Atheists; what do you base your morals on?

[Whateverist]

The ice cream analogy works pretty damn well. What we feed kids at school are just the non-controversial parts. Any flourishes you want to add are up to you. Want them to meditate before a statue of the buddha? That's on you. Want them to light incense at an alter to the Hindu gods? You again. Want them to believe there is no god? You've got to do it. Want them to believe the world was created in seven days about 6000 years ago at which time folks rode around on dinosaurs? Totally up to you. Sprinkle your ice cream with what you like.

As a secular society -you know, separation of church and state- what we teach in school should be non-controversial. If what you believe is controversial in a secular society, it's on you to provide your own indoctrination. Society as a whole is not served by providing it for you. Say you're some survivalist nutter and want your kids to fear the government and prepare for anarchy. Why in the world would we provide that in schools? Why should we let every fringe group allocate their portion of tax revenue as they see fit? The only sensible thing to do is provide the non-controversial education which serves the needs of a secular society and let everyone add their own toppings to that. And I wouldn't care if Christians made up 99% of the population, the minority is entitled to some rights as well and a secular society has a stake in ensuring those.

[jstrodel]

Why should we let every fringe group allocate their portion of tax revenue as they see fit? The only sensible thing to do is provide the non-controversial education which serves the needs of a secular society and let everyone add their own toppings to that.

But the education system is extremely controversial. That is what I think we should do, have basic standards for education and then let people pick their own schools. But I don't see having some choice in the way education is presented as being a topic on the cake, people spend the bulk of their youth in school.

[Whateverist]

Why should we let every fringe group allocate their portion of tax revenue as they see fit? The only sensible thing to do is provide the non-controversial education which serves the needs of a secular society and let everyone add their own toppings to that.

But the education system is extremely controversial. That is what I think we should do, have basic standards for education and then let people pick their own schools. But I don't see having some choice in the way education is presented as being a topic on the cake, people spend the bulk of their youth in school.

But that doesn't serve the needs of a secular society. This is a dance between providing maximal liberty to the individual while furthering cohesion to the group as a whole. To provide every configuration of individual preference in public schools would not serve the second goal, not to mention being far more expensive.

The founding fathers were most concerned to prevent any one religious group from getting control and suppressing the others. Thus the need for a government which provides everyone the opportunity to worship as they please while favoring none.

If the whole country lived in separate ghettos of baptists and hindus and catholics and atheists and, and, and .. then we could have community schools which served all while allowing them to add all the religion they like in school. But would that be the best thing for the nation as a whole? Isn't that the path to tribalism and division? In order to strengthen the union which provides the protection of all to worship as they wish there is a need to promote respectful interaction and affiliations beyond religion.

[Fruity]

jstrodel wrote:

There is nothing unreasonable about wanting the system to reflect the interests of the majority,

It is unreasonable in so many ways. How should we do this? Let's give the race majority the last word in what ethnicity can go to school and who sits where. No wait! I think we have more women than men in the US, so women get to decide the gender of all our government officials. No wait! It doesn't work that way. It's called civilization. We protect ALL of our people. I agree to do this for you if you agree to do the same for me. I won't rob your house at night if you agree to not rob mine. I agree to not rape you if you agree to not rape me. I agree to not mix my religion in your child's education if you agree to not mix your religion in my child's education. Now that we agree to not mix it in, let's educate our children in everything else except religion (unless you plan to teach about every single religion to be fair). You get to go to church in your spare time as I get to... do something funner that you wouldn't like... in my spare time. YOU don't realize how authoritarian YOU are, Mr. jstodel.

[jstrodel]

jstrodel wrote:

There is nothing unreasonable about wanting the system to reflect the interests of the majority,

It is unreasonable in so many ways. How should we do this? Let's give the race majority the last word in what ethnicity can go to school and who sits where. No wait! I think we have more women than men in the US, so women get to decide the gender of all our government officials. No wait! It doesn't work that way. It's called civilization. We protect ALL of our people. I agree to do this for you if you agree to do the same for me. I won't rob your house at night if you agree to not rob mine. I agree to not rape you if you agree to not rape me. I agree to not mix my religion in your child's education if you agree to not mix your religion in my child's education. Now that we agree to not mix it in, let's educate our children in everything else except religion (unless you plan to teach about every single religion to be fair). You get to go to church in your spare time as I get to... do something funner that you wouldn't like... in my spare time. YOU don't realize how authoritarian YOU are, Mr. jstodel.

