A week back or so Chandos got a somewhat impassionated after I was *****ing around about local culture and Islam in particular in the infamous '200 lashes' thread. Yet I was just too lazy to explain what I have in mind, and left him hanging. Now, to my delight, along comes along Robert Kaplan and spares me a lot of the work with an excellent article about humility, titled "It's the tribes, stupid (http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200711u/kaplan-democracy)!".For more than 230 years, Americans have assumed that because we have had a happy experience with democracy, so will the rest of the world. But the American military has had a radically contrary experience in Iraq.
...
A realist like St. Augustine, in his City of God, understood that tribes, based on the narrow bonds of kinship and ethnicity rather than on any universalist longing, may not constitute the highest good; but by contributing to social cohesion, tribes nevertheless constitute a good in and of themselves. Quelling anarchy means starting with clans and tribes, and building upwards from those granular elements.
...
There is nothing wrong or cynical about this. Where democratic governance does not exist, we must work with the material at hand. We have inherited our Anglo-Saxon traditions of liberty and democracy just as other peoples, with different historical experiences and geographical circumstances, have inherited theirs. And these other peoples yearn for justice and dignity, which does not always overlap with Western democracy....

When George W. Bush first ran for president in 2000, he spoke about the need for “humility” in foreign affairs. Now that our troops are practicing what he preached, after years of failure we’re finally seeing some tenuous results. In striving for a new, post-modern order in the Middle East, we have awakened (false: rediscovered; it was always there, odds are Kaplan just didn't want to see it) a medieval one, from which we must now build something permanent (ever the optimist)....

So, let the discussion begin.

There are reasons for that humility of a nature different from merely humility's sake - considering full and equal rights for all citizens have only been around since 1964. Apart from the all-too-well-known question of black citizens, there's also the problem of what was done to Indians before and that's not quite a happy history of democracy. Democracy starts with demos and demos is the people. The problem is who's the people and who's not.

When George W. Bush first ran for president in 2000, he spoke about the need for “humility” in foreign affairs. Now that our troops are practicing what he preached, after years of failure we’re finally seeing some tenuous results. In striving for a new, post-modern order in the Middle East, we have awakened (false: rediscovered; it was always there, odds are Kaplan just didn't want to see it) a medieval one, from which we must now build something permanent (ever the optimist)....

:doh: I guess I'm a bit slow tonight but what is he saying here?

From Wikipedia: Democracy describes a small number of related forms of government. Its name comes from the ancient Greek for "rule by the people". A common feature of democracy as currently understood and practiced is competitive elections. It was invented in 510 B.C.E. Competitive elections are usually seen to require freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and some degree of rule of law. Civilian control of the military is often seen as necessary to prevent military dictatorship and interference with political affairs.

Majority rule is a major principle of democracy, though many democratic systems do not adhere to this strictly - representative democracy is more common than direct democracy, and minority rights are often protected from what is sometimes called "the tyranny of the majority". Popular sovereignty is common but not universal motivating philosophy for establishing a democracy.


Our Founding Fathers claimed to found a democracy. "We the People..." Please note that this was primarily comprised of white male land-owners. Women, blacks, redskins and poor folks didn't have voting rights. Today most adults are eligible to vote but less than half do so. So what was humble about this? I'll give them an A for trying but a C- for success.

Democracy starts with demos and demos is the people. The problem is who's the people and who's not.

That one is easy, Chev. :D If you agree with me you is the people, if you disagree you ain't.

Democracy is a process . The natural progression of attained rights by different groups, that are mentioned here, is a logical extension of what the Founders began. It was a large step but not a complete journey. Did the Founders know this? Of course: John and Abigail Adams teased each other with the idea that women would one day have an active role in politics, yet Abigail knew that she was not living in that time. Jefferson proclaimed that later generations would improve upon what he and his Founding Brothers had begun.

George Washington ordered that his slaves be freed on the death of his wife, Martha. And Washington often complained about the treatment of the native Indians, yet he backed down on his rhetoric in the end, knowing that many just did not understand his feelings regarding what was happening to them. What people forget is that there were "white slaves" living in the colonies before the Revolution. Many of them were bought and sold "like cattle" and were given no more rights than a "herd of bulls and cows."

So we move from 1776 to 1964 in a journey towards equality. That's quite an astounding achievement considering that for THOUSANDS of years before that, the many labored in captivity for the very privileged few. No one knows for certain how the notion of the vertical hierarchy first appeared along the civilizations of Mediterranean Rim, enslaving entire populations in servitude to a tiny aristocracy. Yet, the colonies already had a foundation of "Republicanism," which was given to them by the English "liberal influences." Despite having a king and an entrenched aristocracy, the English celebrated their "rights" as no others did in Europe. The rights of Englishmen were as sacred as the "divine rights of kings."

Nevertheless, the English still had a very entrenched vertical hierarchy in which patronage was the way that people dealt with one another on a personal and a professional level. One only has to read a Henry Fielding novel to see just how vertical English society still was during the 18th Century. The American Revolution changed the entire concept of that hierarchy, fashioning a more horizontal society, or "leveling," to use a term from the English Revolution of the 17th Century. My larger point here is to illustrate just how radical the first steps of the American Revolution truly were by comparison. It's easy to look back at how "incomplete" the Revolution was by the standards of equality 200 years later, but the event has to be judged within the context of its own time.

One small comment I need to make. Prior to the establishment of Christianity Celtic and Nordic women had rights. Among the Kelts, women participated in government. Native American women had a lot of rights. Not sure it extended to all tribes but it certainly included many. Certainly there was a hierarchy but we still have that to some extent. Power has its privileges. Also, it is, IMO, a fallacy to believe that we are all equal. True, everyone should have the right to life, liberty and happiness. Theoretically Communism tried to equalize everyone. Didn't work.

Democracy is an ideal and prehaps in the next life we will truly achieve it.

Native American women had a lot of rights. Not sure it extended to all tribes but it certainly included many.

Strange, I had heard that their position was generally quite poor - at least among the steppe tribes, the Cherokee and the Iroquois were a different thing.

Certainly there was a hierarchy but we still have that to some extent. Power has its privileges. Also, it is, IMO, a fallacy to believe that we are all equal. True, everyone should have the right to life, liberty and happiness. Theoretically Communism tried to equalize everyone. Didn't work.

Certainly, people are different and not always equal due to their different gifts, strengths and weaknesses. Yet in terms of rights, we are supposed to be equal - at least according to the tenets of most currently held ideologies. By the way, Nakia, in some countries it was communism that brought in the universal suffrage - of course, just because you could (rather, you had to) vote didn't mean you could choose.

Anyway, back to the original topic: I think it depends. Certainly, sometimes the original structure performs well enough; sometimes it can be repulsive, oppressive or barbaric; sometimes it's both at once. However, what is imo more important is not necessarily always to disrupt it or to preserve it, but to be sensitive about what one's actions will bring. There's usually a reason why the so-called backward structure has survived so long, and it's probably for the same reason that a supposedly more "advanced" form of government will not be stable. After the fall of the Iron Curtain in 1989, perhaps a lot of people thought that everyone, after getting a whiff of democracy, would do all they can to get more and will not be deterred regardless of the cause. It sounds great and self-assuring, and there were definitely a lot of great soundbites and clips about it (I suppose you can still find them at YouTube) but that view fails to account for the ripening of trends and movements that took decades.

I can't say that sometimes a society can't be radically reformed (whether from outside or not) or that it can't be for the better, but usually it takes a lot of care and planning - or a stunning campaign of bloodshed - to do it right. When one tears down old institutions, one should be also thinking about what, and how, will take their place. A while ago, I read an article contrasting the situation in practically-independent Somaliland with that in Somalia proper. The author made a good case that it wasn't that the former colonial governments - respectively British and Italian - that did such a different job, but that their approach led to the differences: the British had tried to incorporate the tribal structure, while the Italians sought to replace it. Therefore, when both colonial governments were no more, one part had traditional institutions to keep order - and the other didn't.

Time to intervene: It was my intention not so much to discuss woman rights here but the way we approach the foreign world when we interact.

For an individual traveller, to adapt is a means of survival. You're alone in a foreign place, with limited insight in the place, the people or culture, language even. Or think of meeting your new partners family or friends for the first time.

For troops sent on a mission to spread democracy and liberty to the benighted hordes down south-east somewhat the situation is both similar and different: They are just like the traveller, with the added disadvantage that they want to change something by force in a foreign place.
So, they are in inferior numbers, and while they can due to superior training, weaponry and organisation 'outkill' anyone, they can influence, but only so far. Iraq shows up the limits, strongly underlined by the US being forced by necessity and not intent to arrange with their former arch enemies - the Anbar insurgents. The original intent to spread western style liberty is on the trash yard there. The tribes join the US there not to become little Americans but to the contrary, to defend their lifestyle against Al Qaeda's zealots. That doesn't mean they won't resist, too, when the US try to impose on them a way of life they don't like.

So, when we throw our weight around to change things, we ought to be aware that ignoring local culture and customs will generate resistance and resentment. That is very simple, and a question of the human nature. So do we, when we utter political demands for reform, ignoring local culture and customs of the countries we direct that at, generate resistance and resentment and opposition, not so much because the government is so vile, but because the people actually like it, no matter the jolly tunes to the contrary that our favourite, western educated pet-exiles sing for us?

Point is how that again influences the way we do politics. Do we accept their norms on their turf, out of necessity, or respect? Or do we simply say: Retards, primitives! There is only one way - ours - and we have taken banner of the the white man's burden, the 'mission civilisatrice' to bring the light to you! Which conveniently also suggests that any resistance to liberty is irrational, and because it dares question the benignity of the our Western motives, malicious.

