear.  I just think that if you are truely for total acedemic freedom (which incedentaly I am not, but that is another story) then it has to work both ways.

 You can't defend the Ward Churchills of the world, and condemn the Richard Roberts'.  If you think that one has the right to say whatever they want to a group of students then you should defend the right of the other as well.  Otherwise you are just being a hypocrit IMO.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Mar 24, 2005)

1. Listen up, Sparky: ain't a liberal.

2. Of course academic freedom entails freedom from the narrow minded. Period. It just so happens that we don't actually have liberals running around demanding that their favorite ten superstitions be stuck up on school walls everywhere, or demanding that children pray to, say, Daniel Bell every morning.

3. Hate to have to point this out, but if you're talking about, say evolution--the chief way that science differs from, say, literature, is that in science there is an objective standard against which you can measure how true your personal theory happens to be. It's called Nature. This is why evolution is science, and, "intelligent design," is Christian fundamentalism.

4. Actually, I'd tend to say that they're both idiots. Professor Churchill, because of dimwitted sensationalizing; the other fool, for being a religious wacko.


----------



## Ray (Mar 25, 2005)

Ah, heck.  Fundamentalist school or no: the way to get a good grade in a class is to parrott what the teach tells you;  You know it's going to be on the test.  Left leaning, right leaning - no difference - everyone thinks that their own view is the right one.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Mar 25, 2005)

Well, Ray, if you actually believe that, it pretty much shows that you had idiots for teachers. 

The problem, I'd say, is that if you teach kids to ignore physical reality but claim that you're teaching science, if you teach them religious bigotries but then expect them to live in an open, democratic society....

See where I'm going with this?


----------



## kenpo tiger (Mar 25, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Well, Ray, if you actually believe that, it pretty much shows that you had idiots for teachers.
> 
> The problem, I'd say, is that if you teach kids to ignore physical reality but claim that you're teaching science, if you teach them religious bigotries but then expect them to live in an open, democratic society....
> 
> See where I'm going with this?


Yup.  *Hamburger comes from a store.*
Or, can't see the forest for the trees.

And so on.

You can be Pollyanna-ish about life -- it's the way it is because I say it is, wishing will make it so, and so on, _ad infinitum_ -- or you can choose to live in the world as a student of life, taking in all that you can, and choosing what you believe from a solid basis in fact.

Not so scary when you keep your mind open.


----------



## tsdclaflin (Mar 25, 2005)

Did we forget that this is a free country and that we are free to be "close-minded"?

In the United States of America, you are free to: 1) love or hate your neighbor, 2) salute or burn the flag, 2) believe in God, not believe in God, or be mad at God, 3) practice martial arts, 4) be racist or prejudice (be careful how you act on it), 5) be heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual.

In addition, you are free to pass on your values to children.

It bothers me that we pick on fundamentalism.  Muslims and other religious groups are even more strict in their beliefs (and still execute adulterers).

Moral values are not universal; they are decided upon by culture.  Historically, our values came from traditonal judeo/christian values, but they are changing.  Laws are based on right and wrong.  But "right and wrong" are based on the values of citizens.  Some day, it will be legal to commit suicide and to put your elderly family members to death simply because society will decide that it is okay.

You can believe what you want.  But so can I.  And I can teach it in a private school and as long as this is a free country, how you feel about it simply doesn't matter.

Keep smiling....


----------



## PeachMonkey (Mar 25, 2005)

The last time I checked, no one is advocating a banning of private schools where people are allowed to teach whatever narrow-minded crap they want to teach.  

 Pretending, however, that it's advancing academics to do so is where I take intellectual issue with the matter.


----------



## tsdclaflin (Mar 25, 2005)

PeachMonkey said:
			
		

> What you're suggesting is not protection from "politically correct liberals" shoving anything down your throat, but a world where the religious do a disservice to science, to fact, and even to progress. Call it want you want, just don't call it "academic".


What is "academic" about the myth of macro evolution?

The word evolution simply means to "change". Living organisms change--no one can deny that. But there is ABSOLUTELY ZERO evidence or proof that all living things came from the same ancestor or that fish became reptiles and reptiles because mammals and birds. All of the supposed "evidence" for any of those changes are a result of preconceived notions that in themselves do not lead to evolutionary conclusions.

Let's realize that there are extremists on both sides of the fence. But to call macro evolution academic is biased and close-minded. We need to teach the next generation to think for themselves. Evolutionary scientists are just as guilty as right-wing fundamentals at teaching without proof.

Happy Easter everyone!


----------



## tsdclaflin (Mar 25, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> demanding that their favorite ten superstitions be stuck up on school walls everywhere


Getting back to martial arts for a moment...

As a Tang Soo Do practitioner, I attended a dojang for a number of years where the "Tenets of Tang Soo Do" and the "10 Articles of Faith" (Korean) were displayed on the wall.  Of course, it made sense that a TSD dojang those things would be on the wall.

However, doesn't it also make sense that if you believed in those values and if they were useful outside the training hall as well as inside that you might want to share them with others?

Public places in the USA are filled with quips and quotes posted to encourage people or to promote a better world.  And as long as it is not a direct quote from the Bible, nobody cares.  But if it is a quote from the Bible, it must be bad.  Give me a break!  I think it is a good idea to post this in a courtroom:

-Work six days, but take a break once in a while.
-honor your parents (Korean TSD agrees)
-do not murder (Korean TSD agrees)
-be faithful to your family and friends (Korean TSD agrees)
-do not steal
-do not lie

What's not to like about the "10 superstitions"?


----------



## kenpo tiger (Mar 25, 2005)

tsdclaflin said:
			
		

> Getting back to martial arts for a moment...
> 
> As a Tang Soo Do practitioner, I attended a dojang for a number of years where the "Tenets of Tang Soo Do" and the "10 Articles of Faith" (Korean) were displayed on the wall. Of course, it made sense that a TSD dojang those things would be on the wall.
> 
> ...


I've highlighted what you wrote because I don't think that anyone objects to quoting the Bible.  The argument is that it's being shoved down our throats by certain people as _the only way_ to believe and conduct oneself.  You stated upthread that there are certain freedoms accorded to us as Americans and you are absolutely correct insofaras theory is concerned.  The same group who would have us all believe what they do is also the most vocal concerning certain rights - like abortion -- excuse me, the right to choose (what a farcical thing to say with a right-wing president in power who would sign a _law_ interfering in a woman's right to die a dignified death -- see the Terri Schiavo thread -- sorry for the gank.:asian: )  While I think that both sides should be presented, as I've stated again and again and again, and while a private institution _not utilizing any public monies_ is certainly entitled to teach what they see fit, _no one has the right to say what's right or wrong without presenting proof_ to buttress their argument.  I think that's one of the points here with regard to those speaking publicly.

As to martial application, TSD, TKD and a few other Korean arts are traditional ones and have their own code which *one* may choose to adhere to -- or not.  Most martial arts have creeds which state similar ideas.  Yours to decide if you'll take them ALL to heart or not.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Mar 25, 2005)

...actually, the Commandments state, "THOU SHALT NOT KILL."

There is no moral killing. Ask the Amish; ask the Quakers, who look more and more sane to me as I get older.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Mar 25, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> ...actually, the Commandments state, "THOU SHALT NOT KILL."
> 
> There is no moral killing. Ask the Amish; ask the Quakers, who look more and more sane to me as I get older.



In the original language I thought it was thou shall not murder. The Prayed upon King James version has it as Thou shall not kill. 

I could be wrong, but this is what I thought it said from previous discussion with those who can read other languages I cannot.


----------



## Flatlander (Mar 25, 2005)

_====================================================_
_*Moderator Note.*_ 
Please keep the discussion at a mature, respectful level. Please review our sniping policy. http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=314 Feel free to use the Ignore feature to ignore members whose posts you do not wish to read (it is at the bottom of each member's profile). Thank you.

-Dan Bowman-
-MT Moderator-
====================================================


----------



## arnisador (Mar 25, 2005)

Rich Parsons said:
			
		

> In the original language I thought it was thou shall not murder. The Prayed upon King James version has it as Thou shall not kill.


 That's what I thought too. I suppose there's still some freedom in the interpretation.


----------



## arnisador (Mar 25, 2005)

tsdclaflin said:
			
		

> What is "academic" about the myth of macro evolution?


 It's the only scientific theory of speciation. Right or wrong, it's science. We've had this discussion here many times before, if memory serves. Hmmm:
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=11990
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=14475

 It's academic in the sense that in a College of Natural Sciences or of Arts and Sciences, science is appropriately taught within the science departments.



> But there is ABSOLUTELY ZERO evidence or proof that all living things came from the same ancestor or that fish became reptiles and reptiles because mammals and birds.


 Well, this opinion is uninformed by the findings and arguments of contemporary biology. Accessible summaries of these arguments can be found in the works of people like Gould, Mayr, and Dawkins, for example.

