The Gospel of Unbelief

[Hobbit]

Then why does Bush keep harping on "Democracies don't attack each other!"

Which anyway does seem to be true.

Because for all the things I like about Bush, he's an idealist and fails to grasp some of the harsher truths of the world, such as the fact that not all students have the mental capacity for a college education.

 

[LOki]

A very thoughtful and mature reply. Thank you for that.

Not that you're DEFINITELY a communist, but I just want to point out for the record that communists do not believe in free will, they believe man's behavior is determined by the property and economic relations which dominate his world, and which segment of this economic world he's born into.

I hope my appreciation for your opinion of communist dogma doesn't imply for you that I think you're DEFINITELY a communist.

 

[jillian]

Because for all the things I like about Bush, he's an idealist and fails to grasp some of the harsher truths of the world, such as the fact that not all students have the mental capacity for a college education.

How have cutting Pell Grants and Studen Loans indicated any belief on Bush's part that all students have the capacity for a college education?

 

[Hobbit]

How have cutting Pell Grants and Studen Loans indicated any belief on Bush's part that all students have the capacity for a college education?

The basic premise of the "No Child Left Behind Act" is that any student, when properly motivated, can learn anything. That's why schools get penalized for having to hold children back and people not passing their stupid tests. They're also trying to make algebra a graduation requirement. Not everybody can learn algebra.

 

[Annie]

The basic premise of the "No Child Left Behind Act" is that any student, when properly motivated, can learn anything. That's why schools get penalized for having to hold children back and people not passing their stupid tests. They're also trying to make algebra a graduation requirement. Not everybody can learn algebra.

Even when they are on ventilator and in later stages of cancer. Those test scores are going to be on target. Yeah, right.

 

[jillian]

The basic premise of the "No Child Left Behind Act" is that any student, when properly motivated, can learn anything. That's why schools get penalized for having to hold children back and people not passing their stupid tests. They're also trying to make algebra a graduation requirement. Not everybody can learn algebra.

Actually, the basic premise of No Child Left Behind is that a certain percentage of kids have to excel. That should be uniform in all schools. Presumably, schools in poorer areas don't have a lower percentage of children who are capable of learning algebra than in other schools. The effort was to prohibit social promotion and make sure kids are learning -- regardless of the segment of society in which they find themselves. Not in and of itself a bad thing.

That said, I think it's very unfair for third graders to have the pressure of those tests. They should be allowed to be children and teachers make the assessment, at least in the earlier grades.

Also, the way No Child Left Behind has worked out is that while children are allowed to leave low-producing schools for better schools, there seems to be less effort to make the more poorly producing schools better.

Either way, the recipient schools, and the No Child Left Behind program, needed to be funded and they haven't been.

.... and don't get me started on Title I, which adds a whole new set of issues.

 

[Hobbit]

Actually, the basic premise of No Child Left Behind is that a certain percentage of kids have to excel. That should be uniform in all schools. Presumably, schools in poorer areas don't have a lower percentage of children who are capable of learning algebra than in other schools. The effort was to prohibit social promotion and make sure kids are learning -- regardless of the segment of society in which they find themselves. Not in and of itself a bad thing.

That said, I think it's very unfair for third graders to have the pressure of those tests. They should be allowed to be children and teachers make the assessment, at least in the earlier grades.

Also, the way No Child Left Behind has worked out is that while children are allowed to leave low-producing schools for better schools, there seems to be less effort to make the more poorly producing schools better.

Either way, the recipient schools, and the No Child Left Behind program, needed to be funded and they haven't been.

.... and don't get me started on Title I, which adds a whole new set of issues.

Actually, my mom is on the front lines of this act as a teacher, and she gets a No Child Left Behind grade based on how many of her students pass the damn test. There's no cap on it. The only decent teachers in the whole school, according to these asinine federal standards, are the ones who teach only honors classes. Like I said, they're working on making it a federal requirement for everyone to learn algebra. Another thing they do is insist that special ed kids be put in regular classes, but they can still only be taught by special ed teachers, so my mom has to not only teach a class with a special ed student in it, she has to co-teach with a deaf teacher. It's a "one school fits all" mentality, and it's retarded.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

I'll try again--shorter version, less rambling.I reject your definition thus: In order for secularism to be religion by the definitions of religion and faith you provided--and I am constrained to agree with--"[rejection of] any form of religious faith and worship" must be rejected upon a statement of faith. Besides being internally contradictory (a religion that rejects religion), your definition fails to provide the statement of faith neccessary to assert secularism as a religion. I doubt you can come up with one that won't beg the question.

Why must that statement be rejected? It's in the dictionary. It's also real life. Secularists do reject religion. We see it all the time today. It's how they practice their religion....whether or not they realize that Secularism is a religion is up for debate.

Why can't we call the rejection itself a "statement of faith"? Obviously secularists believe in rejecting religion. And just because Secularism rejects religion doesn't mean it isn't a religion itself. And is there any proof that God does NOT exist within worldly matters?