That is without my snide side to it, what the classical neo-cons say, as expressed best by Fukuyama in his essay 'End of History': Free market capitalism and western liberties are the way to go and the end result of the human condition, no matter what the cultural context. With western (US as for the neo-cons) style liberty history ends, it can't get any better. Any conservative Muslim (or the Chinese) will beg to disagree and point to his religion's and culture's old and strong collectivist tradition (the Chinese in particular). To get back to Kaplan:Where democratic governance does not exist, we must work with the material at hand. We have inherited our Anglo-Saxon traditions of liberty and democracy just as other peoples, with different historical experiences and geographical circumstances, have inherited theirs. And these other peoples yearn for justice and dignity, which does not always overlap with Western democracyCan we derive from that that it is sensible in foreign policy to accept deviation, violation of our norms abroad because 'them over there', as a result of their tradition, don't see them as norm violations? Are we right and they wrong? Are our norms and views right, and their norms and views, as the traditions that inform them, wrong? Is ours the only way to create a stable, just and dignified society?

Sorry, Ragusa, I didn't intend to sidetrack your topic. What I intended was to point out that intervention can actually cause a society to regress.

Is ours the only way to create a stable, just and dignified society? No, intervention can actually cause the society to become unstable and chaotic. It loses the good it had and fails to take on the good of the intervening society. Case-in-point, just look at how society in the USA has changed during my life time. I approve and supported many of the changes but ,IMO, we have lost a great deal of the 'stability' that existed prior to 1964. However, we can't progress without causing some upheaval even if the intervention comes from within the society itself.

Nakia,
point taken :) Besides, no pun, whatsoever, intended.

Which conveniently also suggests that any resistance to liberty is irrational, and because it dares question the benignity of the our Western motives, malicious.

What do you mean here? Liberty is the right to choose one's destiny. Sometimes people can even choose not to be free. The thing is, it's their choice. Also, do you really mean it when you comment that Bush is "spreading democracy?" :confused: If you do, then you are one of the last who believe that myth. Bush is in Iraq to defend the interests of American corporations and the investment that the West has made in the region regarding its highly prized natural resources.

There was a moment, long gone now, in which all of us were amazed to see Iraqis go vote - it was a dramatic photo-op and it held all of us in a spell for just a moment of shared humanity. But the moment has long faded into the ruins of civil war, the public lynching of Saddam and the continued occupation of Iraq, which should have ended after the founding of the Iraq Constitutional government. Now we are there, protecting the Iraqis from themselves. Yes, forgive me, that even that notion seems to lack any real credibility.

Sorry, Ragusa, I didn't intend to sidetrack your topic. What I intended was to point out that intervention can actually cause a society to regress.

No, intervention can actually cause the society to become unstable and chaotic. It loses the good it had and fails to take on the good of the intervening society. Case-in-point, just look at how society in the USA has changed during my life time. I approve and supported many of the changes but ,IMO, we have lost a great deal of the 'stability' that existed prior to 1964. However, we can't progress without causing some upheaval even if the intervention comes from within the society itself.

America today is much more stable than it was prior to '64. See the insanity of, oh, Reconstruction through the Great Depression, toss in WWII and McCarthy...

And the Cold War....

True enough. We came within a hairsbreadth of nuclear annihilation on more than one occasion. It'll be at least a few decades before we see that kinda tension again.

America today is much more stable than it was prior to '64. See the insanity of, oh, Reconstruction through the Great Depression, toss in WWII and McCarthy...

:hippy: :geezer: Come on now. We have a high rate of divorce thereby causing family instability, dope is much more prevalent, we have shootings at schools and now churches, we are involved in various global conflicts including but not limited to Iraq, we have men not knowing whether or not to compliment a woman or open a door for her, grade school teachers who fear their students. I am certainly not advocating a return to archaic and outdated "Good Old Golden Days" but change creates upheaval and one man's paradise may be another's hell. Not all women are feminists. We do not have the right to impose change on other nations simply because we believe our way is the best way.

Point is how that again influences the way we do politics. Do we accept their norms on their turf, out of necessity, or respect? Or do we simply say: Retards, primitives! There is only one way - ours - and we have taken banner of the the white man's burden, the 'mission civilisatrice' to bring the light to you! Which conveniently also suggests that any resistance to liberty is irrational, and because it dares question the benignity of the our Western motives, malicious.

My answer to this. We respect 'their norms on their turf'. We may suggest or show by example but we have no right to insist.

:hippy: :geezer: Come on now. We have a high rate of divorce thereby causing family instability, dope is much more prevalent, we have shootings at schools and now churches, we are involved in various global conflicts including but not limited to Iraq, we have men not knowing whether or not to compliment a woman or open a door for her, grade school teachers who fear their students. I am certainly not advocating a return to archaic and outdated "Good Old Golden Days" but change creates upheaval and one man's paradise may be another's hell.

Nonetheless, our nation is much more stable now than it was 1866-1963. Compare the social instability created by divorce to the social instability created just by labor tension in the prior period. Is divorce likely to result in mass bloodshed? No. In contrast, labor disputes regularly resulted in mass bloodshed (I'll point to the multiple instances during WWI when HMGs were used on rioters). Our economy is much more stable than it was during that periodl; compare the dot com and subprime mortgage bubbles and the Savings & Loan debacle to the roller coaster ride of the 1800s, nevermind the Depression. Hell, compare the oil embargo to those periods. Consider the instability of the civil rights movement. Consider that we've been involved in global conflict since 1898--and remember the extermination of the Indians.

Now consider the examples you point to again. You're pointing at things that result in unstable situations for individuals. I'm pointing to things that resulted in instability in society as a whole.

Come on now. We have a high rate of divorce thereby causing family instability, dope is much more prevalent, we have shootings at schools and now churches, we are involved in various global conflicts including but not limited to Iraq, we have men not knowing whether or not to compliment a woman or open a door for her, grade school teachers who fear their students. I am certainly not advocating a return to archaic and outdated "Good Old Golden Days" but change creates upheaval and one man's paradise may be another's hell. Not all women are feminists. We do not have the right to impose change on other nations simply because we believe our way is the best way.


Some of the problems you cite are a result of economics and are not political problems. Opening a car door for a woman is not really a political problem at all, but one of good manners. Making women sit at the back of a mosque or not allowing them to drive a car for themselves represent more than poor manners.

Having lived through the 1960's and 70's which were unstable I disagree with some of the above statements. Nations are made up of individuals, what affects the individual affects the nation and vice versa. You can work from the bottom up or the top down depending on circumstances. However as I understand it this thread is about the right of one Nation or group of people to impose their idea of proper government on another nation or group. The point I have been trying to make and obviously failing is that change frequently results in upheaval. There is an old saying; "The devil we know is better than the devil we don't know." Just because I see something as repressive does not mean that the individual experiencing it sees it that way. Again I repeat; society is made up of individuals. Revolutions happen because a sufficient number of individuals band together to revolt.

society is made up of individuals

Yes, and some of them may even want to think for themselves.

Yes, Chandos, and they may think that the way they do things is better than the way you or I do things.

That would appear to be the point of thinking for one's self - even if it is at the expense of the "stability of greater" society.

We have a high rate of divorce thereby causing family instability, dope is much more prevalent, we have shootings at schools and now churches, we are involved in various global conflicts including but not limited to Iraq, we have men not knowing whether or not to compliment a woman or open a door for her, grade school teachers who fear their students. I am certainly not advocating a return to archaic and outdated "Good Old Golden Days" but change creates upheaval and one man's paradise may be another's hell.

In the "Good Old Golden Days" we had authority, Kids listened to parents, teachers, ministers, cops and the government. Where that changed is when they changed rules in the name of freedom. Now instead of teaching kids to sit down and shut up during the Lord's Prayer if they didn't care or believe, the example they see is of a selfish lobby group that are just as self righteous as the one they rail against who change the rules because they don't like being told to sit down and shut up for two bloody minutes of their day. I'm sorry, but if you can't or won't sit quietly for two minutes (I have Tourette Syndrome, and Even I can do that), I have no sympathy for you what so ever. Once upon a time you'd get a ruler across the knuckles for acting up during the Lord's prayer, and worse if you went crying to your parents about it.

Where society refuses to enforce the authority of teachers, that's where the education system crumbles. Where Society refuses to draw a line morally, anarchy will take over. With no rules, there is no freedom. How long before we are no longer safe in our homes or communities? What is there to teach people that they can't always get their own way? People don't want tohear that anymore...

Of course, the issue isn't that society refuses to draw a line in the moral sand, but that you don't like where society does draw the line.

In the "Good Old Golden Days" we had authority, Kids listened to parents, teachers, ministers, cops and the government.

And which days were these, Gnarff? I don't recall people ever being that concerned with authority, at least not in the US. But perhaps it was different where you are. Americans in general tend to be suspicious of anything that claims to be an "authority." We've always been a difficult people to rule or govern, for the most part. Just ask the English.

Respect for authority varies from group to group. I :geezer: can remember a time when children where expected to respect their teachers and other authority figures. "The Good Old Golden Days" have never existed and never will because each period has its good side and its bad side.

That said, I agree with Gnarfflinger, when society accepts that what makes "me" feel good is the proper way to behave we have anarchy. Everyone for themselves and to Hades with others. With freedom comes responsibility or we have nothing. Courtesy and respect are the oils that make society a place where people can seek a good life for themselves and their children.

Chandos, :) I think you think in terms of society from the top down while Gnarf and I are seeing it from the bottom up. Could be wrong but that is the impression I get. You see the group and we see the individual. Both ways are correct and needed and are not mutually exclusive.

edit: I am a natural born rebel. I hate being told what to do or how I should do it or that infamous line "It's traditional. It's always been done this way." However I also believe in courtesy and respect for others which limits what I am "free" to do.

You see the group and we see the individual.

I have devoted most of my life to understanding the development of the individual. The group is really not much of a concern to me. I don't see that society needs to be vertical (from either top or bottom) but rather horizontal, especially in its more recent development. But because society has developed in a vertical fashion, horizontal planes sit a right angles along it, in their own patterns of development. Along these right angles to the vertical hierarchy is where the development of the individual is more easily understood. I think this becomes more clearly illustrated in the literature of the Middle Ages, than previous times. But I have an overly romantic view of how the individual developed during that period.