 You don't have to accept the argument, but it is rigorous and supported by copious amounts of evidence.



> Let's realize that there are extremists on both sides of the fence. [...] Evolutionary scientists are just as guilty as right-wing fundamentals at teaching without proof.


 This isn't really true. The scientific side is pretty well proscribed...the scientific method, the collection of observations, the principle of falsifiability, etc. There isn't really extremism on the scientific side.

 There's only one scientific theory of speciation. That isn't an extreme position, nor is defending that fact. Whether it's right--whether it matches facts-is another question. Newton's Law of Motion F=ma worked, and still works, very well, but it's wrong if relativity and/or quantum mechanics are right. So, who knows? Still, like Newton's Law, it's apparent that the theory of evolution is largely correct.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Mar 25, 2005)

1. Any well-taught martial artist should know that there is, in fact, no moral killing. There probably is necessary killing; there may very well be, "lesser of two evils," killing--but moral killing? Fahgeddaboutit.

2. Arnisador is, of course, quite corrdct. This recurrent fantasy that, "it's all just different opinions," really needs to go away. It's not; as he mentioned, science is a way of separating opinions from reality.

3. On the other hand, you don;t have to believe in the physical universe. Indeed, from a strictly-fundamentalist--that weird version of neo-Platonism--standpoint, the universe is not only irreal, but more or less contemptible.

4. Strictly speaking from a Christian viewpoint, the fact of killing--any kind of killing--is another mark of our Fallen state.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Mar 26, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> 1. Any well-taught martial artist should know that there is, in fact, no moral killing. There probably is necessary killing; there may very well be, "lesser of two evils," killing--but moral killing? Fahgeddaboutit.



While I teach that the best course is to leave, to run away, to get away, to avoid, this is not what the post stated.

By your comment of that it is "THOU SHALL NOT KILL" you have made it beyond this discussion of martial artists. You have judged all the men and women of this country and every other country who have defended or gone to war, and had to do things that were not normally acceptable with in a civilized society. 

Any well taught educator would understand the difference, and present it with options and theories and not with their own prejudices.


 :asian:


----------



## tshadowchaser (Mar 26, 2005)

> Any well-taught martial artist should know that there is, in fact, no moral killing


 



_ find fault in this because I still believe that a martial art is a war art, and war is about killing and maiming  others to achieve victory._

_Now in a sport school of martial like studies the statement might be true_

 Also I personaly don't like anyone telling me what my morals should be


----------



## heretic888 (Mar 26, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> There isn't really extremism on the scientific side.



Hrmmm..... I wouldn't necessarily agree with this position.

There are numerous forms of extremism (or, rather, reductionism) to be found among scientists, but the actual "science" of these positions is dubious. 

This includes the famous "scientism" of many physicists, the behaviorist school of psychology, the "blank slate" of many of social scientists (particularly anthropologists and women's studies), and over-assumptions of evolutionary psychology.

The difference, of course, is that these individuals' _do_ have scientific evidence to support their positions. The only problem is that overstep the logical boundaries of their data, and try and make their position paradigmatic. 

Its the difference, for example, in noting that environmental factors and experiences clearly have an influence in human behavior ---- and then jumping to the claim that ALL human behavior is a result of external conditioning, and that we're all born into these magical "blank slates". There are similar examples of this in physics, biology, anthropology, feminism, linguistics, and what have you.

Personally, I just think its a whole lotta academic hubris. But, that's just me.

.... Darwin's theory of evolution, however, does not fall into this category of reductionism. The claim that it is the most scientifically sound theory of speciation is right on.


----------



## heretic888 (Mar 26, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Indeed, from a strictly-fundamentalist--that weird version of neo-Platonism--standpoint, the universe is not only irreal, but more or less contemptible.



Strictly speaking, neo-Platonism --- as in the philosophy originally taught by Plotinus in the 4th century CE --- posits that the physical universe is an emanation or manifestation of the Divine. Or, as Plato himself put it in _Timaeus_, "a living God". Very similar to Vedanta in that account.

Of course, both Platonism and neo-Platonism cheerfully embrace the pursuit of logic, reason, and scientific progress --- which religious fundamentalism does not.


----------



## heretic888 (Mar 26, 2005)

tshadowchaser said:
			
		

> _ find fault in this because I still believe that a martial art is a war art, and war is about killing and maiming  others to achieve victory._



So, lemme get this straight...

You think an overtly literal interpretation of the term "martial art" takes precedence as to what's _actually taught_ in the majority of martial arts??

Errrmmm...... ok.



			
				tshadowchaser said:
			
		

> Also I personaly don't like anyone telling me what my morals should be



Then ignore them. But, you have to be turning a blind eye if you truly believe moral development is not part and parcel of martial arts training.


----------



## tshadowchaser (Mar 26, 2005)

1. yes a martial art is a war art and is meant to teach a person how to survive a battle.  Now I agree that the majority of what is taught today is not that



2. Never said that I simply said I don't like other people trying to tell me what is moral.

I do try to instill respect for others in my classes as well as truthfulness, completion of tasks started, etc. but I do not believe in telling my students that they can not do something  (I may advise against it but not forbid). My believe are mine and not necessarily that of the next person so I don't feel that I should impose all of my believes on my students. We all come from different backgrounds of religion, politics, ethics, etc.  who am I to say I am the only correct person of thought.

I surly do not belive that any religious, political, or scientific group should tell me how to run my classes

I may be straying off from the original topic if so please ignor my remarks and continue the discussion


----------



## arnisador (Mar 26, 2005)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> This includes the famous "scientism" of many physicists, the behaviorist school of psychology, the "blank slate" of many of social scientists (particularly anthropologists and women's studies), and over-assumptions of evolutionary psychology.


 Most of these examples are from the social sciences, albeit the more scientific/bilogical side thereof. If by the scientivism of physicists you mean the view that everything can be reduced to physics and hence is (classically) predictable, "Descartes' Dream", then I might agree that that's a far-reaching position, though surely not absurd.



> .... Darwin's theory of evolution, however, does not fall into this category of reductionism. The claim that it is the most scientifically sound theory of speciation is right on.


 That's what I intended to refer to in my post--there isn't really extremism on the evolutionary theory side. In all of science, yes, one can find some extremism.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Mar 26, 2005)

Ideally, Quakers and Amish reject violence under any and all situation, because they hold that violence is inherently wrong. And, it's bad for you. They are right.

As much fun as it is to insult, try going back and reading what I actually wrote. What I actually wrote that while violence is always wrong, there are probably many situations in which it's LESS wrong than the alternatives. And there may even be situations in which you cannot avoid violence, and should not, no matter how wrong it is morally.

Some version of this is precisely what Christianity teaches. Or did Christ actually say, "Don't turn the other cheek--plug the bastard, it's OK by me?"

Other points: many right-wing Fundamentalists--check the Promise Keepers!--teach things that are about one jump from the Taliban. I wish people would read some feminist theory before they start off on the, "blank slate," bit. And I was glad to see the agreement on what neo-Platonism says about the world...which may be an "emanation," but which is as grass and, for Christians, is not where one's primary focus should be.


----------



## heretic888 (Mar 28, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> Most of these examples are from the social sciences, albeit the more scientific/bilogical side thereof.



Personally, I can think of examples of reductionism --- of one form or another --- in pretty much any science or field of study. Even in the arts. 



			
				arnisador said:
			
		

> If by the scientivism of physicists you mean the view that everything can be reduced to physics and hence is (classically) predictable, "Descartes' Dream", then I might agree that that's a far-reaching position, though surely not absurd.



Physical reductionism is one form of scientism, but by no means is it the only one.

And, yes: given the data we have available to us now, an attempt to "reduce" all of existence to _any thing in particular_ is pretty damned absurd. Emerging property systems are much more convincing models, IMO.



			
				arnisador said:
			
		

> That's what I intended to refer to in my post--there isn't really extremism on the evolutionary theory side. In all of science, yes, one can find some extremism.



Yup.


----------



## heretic888 (Mar 28, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Other points: many right-wing Fundamentalists--check the Promise Keepers!--teach things that are about one jump from the Taliban.



Yup. 



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> I wish people would read some feminist theory before they start off on the, "blank slate," bit.



Have, actually --- although, I said "women's studies", not "feminism".

And, on top of that, I wasn't even making a generalization about the field as a whole, but to certain variables and factions within that field. 



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> And I was glad to see the agreement on what neo-Platonism says about the world...which may be an "emanation," but which is as grass and, for Christians, is not where one's primary focus should be.



One of the telling differences between Neo-Platonism (a la Plotinus) and traditional Christianity (a la Augustine) is that the Platonist puts forward that the manifest universe, just as it is, is a manifestation and an expression of the Divine. Plotinus was very critical of the Gnostic Christians of his day for maintaining the world was fundamentally "evil" or "wrong".

