Originally posted by Doctor Robert You want me to listen to you because "your common sense is an enlightened one" rather than listen to you because you are presenting me with information and an coherent arguement? You think that the complete absence of any FACTS in your thread is OUT-THINKING? I would call it intellectually lazy. Humanity has never been advanced by lazy thinking. Try aiming a little higher and actually look into these issues on sociological, psychological, political, and theological levels. That might gain my respect, but until then I refuse to even enter the debate. <b>All I really wanted was for you to stop insulting me. I think you are one of those with Red State Myopia. The world is full of stories about how schools are failing. There is a lot of documentation of that. This piece I posted posits one possible contributing factor. I'm sorry that you are afraid to discuss it. The truth is probably that neither you nor I can "prove" anything... but you don't see me ragging on you about that. I hope your Christmas isn't ruined!</b> I can't even get you to admit THINKING is a good thing. <b>When did I ever deny that? I said that my definition of The Smell Test involved thinking and rationality.</b> I'm just calling you on your unsupported BS. If you find that embarassing, then stop responding. <b>It's all opinion. Read any newspaper for a week. You'll read plenty about the problems in the public schools. Who do you think you are kidding?</b> ALL THESE BOOKS HAVE ALREADY BEEN WRITTEN. You need to go to the library and read them. You aren't breaking new ground here. <b>I've read lots of them. Don't be ridiculous. I went to college. I've seen two kids through high school and have them now in college. My point was that you seem oblivious to very serious problems in public schools. I don't need to document that. If you want to pretend it is not so, then I need to be talking to someone else.</b> First of all, you haven't given any evidence whatsoever (only correlations) that any of these issues are caused by the separation of church and state as it applies to our publicly funded school system. Secondly, I don't believe that they are. <b>The evidence is visible in trends. I've not said that the removal of God is the only factor; I've only indicated that it is a factor-- I think a large one. Like I said earlier, I don't know how anyone proves any of this. It's not like you can use the scientific method.</b> Therefore, using your loose correlation = causation smell test, I would say that the separation of church and state is good for public schools. I present the following historical statistics on illiteracy rates (Percentage of persons 14 years old and over who were illiterate - unable to read or write in any language) from the National Center for Education Statistics: http://nces.ed.gov/naal/historicaldata/illiteracy.asp 1870-20.0% 1880-17.0% 1890-13.3% 1900-10.7% 1910-7.7% 1920-6.0% 1930-4.3% 1940-2.9% 1947-2.7% 1950-3.2% 1952-2.5% 1959-2.2% 1969-1.0% 1979-0.6% <b>Funny guy! The absence of God in school has nothing to do with reading skills, however it can have a lot to do with general behavior, respect for property, love for others, submission to authority. All those have something to do with the general effectiveness of schools.</b> Another added benefit of keeping religion out of schools, is that my children will be able to go to attend and learn about mathematics, literature, language, science, and history without being forced to believe in God. They won't be looked upon negatively by their piers because they believe in morality, ethics, and the technological development of the human race rather than The Ten Commandments and the Bible. Also, they will have friends from all over the world, and they will learn to appreciate them and their cultures without the caveat that they may all be damned for eternity. <b>Who said that anyone was "forced to believe in God?" No wonder you are so hostile. I never called for that. You're thinking of chump's nightmarish example of a private school which operates under a different set of rules. Next time don't overlook such disparities, please! I didn't know that morality and ethics were mutually exclusive to The Ten Commandments. Again, I understand your hostility better! How will they have friends all over the world because God has been thrown out of school? How does having a Christian ethic prevent someone from appreciating other cultures? You are desperate now...</b> Yeah, maybe slavery wasn't so bad. The Bible said it, so maybe that is an exception, just like the blue cheese. My common sense tells me that slavery was bad, but how do I go about figuring out if it really is or not? I do it by thinking. <b>Earth to The Doctor: "Common sense involves thinking."</b>
Well the Christians and their God got here after the Native Americans. It was religiously diverse then too but that didn't stop the bloody Christian invasion. They had no respect for the others (Native American, African, etc.) just like you. And now people of other religions, like me, are here. Things change, thank god.
Okay, now that I'm done with my daily devotional, it's time to go out and murder somebody... You are a joke.
You know I didn't call you a murderer and that was not my intent. My point was the history of American Judeo-Christian narrow-mindedness. You can stop the drama... The joke here is your lack of respect for people of other religions, and even other Christians.