Chaucer comes to mind instantly: Look at how his characters seem so vivid, so real. They are neatly tucked into the vertical hierarchy of the given "estates" by their portraits: A Prioress, a Good Wife, a Monk. Yet, once they are viewed up close they are not what we would expect them to be like if we judge them from their determined postitions along the hierarchy. What becomes striking is how "individual" they are. But I'm really beating around the bush here, because in large part there are the dynamics within the three parts - or estates - of the social order to contend with.

Instead, Homer serves just as well. Achilles, or Odysseus illustrates this point. At the top of the hierarchy is the king, or even the gods. Yet, Achilles defies his king, Odysseus, the gods. What does this tell us about the relationship and interaction between the individual and the hierarchy? The heroic ideal, represented by the individual, at right angles to the social order, is what creates, in large part, the dramatic tension of the poems. It is human personality that drives the narrative, as in most good literature. Not conformity. What do we find in most literature worth anything? The individual set against, or in conflict, with conventionality, or tradition.

My point in all this is to show that the top down, or even bottom to top view of the social order does not really tell us very much about the individual. Do the same kinds of hierarchies exist in the ME as well as in the West? How do they ressemble each other? Do you think it is possible that in the hierarchies in the ME that the idividual may find himself in the same interaction, given the conformity and traditions of orthodoxy, as an individual in the West? Perhaps not. But then again, what kinds of choices are open to him or her?

Of course, the issue isn't that society refuses to draw a line in the moral sand, but that you don't like where society does draw the line.

Once upon a time, there was a moral line in the sand that seemed to work for the most part. Then one day, an activist judge agreed with someone that didn't like how it was maintained, and took that part out instead of telling them to sit down and shut up for two freakin' minutes. Soon, more people looked at things they didn't like and eventually, society was torn apart by those activist judges, and there is no moral line in the sand. Now who is safe?

But perhaps it was different where you are.

Like when the aforementioned English saw that you didn't like being their subjects and changed their attitude? Canada is still part of the Brittish Commonwealth because of those changes, despite having their own sovreignty...

each period has its good side and its bad side.

I'll take a few boring minuted at the start of a school day and a ruler across the knuckles when you misbehave over the school shootings and other crap you have today...

You see the group and we see the individual. Both ways are correct and needed and are not mutually exclusive.

Sounds like the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. That was forgotten long ago, and now the many suffer for the perceived freedoms of the few...

I hate being told what to do or how I should do it or that infamous line "It's traditional. It's always been done this way." However I also believe in courtesy and respect for others which limits what I am "free" to do.

That way of thinking is being phased out. They want people to be selfish in hopes that they will be consumers who buy things they don't need with money they don't have. Maybe Common Sense is trying to be phased out as well...

Once upon a time, there was a moral line in the sand that seemed to work for the most part.

Yeah, unless you were, say, black, or maybe a woman, or Irish, or Italian . . .


Sounds like the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

You seem to have a basic problem here, which is that the needs of the many are fine as long as you are part of the many, but not fine when you are part of the few.

Every era has its good and its bad. That good and bad is also subjective depending where the viewer fits on the social scale, the political scale, etc. There are some less relative measures (such as violent crime rates) that you can look at to compare eras, but, for example, overall crime rates really aren't going to be a good measure because what is now a crime in some circumstance was not a crime 100 or 150 years ago (cocaine and other drugs were legal around the turn of the 20th century, and there was a significant problem with them that was not really noted -- now, there's the "war on drugs" with all its attendant criminal issues). Comparing eras is always subjective and the people who are most apt to compare them are the ones who always pine about "the good old days."

Yeah, unless you were, say, black, or maybe a woman, or Irish, or Italian . . .

QFT. While the change in attitudes brought us some inconvenient outcomes as well, the surge in civil rights is imo something to be proud of. When all is said and done, imo the 60s and 70s have a rather impressive legacy.

Yeah, unless you were, say, black, or maybe a woman, or Irish, or Italian . . .

Morality is independent of race, ethnicity or gender. It took a while for society to accept that, but once there was one standard to hold them all to, that worked itself out.

You seem to have a basic problem here, which is that the needs of the many are fine as long as you are part of the many, but not fine when you are part of the few.

How about the needs of the many outweigh the selfish desires of the few? It wasn't a need that took prayer out of schools, it was a desire by a few that didn't want to sit quietly while the rest of the class observed the prayer. Someone wants to avoid traditional punishment? They lobby to get rid of it and now there's no enforcement of rules. What if the majority of the kids need the few bad apples to sit down and shut up so they can learn? But that imposes on the rights of the few to "express themselves". Of course, the majority will always need people to "express" the famous line: "You want fries with that?"

Morality is independent of race, ethnicity or gender. It took a while for society to accept that, but once there was one standard to hold them all to, that worked itself out.Actually, Gnarff, racism and sexism are still alive and well. Nothing has "worked itself out", here.


How about the needs of the many outweigh the selfish desires of the few? It wasn't a need that took prayer out of schools, it was a desire by a few that didn't want to sit quietly while the rest of the class observed the prayer.Schools are run by the state, Gnarff. Prayer in school violates separation of church and state. The only selfishness I see is in the administrators trying to foist their religion upon other people's kids.

Someone wants to avoid traditional punishment? They lobby to get rid of it and now there's no enforcement of rules. What if the majority of the kids need the few bad apples to sit down and shut up so they can learn? But that imposes on the rights of the few to "express themselves".Corporal punishment wasn't abandoned out of some sort of twisted desire to allow bullies and disruptive kids to "express themselves". It was abandoned because it's cruel to beat a kid with a paddle for talking out of turn. There are plenty of better ways to get a kid to quiet down than beating him with a stick.

One thing that came to my mind was the general puzzlement in America in particular about why people in other countries accuse them of meddling in their affairs. Actually, there is a point in this that goes beyond reflexive anti-Americanism or blaming America for their own misery. It has to do with Tom Friedmans neo-liberal holy trinity of free trade, political democracy and human rights.

There is one thing that American's don't sufficiently take into account, and that results in them getting this thing fundamentally wrong: Free market and free trade is one of America's premier exports. A liberal market (in the neo-liberal sense as defined at US universities) forces the market actors to adapt to market conditions, which is at the very basic level the individual on the labour market. The market forces individuals to travel to find work, it forces them to leave their families to find work, it forces them to abandon their traditional (usually rural) lifestyle and trade them usually for an urban one. While this is at the very basic level has already been a reflex of modernity, it has been exacerbated by globalisation.

What also Europe but in particular America and American dominated organisations such as the WTO or the World bank have done is to consequently promote free market and more often than not have forced countries to adopt market liberal reforms, which have been without exception been lauded in the West as 'progress'. While this is generally perceived to be about makro-economy, it is often lost that these market reforms profoundly impact the respective societies, much more so than all US demands for human rights and a pro western values. The market forces on those cultures significant cultural changes simply by creating cold hard new realities. It is these changes that the the West is often accused of imposing on other countries.

Gnarff has lamented how modernity has in a sense destroyed or significantly altered the nulceus of the family. He makes a very good observation in this. It is one thing to say: Oh we respect your traditional ways - do as you please, we're liberals after all - while at the same time preaching free market that is destroying or undermining just that (for that it is irrelevant that they are unaware of that effect or just indifferent - they do sincerely believe it is for their best).

(PS: Which oddly enough puts Ron Paul in a paradox position - he is anti-interventionist, but pro-free trade and free-market ...)

The only selfishness I see is in the administrators trying to foist their religion upon other people's kids.

But is it too much to ask for a few minutes spent quietly? In taking ethics out of schools, you take out rules and compliance with rules, and thus you have anarchy where nobody is safe.

It was abandoned because it's cruel to beat a kid with a paddle for talking out of turn. There are plenty of better ways to get a kid to quiet down than beating him with a stick.

Public humiliation would suffice for things like what you say, but for more serious violations, then corporal punishment should be used (like bullying). I have no sympathy for someone who goes to school, torments kids smaller than himself, then gets a strap across the hands from the principle, then sent home to parents that would apply further punishment and likely put him to work while he was suspended.

On second thought, have the cops come in with nightsticks and tasers, violently take the offender down and incercerate them. Until something is done, there will be no order in school, and education will have to cater to the lowest of the class...

he is anti-interventionist, but pro-free trade and free-market

Hmm, Cut foreign aid, make them develop an internal economy, by which the people can support themselves, and buy what they make to sell. You aren't coming in to run their country, but you aren't running a welfare state for them either...

But is it too much to ask for a few minutes spent quietly? In taking ethics out of schools, you take out rules and compliance with rules, and thus you have anarchy where nobody is safe.Removing schoolwide prayer and taking ethics out of schools aren't even in the same zip code, Gnarff. You don't need religion to be ethical any more than you need a sombrero to cut broccoli on a tuesday. How exactly does not subjecting kids to prayer at the start of the school day remove ethics from schools? How does it create anarchy? How does it make people less safe? You are aware that students are well within their rights to form their own (non-mandated) prayer groups if they so desire, right? No one is denying kids the right to pray in school. The only right being denied is the "right" of the administration to lead the kids in a "non-denominational" prayer to Jesus or the Judeo-Christian image of God at the start of the day.

Public humiliation would suffice for things like what you say, but for more serious violations, then corporal punishment should be used (like bullying). I have no sympathy for someone who goes to school, torments kids smaller than himself, then gets a strap across the hands from the principle, then sent home to parents that would apply further punishment and likely put him to work while he was suspended.That's fine, but, as a parent, I can assure you that no one is beating my kids. I have to send my kids to school...but I don't have to let them be physically abused by strangers. I thought we abandoned "spare the rod and spoil the child" as the ridiculous farce that it was 100 years ago.

On second thought, have the cops come in with nightsticks and tasers, violently take the offender down and incercerate them.Police don't violently arrest people unless they resist. You aren't suggesting actually treating kids with behaviour problems worse than we treat common criminals, are you?

Until something is done, there will be no order in school, and education will have to cater to the lowest of the class...Bull****. There's order in schools already. The system has its problems, sure, but you are blowing the problem up to ridiculous proportions.

You don't need religion to be ethical any more than you need a sombrero to cut broccoli on a tuesday.