Traditional Christian theology posits, however, that the manifest physical world is a "mistake". Or, is "fallen". Less Clement of Alexandria, and more Pat Robertson.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Mar 28, 2005)

Actually, you cited both "women's studies," and "feminism," as examples of extreme, "nurture," positions. 

here's the quote:

"...the "ACTUAL SCIENCE" of these positions is DUBIOUS. 

THIS INCLUDES the famous "scientism" of many physicists, the behaviorist school of psychology, the "blank slate" of many of social scientists (particularly anthropologists and WOMEN'S STUDIES), and over-assumptions of evolutionary psychology.

The difference, of course, is that these individuals' do have scientific evidence to support their positions. The only problem is that {they} OVERSTEP THE LOGICAL BOUNDARIES OF THEIR DATA, and try and make their position paradigmatic. 

Its the difference, for example, in noting that environmental factors and experiences clearly have an influence in human behavior ---- and then jumping to the claim that ALL human behavior is a result of external conditioning, and that we're all born into these magical "blank slates". THERE ARE SIMILAR EXAMPLES of this IN physics, biology, anthropology, FEMINISM, linguistics, and what have you.

Personally, I just think ITS A WHOLE LOTTA ACADEMIC HUBRIS."

(capitals mine)

Please give examples of precisely what women's studies/feminist discussions you mean, citing author, title, and full references, so that I can look them up.

And speaking of overstepping logical boundaries and goying way beyond the data...Ken Wilber?


----------



## heretic888 (Mar 28, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Actually, you cited both "women's studies," and "feminism," as examples of extreme, "nurture," positions.



Heh. My mistake.  :asian:  



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Please give examples of precisely what women's studies/feminist discussions you mean, citing author, title, and full references, so that I can look them up.



I'm on a public computer at the moment, so I'll have to get back to you after I've reviewed some of my materials.



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> And speaking of overstepping logical boundaries and goying way beyond the data...Ken Wilber?



*raises eyebrow, pondering the +250 references in _Integral Psychology_ alone*

Uhhh... sure. Whatever you say, Rob.


----------



## arnisador (Mar 28, 2005)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> And, yes: given the data we have available to us now, an attempt to "reduce" all of existence to _any thing in particular_ is pretty damned absurd. Emerging property systems are much more convincing models, IMO.


 I think complex adaptive systems theory holds great promise. (We just had John Casti here to give a couple of talks on it.) The Santa Fe Institute is hot right now. But, the comment seems off-topic. The issue wasn't about a convincing argument but about scientivistic extremism in the behavior of scientists. What's emergence got to do with it?

 We can't predict the future with certainty at all given quantum physics plus no hidden variables, so that's that...if the Copenhagen interpretation is right.


----------



## elder999 (Mar 29, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Ideally,
> Some version of this is precisely what Christianity teaches. Or did Christ actually say, "Don't turn the other cheek--plug the bastard, it's OK by me?"
> 
> .


Actually,the case has been made that turning the other cheek was meant as a fine bit of civil resistance-a way of confounding the person who struck you.

In those times, much as in the Middle East today, one used one hand for eating and another for personal hygeine. Moreover, one struck an inferior with the back of the hand, not in an overhand manner or slap. Thusly, someone who was felt (by a member of a Roman legion stationed in Jerusalem, say) to be beneath them would be struck by the back of the left hand. To turn the other cheek, then, was to say, "Go ahead and hit me, but do so as an equal," which, naturally the Roman would not do. Of course, the pragmatic thing was not to resist physically, as one would be killed, so turning the other cheek was the next best thing.....


----------



## Ray (Mar 31, 2005)

elder999 said:
			
		

> In those times, much as in the Middle East today, one used one hand for eating and another for personal hygeine.


I am thankful that I can eat with both hands without fear of contamination (not that it would stop me, oink).


----------



## heretic888 (Apr 7, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> But, the comment seems off-topic. The issue wasn't about a convincing argument but about scientivistic extremism in the behavior of scientists. What's emergence got to do with it?



Because, if the "emergent properties" models turn out in the long-run to be right (so to speak), then this kicks in the *** the idea that our great and wondrous Universe can be _reduced_ to Any One Thing. Like, oh say, atoms or quarks or strings or m-branes.

Because, really, that's the whole point of all the reductionist philosophies --- and, make no mistake, they are philosophies and not sciences --- that we can reduce all of manifestation into The One Thing. Whether its atoms or cultural constructions or socioeconomic "modes of production" or even individual opinions.

Its not so much that all these guys are wrong, so to speak, but that they take themselves to far.


----------



## heretic888 (Apr 7, 2005)

elder999 said:
			
		

> Actually,the case has been made that turning the other cheek was meant as a fine bit of civil resistance-a way of confounding the person who struck you.



Actually, my guess is that's a load of crap given by many a modern Christian leader and theologian to justify the historical violence of the Christian Institution.

_Love thy enemy_ and _turn the other cheek_ didn't originate with "Jesus Christ". The likes of Plato, Pythagoras, Socrates, and Epictetus had uttered similar sentiments and philosophies --- some of which the Gospel writers ripped-off verbatim --- centuries prior to the Common Era.

And, guess what?? They meant pretty much the same thing that people like the Quakers interpret them to mean: absolute, radical pacifism and non-violence.

Besides, the entire idea that the Gospels have anything to do with "the Middle East" is fairly dubious. They were Greek texts written for a Greek audience and expounded Greek philosophies.

Laterz.


----------



## arnisador (Apr 7, 2005)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Because, if the "emergent properties" models turn out in the long-run to be right (so to speak), then this kicks in the *** the idea that our great and wondrous Universe can be _reduced_ to Any One Thing. Like, oh say, atoms or quarks or strings or m-branes.


 The idea behind Complex Adaptive Systems (CAS) is that apparently complicated behaviors can emerge "unexpectedly" from simple rules. (Boids, Game of Life, etc.) The simple rules explaining complicated phenomena is precisely reductionistic, no? A CAS reduces complex things to simple "programs" (I don't like that word here).

 Philosophy...paradigm...to me, we're talking about models, not (necessarily) reality. A CAS is a model, just like a system of PDEs.


----------



## elder999 (Apr 7, 2005)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Actually, my guess is that's a load of crap given by many a modern Christian leader and theologian to justify the historical violence of the Christian Institution.
> 
> _Love thy enemy_ and _turn the other cheek_ didn't originate with "Jesus Christ". The likes of Plato, Pythagoras, Socrates, and Epictetus had uttered similar sentiments and philosophies --- some of which the Gospel writers ripped-off verbatim --- centuries prior to the Common Era.
> 
> ...





			
				Matthew 21:12-13 said:
			
		

> Jesus entered the temple area and drove out all who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves. 13It is written, he said to them,  My house will be called a house of prayer, but you are making it a den of robbers.


This was not the action of a pacifist.

In the analyzing "turn the other cheek" phrase of he sermon on the mount,it's imporant to remember that Jesus *is* in a semetic culture, albeit a _Hellenized_ one and specifically says the *right*  cheek. The cultural significance is that the striker has used his or her (yeah right, 2000 years ago a woman striking a man) left hand to do the deed. The symbolism is two-fold. One, the left hand is the unclean hand used for dealing with filth, bodily and otherwise. Two, the right hand is the sword hand of a soldier (left-handedness was not an option in the Greco/Roman run Syrian Legion) so if the soldier is using the left hand they consider the slappee to be a non-threat. Should that person then get up and present "the other cheek" they are telling the agressor that they ARE resistant and will have to be beaten or killed before they will be ignored. In other words, I'm scrappin' for a fight. Hence Peter, at the request of Jesus, carries a sword, and is rebuked only when he stands between Jesus and the cross. Judas Iscariot's name refers to the _Sicarri_, a zealot revolutionary sect at the time, literally, _those who hold the sword_, and Jesus overturns the tables at the temple, in some accounts (John) _whipping_ those present-effectively thumbing his nose at all authority in Jerusalem, and violently.

Exegesis is alweays open to intepretation, but they become much narrower when one has read the source documents in their original languages-Aramaic and Greek-as I have-and, just for the record, *I'm* not a Christian,at least not in the conventional sense of the word,  though i was raised as one.


----------



## kenpo tiger (Apr 10, 2005)

*One* must also take into account the times in which Jesus and the others lived.  Their affect was one of violence, since they were surrounded by it and thus had to conform to survive.

Good stuff - interesting. You've explained a portion of it a step further than is usual.


----------



## elder999 (Apr 12, 2005)

Getting back to the original question, though...

Psychologist Carl Jung once said that a great deal of institutional religion seems designed to prevent the faithful from having a spiritual experience. Instead of teaching people how to live in peace, religious leaders often concentrate on marginal issues: Can women or gay people be ordained as priests or rabbis? Is contraception permissible?_ Is evolution compatible with the first chapter of Genesis?_ Instead of bringing people together, these distracting preoccupations actually encourage policies of exclusion, since they tend to draw attention to the differences between us and them. 