No it doesn't. It lists facts and does not give any evidence of their relationship. I'm not trying to get into semantics here, but you have continually implied that your "intuition" is more valuable than constructing a position based on facts and information. You're words were, "I'm not applying the scientific method here--- just the smell test." "My idea of a Smell Test is that it demonstrates a heckuva lot of common sense" "...it describes how easy it is to out-think yourself." I'm suggesting that you use research and information to support your position, not common sense, which isn't very reliable. I wasn't trying to illustrate anything about public schools. I was trying to tell you that you could support any position your mind can invent because nothing you have said contains any facts. I was just proving the position that is exactly opposite of your own by using "correlation" instead of "causation". That is why I said, "Therefore, using your loose correlation = causation smell test". Then what is the purpose of talking about it? You listed some problems that exist in public schools. You listed some events regarding the separation of church and state. You didn't give us any facts about their relationship, but you were able to draw conclusions and assign blame? All based on your "enlightened common sense" that we should trust even though I have tried to illustrate the problems with relying on common sense in such complicated and serious issues. You are admitting defeat without even putting up a fight? If there is a problem, then you are just going to give up and say that it is a lack of religion? You can concievably blame every single problem in the world on that. Like I said before, "Our world has an ENORMOUS amount of information, research, and knowledge available to every free person in this country. You obviously have access to a very large portion of this knowledge because you have access to the internet. I would also assume that you have access to a public library, a bookstore, online book retailers, and the ability to attend any of the fine higher educational institutions that people from all over the world travel to the US to attend. - and you don't care to access any of it." There is a huge segment of the population that is devoted to researching child development, crime, education, and socioeconomic policy. 75% of the adults in my family are teachers. And you want me to believe your "enlightened common sense" over the volumes of information that is available? That is what you say, but why? Give me proof. I showed you that the general effectiveness of schools has improved consistently for the past 135 years. That is a pretty good indicator that something is going right. I certainly haven't showed that it has anything to do with the separation of church and state, but neither have you. When God is in schools, then it becomes a social issue, which I would prefer not be presented to my children. I would prefer that religion be an issue that is discussed at home. I don't want my children feeling like they have to believe in God to be accepted by others or be in a "Fellowship of Christian Students" or other social group. I want my children to decide for themselves without social pressure. They aren't. I was suggesting that moral codes can exist without religion. I think that too often people think that an absence of religion means there is no source or desire to do the right thing. I think the absence of Christianity in public schools would promote religious tolerance. Same point as above. I want it to be an issue that is discussed at home without social pressure.
It's a big frustrating world. Here is the 2001 US Census in the religion category. The numbers are X1,000.
I missed a bunch with my copyclip.... http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/03statab/pop.pdf Go to page 67.
You compared me to the Christians who slaughtered the native Americans: ~"They had no respect for other religions, just like you." Can you cite a single thing I've written here which implies a disrespect for another religion?
Originally posted by Doctor Robert I'm not trying to get into semantics here, but you have continually implied that your "intuition" is more valuable than constructing a position based on facts and information. You're words were, "I'm not applying the scientific method here--- just the smell test." "My idea of a Smell Test is that it demonstrates a heckuva lot of common sense" "...it describes how easy it is to out-think yourself." <b>You used the word intuition not me. I said that neither you nor I could prove any of this using the scientific method.</b> I'm suggesting that you use research and information to support your position, not common sense, which isn't very reliable. <b>Others have done the research. I'm here to discuss the idea but you keep cutting me off at the knees.</b> I wasn't trying to illustrate anything about public schools. I was trying to tell you that you could support any position your mind can invent because nothing you have said contains any facts. I was just proving the position that is exactly opposite of your own by using "correlation" instead of "causation". That is why I said, "Therefore, using your loose correlation = causation smell test". <b>You avoided illustrating anything about public schools when I challenged you to do so. You dredge up some tongue-in-cheek study which shows that the literary rate is on the steady incline since The Battle of the Alamo. Good news! It was kind of inevitable in those early years wasn't it...</b> Then what is the purpose of talking about it? <b>Because I don't need to document it; there's plenty of that out there. Did you do your weekly newspaper review like I suggested?</b> You listed some problems that exist in public schools. You listed some events regarding the separation of church and state. You didn't give us any facts about their relationship, but you were able to draw conclusions and assign blame? All based on your "enlightened common sense" that we should trust even though I have tried to illustrate the problems with relying on common sense in such complicated and serious issues. <b>Why do you persist in trying to promote this Lone Gunman Theory? You act like I've just made this stuff up. These concerns and criticisms have been around for years. You try to disprove common sense by hypothesizing the conclusion that a single person might reach. I'm going with the wisdom of the founding fathers here. Some or their practices and realities still exist today. Some don't. That's the problem I'm trying to discuss.</b> You are admitting defeat without even putting up a fight? If there is a problem, then you are just going to give up and say that it is a lack of religion? You can concievably blame every single problem in the world on that. <b>No I'm not. I said that the evidence is visible all around us. Read your papers. Go to a public high school with metal detectors.