But most people can't figure that out. Further, the Bible contains a nice neat set of values in it (Ten Commandments, Sermon on the mount, a few other passages that I can't think of right now). Can you teach those principles without teaching the whole thing?

The only right being denied is the "right" of the administration to lead the kids in a "non-denominational" prayer to Jesus or the Judeo-Christian image of God at the start of the day.

You're quibbling over what, two or three minutes at the start of the day? If someone can't find better things to do, then I pity them...

but I don't have to let them be physically abused by strangers

If your kids behave, then they won't be. But the bully that bloodies their nose should be punished. I would propose a strap across the hands and a suspension. Either that or lock them up as a criminal.

I thought we abandoned "spare the rod and spoil the child" as the ridiculous farce that it was 100 years ago.

Not that long ago, but in some cases, that old saying is being proven right. The Rod means dicipline. Corporal punishment should be a third last resort (Exclusion and incarceration being reserved for worse cases).

You aren't suggesting actually treating kids with behaviour problems worse than we treat common criminals, are you?

When that behaviour crosses into criminality, then they should be treated as criminals.

There's order in schools already. The system has its problems, sure, but you are blowing the problem up to ridiculous proportions.

When I was a kid, kids weren't getting killed at school. We had prayer in school and teachers and principals that enforced the rules. Is that a coincidence? I don't think so. We saw things changed the way you wanted, we see the results.

When I was a kid, kids weren't getting killed at school, we did not have prayer in school and principals and teachers were not allowed to give out any sort of corporal punishment, and this was less than ten years ago. In my opinion you are drawing false conclusions from very thin facts to suit your religious agenda.

It's quite interesting though how there are plenty of religious people supporting a schoolsystem that might as well be directly taken from the Soviet Union (with added prayer). While I'll be the first to agree that bullying is bad, I'm not convinced that there's any more of that than before, we just study it more and are socially more concious than we were ten or twenty years ago. There's a lot more public discussion about what happens at school and I'd like to think that as a healthy thing for any society.

@ Rally right you are, no more of this from me in this thread. Sorry for the derail. I probably should check the topic before posting.

Well, I think that school discipline in the last 10-15 years here has gone downhill (though there haven't been any killing that I know of), but corporal punishment had little to do with it. I don't think there was any (official) such even during the communist years, when there was discipline to spare (weeell, supposedly - but that's another story).

In all honesty, I think the degree to which a child should be religiously educated - and the religion s/he should be told about - is a matter to be decided in the family, not at school. School can help educate kids, but it's not supposed to substitute for the parents when they're too busy to teach their kids anything about ethics and morality. Teachers are supposed to be educators, not nannies - at least, that's how it was when I was there. We have a saying here about something called "the first seven years" - proper conduct, ethics and basic morality, the things you should learn before ever hearing the September 15th bells. Maybe there should be a school for parents, or future parents, to remind them of that. You don't need a fixed time to pray, anyway - I've said a few "God, help me get through this exam"s myself, and I didn't have anyone to prompt me. Besides, what if the kids aren't Christian? Isn't it a bit early to teach them the values of hypocricy and conformation to peer pressure at the age of 8 and 9? It's not like school doesn't have enough incentives for them to learn that already...

Also, Gnarf, I think there should be some difference between child offenders and adult ones, and not just on matter of principle but also on precedent. If children are not legible to vote, and to a lesser drink alcohol or drive, based on their inability to fully comprehend/consider their actions (afaik the default justification - i), then this should also be a factor when they are being punished for criminal behavior.

... I thought this thread was supposed to be about humility in foreign policy?

Gnarff has lamented how modernity has in a sense destroyed or significantly altered the nulceus of the family.

I agree, as this would be a whole other topic in itself, and certainly an interesting one. As a parent I struggle with this everyday.

But most people can't figure [morals and ethics] out [without the aid of religion].I wasn't aware of this, Gnarff. Religious folks seem to think this, but I'm not buying it.

Further, the Bible contains a nice neat set of values in it (Ten Commandments, Sermon on the mount, a few other passages that I can't think of right now). Can you teach those principles without teaching the whole thing?Absolutely.

When that behaviour crosses into criminality, then they should be treated as criminals.Agreed. Of course, the police don't actually use force against criminals, even violent ones, unless they actually resist (and even then they only use as much force as is necessary to subdue the suspect), so my point still stands.

When I was a kid, kids weren't getting killed at school. We had prayer in school and teachers and principals that enforced the rules. Is that a coincidence? I don't think so. We saw things changed the way you wanted, we see the results.When I was a kid, kids weren't getting killed at school. We didn't have prayer in school and teachers and principals were able to enforce the rules just fine without without beating anyone with a switch, rapping anyone on the knuckles, or waterboarding any foreign exchange students. In fact, in looking at the schools my son has attended and currently attends, they still appear to be doing that just fine. I'm with Morgoroth. You are drawing conclusions from very thin (and often non-existent) facts to support your religious agenda. Our awareness of the problems of our school system is heightened. That doesn't mean that our schools have actually gotten worse, though. If you want to assert that schools aren't enforcing their own rules or that there isn't any discipline, you're going to have to prove it. With facts.

... I thought this thread was supposed to be about humility in foreign policy? True, but as in all things, ideas about what our foreign policy should be tend to bleed directly into our domestic policy, as well. Try as we might to keep them apart, in the end, they are deeply inter-related. A social conservative who has no qualms about trying to use government to force other people to follow his social agenda and lifestyle isn't about to make a 180 when the topic switches from domestic policy to foreign policy. The ideas are inter-related.

the degree to which a child should be religiously educated - and the religion s/he should be told about - is a matter to be decided in the family, not at school.

Until a workable means of teaching compliance and proper behaviour in a social setting that is not included in a religious context that works can be provided, then religion is the best means we have.

Gnarf, I think there should be some difference between child offenders and adult ones, and not just on matter of principle but also on precedent.

Again, corrective measures need to be used, but if there is not any answers, law enforcement's current means are all we have. Current treatment of underage offenders doesn't seem to work...

Absolutely.

You'll have to say more than that. Keeping propper behaviour in a social setting without religion is a problem. The "Anti-religious" crowd says that religion in school is bad, but until they propose a solution then there should be no change made.

We didn't have prayer in school and teachers and principals were able to enforce the rules just fine without without beating anyone with a switch, rapping anyone on the knuckles, or waterboarding any foreign exchange students.

And how much control do they really have? How long can you really keep a student out of class? What sanction are actually effective?

A social conservative who has no qualms about trying to use government to force other people to follow his social agenda and lifestyle isn't about to make a 180 when the topic switches from domestic policy to foreign policy. The ideas are inter-related.

Then if we don't like the way they run their country, then we don't need to interfere--meaning no foreign aid or anything else. Is that in and of itself not some from of pressure?

And how much control do they really have? How long can you really keep a student out of class? What sanction are actually effective?


Learning is a privilege. Good teachers should be able to teach those who are willing to learn. Most districts now have special programs to separate those who disrupt the learning process for those who are willing to become educated. They are now put into special classes in groups. Man, THOSE teachers have it rough; it's like a combat zone. But at least those "students" are no longer in a regular classroom setting. But do we really need compulsory education for everyone beyond a certain point? It's obviously an abysmal failure. It's like Ragusa sometimes comments, that many of America's wounds are self-inflected, believing that "one size fits all."

But how much longer are we going to ask teachers to do the job that the parents fail to do? As a parent, it is my job to teach my children right from wrong. If you want your kids to pray, then by all means do it at home, Sunday School and Church. You don't have to make a public specticacle of Faith everywhere you go.

You'll have to say more than that. Keeping propper behaviour in a social setting without religion is a problem. The "Anti-religious" crowd says that religion in school is bad, but until they propose a solution then there should be no change made.Gnarff, I'm not religious, but I'm also not a criminal. In high school, I abandoned my faith and became an atheist (I am no longer an atheist, and am now a proud agnostic), yet I was neither disorderly or disobedient. My uncle is an Atheist and was raised as an atheist, but he isn't a criminal, either. His children (my cousins) were also raised as atheists (although neither is an atheist now. One of my cousins was born again in college, and the other is now an agnostic), and they aren't criminals, either. My sister in law was raised as an atheist, by atheists, and not only isn't a criminal, but has devoted her life to to the incredibly low paying field of social work despite being qualified to do so much more.

If religion were actually necessary for order or ethics, then people who are not religious, who were raised without religion, would automatically be unethical and disorderly. Since this is obviously not true, it logically follows that religion is not necessary to instill proper ethics on the young. If it were true, my uncle, cousins, and sister-in-law would all be criminals with no ethics.

@Chandos and Drew: Kudos on your summations!

Gnarff, if you really and truly think that there is no way for teaching discipline separate from religious indoctrination, you're either more sheltered than I thought, or are in possession of some of the thickest Selective Vision (R) glasses ever made. Just look around you as you go through your day! Do you really think that every single interaction between humans would devolve into a fistfight or namecalling if it weren't for religion? I disagree, and here are a few examples of where I see people exhibiting self-control of their own accord:
On my daily commute - Traffic laws keep things safe on the roads
At the train station - Courtesy and manners keep the lines orderly, and make sure folks get to sit
In the lunchroom - Etiquette and manners encourage good sharing of community treats
On the sidewalk - Good sense tells us to put the litter in the trashcan, and pick it up if we miss

Then if we don't like the way they run their country, then we don't need to interfere--meaning no foreign aid or anything else. Is that in and of itself not some from of pressure?

Here, I have to agree with you. The pressure becomes a matter of choosing between the lesser of the evils, as with all things political. Which is worse, not getting the aid or putting up with (and possibly trying to evade) the strings that a donor tries to attach? I'm thinking particularly of that appalling "no abortion education" funding that just got renewed, reluctantly, by Congress.

It's utterly insufferable, but as long as there are people, someone will feel the need to tell someone else how to live.

But how much longer are we going to ask teachers to do the job that the parents fail to do?

When it comes to getting along with others that they have some responsibility to educate, they have to either continure their efforts or cast them out of the school.