I advocated for a modest restructuring of educational finance, permitting people to use their tax dollars to fund schools that are closer to what they believe.

The fact that you took what I said out of context and ran with it proves that you don't really care what I have to say.

It is not authoritarian to want people to be able to choose, for instance, whether they go to a school which indoctrinates people with a secular ideology that is against their religious beliefs or not.

[Whateverist]

I agree to not mix my religion in your child's education if you agree to not mix your religion in my child's education. Now that we agree to not mix it in, let's educate our children in everything else except religion (unless you plan to teach about every single religion to be fair).

The trouble with some Christian denominations is they see secularism as an enemy world view. What they fail to realize is that what we have is just what you've described here. We as a nation take religion so seriously that we were founded in such a way as to allow all groups to be able to pursue it in their own way. Secularism is not an alternative to Christianity, it is the guarantor of each and every denomination's ability to practice as they see fit.

I agree to not rape you if you agree to not rape me.

Alternatively I agree to allow you to rape me a little if I can rape you a little in return. Could be fun.

---

It is not authoritarian to want people to be able to choose, for instance, whether they go to a school which indoctrinates people with a secular ideology that is against their religious beliefs or not.

How is secular ideology against your religious beliefs?

[Esquilax]

It is not authoritarian to want people to be able to choose, for instance, whether they go to a school which indoctrinates people with a secular ideology that is against their religious beliefs or not.

Can you prove a secular ideology in schools? I mean, I got taught science and math and language and all those nice things, but I was never propped up to disbelieve in any religion.

Beyond that, like you said, the majority of your country is christian: doesn't it then follow that the majority of teachers and school administrators are also christian? Where is this secular brainwashing coming from?

Alternatively I agree to allow you to rape me a little if I can rape you a little in return. Could be fun.

I knew there was a reason I liked you, Mr Whateverist.

[jstrodel]

But that doesn't serve the needs of a secular society.

This is where our beliefs systems diverge, you are interested in making people actions conform to serve the ends of "secular society" while I have a different goal. It is true that many of the consequences you have mentioned could possibly happen through having more separate communities. I would consider that as a serious problem with denominationalism and having different religious factions. Historically it has led to war.

But your argument fails to take into account that liberal multiculturalism itself is a separate faction, and a faction that exerts a heavy weight upon society. Does liberal multiculturalism actually have the philosophical authority to act as a chief cultural agent of authority? Have you ever read Alaisdair MacIntyre's critique of the moral language of modernity? It is certainly related to the economics of education and the sort of arguments you are making.

I would argue further that liberal multiculturalism has the same problems that are associated with religious factions: divisions, potential for violence, potential within the multicultural groupings for other sorts of tribalism (consider gang activity in big city schools). The difference is that in the context of multicultural organization, little philosophical resources can be drawn from in order to teach authoritatively when it comes to what it means to live the good life. Political beliefs have no value. No one cares about the law. No one feels obligated to follow it.

Rules are rooted in the pragmatic ethics that makes them seem hollow. There is little reason to follow them, except to pursue selfish ends.

Multicultural approaches to uniting disparate ideologies and philosophies that seemed at the outset to not want to impinge on the integrity of the ideologies or religious beliefs seems in practice with the educational and vocational devaluing of religious or philosophical beliefs to undermine them and weaken and trivialize their obvious demand for the whole person, no only what is left over after liberalism.

In the end a sort of tribalism emerges, a tribalism against tribalism, what we have is the most confused psuedo-philosophy of post-modernism ever created. The wealthiest country in history must use all of its educational resources to try and clarify and understand not the nature of human life but how to get different people to abandon their differences and worship the state.

A hardly inspiring vision.

[Esquilax]

...

Oh my, we've gone off the rails into crazyland again. Thanks, Strodel! For a while I was actually enjoying my cogent conversation.

[jstrodel]

[quote='Esquilax' pid='415695' dateline='1363454608']

Can you prove a secular ideology in schools?

I mean, I got taught science and math and language and all those nice things, but I was never propped up to disbelieve in any religion.

The way that those subjects are organized is along the lines of a vision that people have for multicultural/liberal education that is an ideology, and that has many assumptions about education that would be different, for instance, the way Harvard U or Oxford U was run 150 years ago.

I put you on ignore. Sorry, don't feel like dealing with the attitude.