I disporve your theory thus: Your insistence that secularism neccessarily rejects religion is inconsistent with the verifiable fact that secularists practice various religions--including those that assert God exists. As secularists do not necessarily reject religion, your theory that secularism is a religion-the religion that rejects religion-fails the test of proof that merely requires the existence of those who practice religion and believe on faith that God exists, and on rational grounds, that religion has limits--even if they believe God doesn't.

I never said that secularism necessarily rejects religion altogether. It depends on the meaning used. Also just because some people identify as Secularists and also identify as religious does not mean that the two concepts are necessarily compatible. I think a lot depends on the context and meaning - obviously there is much conflict as to what Secularism means exactly. We can't even agree on Webster's definitions. I am more inclined to go with Definition #2 as being more compatible with what the Constitution says.

I don't know who Robert Green Ingersoll is.

Ingersoll was an agnostic and an early American Secularist -- someone right up your alley -- except that he defined Secularism as a religion.

Secularism believes in building a home here, in this world. It trusts to individual effort, to energy, to intelligence, to observation and experience rather than to the unknown and the supernatural. It desires to be happy on this side of the grave.

Secularism is a religion, a religion that is understood. It has no mysteries, no mumblings, no priests, no ceremonies, no falsehoods, no miracles, and no persecutions. It considers the lilies of the field, and takes thought for the morrow. It says to the whole world, Work that you may eat, drink, and be clothed; work that you may enjoy; work that you may not want; work that you may give and never need.

http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/robert_ingersoll/secularism.html

Rational principles.

What are these rational principles? Ever look up the meaning of principle?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Why must that statement be rejected? It's in the dictionary. It's also real life. Secularists do reject religion. We see it all the time today. It's how they practice their religion....whether or not they realize that Secularism is a religion is up for debate.

Loki says what he wants, logic be damned.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Loki says what he wants, logic be damned.

<blockquote>Main Entry: sec·u·lar·ism
Pronunciation: 'se-ky&-l&-"ri-z&m
Function: noun
: indifference to or rejection or exclusion of religion and religious considerations</blockquote>

Actually, 'Screaming Eagle's' logic is flawed and incosistent. Despite protestations to the contrary, secularism is not a religion. It is indifference to, and rejection of, religion rooted in the knowledge that it is uneccessary to living a moral life.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

<blockquote>Main Entry: sec·u·lar·ism
Pronunciation: 'se-ky&-l&-"ri-z&m
Function: noun
: indifference to or rejection or exclusion of religion and religious considerations</blockquote>

Actually, 'Screaming Eagle's' logic is flawed and incosistent. Despite protestations to the contrary, secularism is not a religion. It is indifference to, and rejection of, religion rooted in the knowledge that it is uneccessary to living a moral life.

Indifference to or rejection of religions based on what? Faith.

 

[jillian]

Actually, my mom is on the front lines of this act as a teacher, and she gets a No Child Left Behind grade based on how many of her students pass the damn test. There's no cap on it. The only decent teachers in the whole school, according to these asinine federal standards, are the ones who teach only honors classes. Like I said, they're working on making it a federal requirement for everyone to learn algebra. Another thing they do is insist that special ed kids be put in regular classes, but they can still only be taught by special ed teachers, so my mom has to not only teach a class with a special ed student in it, she has to co-teach with a deaf teacher. It's a "one school fits all" mentality, and it's retarded.

I hear what you're saying. And I hate mainstreaming. Frankly, I think it puts everyone at a disadvantage and is an effort to pretend that these mainstreamed kids can do what the other students in the class can do. I think that has to both diminish the education to the students who belong i the class and keeps the mainstreamed kids from being able to work at their own pace.

I think that because No Child Left Behind is being applied differently in different school districts, the effects aren't uniform. I can only comment what I'm seeing in my son's school. But we can agree that the program, at least in its current, unfunded, form is absurd.

 

[jillian]

Indifference to or rejection of religions based on what? Faith.

Secularism has nothing to do with anyone's religious beliefs. It has to do with a separation between government and religion. :duh3:

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Secularism has nothing to do with anyone's religious beliefs. It has to do with a separation between government and religion. :duh3:

Yes. It's the fallacious idea that somehow you can have a state morality based on nothingness.

 

[jillian]

Yes. It's the fallacious idea that somehow you can have a state morality based on nothingness.

Except that you've already seen that morality doesn't come from religion or from nothingness. It comes from philospohical discussion and a recognition that certain acts infringe on others' rights to life, freedom and/or property.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Except that you've already seen that morality doesn't come from religion or from nothingness. It comes from philospohical discussion and a recognition that certain acts infringe on others' rights to life, freedom and/or property.

It comes from philosophical discussions, true, that are eerily similar to religious discussions of right and wrong.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Jesus's teachings have much philosophical value, but I wonder if a strictly logical discussion of his teachings could be included in the discussions regarding public right and wrong, according to secularists.