I'm not religious, but I'm also not a criminal.

Yes, you have figured that out, but what percentage can't or won't figure that out? We're talking lowest common denominator here. You're just saying that you figured it out, then how does the rest of the population figure it our without a textbook?

If religion were actually necessary for order or ethics, then people who are not religious, who were raised without religion, would automatically be unethical and disorderly.

Necessary? Evidently not. But it is a convenient way to keep order. Then everyone learns from the same rulebook, rather than relying on parents, which has not been consistent at all...

Just look around you as you go through your day! Do you really think that every single interaction between humans would devolve into a fistfight or namecalling if it weren't for religion?

No, I'm just worrying about the lowest common denominator here. It's not the majority that you have to worry about, but the minority that don't care...

On my daily commute - Traffic laws keep things safe on the roads

And how many are hurt or inconvenienced by the one person that doesn't obey those laws and causes a collision? It's not the majority, but the minority. Changing the way things are done has not worked for the lowest common denominator. Hence I go back to asking the Aetheists to sit down and shut up for two minutes while the Lord's Prayer is read over the public address system...

On the sidewalk - Good sense tells us to put the litter in the trashcan, and pick it up if we miss

And how many actually care? Putting morality in the hands of the individual homes has not worked, so then why can't society as a whole pick up that slack?

Yes, you have figured that out, but what percentage can't or won't figure that out? We're talking lowest common denominator here. You're just saying that you figured it out, then how does the rest of the population figure it our without a textbook?Gnarff, when my parents taught me that stealing was wrong, they didn't use the Bible or the Catechism*. It made a lot more sense to them to explain to me that you shouldn't steal because stealing hurts other people. You shouldn't cheat because cheating hurts other people. You shouldn't kill because killing, well, kills other people. The fact that these acts hurt other people meant far more to me than the fact that the bible said it was wrong.** I'm not unique or special in this regard, Gnarff. The vast majority of human beings work the exact same way. We don't respect each other's health and property because failure to do so will piss off God. We do it because the vast majority of humans are inherently good.

* I was raised catholic, my mother was a music minister, and our family regularly had priests over for dinner. After a few glasses of wine, Father Loughlin would do the best Monty Python impressions I've ever heard...

**The bible also says you should stone disrespectful kids (Deuteronomy 21:18-21,), so I really couldn't care less what it has to say about theft.

**The bible also says you should stone disrespectful kids (Deuteronomy 21:18-21,), so I really couldn't care less what it has to say about theft.

The point being, of course, that even when we're using religion as our guide we must resort to reason. It's pretty much impossible to literally follow the Bible, as the Bible is rather contradictory. So you must use reason to decide which aspects to follow. Or, well, you could let a member of the church use reason on your behalf, but someone is employing reason.

The point being, of course, that even when we're using religion as our guide we must resort to reason.Exactly. I shudder to think what life would be like if we actually followed the bible literally. Disrespectful children would be stoned to death, adulterers and homosexuals would likewise be stoned, women would be bought and sold like cattle, rape victims would be forced to marry their rapists...not a pretty picture.

No, I'm just worrying about the lowest common denominator here. It's not the majority that you have to worry about, but the minority that don't care...Changing the way things are done has not worked for the lowest common denominator. Hence I go back to asking the Aetheists to sit down and shut up for two minutes while the Lord's Prayer is read over the public address system...

Gnarff, I'm confused. Do you really think that reading the Lord's Prayer over the public address system is going to change the way people act? That defies belief. Especially considering not everyone is Christian. For someone who is Jewish or Muslim - to name just two religions that are common enough to be seen in every school - what do they get out of the Lord's Prayer? Also what benefit do people who were raised without any religon get? It's not enough to just hear the words - you have to listen to them, believe in them, and then act the way they direct. In other words - you have to have faith in that system of belief, and unless you are already a Christian, you don't have that.

Gnarff, some of the worst criminals/criminal acts in history were religious... think of the Spanish Inquisition, the Crusades, Charles Manson.... Religion does not stop people from doing terrible things -- sometimes it gives them a reason.

Gnarff, I find you and your ilk as frightening and threatening as I do Osama bin Laden's gang.

... I thought this thread was supposed to be about humility in foreign policy?

We are getting a bit far afield here, IMO. Have we come to a consensus on being humble in foreign policy? To me this means one nation should not impose its form of government on other nations but respect their right to choose what they feel is best for them. Of course if the other nation feels what is best for them is to attack my country or impose their view point on my country I'll get a bit belligerent.

Gnarff, I find you and your ilk as frightening and threatening as I do Osama bin Laden's gang.Isn't that going a little far? The religious right has its problems, but killing people in order to further their fascist agenda isn't one of them, is it? The Christian Right doesn't advocate murder.

Isn't that going a little far? The religious right has its problems, but killing people in order to further their fascist agenda isn't one of them, is it? The Christian Right doesn't advocate murder.

There's a far greater likelihood of the Christian Right having an adverse impact on my life than of me being killed by a Muslim extremist. Balancing the increased risk of one against the more dire consequence of the other does a lot to balance the scales.

There's a far greater likelihood of the Christian Right having an adverse impact on my life than of me being killed by a Muslim extremist.

Absolutely right.

when my parents taught me that stealing was wrong,

The point is that they taught you. There are an increasing number of children that don't get taught these days...

The vast majority of human beings work the exact same way.

I'm not sure about your figures. Society is simply reducing their standards so that more is acceptable...

The bible also says you should stone disrespectful kids (Deuteronomy 21:18-21,),

That part of the law was specific to ancient Israel, before the more advanced morality was included in the New Testament. That part of the law was fullfilled with the Death of Jesus Christ. Please learn what you are talking about before you pick one line to serve your purpose. No matter how tempting it is to stone people that break the law...

The point being, of course, that even when we're using religion as our guide we must resort to reason. It's pretty much impossible to literally follow the Bible, as the Bible is rather contradictory.

That's where you need to study carefully. A lot of what you call contradictions is explained quite nicely...

Do you really think that reading the Lord's Prayer over the public address system is going to change the way people act?

Not by itself, but that as part of the solution. By trusting morality to the parents, you forfeit the standardization of standards. Christian teachings are the most convenient way to standardize this.

Gnarff, some of the worst criminals/criminal acts in history were religious... think of the Spanish Inquisition, the Crusades, Charles Manson.... Religion does not stop people from doing terrible things -- sometimes it gives them a reason.

It's called free agency. You of all people should be familiar with this. Further, you should also know how the aforementioned all basically broke most, if not all of the commandments in the process of what they do. Do you also judge America by the Criminals?

Gnarff, I find you and your ilk as frightening and threatening as I do Osama bin Laden's gang.

Likewise, I fear the anti Christian sentiments more than any Muslim terrorist. The Terrorist only wants to kill me. The anti-Christians want to change society, and I think that what they've done is responsible for the decay in society...

There's a far greater likelihood of the Christian Right having an adverse impact on my life than of me being killed by a Muslim extremist. Balancing the increased risk of one against the more dire consequence of the other does a lot to balance the scales.

Who is more likely to hurt me? A nut job with a bomb or a person that does not care who he hurts that wants my wallet?

It is argued that you only want to take out something that inconveniences you. What if that comes packaged with the means of keeping society together? You thoughtlessly chip away at the mortar of the wall, assuming that the bricks are just going to stay there on their own. Over time, thar mortar is eroded away, and eventually, the wall itself crumbles under the pressure. That's what I see. You take out religion in school without replacing it's function--or worse, denying it's function altogether, not believing there is anything to replace. And society, like the wall in my analogy, will crumble under the pressure.

Interesting that nobody answered my question about how many people suffer for the one that disregards the rules...

Back to the topic, as long as one third of the world's population is pissed off at the US, they really have little alternative but to stick their nose in where it otherwise wouldn't belong...

That part of the law was specific to ancient Israel, before the more advanced morality was included in the New Testament. That part of the law was fullfilled with the Death of Jesus Christ. Please learn what you are talking about before you pick one line to serve your purpose. No matter how tempting it is to stone people that break the law...Just because I've left the Church doesn't mean I lack theological education, Gnarff. I was raised Catholic by a devout music minister. I was confirmed as a teenager. Hell, I was even an altar boy. I've studied the bible, I've read the Catechism, and I've taken classes on theology beyond what was already required of me in order to be confirmed in the faith. I'm not some ignoramus blindly grasping at straws.
Mathew 5: 17-18: 17"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

Let's examine this, shall we? Christ may or may not* have fulfilled the law, but where does Christ say that his fulfilling the law will abolish or loosen it? He never makes that assertion. In fact, he makes quite clear that the law is binding (not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law) until heaven and earth disappear. Has it disappeared, yet? Didn't think so. The Law is still in effect. At least it should be...

Interesting that nobody answered my question about how many people suffer for the one that disregards the rules...Not really. You see, the whole construct falls apart because your premise hasn't yet been accepted. If we don't accept your premise that lawlessness is on the rise due to secularization, any argument you make based on it fails before it even begins. I'm not even going to consider that question until you've successfully proven your premise that (1) crime, lawlessness, etc is going up and (2) it's happening due to secularization.

* It is commonly argued that the law will not actually be fulfilled until the second coming.

before the more advanced morality was included in the New Testament

"More Advanced Morality" is nothing but effective spin doctoring. Did you ever consider that maybe God realized that people were having a hard time living up to the rigors of His laws, so he dumbed them down to make them easier for the masses to swallow? Maybe God is the original progenitor of the lowest common denominator approach to public policy.

Interesting that nobody answered my question about how many people suffer for the one that disregards the rules...
Don't try that with me, honey. I've been asking you the same question since you joined SP, and I'm still waiting for an answer. Why should non-Christians be forced to live in accordance with Christian rules?

Why should non-Christians be forced to live in accordance with Christian rules?

That really is what Drew and myself pointed out earlier as well. Rally just puts in more succinctly.