These policies of exclusion can have dramatic consequences. Most notably they have given rise to the militant piety that we now call fundamentalism, which has erupted in every major world religion during the 20th century. Every fundamentalist movement, whether in Judaism, Christianity, or Islam, is convinced that the modern secular establishment wants to destroy it. Fundamentalism is not inherently violent or even out to change the world; most fundamentalists simply want to live what they regard as a good religious life in a world that seems increasingly hostile to faith. As someone correctly pointed out earlier in the thread, the _Amish_ are fundamentalists, after all, and practice pacifism as part of that fundamentalism, but when a conflict has become entrenched in a regionas in the Middle East, Afghanistan, and Chechnyareligious fundamentalists have gotten sucked into the escalating violence and become part of the problem.

In the United States members of the so-called Christian Right believe that their faith is in jeopardy and that they have a sacred duty to protect it by attacking their liberal opponents, or what they view as liberal ideologies, like being pro-choice as far as abortion, or pro-euthanasia, gay marriage, and teaching the theory of evolution in schools-or, as in the case of the original post, jazz, evolution and what I can only assume is un-chaperoned dating. Some of them believe the reasons for these are strongly supported by a literal interpretation of some verse in the Bible, or injunction against certain types of behavior. In some cases, they might be right, but theyre wrong, more often than not.  


In any case, they see often see jazz music, rock and roll, and other modern expressions as arising from or leading to licentious behavior, and thus, sinful. Likewise unsupervised dating: not that kids *cant* date without having pre-marital sex, but why allow them the temptation, when humans have, from the fundamentalist point of view, a sinful nature. Teaching evolution runs counter to certain more literal interpretations of the Genesis creation myth, so it is against, in some fundamentalists views, _the very word of God._


----------



## heretic888 (Apr 12, 2005)

Nice try, guys. But, no cigar.

Its debatable how entrenched Jesus and his disciples were within a _Semitic_ culture --- or whether they even existed at all --- but, unfortunately, it really has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

Why, you may ask? Quite simple. Neither Jesus nor any of his direct disciples nor anybody living in the first century of the Common Era wrote the gospels of the New Testament. T'were a bunch of Greek dudes.

C'man, now. I've gone over this 'lil pickle in _at least_ three different threads --- cited the same sources and research over and over. To sum up, the fellahs that wrote the four canonical gospels did _not_ speak Hebrew (they have Jesus authoritatively cite the Septugaint to a bunch of _Israeli rabbis_?!), were _not_ familiar with Palestinian/Israeli geography (such as saying certain regions were in the exact opposite direction to certain bodies of water), and were _not_ familiar with Jewish laws (such as having Jesus tell women they cannot divorce when women _had no such rights_ in Israeli society at the time). The canonical gospels are about as "Semitic" as my made-in-China Timex watch.

Not to mention, the entire philosophy, mythology, and metaphysics they expound is completely Hellenistic. The "Logos" (or "Word") is pilfered from Heraclitus. The injunction to forsake one's family, friends, and possessions to follow the Way is pure Pythagoreanism and Cynicism. The entire dying-and-resurrecting Godman/Savior thing had been around since the stories of Osiris. The injunction against marriage (unless one cannot control his "urges") and celebrating of celibacy (that's a tongue twister!) is entirely Pythagorean. The "do unto others" stands in contrast with conventional understanding of the Torah (which more commonly asserts "blood for blood"), but is in complete harmony with Pythagoras, Plato, and Socrates.

At best, the New Testament --- and early "Christianity" as a whole --- is a revised form of Neo-Platonic philosophy given a thiny-veiled Jewish guise.

Pshaw, now. Pshaw.  :asian:


----------



## Tgace (Apr 12, 2005)




----------



## heretic888 (Apr 12, 2005)

elder999 said:
			
		

> Psychologist Carl Jung once said that a great deal of institutional religion seems designed to prevent the faithful from having a spiritual experience. Instead of teaching people how to live in peace, religious leaders often concentrate on marginal issues: Can women or gay people be ordained as priests or rabbis? Is contraception permissible?_ Is evolution compatible with the first chapter of Genesis?_ Instead of bringing people together, these distracting preoccupations actually encourage policies of exclusion, since they tend to draw attention to the differences between us and them.



While I can certainly sympathize with the general message of your post here, I'm afraid the Jungian understanding of "spirituality" is a bit skewed. Not to mention, overtly Romantic in its disposition. Jung believed spirituality and mysticism was "experience of the archetypes". Unfortunately, _almost all_ of Jung's archetypes --- such as Father, Mother, Shadow, Old Man, and Animus --- are concrete-operational role personae. They are _not_ transcendental or transrational structures (as we see expounded with Plato's Forms).

Actual spiritual experience, for most people, is usually only attainable via sustained contemplative or meditative practice. Whether it be Zen sitting meditation, Sufi contemplative prayer, mystical Christian practice, Hindu yoga, or whatever. Sometimes an "illumination" can be evoked from near-death experiences, certain religious rituals, or even gazing upon certain works of art --- but, for most people, this kinda stuff is fairly rare. Meditation is your best bet.

Jung doesn't expound anything resembling meditative or contemplative practice. His psychotherapy is little more than a really fancy form of scripting.

Just my take, mind you. Laterz.  :asian:


----------



## heretic888 (Apr 12, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

>



Indeed.


----------



## MisterMike (Apr 13, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

>



LOL. I guess that's his story and he's sticking to it...


----------



## rmcrobertson (Apr 13, 2005)

Not that anything will get some folks to read well when their deep beliefs are at stake, but this is from, "The Skeptic's Dictionary:"

Carl Jung (1875-1961), synchronicity & the collective  unconscious


Carl Jung was a Swiss psychiatrist and colleague of Freud's who broke away  from Freudian psychoanalysis over the issue of the unconscious  mind as a reservoir of repressed sexual trauma which causes all neuroses. Jung founded  his own school of analytical psychology.


Jung believed in astrology, spiritualism,  telepathy, telekinesis, clairvoyance and ESP.* In addition to  believing in a number of occult* and paranormal notions, Jung contributed two new  ones in his attempt to establish a psychology rooted in occult and pseudoscientific  beliefs: synchronicity and the collective unconscious.


Synchronicity is an explanatory principle; it explains "meaningful  coincidences" such as a beetle flying into his room while a patient was describing a  dream about a scarab. The scarab is an Egyptian symbol of rebirth, he noted. Therefore,  the propitious moment of the flying beetle indicated that the transcendental meaning of  both the scarab in the dream and the insect in the room was that the patient needed to be  liberated from her excessive rationalism. His notion of synchronicity is that there  is an acausal principle that links events having a similar meaning by their coincidence in  time rather than sequentially. He claimed that there is a synchrony between the mind and  the phenomenal world of perception.


What reasons are there for accepting synchronicity as an explanation for anything in the real world? What it explains is more simply and elegantly explained by the ability of the human mind to find meaning and significance where there is none (apophenia).* Jung's defense of acausal connections is so inane I hesitate  to repeat it. He argues that "acausal phenomena must exist...since statistics are  only possible anyway if there are also exceptions" (1973, Letters, 2:426). He  asserts that "...improbable facts exist--otherwise there would be no statistical  mean..."* (ibid.: 2:374). Finally, he claims that "the premise of  probability simultaneously postulates the existence of the improbable" (ibid. :  2:540). However, if you think of all the pairs of things that can happen in a person's lifetime, and add to that our very versatile ability of finding meaningful connections between things, it then seems likely that most of us will experience many meaningful coincidences. The coincidences are predictable but we are the ones who give them meaning.


Even if there were a synchronicity between the mind and the world such that certain  coincidences resonate with transcendental truth, there would still be the problem of  figuring out those truths. What guide could one possibly use to determine the correctness  of an interpretation? There is none except intuition and insight, the same guides that led  Jung's teacher, Sigmund Freud, in his interpretation of  dreams. The concept of synchronicity is but an expression of apophenia.


According to psychiatrist and author, Anthony Storr, Jung went through a period of  mental illness during which he thought he was a prophet with "special insight."  Jung referred to his "creative illness" (between 1913-1917) as* a voluntary confrontation with the unconscious. His great "insight" was that he thought all  his patients over 35 suffered from "loss of religion" and he had just the thing  to fill up their empty, aimless, senseless lives: his own metaphysical system of archetypes  and the collective unconscious.


Synchronicity provides access to the archetypes, which are located in the collective  unconscious and are characterized by being universal mental predispositions not grounded  in experience. Like Plato's Forms (eidos), the archetypes do not originate in the  world of the senses, but exist independently of that world and are known directly by the  mind. Unlike Plato, however, Jung believed that the archetypes arise spontaneously in the  mind, especially in times of crisis. Just as there are meaningful coincidences, such as  the beetle and the scarab dream, which open the door to transcendent truths, so too a  crisis opens the door of the collective unconscious and lets out an archetype to reveal  some deep truth hidden from ordinary consciousness.