</b> Like I said before, "Our world has an ENORMOUS amount of information, research, and knowledge available to every free person in this country. You obviously have access to a very large portion of this knowledge because you have access to the internet. I would also assume that you have access to a public library, a bookstore, online book retailers, and the ability to attend any of the fine higher educational institutions that people from all over the world travel to the US to attend. - and you don't care to access any of it." <b>Patently not true. How do you even think to know anything about me? Have we met... because I never forget a face....</b> There is a huge segment of the population that is devoted to researching child development, crime, education, and socioeconomic policy. 75% of the adults in my family are teachers. And you want me to believe your "enlightened common sense" over the volumes of information that is available? <b>And some of them have been wrong... in spite of their credentials, their evidence, their proof, their certaintly...</b> That is what you say, but why? Give me proof. I showed you that the general effectiveness of schools has improved consistently for the past 135 years. That is a pretty good indicator that something is going right. I certainly haven't showed that it has anything to do with the separation of church and state, but neither have you. <b>You limit the "effectiveness" measure to bare literacy. Computer educaton in schools is eons beyond where it was in 1860 too! Do not put words in my mouth. I never said that nothing is right with public schools. The piece asserts, and I agree, that there are some major ways in which public schools are worse institutions than they used to be. Let's find the statistics for arrests in public high schools since the 1860s. Would that prove anything to you? What year was that that they instituted the Public Safety Officers in schools: 1894 or 1917? </b> When God is in schools, then it becomes a social issue, which I would prefer not be presented to my children. I would prefer that religion be an issue that is discussed at home. I don't want my children feeling like they have to believe in God to be accepted by others or be in a "Fellowship of Christian Students" or other social group. I want my children to decide for themselves without social pressure. <b>What high school is not replete with social issues? My best friend in high school was a Jewish boy. This was back in the late 60s and earlyl 70's. How did that happen? We weren't taught religion. That's not what I'm calling for but you've reduced it to that.</b> They aren't. I was suggesting that moral codes can exist without religion. I think that too often people think that an absence of religion means there is no source or desire to do the right thing. <b>Of course they can but they can also more easily NOT exist in a climate without religious reference.</b> I think the absence of Christianity in public schools would promote religious tolerance. Same point as above. I want it to be an issue that is discussed at home without social pressure. <b>That's fine, but BY THE WAY, where's your evidence? Just kidding....</b>
Well, I'm finished bickering with someone who can't remember what they wrote 2 hours ago. If you look at my first post in this thread, I didn't even mention the subject matter of the thread. I was talking about the methodology of your post. I didn't want to debate what this thread is about because it is completely impossible. I can't argue with your "intuition", "common sense", or "smell test" (whatever you want to call it this time) because it isn't based on anything except for what is inside your head. There is no reasoning behind it except for the fact you claim it to be "enlightened". You started the thread. The burden is on you to make the initial point, which you haven't done yet.
you are clearly only refering to your local popular god did you ever stop to think that the primary reason you believe in your Christian god is that you happened to be born into a Xian family in a society where the Xian god is the most popular at this point in time of history? can you not see how increditably arrogent it is to act like your religion is the only world view that is correct (and thus should be the one pushed on all) - considering the previous statement? if you were born somewhere else, in a different time, you would have totally different views - how can you claim absolutism in a relative world? like it or not, this country was based on a secular government and thus it's institutions should be secular - religion is and should be a private thing - the problems in our schools all come down to irresponsible parents - not the amount of supernatural beliefs that are taught - to assert that the lack of god in our institutions is the cause is self-serving proselytizing
As I read the various definitions of intuition most of them deal with the "apparent" lack of reasoning (as in apprehending something). Only you choose to insist on one which implies a complete lack of reasoning involved. That is your choice but it is that choice which makes any discussion difficult to continue because you just want to discharge my discussion as irrational. There's no point to that. I posted something for discussion. If you don't want to do that: fine. I am not at all sure what your remark about not remembering what I wrote 2 hours ago is about. I purposely reiterated the remark about checking the newspaper because it is the most obvious source of information.
No I can't because the nation's institutions worked this way for a couple of hundred years-- some of the institutions still operate that way. The nation was founded largely by Christians who had come here seeking religious tolerance and fleeing religious intolerance, yet you want to charge them with just the opposite two hundred years later. Isn't that just patent revisionism?
I really don't know what to say at this point - you preach intolerance and then say the founding fathers were seeking tolerance and then accuse me of revisionism cuz I am seeking tolerance I dunno what to say to that type of logic
Where did I preach intolerance? This is simply amazing.... I asked for the restoration of a tolerant religious tradition to the public institutions from which that tradition has been removed.
Chump: Not sure where the "intolerance" thing is. This country was founded largely on Christianity. This country was based a lot on people wanting to leave places where they were persecuted for their religious beliefs. That is where "freedom of Religion" comes into play. Although this is primarily a Christian society, you are free to believe whatever you choose. You even have the right in this country to say "I hate Christians!" with no consequences. What was never a right was for pagans and atheists to try and abolish all religion into a "private" state. This is a Christian Country that doesn't persecute other beliefs or feelings. Nothing more. Get over it.
thats weird, cuz I've got the Constitution right here and I don't see where it says we are a Christian nation, founded on Christianity can ya'll show me ?