However, I think it even goes deeper than that. I would appear that not only would Gnarff like others to live by Christian rules, but by a very specific subset of Christian rules - Mormonism to be precise. Set aside for a moment that seperation of church a state requires that no specific religion is endorsed at schools, and the fact that there are non-Christians attending these schools. What percentage of Christians are Mormons? 1%? Maybe 2%? It can't be a big percentage. There are probably several million Mormons around, but there are a couple of BILLION Christians.

The other obvious problem with forcing people to live by religious standards is you get like what we have in the middle east - where people are punished for not following religious doctrine. No thanks - I'll do my best to teach my kid right from wrong and take my chances that he turns out OK.

Just wanted to point out something I found rather amusing...Please learn what you are talking about before you pick one line to serve your purpose.Project much? That's kind of what you're famous for, Gnarff.

Ok, two things...That's where you need to study carefully.I gotta hand it to you...it really takes some major balls for someone who so regularly displays such utter ignorance of the history of the religion he's so devoted to to say things like this, especially when you consider to whom you're saying it.

This Bud's for you, sir. :beer:

Why should non-Christians be forced to live in accordance with Christian rules?They should not, in order to secure the peace - that is the lesson derived from the religious wars that raged between Protestants and Catholics in Europe. That is really an important point. Our separation of church and state rests on it. The decisive point is the difference betweenpromoting your faith through the state to others and being content with non-interference with matters of faithFaith is private. It's between you and your conscience. What's happening in an outside world is not your concern as long as non-interference is being maintained. How that looks practically is another matter.

There will always be people for whom non-interference is insufficient, if not outright heresy - think of those Christians demanding intelligent design to be taught in schools, in order (according to the Discovery Institute's wedge strategy) to "defeat scientific materialism" represented by evolution, "reverse the stifling materialist world view and replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions" and to "affirm the reality of God in order to "renew" American culture by shaping public policy to reflect conservative Christian, namely evangelical Protestant, values.

Another bit, added for thought, is a great miscomprehension about the so-called 'Theocrats' of the Middle East: First, what is this "Theocracy"? Considering that it covers countries as diverse as the Papal State, Tibet or contemporary Iran the term has little meaning, which suggests it is being used as a label. I have recently heard a nice line that describes Iran as being run by the Muslim equivalent of the moral majority. I think that's quite apt. How would the US look like if being run by the moral majority according to their preferences? One prime expression of freedom of religion is the consequence that my religion would have no bearing on my legal standing. I haven't looked that up, but I am confident that a majority of conservative US Christians hold the view that only a Christian is fit to be president.

As for the "Theocrats" themselves: They are not clergy in the Western sense. They are Doctors or Masters of the Religious Sciences of Islam including the Islamic Law [sort of like Jewish Rabbis]. I cannot find anything wrong with people with the Islamic legal education to participate in the political life of their country. Western governments do employ lawyers too. The difference is that the applied law in question comes from an entirely different, religious, background.

Of course, there are in my view two fundamental problems with theocracy. One is that a theocracy must naturally be based on one religion, which means you'll have problems with establishing freedom of religion under such a system. The other problem is the question of separation of powers, since if your authority derives directly from god (or gods, depending on whom you choose to believe), lesser mortals have no business questioning it. But then, you find the intellectual arguments for it in the works of St. Thomas, or the late Ayatollah Khomeini.

One should not underestimate the attraction of a political and social system in which all your actions are "godly", where there is no distinction between sacred and profane since the Spirit of God is imbuing all of the society (and that in particularly is the case in Islam as a 'seamless garment') - at least in theory.

I think it is important to keep that in mind when reading Gnarff. Don't get yourself into the trap of dismissing what is probably his sincere belief by fact checking and discounting if it fails your test. Faith is not a factual thing, and I don't think that Gnarff stands out in his community for his ignorance of his faith. In fact, I think he rather represents the mainstream in his community.

not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

Accomplished witht he death and resurrection of Christ.

"More Advanced Morality" is nothing but effective spin doctoring.

Old Testament: Thou Shalt Not...

Basically a list of forbidden things.

New Testament: Thou Shalt...

Includes things that you ought to be doing, and a more detailed picture of Good. It teaches us how to make better decisions.

That's where I get the higher law. It actually states in the New Testament that the Law of Moses was in place to prepare the people for the higher law.

Why should non-Christians be forced to live in accordance with Christian rules?

Not the whole thing, but a watered down portion--enough to maintain social order. I don't expect a sacrement or communion in the classroom, but a few minutes a day (Really, how long does it take to read the Lord's Prayer?) and basic instruction on ethics.

I would appear that not only would Gnarff like others to live by Christian rules, but by a very specific subset of Christian rules - Mormonism to be precise.

But where would we get drunks to laugh at? Nietzsche called religion an opiate, to keep order among the masses. That's all we can ask for in a social context. Basically the rules, eventually move on to how to make good decisions, I think society would really benefit.

Faith is private. It's between you and your conscience.

You are talking faith, I was talking religion. At it's best, religion is the organized structure that allows people to worship together. At it's worst, it's an invitation to abuse influence for selfish reasons. Most commonly, it is used to instruct the masses on how to live without killing each other. Is religion the only way to this? Probably not, but other sources either only care about themselves or don't accept the need/authority to propose a better solution. Yes, I said it, There is a better solution, but nobody seems toi interested in finding it...

It is midnight here so I hope I can make a coherent post.

I find my self in sympathy with Gnarf and believe that he is being misunderstood to some extent. He has never claimed to be a scholar or that he finds it easy to express himself. I see him as struggling to explain his beliefs and viewpoints especially with a Religion that is as little understood as the Mormon. It is also my opinion that some of the statements made are ad hominem arguments rather than arguments against his statements. Please read Ragusa's post carefully. It is (IMO) an excellent post. :) Wow, Ragusa, what has happened that you and I are defending Gnarf? Maybe the Second Coming is coming!

I am not going to get into a religious argument. Drew has posted what he feels are his credentials to expound and I have posted elsewhere mine both religious and non-religious.

Since people are so diverse laws are made to keep society from being chaotic. Morals are those things that people believe to be right or wrong whether they are legally stated or not. Someone needs to teach morals. We now have a society with a very high divorce rate, latch key children and take out food. Aha, its all that junk food the kids eat that is causing the problem.

I believe that true freedom cannot come without separation of Church and State but it is my understanding that our Founders did this to protect the individual Religions and give everyone the chance to worship as they pleased. I have known atheists who were more moral than many of the Christians I knew.

Basically what every human wants is to have food, shelter and the freedom from fear of someone taking it away from him and his family. This is why we have laws but morality takes a step further and shows us how we should live our daily lives. Don't do to someone else what you would not want done to you. Don't behave in a manner which is disruptive to the community or family.

One small 'religious' comment: Jesus was not a Christian. He was a Jew. The term Christian came into use in Antioch to designate the Jewish Cult which followed the teachings of Jesus Christ. So I argue that the Lord's Prayer is not originally a Christian Prayer. I do not advocate its being read aloud in public schools but I see nothing wrong with a few minutes of silent meditation. So the kids sit there and dream about the latest computer game. I slept through the sixth grade and managed to survive.

Perhaps I don't agree with the way Gnarf has worded some of his arguments but I do agree with the idea that we do need to teach morality. Having been a teacher I do have some strongly held opinions about what should and should not be done. And that is my :2c:

Gnarff,
You are talking faith, I was talking religion.For the question of the separation of church and state the difference is negligible. What counts is that the state doesn't involve itself in the matter, or rather, that organised religion or their faithful don't involve the state in the matter and try to use the state as an instrument or vessel to spread or enforce their particular religious views. EDIT: That would then also and consequently extend to agnostic or atheist (world-)views and their enforcement, as in the late communist states./EDIT

That is so because the state is infinitely more powerful than the individual and because in the past hideous things have happened to those who dared oppose states on issues of faith or religion. If I remember rightly, those pilgrim fathers knew a thing about that or two.

Accomplished witht he death and resurrection of Christ.Christ has died...check. Christ is risen...again, check. Christ will come again Uh...did I miss the second coming? Christ returned to the world once more as the king of kings, and I didn't notice? Did I miss judgment day? Did I miss the rapture? Everything has been accomplished? Really?


[Actually, yes, it happened last Saturday, but the papers were covering Lindsay Lohan and Brittney Spears' sister being pregnant, so it is understandable that you missed it. /sarcasm ;) - dmc]

Since people are so diverse laws are made to keep society from being chaotic. Morals are those things that people believe to be right or wrong whether they are legally stated or not. Someone needs to teach morals. We now have a society with a very high divorce rate, latch key children and take out food.

Not the whole thing, but a watered down portion--enough to maintain social order. I don't expect a sacrement or communion in the classroom, but a few minutes a day (Really, how long does it take to read the Lord's Prayer?) and basic instruction on ethics.


It's amazing how interconnected these two statements are. Yet they fly right past each other in a meaningless quest for the real solutions to the most over-heated, over-argued and the most obvious set of social issues and problems of the last few decades, perhaps even longer (except maybe the latch key children part, unless the author means to say that there is a problem for parents in finding affordable and adequate daycare for their children these days - which would be very true). One author states the issues, as she sees it, and the other author provides the quick and obvious solutions, which seems quite obvious to him and to a lot of other folks.

Someone needs to teach morals.

Well, yes. That's fine and dandy. But which morals are we speaking of and who's going to teach them? Of course, Gnarf has an answer, maybe not the whole solution for everyone, but a very reasonable answer: The fundamental morals of the popular religion within a given society. Great. Isn't that really the function of religion? That is a solution: An obvious solution for an obvious set of problems - we all want less divorce, better daycare for our children and healthier foods, among other things. Right?

Further, we all agree that we should have more "order" and less "chaos." That's a good thing for all of us (just leave me my take-out pizza and beer, Ok?). The function of the gods has pretty much always been to fashion order from chaos. Even the pagans were no different, and believed that Thor held back the forces of chaos with his hammer. That was his job. But hey, we still remember him on "Thursday."

