The Establishment Clause was installed for a good reason.
1 Like
In Britain, teaching about religion has acted as an inoculation, because kids learn how religions are all silly in similar ways
1 Like
Religion can be taught without indoctrination. In high school, I took Literature of the Bible. My mother didn’t want me to take because she feared I’d lose belief. I not only took it, but in college I took many other courses in religion and philosophy. I don’t object to teaching religion- teach all of them, but do not indoctrinate. Teach the religious texts as literature, teach them as a comparative course or world religion, but not just one, in which to indoctrinate. There is a difference between teaching religion and teaching Catholicism or A of G beliefs.
1 Like
Well said. The Founding Fathers were naïve in some ways but they paid attention to the politics of the time.
Watered-down transcendence. Secular Humanism is just liberal Christianity with God taken out.
Do you have proof of that? I’d like to see it.
What is transcendence in psychology?
“Transcendence refers to the very highest and most inclusive or holistic levels of human consciousness, behaving and relating, as ends rather than means, to oneself, to significant others, to human beings in general, to other species, to nature, and to the cosmos.” Oct 2, 2020
https://przekroj.pl/en/society/7-common-traits-of-self-transcended-people-mike-colagrossi
Taken out from whom? From which minds? How? Secular humanism is the enlightened response of rational people to the fact of meaninglessness [apart from whatever we make up]. God is absolutely irrelevant. There is no warrant for putting Him in. Even should He turn out to be the ground of being.
My question was in rhetorical refutation of @write4u’s
Religion does not offer anything that cannot be attained by Secular Humanism. I am not denigrading [a nice blend of denigrate and down grade!] its potential psychological utility, but it is redundant and superfluous.
SH cannot offer the rational hope for non-rational afterlife, for transcendence of death and thinking trapped in hard wires. Attempting to live a life maximizing service to others is enlightened self interest, is its own reward, is sublime, as transcendent as it gets. In God or no.
You make that sound like a bad thing.
Like taking the supernatural part out of religion is something anyone can do, some sort of Associates degree in minor surgery on embedded culture, that’s all you need.
Even practicing Christians agree that the Christianity we got, the one formed in 385 by the Romans, was not the best version. That very conservative idea, that you could force one religion on a large part of the world, has historically not worked out.
1 Like
Although that is pre-empted in faith schools - mainly RC - and madrasas. Most disastrously in NI.
They can also see how anthropologically, culturally fascinating they are and learn how to respect the vulnerable, minority other and their funny little ways. How to love your enemies which young Dickie consistently fails to do. He back pedalled on Peter Kay once.
Well why not? What’s so admirable about Christian’s Abrahamic ego-centric outlook on life and the blinders that alienate us from this planet that created us? It’s always all about us. That sucks and leads us to self destruction. As the current dead road humanity is one makes all too vivid for those with the guts to fact it with honesty.
I guess I didn’t look at it from that angle. I was thinking about an incremental step away from supernatural-based all-or-nothing Christianity. Some versions of Humanism are just that. You are thinking about a complete break from the idea of accepting personal revelation in any form. I know you phrase it differently, but I think I get your question anyway.
Hmmmm.
Well interesting though, all sorts of scientific breakthrough have acted as personal revelation for me. Only difference mine were about Earth and evolution and my body, which is me.
First time the full implication of the Moon’s formation, particular the tidal actions Earth was subjected to was nothing less than a revelation, that lead to another revelation of thinking of the surface of Earth without any life form, how much different landscapes were as a result. Those had real intellectual/emotional weight, that permeated me and altered my outlook.
You should have seen me after slogging though that hideous book Hoffman wrote, then discovering Mark Solms and those two days of binging on his lecture videos - having all these disparate threads finally come together in harmony with my own crude impressions - it was intellectual fireworks and emotional rush of epic proportions, as good as anything I’ve heard about the religious revelations.
Religion without the supernatural is too boring for the majority of people.
I had to look up the number of Catholics worldwide. It’s a little over 1 billion. Tell us more about how it hasn’t worked out.
1.9 billion Muslims, 750 million atheists, the rest divided among 4000 minor religions and sects.
The major point is that all atheist are united in their rejection of the concept of a (any) god, whereas all theists believe in the existence of hundreds of different gods and claiming their god is the only true god…
What a mess.
The part where they burn writings and buildings of the other religions, conquer in the name of their god, create classes of citizen, stuff like that.
I said I think religion should be taught in schools. Christianity is just one branch of many religions. Why should we teach religion? Because it is part of our heritage, and our civilization is built upon past civilizations.
Jesus the man was a Sadducee. Which would have been a capitalist. Mark 15:17 and John 19:2 says Jesus’s robe was purple. A sign of the rich.
What are you asking me? It is like civilization has jumped out of an airplane and halfway down you are asking if I think mankind should not jump. It is a little late for that question. That question was answered by our creators 12,400 years ago. You should have learned that in school if religion was taught. You are telling me that nature is not in-balanced. Yes, we have domestication vs. nature. If we stop the growth of domestication we can then balance with nature. But that is not going to happen anytime soon. Seven times in the past much of the population was wiped out by plagues and natural events. But the populations came back.
You may be right. But it is still best system that will help nature the best. Socialism is hell on nature *. ay 17, 2019 — Economist Jeffrey Sachs noted at the time that the socialist nations had “some of the worst environmental problems in the entire globe. The New York Times called Sachs “probably the most important economist in the world,” and Time magazine called Sachs “the world’s best-known economist.”
Yet, socialism is trying to sell that socialism is connected and good for nature.
You got that right.
The fact is that 90% of the food you eat is domesticated, not natural. Even the stores that sell natural foods are misleading. There are very little if no undomesticated food available today.
Facts are that domestication has been good for mankind and bad for nature. And capitalism has been good for mankind. When it comes to Terror and Famine that is found under socialism.
Here’s an idea from a different pathway.
“We think of the tree of life, with genetic material passing vertically from mom and dad. But with horizontal gene transfer becoming more widely accepted and more well known, at least in certain organisms, it is beginning to change the way we think about evolution and inheritance of genetic material,” said Boothby. “Instead of thinking of the tree of life, we can think about the web of life and genetic material crossing from branch to branch … it’s exciting. We are beginning to adjust our understanding of how evolution works.”
https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-osbiology2e/chapter/perspectives-on-the-phylogenetic-tree/
The top ten states that have the greatest number of animals are all republican.
You mean if Mike Yohe’s version of history was taught. I’ve covered your confusion on “domestication” a few times, it was a bottom-up strategy, not some “knowledge lords” like you talk about. Even that history is being drawn into question. We talk about nation-states as if they are the natural progression of human civilization and the ultimate form of governance. But look at how people act, as if borders are a problem, as if it’s the land and culture that drive where they want to be. The upper classes can move freely but they are the ones who want to enforce those borders when it’s the lower classes who want to be free too.
1 Like
But those things did not really impede the spread of the religion.
Then what did? What caused Protestantism? Why did we invent entirely new forms of government that wanted to be free from Christian rule? How is reaching less than 1/3 of the world, then declining, not equal to “stopping the spread”?
Splendid, the problem comes in when people actually want to peddle their favorite religion as some divine wisdom handed down from on high.
Treat religion with the sober appreciation that our god’s and religions come from within the human mind and spirit - that it would be a good class, under the subheading of human philosophies and history.