Mythology, Jung claimed, bases its stories on the archetypes. Mythology is the  reservoir of deep, hidden wondrous truths. Dreams and psychological crises, fevers and  derangement, chance encounters resonating with "meaningful coincidences," all  are gateways to the collective unconscious, which is ready to restore the individual  psyche to health with its insights. Jung maintained that these metaphysical notions are  scientifically grounded, but they are not empirically testable in any meaningful way. In  short, they are not scientific at all, but pseudoscientific.


Incidentally, "Concrete operational role personae," is, well, kinda gibberishy. "Concrete operations," is a term taken from the work of Jean Piaget; it refers to a phase in cognitive development during which the child sees the world wholly in terms of immediate perception and immediate consequences, with little or no ability to grasp abstractions or to draw conclusions. It would be better to simply say that archetypes are material structures, or "concrete," aspects of reality--but this would collide head-on with the incorrect definition of Jungian archetypes as being material, empirically-verifiable realities.

As for "role personae," well, it's redundant. "Personae," is the plural of, "persona," which means, literally, "mask--" and since a role is a mask one adopts....you see where I'm going with this.

I have to add that I get a little bored with the pseudo-professorial tone ("Pshaw, now..."), and the faux conversationalism (which only developed about three months back), used to cover up the repetition of the ideas of this Ken Wilber guy. If you take a look at his stuff, you'll see pretty much identical claims. It's not that I disagree about the provenance of some aspects of the Gospels--it's that Wilber, too, simply jumbles ideas and claims together.

But more seriously, folks, Jung does raise the same issues of the collision between religious experience and some aspects of humanist and empiricist thought that are fundamental to public education in this country. There's no way to paper over that divide, and it's been there from at least the 1880s. 

And the last thing that's, "heretical," in this particular point in history, is an espousal of fundamentalist values.


----------



## elder999 (Apr 14, 2005)

Where to begin?



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> Its debatable how entrenched Jesus and his disciples were within a _Semitic_ culture --- or whether they even existed at all --- but, unfortunately, it really has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.
> 
> Why, you may ask? Quite simple. Neither Jesus nor any of his direct disciples nor anybody living in the first century of the Common Era wrote the gospels of the New Testament. T'were a bunch of Greek dudes.
> 
> ...





Firstly, questions about the provenance of the Gospels in relation to authorship are sketchy at best for a variety for reasons, not the least being that they are a conflation of several documents and traditions, just as Christianity is. Its rather like the wretched argument about who truly wrote the plays of Shakespeare: Marlowe, Bacon, Derby or De Vere, et. al. An interesting distraction and exercise in intellectual masturbation at best a dismissal of the value of the work at worst. It is also, as you pointed out, not germane to the question at hand, that of the first post. 

At any rate, to dismiss the existence of pre-canonical Christianity and its inherent Semitism is to dismiss the archaeological record and contemporaneous Christian writings. Its also a rather common mistake to look at an undeniable Greek influence and espouse the notion that Christianity is entirely a product of Greek culture; its a dismissal of, or indicative of ignorance of the rather common religious phenomena of syncretism, and rather like calling the Catholics pagans because so many of the figures of their communion of saints have origins as pagan gods-not entirely inaccurate, but missing the bigger picture by offering a narrow, dumped down point of view.

To state that the notion of "love thy enemy" was taken whole cloth from one source, and not necessarily original thought, is to dismiss another rather common phenomena of well structured religious ethics, that of commonality. To say that the Golden Rule, _do unto others_, is not a product of Christianity because it can be found in Greek philosophy, and therefore must be of Greek origin or influence, is to entirely miss that the very same rule can be found in Confucianism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam and Judaism., and a variety of other _isms_ of one sort or another that have no written ethos.

Lastly, while the influence of the ancient mystery schools on Christianity is readily apparent, the undeniable differences in the development of Christian practice-as well as the early conflicts over entirely Semitic issues such as table fellowship and circumcision- point to it being something altogether different from, but influenced by Greek thought-among others, and, again, an examination of pre-canonical Christian writings would lead to this undeniable conclusion, rather than the simple minded notion that Christianity is an entirely Greek school of thought that exhibits no Semitic or other influence.

I'd rather approach your whole post about "spiritual experience" elsewhere, rahter than continue with the thread drift......

...but it's fair to say that I don't _entirely_ agree with you there, either.:uhyeah:


----------



## heretic888 (Apr 20, 2005)

Oh, good grief...



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Not that anything will get some folks to read well when their deep beliefs are at stake, but this is from, "The Skeptic's Dictionary" [...]



Is there a particular reason you felt the need to copy-and-paste the entire damn article with a simple link would have sufficed?? Also, you really need to work on delineating which parts of your posts are yours and which are from other authors (italics would be nice)...



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Even if there were a synchronicity between the mind and the world such that certain  coincidences resonate with transcendental truth, there would still be the problem of  figuring out those truths. What guide could one possibly use to determine the correctness  of an interpretation? There is none except intuition and insight, the same guides that led  Jung's teacher, Sigmund Freud, in his interpretation of  dreams. The concept of synchronicity is but an expression of apophenia.



Despite all the guffawing that "The Skeptic's Dictionary" gives, Jung's "synchronicity" is just another word for ESP --- which Freud himself believed in.



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> According to psychiatrist and author, Anthony Storr, Jung went through a period of  mental illness during which he thought he was a prophet with "special insight."  Jung referred to his "creative illness" (between 1913-1917) as* a voluntary confrontation with the unconscious. His great "insight" was that he thought all  his patients over 35 suffered from "loss of religion" and he had just the thing  to fill up their empty, aimless, senseless lives: his own metaphysical system of archetypes  and the collective unconscious.



Ah, so _ad hominems_, then??   




			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Synchronicity provides access to the archetypes [...]



It should be noted that "synchronicity" --- not a view I particularly subscribe to, anyway --- is not Jung's only, or even principal, means of accessing the "archetypes".



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> [...] which are located in the collective  unconscious and are characterized by being universal mental predispositions not grounded  in experience.



This is a half-truth.

The "archetypes" are believed by Jung to be a type of species-typical inheritance resulting from millenia upon millenia of shared experiences. He connects them, at least somewhat, to human biology and genetics.

They are not, however, dependent on the individual's experiences --- well, sorta not, anyway --- but are very much a result of collective human experience.



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Jung maintained that these metaphysical notions are  scientifically grounded, but they are not empirically testable in any meaningful way. In  short, they are not scientific at all, but pseudoscientific.



Some are, some aren't.



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> "Concrete operations," is a term taken from the work of Jean Piaget; it refers to a phase in cognitive development during which the child sees the world wholly in terms of immediate perception and immediate consequences, with little or no ability to grasp abstractions or to draw conclusions. It would be better to simply say that archetypes are material structures, or "concrete," aspects of reality--but this would collide head-on with the incorrect definition of Jungian archetypes as being material, empirically-verifiable realities.



You're collapsing pre-op and con-op, Robert. They're very, very different.

Might wanna brush up on your Piaget, methinks.



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> As for "role personae," well, it's redundant. "Personae," is the plural of, "persona," which means, literally, "mask--" and since a role is a mask one adopts....you see where I'm going with this.



Contrary to your constant claiming, Robert, a social role is not necessarily a "mask" individuals adopt. Unless, of course, you think every father and mother in the world is really "faking" being a father and mother??



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> I have to add that I get a little bored with the pseudo-professorial tone ("Pshaw, now..."), and the faux conversationalism (which only developed about three months back)[...]



*laughs* Try three years back. Also, If you're bored, feel free to leave. 



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> It's not that I disagree about the provenance of some aspects of the Gospels--it's that Wilber, too, simply jumbles ideas and claims together.



But, as you have so extensively demonstrated in the past, Robert, you know about as much about Ken Wilber's philosophy as I do about quantum physics.



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> And the last thing that's, "heretical," in this particular point in history, is an espousal of fundamentalist values.



"Why, Mr. Pot, you're looking rather black on this fine evening, if I must do say so myself!!"

"Why, thank your very much, Mr. Kettle. Your comments are so noted!!"


----------



## elder999 (Apr 20, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> 1. Teach evolution.
> 
> 2. Allow jazz music.
> 
> ...


Just to get things back on track... 

A more concise question might be What danger does fundamentalism represent?

In light of the events of 9/11, the answer becomes somewhat obvious, but what about the danger fundamentalism represents to religion?

When people feel that their backs are to the wall, they often lash out aggressively. Hence the hatred that continues to cause so much turmoil around the world. 

Yet such religiously inspired hatred represents a major defeat for religion. Thats because, at their core, all the great world faithsincluding Confucianism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, Christianity, and Islamagree on the supreme importance of compassion. The early sages and prophets all taught their followers to cultivate a habit of empathy for all living beings.
Why, then, do supposedly religious leaders declare war in Gods name? And why do some people use God to give a sacred seal of approval to their own opinions?