The late writer, John Gardner, clamied that Thor is no longer with us (another newsflash), but we still have the symbol of his hammer as a means of holding back chaos, which would otherwise overwhelm our highly-regarded order. John even wrote a book about how "good fiction should be moral." But that does not sound very "Christian" to me. It has been pointed out that the Lord's Prayer is not really a "Christian" prayer because it was fashioned by someone who was Jewish (newsflashes continue to abound). Well, Christmas didn't really begin as a "Christian" holiday either. But yet, it is now the most highly regarded "Christian" holiday next to...Easter...which really was...damn those pagans and their rabbits anyway.

My point in all this is not to be subversive (well, maybe a little), but to point out that not much in society, or in the church, or within the state, is "pure." I can tell you that my point is definitely not to diminsh the spirtual and sacred importance of Christmas or Easter. But sometimes, chaos is inescapable, just as sometimes a bad divorce is better than a marriage that is even worse (where did I leave that ex-wife anyway?). And occasionally takeout pizza is "better" than chopped broccoli, especially with beer. I want the best for my children and I do my very best to get them the finest care I can afford. But my four year old would still much rather be at home with her mom during the day. There is a lot wrong with society: Divorce is pretty ugly, and a lot of kids have it rougher than they should (and we should work on that), and for sure Big Macs can kill you. But I'm still glad that I forgot where I left my ex-wife. Hurray, for freedom choice.

SNIP
Perhaps I don't agree with the way Gnarf has worded some of his arguments but I do agree with the idea that we do need to teach morality. Having been a teacher I do have some strongly held opinions about what should and should not be done. And that is my :2c:

I don't think anyone will ever disagree with the bottom line premise there. The question, as Chandos explained so eloquently, is which morality and how and where to teach it. The irony is that the morality I want my kids to understand and appreciate and practice is pretty much in lockstep with Christian morality, it simply doesn't have the religious overtones, and I won't allow it to.

@Gnarff:
Not the whole thing, but a watered down portion--enough to maintain social order. I don't expect a sacrement or communion in the classroom, but a few minutes a day (Really, how long does it take to read the Lord's Prayer?) and basic instruction on ethics.


So, you mean the part that the early Christians took verbatim from their Jewish roots (the idea of social justice is all over Torah), and that many other cultures around the world arrived at independently? There's nothing inherently Christian or even religious about those principles. As for saying the Lord's prayer everyday... you'd have people hypocritically mouth words they don't mean? Personally, I think that insincere worship is worse than none at all.

Another question, what exactly does the Lords Prayer teach us morally? About the only line is "as we forgive those who trespass (or sin) against us."

Another question, what exactly does the Lords Prayer teach us morally? About the only line is "as we forgive those who trespass (or sin) against us."

Exactly what I was thinking.

Maybe the Second Coming is coming!

Actually I've come to the conclusion that I will be in the bathroom when that happens. It seems I'm always there when something cool happens...

So I argue that the Lord's Prayer is not originally a Christian Prayer. I do not advocate its being read aloud in public schools but I see nothing wrong with a few minutes of silent meditation. So the kids sit there and dream about the latest computer game.

Could that be part of a compromise? Perhaps not a set prayer (In Mormonism there are a total of three used outside of the Temple), but some public statement towards the desired morality that the school requires of the students (As Drew will point out, there is an Aethiest view, I'll leave that to him). The important thing is that the school is addressing the morality that they feel will further the rest of the education process.

Christ has died...check. Christ is risen...again, check. Christ will come again

The Second coming was not a condition of the Law of Moses. It was fulfilled with the coming of Christ, his death and ressurection. The second coming was involved with the new covenents made during Christ's ministry on Earth.

(just leave me my take-out pizza and beer, Ok?).

damn those pagans and their rabbits anyway.

I agree with you on the Pizza, I'll let you have your beer, if you leave me the chocolate bunnies...

sometimes a bad divorce is better than a marriage that is even worse

Sad but true. I wasn't even planning to challenge that one.

So, you mean the part that the early Christians took verbatim from their Jewish roots (the idea of social justice is all over Torah), and that many other cultures around the world arrived at independently? There's nothing inherently Christian or even religious about those principles.

It is repeatedly pointed out that Christianity has no monopoly on these principles, but it is a convenient package to teach them. You mentioned the Torah also addressing these principles. That's more than some of my critics have offered to this conversation...

As for saying the Lord's prayer everyday... you'd have people hypocritically mouth words they don't mean? Personally, I think that insincere worship is worse than none at all.

That's why I was suggesting that the prayer (or other daily moral statement if that option is chosen) be read over the loudspeaker, by a believer if available. Then those kids that believe can quietly observe, and those that do not are asked to sit quietly and respect those that choose to observe.

Further, the prayer is listed in Matthew 6: 9 to 13. Matthew 6: 7 stated taht vain repetitions are not the manner in which we ought to pray, and verse 9 starts with "After this manner therefore pray ye:" This suggests that the Lord's Prayer is merely a template upon which to structure our prayers, addressing God, giving thanks for the blessings in your life, then making your petitions to him, then close formally.

Another question, what exactly does the Lords Prayer teach us morally?

Perspective (God at the top, As a loving father, a desire to return to His presence), Reverence and Gratitude (Hallowing the name of God shows worship and gratitude, as well as establishing his name as sacred), Humility (Thy will be done), Suplication (Requesting their sustenance, hoping for a continuance of favourable conditions, protection from evil), forgiveness (which Caracoth pointed out), Guidance (Lead us not into temptation). Could these be desireable moral traits for out kids to learn?

That's why I was suggesting that the prayer (or other daily moral statement if that option is chosen) be read over the loudspeaker, by a believer if available. Then those kids that believe can quietly observe, and those that do not are asked to sit quietly and respect those that choose to observe.

I prefer that the respect go both ways. Hypocrisy and double standards don't sit well with me.

As Drew will point out, there is an Aethiest view, I'll leave that to him.I'm no Atheist, Gnarff, and I certainly can't speak for all Atheists, either. For that matter, no Atheist can speak for all Atheists. Atheism is not a religion, and most Atheists arrive at that conclusion (that there is no God) on their own. They don't attend meetings (well...some do) and they have no formal declaration of faith. In truth, the only thing all Atheists have in common is their shared belief that there is no God (and the smug sense of self-satisfaction that comes with it).

The Second coming was not a condition of the Law of Moses. It was fulfilled with the coming of Christ, his death and ressurection. The second coming was involved with the new covenents made during Christ's ministry on Earth.Gnarff, Christ said I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Nowhere in that statement does Christ state that fulfilling the law will, in any way, loosen its restrictions. In fact, he states the opposite. Until "heaven and earth disappear" and "everything (not "everything except the stuff that happens after I conquer death", not "everything except the stuff that isn't accounted for in the Torah...he said "everything"*) is accomplished, the law will not be changed. Christ came to the earth to fulfill the law (specifically, the prophecies of Isaiah), not to abolish it. He makes that quite clear.

* Last I checked, "everything" means, well, everything. Further, assuming that Christ really was only talking about everything that happens up until the point at which he conquers death (which would have only been about a year or 2 away at most), why on earth did he add that jazz about "until heaven and earth disappear"? By most estimates, heaven and earth won't be going anywhere for at least a few billion years, and even in Christ's time, I doubt they thought it was going be ending any time soon. What's the point of slapping a mult-billion year guarantee on a contract that's only good for a few years?

Hokay, I'm going out on a limb here. I find this argument about religion silly especially as it has nothing to do with the original theme of the thread.

There are contradictions in the Bible, both the OT and the NT. Some people believe these can be explained and aren't really contradictions.

Jesus taught love and tolerance. "Love God. Love your neighbor. These are the two great commandments." When accused of letting his followers 'work' he said, "The sabbath was made for man not man for the sabbath." In the Acts of the Apostles Peter has a vision that it is alright to eat forbidden food. Paul says that men don't have to be circumcised.

We don't know what training Jesus had or even if he had any. As far as we know he was an itinerant street preacher. At around age 30 he went out to the desert and fasted for 40 days and nights then had a vision.

When it comes to Catholic theology I'm pretty sure my credentials are very high. Maybe Chev's are better especially since he has studied it much more recently

Religious arguments are a waste of time especially when it is obvious that those arguing don't have the slightest intention of trying to see the other person's view point.

I don't like cauliflower and there is no way you can make me. Covering it with cheese may make it eatable but is a waste of the cheese. :p

Nakia, it may look like I'm not willing to see Gnarff's point of view, but that isn't actually the case. This whole thing started because I said that there were many instructions in the bible that, if taken literally, would have us doing some doing some insane and outright immoral things; and therefore reason has to be judiciously applied in the way we interpret the bible. Gnarff took offense to my choice of example and addressed me as if I knew nothing whatsoever about theology or the bible. I need not "win", here. I merely need to Gnarff to see that my position is valid.

"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." :deadhorse: :bang:

The last sentence in my previous post simply means that if I am convinced of something there is nothing that you can say or do to change my mind.

In order to recognize the position of someone else as valid, one need not change one's mind. I don't need to agree with someone in order to see his interpretation as valid, no?

All that said, I stand against uniform morals being taught by the government, since most people will never agree on a fixed set of morals, and also because I don't think that's what government is for. The laws which govern us exist not to instill morality, obedience, or order. At least here in the west, they exist to protect the rights of the individual.

Where other nations are concerned, we should probably view other nations as individuals in their own right to some degree. We can't make other nations think like us, but we do need an open dialogue, and there certainly are times we need to intervene. Much like stepping in to help an alcoholic or someone involved in an abusive relationship, we likewise do need to step in when another nation is oppressing its people too much (the pertinent question, of course, being "how much is too much?") or threatening to invade (or invading) its neighbors. Any attempt of one nation to instill its great appreciation of individual freedoms onto another nation at gunpoint has been shown, historically, to backfire, which is why dialogue is so important.

Drew,In order to recognize the position of someone else as valid, one need not change one's mind. I don't need to agree with someone in order to see his interpretation as valid, no?You do refer to the difference between comprehension and endorsement?