I would argue that these people have forgotten what it means to practice compassion.The word compassion does not; of course, mean to feel sorry for someone. Like sympathy, it means to feel with others, to enter their point of view and realize that they have the same fears and sorrows as yourself. The essential dynamic of compassion is summed up in the olden rule, first enunciated by Confucius in about 500 B.C.E.: Do not do to others as you would not have done to you. Confucius taught his disciples to get into the habit of *shu:* Likening to oneself. They had to look into their own hearts, discover what gave them pain, and then rigorously refrain from inflicting this suffering upon other people.

The Buddha also taught a version of the golden rule. He used to advise his monks and lay followers to undertake meditative exercises called _The Immeasurables_. They had to send out positive thoughts of compassion,  benevolence, and sympathy to the four corners of the earth, not omitting a single creature (even a mosquito!) from this radius of concern. They would thus find that once they had gone beyond the limiting confines of egotism and self-interest their humanity had been enhanced. They would even have intimations of infinity.

Rabbi Hillel, the older contemporary of Jesus, taught the golden rule in a particularly emphatic way. One day a heathen asked him to sum up the whole of Jewish teaching while standing on one leg. Hillel stood on one leg and replied: That which is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. That is the Torah; the rest is commentary; go and learn it! This is an extraordinary statement. Hillel did not mention any of the doctrines that seem essential to Judaism, such as belief in one God, the Exodus from Egypt, and adherence to the complexities of the Law of Moses.

Jesus taught the golden rule in this way: he told his followers to love even their enemies and never to judge or retaliate. If somebody struck them on the face, they must turn the other cheek. In his parable of the Last Day, when the King comes to judge the world, those who enter the Kingdom do not do so because they have adopted orthodox theology or observed the correct sexual mores, but because they have fed the hungry, given drink to the thirsts and visited the sick and criminals in prison. St. Paul agreed. Christians could have faith that moved mountains, but if they lacked charity it was worth nothing.

Islam is also committed to the compassionate ethic. The bedrock message of the Koran is an insistence that it is wrong to buildup a private fortune, and good to share your wealth fairly in order to create a just and decent society where poor and vulnerable people are treated with respect; On-the Last Day the one question that God will ask Muslims is whether they have looked after the widows, the orphans, and the oppressed, and if they have not, they cannot enter Paradise.

Why was there such unanimous agreement on the primacy of compassion? *Truly* religious people are pragmatic. The early prophets and sages did not preach the discipline of empathy because it sounded edifying, but because experience showed that it worked. They discovered that greed and selfishness were the cause of our personal misery. When we gave them up, we were happier. Egotism imprisoned us in an inferior version of ourselves and impeded our enlightenment.

The safest way of combating ego was to dethrone ourselves from the center of our world and put others there. Perhaps one can explain it this way: we are programmed for self- defense; human beings completed their biological evolution during the Paleolithic Period, when they became hunters. Aggression is thus deeply written into our nature. If we make a consistent habit of countering this aggression, we probably do experience a change of consciousness.

Human beings by nature seek ecstasy, a word that comes from the Greek _ekstasis_, meaning to stand outside the self. If we do not find ecstasy in religion, we turn to art, music, dance, sex, sports, even drugs, but such rapture can only be temporary

Religious leaders claim that the practice of the golden rule can give us an experience of ecstasy that is deeper and more permanent If every time we are tempted to speak unkindly of an annoying colleague, a sibling, or an enemy country we asked how we would like such a thing said of ourselves, and, as a result of this reflection, desisted, in that moment we would transcend our ego. Living in this way, day by day, hour by hour, moment by moment, we would enjoy a constant, slow-burning ecstasy that leaves the self behind. The late Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel once remarked that when we put ourselves at the opposite pole of ego, we are in the place where God is.

The practice of  compassionhas to be consistent; it does not work if it is selective. If, as Jesus explained, we simply love those who are well disposed toward us, no effort is involved; we are simply banking up our own egotism and remain trapped in the selfishness that we are supposed to transcend. That, I think, is why Jesus demanded that his followers love their enemies. They were required to feel with people who would never feel affection for them, and extend their sympathy without expecting any benefit for themselves.

Does that mean that we are supposed to love Hitler or Osama bin Laden? The practice of compassion has nothing to do with feelings. According to the 13th-century theologian Thomas Aquinas, what we call love simply requires that we seek the good of another. If we allow our rage and hatred to fester, this would not hurt our enemiesit would probably gratify thembut we ourselves would be diminished. Anger is what the Buddha called an unskillful emotion. Feelings of rage are natural,and have a place in how we relate to the world,  but if they are overindulged they are unhelpful, since they often proceed from an inflated sense of our own importance.


----------



## heretic888 (Apr 20, 2005)

Now, on to more relevant discussions...



			
				elder999 said:
			
		

> Firstly, questions about the provenance of the Gospels in relation to authorship are sketchy at best for a variety for reasons, not the least being that they are a conflation of several documents and traditions, just as Christianity is.



Yes. But, you see, the "Gospels" are all we know about "Jesus Christ". If you're going to go around claiming the man (who probably never even existed) was a symbol for all things Semitic, it helps to have his source material back this up.  



			
				elder999 said:
			
		

> At any rate, to dismiss the existence of pre-canonical Christianity and its inherent Semitism is to dismiss the archaeological record and contemporaneous Christian writings.



What we know about pre-canonical Christianity was that is most assuredly was _not_ centered in Israel. In fact, its practically non-existent in the "Promised Land" during the first two or so centuries CE. The movement(s) abound(s), however, in places like Syria, Asia Minor, Egypt, and even Rome.

Connecting Christianity with any concrete "archaelogical record" is, also, about as "sketchy" as it gets. 



			
				elder999 said:
			
		

> Its also a rather common mistake to look at an undeniable Greek influence and espouse the notion that Christianity is entirely a product of Greek culture; its a dismissal of, or indicative of ignorance of the rather common religious phenomena of syncretism, and rather like calling the Catholics pagans because so many of the figures of their communion of saints have origins as pagan gods-not entirely inaccurate, but missing the bigger picture by offering a narrow, dumped down point of view.



Actually, my position is that "Christianity" was a Jewish adaptation of the Greco-Roman mystery schools. In essence, it was an attempt to "trick" the Jewish populace into "buying into" Hellenistic philosopy and religion by claiming Judaic roots (a very common practice at the time, as we see with Philo's claims that, say, Moses taught Plato philosophy).

As Earl Doherty has put it elsewhere, the early Christian apologists as a whole were basically _Logos_ philosophers that, at best, viewed any biographical "Jesus Christ" in a secondary capacity. They were essentially Neo-Platonists wedded to a Jewish theology and ethic; basically, preaching Platonic philosophy within a Jewish cultural context.



			
				elder999 said:
			
		

> To state that the notion of "love thy enemy" was taken whole cloth from one source, and not necessarily original thought, is to dismiss another rather common phenomena of well structured religious ethics, that of commonality. To say that the Golden Rule, _do unto others_, is not a product of Christianity because it can be found in Greek philosophy, and therefore must be of Greek origin or influence, is to entirely miss that the very same rule can be found in Confucianism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam and Judaism., and a variety of other _isms_ of one sort or another that have no written ethos.



Actually, it wasn't that as much as it was a matter of _verbatim copies_ from extant sources (like, say, Plato's writings about Socrates). These weren't the same "ideas", they were almost exactly the same _words_.



			
				elder999 said:
			
		

> Lastly, while the influence of the ancient mystery schools on Christianity is readily apparent, the undeniable differences in the development of Christian practice-as well as the early conflicts over entirely Semitic issues such as table fellowship and circumcision- point to it being something altogether different from, but influenced by Greek thought-among others, and, again, an examination of pre-canonical Christian writings would lead to this undeniable conclusion, rather than the simple minded notion that Christianity is an entirely Greek school of thought that exhibits no Semitic or other influence.



The major "Semitic" influence on Christianity was one of cultural backdrop and context. The philosophy and metaphysic itself is Platonic through and through (especially in Paul's letters).

Laterz.


----------



## heretic888 (Apr 20, 2005)

elder999 said:
			
		

> Just to get things back on track...
> 
> A more concise question might be What danger does fundamentalism represent?
> 
> ...



Well said.  :asian:


----------



## rmcrobertson (Apr 21, 2005)

Just to take up one point showing why I'm not going to bother to read through the collected works of Ken Wilber:

persona
/person/ 

   noun (pl. personas or personae /personee/) 1 Psychoanalysis the aspect of a persons character that is presented to or perceived by others. Compare with ANIMA. 2 a role or character adopted by an author or actor. 

   ORIGIN Latin, mask, character played by an actor.

This comes from "The Compact Oxford English Dictionary," but hey, what would THEY know. 

As for fundamentalism, the question--as it would be in other schools--is the refusal to tolerate anything unorthodox. That's the fundamental difference between them and humanist, liberal public schools: humanist and liberal schools, by definition, have an investment in the heterodox.


----------



## heretic888 (Apr 21, 2005)

Just so I don't waste my time with more lengthy retorts...



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Just to take up one point showing why I'm not going to bother to read through the collected works of Ken Wilber:
> 
> persona
> /person/
> ...



Logical Fallacy: Appeal To Ridicule
Logical Fallacy: Composition
Logical Fallacy: Genetic Fallacy
Logical Fallacy: Hasty Generalization
Logical Fallacy: Straw Man



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> As for fundamentalism, the question--as it would be in other schools--is the refusal to tolerate anything unorthodox. That's the fundamental difference between them and humanist, liberal public schools: humanist and liberal schools, by definition, have an investment in the heterodox.



Actual Definition: Fundamentalism
Actual Definition: Humanism

Based on the above definitions, 'fundamentalism' is clearly intolerant to alternative viewpoints. However, there is nothing to indicate that all forms of 'humanism' are necessarily tolerant of alternative viewpoints, either. For example, many 'humanists' are exceedingly intolerant of religious and/or supernatural explanations.

To claim there is no such thing as a 'fundamentalist humanist' is a logical fallacy.

Laterz.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Apr 21, 2005)

Please look up the terms, "humanism," "liberalism," and "fundamentalism." It is in theory possible to have a "fundamentlaist humanist," or a "fundamentalist liberal," but such usages are in fact oxymoronic. Moreover, the term, "fundamentalist," is associated exclusively with religion in actual usuage, as well as in history. The essential question of this thread is answered by the very definitions of the words:

humanism

   noun 1 a rationalistic system of thought attaching prime importance to human rather than divine or supernatural matters. 2 a Renaissance cultural movement which turned away from medieval scholasticism and revived interest in ancient Greek and Roman thought. 


liberal

   adjective 1 willing to respect and accept behaviour or opinions different from ones own. 2 (of a society, law, etc.) favourable to individual rights and freedoms. 3 (in a political context) favouring individual liberty, free trade, and moderate reform. 4 (Liberal) (in the UK) relating to the Liberal Democrat party. 5 (especially of an interpretation of a law) not strictly literal. 6 given, used, or giving in generous amounts. 7 (of education) concerned with broadening general knowledge and experience.

fundamentalism

   noun 1 a form of Protestant Christianity which upholds belief in the strict and literal interpretation of the Bible. 2 the strict maintenance of the ancient or fundamental doctrines of any religion or ideology. 

To collapse such definitions together is--as I have mentioned in other contexts--to ignore the distinction inherent in the actual language, and in history. Indeed, that is the very point of such notions as archetypes: to collapse the differences that make language, and culture, and history, real and meaningful for people.

It is also--not accidentally--the point of Jung's work, which was primarily religious in philosophy.


----------



## heretic888 (Apr 21, 2005)

Not going to get into the Jung thing again because (a) its off-topic, and (b) as I have repeatedly said, I'm not a Jungian or even a neo-Jungian.

As to your inquiry, one of the definitions of 'fundamentalist' is, to use your own words, 'the strict maintenance of the ancient or fundamental doctrines of any religion or ideology'. The ideology in question can easily be that of political liberalism or secular humanism. In fact, in my own experience and readings, I have found a number of 'humanists' or 'liberals' that lend themselves to 'fundamentalist' treatments.

A perfect example are the 'liberal' moral-relativists who resolutely assure the rest of us that the only Absolute Truth is that There Is No Absolute Truth. Both fundamentalist and contradictory.

Laterz.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Apr 21, 2005)

You do realize that this sort of collapsing is pretty much the same saort of thing you see in "Animal House...." Oh wow, you mean we could all be...just atoms in the fingernail of some gigantic being?

The definitions actually point out that it is inherent in the nature of Funadamentalism as an intellectual and philosophical enterprise to exclude anything that violates their own dogma, as fundamentalists themselves will tell you. And they point out that, whatever the idiocies and hobbyhorses of individual liberals and/or humanists, it is inherent in the very nature of their intellectual and philosophical enterprises to encourage dissent and inquiry.

It has been fashinable for a while, in certain rightist circles, to claim that liberals and humanists are, "religious fanatics," of one sort or another. And when we start burning witches, outlawing the teaching of the plain facts of science, burning books, screaming that gay people are bound for some hot place, cheering 9/11 as proof of The Big Guy's Just Wrath, and generally carrying on in ways that squash people's lives, I'll accept that fantasy.


----------



## heretic888 (Apr 21, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> You do realize that this sort of collapsing is pretty much the same saort of thing you see in "Animal House...." Oh wow, you mean we could all be...just atoms in the fingernail of some gigantic being?



Ummm.....

Logical Fallacy: Appeal To Ridicule
Logical Fallacy: Straw Man

.... guess not.



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> The definitions actually point out that it is inherent in the nature of Funadamentalism as an intellectual and philosophical enterprise to exclude anything that violates their own dogma, as fundamentalists themselves will tell you. And they point out that, whatever the idiocies and hobbyhorses of individual liberals and/or humanists, it is inherent in the very nature of their intellectual and philosophical enterprises to encourage dissent and inquiry.



Sure. But, y'see, the thing is I'm not talkinig about "enterprises" here --- I'm talking about actual _people_.

The proof, after all, is in the pudding. Not in detached theory or ideology.



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> It has been fashinable for a while, in certain rightist circles, to claim that liberals and humanists are, "religious fanatics," of one sort or another. And when we start burning witches, outlawing the teaching of the plain facts of science, burning books, screaming that gay people are bound for some hot place, cheering 9/11 as proof of The Big Guy's Just Wrath, and generally carrying on in ways that squash people's lives, I'll accept that fantasy.



So, in other words.....

Logical Fallacy: Red Herring
Logical Fallacy: Appeal To Ridicule
Logical Fallacy: Special Pleading
Logical Fallacy: Straw Man
Logical Fallacy: Two Wrongs Make A Right

'Liberals', of course, can refer to a pretty broad range of individuals and movement here. But, as a whole, that they stick up their noses at any explanation that includes anything resembling something 'religious', 'spiritual', or 'transcendent' is pretty well-established --- and, is even evinced on this board on a regular basis.

'Fundamentalist' is to conservatives what 'reductionist' is to liberals.

Laterz.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Apr 21, 2005)

The link between sucharguments and those of, say, Pat Robertson is that they all insist that humanism, liberalism, whatever, is just another religion, neither more nor less biased than fundamentalisms.

Please supply examples of liberal humanists banning books, firing teachers for their refusal to adhere to dogma, or assorted witch-burnings. For that matter, please supply examples of Christian liberals (yes, there is a very, very long list of them) such as Jimmy Carter trying such things. For THAT matter, please supply evidence that your definitions of such terms as, fundamentalist," and, "liberal," are more than yours and yours alone.

What fundamentalism shares with Jung is the erasure of history and the collapse of culture difference. In all three, "history," becomes simply the unfolding of God's plan, or the mere repetition of some such thing as, "spirituality," or, "evil;" individual experience simply slumps down into the expression of some vast Underlying Plan and Pattern.

Why ban? Because anything outside that Plan and Pattern is the expression of nonsense or of evil.


----------



## elder999 (Apr 21, 2005)

We need training in compassion because it does not, for the most part, come to us naturally. The ancient Greeks knew this. Every year, on the festival of Dionysus, Athenian citizens watched tragedies written by Aeschylus, Sophocles, Euripides, and other play wrights. It was a course in empathy. Suffering was put on stage, and the audience was able to weep for people whom they normally would have considered beyond the pale.

These tragedies were part of a _religious_ festival; they were designed to make the audience extend their sympathy to people such as Oedipus, who murdered his father and had incestuous relations with his mother, or Heracles, who in a fit of divinely inspired madness killed his wife and children. These powerful dramas gave people a liberating purification of the emotions that helped transform the horror and disgust inspired by these human tragedies into compassion. We need to find similarly imaginative ways to educate people today.

The history of each faith tradition represents a ceaseless struggle between our inherent tendency to aggression and the mitigating virtue of compassion. Religiously inspired hatred has caused unimaginable suffering around the world. But secularism has had its failures too. Auschwitz, the Gulag, and the regime of Saddam Hussein show the fearful cruelty to which humanity is prone when all sense of the sacred has been lost.

None of these atrocities could have taken place if people were properly educated in the simplest of all principles, the golden rule. We live in one world, and we have to learn to reach out in sympathy to people who have different opinions, at home and abroad. We need the compassionate ethic more desperately than ever before. I find it sad and distressing that so many so-called Christians in my country seem to have forgotten all about it.


----------



## heretic888 (Apr 21, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> The link between sucharguments and those of, say, Pat Robertson is that they all insist that humanism, liberalism, whatever, is just another religion, neither more nor less biased than fundamentalisms.