That is very important. The Palestine conflict is a case in point. I can comprehend both the Israeli and Palestinian positions without endorsing either. Still, when I observe the reaction to people making arguments on the Palestinian's behalf in the US, the result usually is a backlash and the most frequent accusations are that they must clearly be (a) anti-semites and (b) terrorist lovers, or if they are Jewish, (c) self-hating Jews. What is not a particularly productive discussion. The reason for why that is so is simple. It doesn't mean that Americans lack an understanding about the differences between comprehension and endorsement. It merely shows that US - as state and polity - have an emotional attachment to the State of Israel. That means the US as a polity are not neutral.

They are far from being alone in this regard, there are other countries having a similar predisposition - for instance Russia and Serbia, or Iran and Hezbollah - many countries do have emotional, ethnical or historical attachments to vassal populations outside of their own borders. Ignoring this will lead to the false presumption their engagement on their behalf can only have nefarious ulterior motives.

Making the proper distinction will lead to the insight that this is about interests and that level of understanding is far better suited to a resolution rather than escalation, or horrors, a locked conflict. For that to work one needs to be willing to see shades of grey between all the black and white.

In order to recognize the position of someone else as valid, one need not change one's mind. I don't need to agree with someone in order to see his interpretation as valid, no?

Here we run into the problem of semantics.

1: having legal efficacy or force; especially : executed with the proper legal authority and formalities <a valid contract>
2 a: well-grounded or justifiable : being at once relevant and meaningful <a valid theory> b: logically correct <a valid argument> <valid inference>
3: appropriate to the end in view : effective <every craft has its own valid methods>

Drew's arguments maybe valid in the meaning of #2 but if someone believes that there is only one interpretation or one way of doing something or believing something they will never accept your argument as valid. The most we can ask is that they accept your right to believe as you do.

Another question, what exactly does the Lords Prayer teach us morally?
Perspective (God at the top, As a loving father, a desire to return to His presence), Reverence and Gratitude (Hallowing the name of God shows worship and gratitude, as well as establishing his name as sacred), Humility (Thy will be done), Suplication (Requesting their sustenance, hoping for a continuance of favourable conditions, protection from evil), forgiveness (which Caracoth pointed out), Guidance (Lead us not into temptation). Could these be desireable moral traits for out kids to learn?
Those aren't moral traits. Mostly, they are just paying homage to a god, which is a ridiculous thing to do if you don't believe in that god in the first place. That is all the more reason that the lord's prayer has no place in public schools.

Drew,You do refer to the difference between comprehension and endorsement?Yes. I also refer to the fact that two arguments can be equally (if only rarely) sound in their logic and that their difference lies primarily in a few disputed or murky facts. The end conclusion about the best course of action would lie with one's point of view. A good example, I think, would be criminal law. In some justice systems, the state is required to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and the accused has no burden whatsoever to prove his innocence. In others, the burden lies with the accused.

In the first system, many guilty people will likely go free and a lesser number of innocents will probably be wrongfully imprisoned. In the second, few guilty people will go free, but a greater number of innocents will likely be wrongfully imprisoned. Which model is superior is likely going to come down to your point of view.

If you feel that it is better to free the occasional guilty man than to imprison as many as possible, you'll probably prefer the first system; even though smart criminals who know how to cover their tracks well enough to avoid a conviction will likely not be as deterred by it. If you feel it is more important to imprison as many guilty people as possible, then you will likely prefer the second system; even though more innocent people will likely be falsely imprisoned. Both perspectives are valid.

Drew's arguments maybe valid in the meaning of #2 but if someone believes that there is only one interpretation or one way of doing something or believing something they will never accept your argument as valid.Fair enough.

The most we can ask is that they accept your right to believe as you do.The problem with this, though, is that someone who advocates forcing religious edicts upon the masses isn't going to accept your right to believe as you do, either. If he did, he probably wouldn't be trying to foist religious edicts onto the populous.

I prefer that the respect go both ways. Hypocrisy and double standards don't sit well with me.

I call that the lesser evil. If asking someone who does not share the religious views of the school to sit down ans shut up while others are observing helps put order in place in a school, then I am prepared to ask that.

most Atheists arrive at that conclusion (that there is no God) on their own. They don't attend meetings (well...some do) and they have no formal declaration of faith. In truth, the only thing all Atheists have in common is their shared belief that there is no God (and the smug sense of self-satisfaction that comes with it).

So they take something out that offends them with no thought to what would replace it's actual function (after denying the function), and don't want to switch back or solve the problem. Thank you (Whoever you are that subjected us to this) so much for tearing down a functional system to satisfy your own vanity.

I stand against uniform morals being taught by the government, since most people will never agree on a fixed set of morals, and also because I don't think that's what government is for. The laws which govern us exist not to instill morality, obedience, or order. At least here in the west, they exist to protect the rights of the individual.

I take the opposite position. The Buck has to stop somewhere, and someone somewhere has to be accountable for those in their stewardship. The Government is one of those institutions. The Principal of a school is another such individual. If those individuals or institutions do not have the right to institute a set morality then society is in trouble. If the person accountable for overseeing a conducive to learning while ensuring the safety of their students does not have the authority do do his job, then that is not good for society as a whole.

is that someone who advocates forcing religious edicts upon the masses isn't going to accept your right to believe as you do, either. If he did, he probably wouldn't be trying to foist religious edicts onto the populous.

I'm not talking about enforcing theology, only a pattern of behaviour. What they walk away from the school believing in a thrological manner is not my stewardship, and thus none of my business. But while they are in my school, I would demand that people abide my rules. It is no longer about consensus, but about giving authority to people to do what they are responsible for...

I call that the lesser evil. If asking someone who does not share the religious views of the school to sit down ans shut up while others are observing helps put order in place in a school, then I am prepared to ask that.

So am I. Of course, one must be aware that the lord's prayer won't make any contribution whatsoever to "putting order in place in a school". At best, for those who do not worship that particular deity, there is indifference, and there may even be resentment. The lord's prayer is only preaching to the choir. And that choir is already having that message drilled into their heads at their church.

Perspective (God at the top, As a loving father, a desire to return to His presence),

So, here we arrive at the serious statement. What exactly is meant by the "top?" I believe that the model of the vertical hierarchy is ultimately flawed, and has nothing at all to do with what God meant for us. The grand Patriarchal scheme is a sham. It has been floated about by almost every tyrant - the petty and the grand - since the beginning of recorded history. There is no doubt that we can view God as a "loving father" but the suggestion of the "top" and the bottom has nothing to do with what's in the Lord's Prayer. That part is an invention by those who wish to have a lofty place in the hierarchy for themselves (which they helped invent) and that includes the tyrannical clergy as well.

Splunge: It may (should?) even be something other/more than the Lord's Prayer. It may even come from non Christian sources, as long as some principal approved moral statement (A religious observance would be optional, rather than required or forbidden) is provided at the beginning of the day. Perhaps the Lord's Prayer followed by a little comment on the moral code the school expects of the student.

So they take something out that offends them with no thought to what would replace it's actual function (after denying the function), and don't want to switch back or solve the problem. Thank you (Whoever you are that subjected us to this) so much for tearing down a functional system to satisfy your own vanity.Gnarff, Atheism isn't about vanity. If you believed that God was a lie, wouldn't you want to end that lie, too? Belief systems built on lies have a tendency to crumble when the truth is revealed. Despite not viewing religion as a lie, I also don't want to see religion have a hold on society, because (1)there are many religions which contradict each other and (2)I have never seen even a tiny sliver of hard, factual evidence either proving or disproving the existence of God, let alone giving us a clue as to the nature of God (if God even exists). This doesn't make me vain. It makes me agnostic. Neither atheists or theists come to the debate armed with facts. If you were to provide me with hard, factual, irrefutable evidence of the existence or non-existence of God, I would cease to be agnostic. Most Atheists faced with hard evidence of the existence of God would cease to be Atheists, too.

Never assume that you know why a person does or believes something. Never assume someone else's intent. The only person that can tell you why they said, did, or believed something is the person who said, did, or believed it. Assuming you already know the answer without bothering to ask...if anything is vain, it's doing that.

Splunge: It may (should?) even be something other/more than the Lord's Prayer. It may even come from non Christian sources, as long as some principal approved moral statement (A religious observance would be optional, rather than required or forbidden) is provided at the beginning of the day. Perhaps the Lord's Prayer followed by a little comment on the moral code the school expects of the student.

Again, there is no worthwhile moral statement in the lord's prayer. All it does is pay homage to a deity that many don't believe in. Rephrase it in a non-religious way, and I might accept its relevance. Although it would end up being basically devoid of any worthwhile message.

Perhaps the Lord's Prayer followed by a little comment on the moral code the school expects of the student.

To be honest, it's not what I want the schools to provide. I believe that that is the function of the parents and the Church. I think it's ok for the schools to provide moral reinforcement, but that's about it. Especially since the type of morality you are proposing is of a highly personal nature. What you are proposing is conformity and not freedom of choice.

Atheism isn't about vanity.

I interpret the behaviour I've seen from organized Aetheist movements as vain. They challenge parts of society to change it to suit what they want.

If you believed that God was a lie, wouldn't you want to end that lie, too?

I see that point, but I also accuse the more organized movements of not considering the consequences of their actions, and creating worse problems for society than what they already believe exists from the acceptance of what they don't believe.

Although it would end up being basically devoid of any worthwhile message.

Under my idea, this or any prayer would be optional--even for Chirstians. Most of the time, a set prayer (unless part of a specific ordinance) tends to draw the same reaction as a rerun on TV. For those that don't care, even the ordinance would receive that same reaction. What is important would be a statement of moral or ethical principles (Sorry Drew, I still have difficulty drawing that line between them). These would be designed to instruct students on a code or pattern of behaviour that would foster an envrionment where the mandated learning would be facilitated.

To be honest, it's not what I want the schools to provide. I believe that that is the function of the parents and the Church. I think it's ok for the schools to provide moral reinforcement, but that's about it. Especially since the type of morality you are proposing is of a highly personal nature. What you are proposing is conformity and not freedom of choice.

In your home, you have an obligation to keep order between the children in your care. On such a smaller scale, you have more options available, and a better insight into the individual children in your home.

Conversely, in a school, administration has an obligation to k