Logical Fallacy: Guilt By Association
Logical Fallacy: Straw Man



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Please supply examples of liberal humanists banning books, firing teachers for their refusal to adhere to dogma, or assorted witch-burnings. For that matter, please supply examples of Christian liberals (yes, there is a very, very long list of them) such as Jimmy Carter trying such things. For THAT matter, please supply evidence that your definitions of such terms as, fundamentalist," and, "liberal," are more than yours and yours alone.



Logical Fallacy: Appeal To Ridicule
Logical Fallacy: Burden Of Proof
Logical Fallacy: Begging The Question
Logical Fallacy: Special Pleading
Logical Fallacy: Straw Man



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> What fundamentalism shares with Jung is the erasure of history and the collapse of culture difference. In all three, "history," becomes simply the unfolding of God's plan, or the mere repetition of some such thing as, "spirituality," or, "evil;" individual experience simply slumps down into the expression of some vast Underlying Plan and Pattern.



Logical Fallacy: Appeal To Consequences Of A Belief
Logical Fallacy: Appeal to Ridicule
Logical Fallacy: Genetic Fallacy
Logical Fallacy: Guilt By Association
Logical Fallacy: Straw Man

*sigh*


----------



## rmcrobertson (Apr 21, 2005)

Well, I can agree in two ways: first, that the Golden Rule certainly wouldn't hurt nobody; second, that the twentieth-century example of Germany is the sort of horror to make anybody wonder seriously about rationalism. 

It's one of the reasons I approve of Freud: the exposure of the ruse of reason in all its disguises, the reminder of the return of the repressed, that sort of thing.

However--and leaving out the obvious fact that Christianity and other religions have a lot to answer for in the catalogue of the world's horrors--it's also true that Auschwitz, the Gulag, and Hussein ran on religious fantasy and hatred, and were linked by anti-semitism and the persecution of religious minorities.

I'd put the problem like this: we don't really know what a liberal and rationalist society would be like, because nobody's ever really tried them. Again, it's a reason to admire Freud--who identified politics, along with teaching and psychoanalysis, as the impossible professions.


----------



## heretic888 (Apr 21, 2005)

"Auschwitz is not the product of rationality. Auschwitz is the result of the many products of rationality being used in irrational ways. Auschwitz is rationality hijacked by tribalism." 
- Ken Wilber, _The Eye of Spirit_

"We are nowhere near the Millennium. In fact, at this point in history, the most radical, pervasive, and earth-shaking transformation would occur simply if everybody truly evolved to a mature, rational, and responsible ego, capable of freely participating in the open exchange of mutual self-esteem. _There_ is the 'edge of history'. _There_ would be a real New Age." 
- Ken Wilber, _Up from Eden_

"There is more spirituality in reason's denial of God than there is in myth's affirmation of God, precisely because there is more depth... even an 'atheist' acting from rational-universal compassion is more spiritual than a fundamentalist acting to convert the universe in the name of a mythic-membership god." 
- Ken Wilber, _Sex, Ecology, Spirituality_

Laterz.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Apr 21, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Just to take up one point showing why I'm not going to bother to read through the collected works of Ken Wilber:
> 
> persona
> /person/
> ...



Mr. Robertson,

So, I guess it is ok not to have read all of the same books you have read as well?

As to the Dictionary, I have quoted it many times myself and been slamed by those who are using some other defintion either from the local time period or from and sunsect of the culture. Yet, like you said, what does the dictionary know about the meaning of a word. 

Peace
:asian:


----------



## Kane (Apr 21, 2005)

Rmcrobertson, by examining your posts I notice one big thing. You bash other religions and belief systems and try to justify it one what happened hundreds of years ago. To my knowledge there hasn't been a witch burning since earlier colonial times unless it was between some cult. You also seem to use events from the passed to justify your belief of affirmative action. Slavery from a century and a half ago doesn't justify discrimination against white men or Asian men. Honestly stop looking to the past. Why does any race have to pay on what happened centuries ago and why do you have to eternally stamp religious folk as bigots on what happen 500 years ago with the Spanish inquisition and what not.

 Realize that we live in the 21st century and that we shouldn't keep grudges on what happened centuries ago.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Apr 21, 2005)

OK, cranky me time.

1. I see there was no truth to my claim that anybody was relying fundamentally on Ken Wilber's writings and ideas for everything.

2. Why no, Mr. Parsons. People are only allowed to read what I say they should read. But it did seem that the best way to resolve the argument over what words such as, "fundamentalist," meant would be to look at at least the sort version of the OED. More politely, the nice thing about the full OED is its documentation of the evolution, and the different employments, of a word. There is a great book on the making of the OED called I think "The Madman and the Professor," which has a beautifully applicable story to tell about the presence of madness in the heart of reason.

3. I'm not surprised that the flip side of the belief in the possibility of perfect rationality would be the belief in archetypes. Personally, I prefer a sort of Freudo-Marxisto-feminsitoid-greenish--post-colonial Lamont Cranstonish awareness of the weirdness that lurks in the heart of men. And women too.


----------



## arnisador (Apr 21, 2005)

Logical Fallacy: Thinking I care about all these links to someone's site about Logical Fallacies.


----------



## arnisador (Apr 21, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> OK, cranky me time.


 "And now for something completely different..."


----------



## rmcrobertson (Apr 21, 2005)

I am NOT normally cranky, you tool of phallologocentric capitalism!

Wait a minute--that sounds too much like my normal posts to be funny....


----------



## elder999 (Apr 23, 2005)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Now, on to more relevant discussions...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. But, you see, the "Gospels" are all we know about "Jesus Christ". If you're going to go around claiming the man (who probably never even existed) was a symbol for all things Semitic, it helps to have his source material back this up.


I certainly didn't claim him as "a symbol for all things Semitic.." 






heretic888 said:


> What we know about pre-canonical Christianity was that is most assuredly was _not_ centered in Israel. In fact, its practically non-existent in the "Promised Land" during the first two or so centuries CE. The movement(s) abound(s), however, in places like Syria, Asia Minor, Egypt, and even Rome.
> 
> Connecting Christianity with any concrete "archaelogical record" is, also, about as "sketchy" as it gets.
> 
> ...


Okay-it's like this.

I make some cookies: flour, eggs, sugar, and whatnot.

WHat makes them "cookies?" The flour,the eggs, the sugar or the "whatnot?"

Thy're certainly not cookies without any one of those things, but they're not any one of those things, either.

It's the same with "Christianity."  In fact, Christianity is a "chocolate-chip cookie," and Judaism is the "chocolate chip."

It may be a cookie without the chocolate chips, but it's not a chocolate chip cookie, either, no matter how much you may insist otherwise.

As for the archaelogical record, during the second and third centuries there were groups of Baptists (an almost altogether Semitic ritual bathing ) found in the district between the Tigris and Euphrates acknowledging Christian teachings among severe beliefs with the stamp of Jewish influence. They presumably began as a splinter group from Jewish settlers, and they were at that time an old sect that traced their teaching back to the heretical prophet Elchesai, who taught in Mesopotamia c 100-110 A.D.

More tellingly, there are ancient "church houses," or their archeaological remains, complete with ritual baths and Christian graffiti dating from the first century A.D., to be found in Palestine, especially in the region around the Sea of Galilee, in the village and later city of Capernaum, for instance.

Lastly, the churches earliest and even present teachings on sexuality and especially what has come to be mis-called "homosexuality," are almost wholly Jewish in origin, and surely not the product of a culture that embraced, or, at the very least, turned a blind eye toward homosexual behavior.

Again, I'd commend your reading choices, and suggest you move a little further down the shelf. Start with the unsurpassed _The Early Church_, by H. Chadwick.


----------



## heretic888 (May 3, 2005)

Ah, very interesting, elder999. 

I should mention at this point a clarification on my position that I feel wasn't expressed clearly enough in the past. In no way am I maintaining that "Christianity" was _solely_ an invention of the "Gentiles". It most clearly has roots in Judaic sources (most likely, the Therapeutae of Alexandria and Essenes of Jersulem). But, rather, that the principal ethic ("the letter killeth", "the Law has been surpassed"), lifestyle ("give up one's family, friends, and possessions to follow the Way"), terminology ("Logos", "the Only-Begotten", "Savior", "Liberator"), main rite ("consume my blood and flesh to live eternally"), and means of transcendence ("I live no longer the Christ lives in me", "psychic" vs "pnemautic" Christians) seem to point to a neo-Platonic religious complex.

Inevitably, though, this complex was a syncretism of Jewish mysticism (perhaps a precursor to Kabbalah) and Platonic-Hermetic mysticism --- as shown by, say, the Therapeutae, Philo Judaeus, the Essenes, and so on.

Albeit I myself am a bit suspicious as to the claims of "Christian graffiti". I shall perhaps look at this book myself. 

Laterz.


----------