 

[LOki]

Why must that statement be rejected? It's in the dictionary.

The statement that makes the definition internally self contradictory, which is the only definition you're accepting, is what is being rejected.

It's also real life. Secularists do reject religion.

No they don't. They don't if they practice religion, and they most certainly CANNOT if secularism is a religion.

And rtwngAvnger accuses me of ignoring logic!

We see it all the time today. It's how they practice their religion....whether or not they realize that Secularism is a religion is up for debate.

That's not the debate at all.

Why can't we call the rejection itself a "statement of faith"?

If I accept your unfounded premise that said rejection is based on faith, then we can; I don't accept that premise--not on faith I don't. Unless you can prove that the rejection secularists engage in is neccessarily based on faith, you cannot insist that it is; if you cannot insist the rejection is based on faith, then you cannot insist that secularism is a religion.

Obviously secularists believe in rejecting religion.

They obviously DO NOT!

And just because Secularism rejects religion doesn't mean it isn't a religion itself.

If secularism rejects religion on faith, then it does--it neccessarily must.

And is there any proof that God does NOT exist within worldly matters?

No. Just don't get all AHA! without being sure I can't pound the bullshit out your response on the basis of the faithful's favorite logical fallacy.

I never said that secularism necessarily rejects religion altogether.

Yes you did. You didn't say "altogether," but it's the only definition you provided for secularism to support your theory.

Also just because some people identify as Secularists and also identify as religious does not mean that the two concepts are necessarily compatible.

Correct! Provided secularism IS NOT a religion! Bravo! You may be getting this finally!

I think a lot depends on the context and meaning - obviously there is much conflict as to what Secularism means exactly.

Which is why it is important to closely examine the definitions and usages of words--to strip them of those definitions and usages of your emotional biases so you can make rationally sensible statements.

We can't even agree on Webster's definitions. I am more inclined to go with Definition #2 as being more compatible with what the Constitution says.

Then (if I'm remebering it right) we can agree.

Ingersoll was an agnostic and an early American Secularist -- someone right up your alley -- except that he defined Secularism as a religion.

Meaningless to me still.

What are these rational principles? Ever look up the meaning of principle?

I am fully aquainted with the definition of principle and its usage. I suppose there are a number of rational principles involved--starting with "human beings exist." You'll note, that the assertion stands without being contingent upon "why" human beings exist, just that they do. The rational principles of morality build upon similarly objective self-evident assertions of fact that avoid the leaps of faith (such as: "Jesus says so" or "in the interest of 'society'") that are shortcuts to moral conclusions.

Why must that statement be rejected? It's in the dictionary. It's also real life. Secularists do reject religion. We see it all the time today. It's how they practice their religion....whether or not they realize that Secularism is a religion is up for debate.

Loki says what he wants, logic be damned.

Actually, 'Screaming Eagle's' logic is flawed and incosistent. Despite protestations to the contrary, secularism is not a religion. It is indifference to, and rejection of, religion rooted in the knowledge that it is uneccessary to living a moral life.

Though I agree with you Bullypulpit, I think it's too early in the argument to make that assertion. rtwinAvenger is perpetrating an analgous foul by implying that there cannot be a moral code without belief in a Supreme Invisible Daddy to spank us.

Indifference to or rejection of religions based on what? Faith.

Based on rational principles within established contexts.

Secularism has nothing to do with anyone's religious beliefs. It has to do with a separation between government and religion.

Yes. It's the fallacious idea that somehow you can have a state morality based on nothingness.

Fallacious idea = the unfounded presumption that morality not based upon belief in a Supreme Invisible Daddy to spank us is morality based on nothing. Plurium interrogationum is probably the faithful's favorite subclass of the faithful's favorite logical fallacy: petitio principii.

 

[Hobbit]

I hear what you're saying. And I hate mainstreaming. Frankly, I think it puts everyone at a disadvantage and is an effort to pretend that these mainstreamed kids can do what the other students in the class can do. I think that has to both diminish the education to the students who belong i the class and keeps the mainstreamed kids from being able to work at their own pace.

I think that because No Child Left Behind is being applied differently in different school districts, the effects aren't uniform. I can only comment what I'm seeing in my son's school. But we can agree that the program, at least in its current, unfunded, form is absurd.

The bolded portion is where I disagree. No amount of money can fix No Child Left Behind. It's another big government program that needs to be sacked.

And for all its percieved glory, the No Child Left Behind Act fails to address the most basic problem of all government schools, competition. If students were allowed to take their tax dollars to another school, instead of being forced to pay taxes to their school districts, even if they have to spend even more money to go to another school, then you would see a lot of schools begin to improve on their own. As it is, schools have no reason to be any good, because they get the same amount of money, no matter how many students flee their school to find a decent education.

 

[LOki]

Jesus's teachings have much philosophical value, but I wonder if a strictly logical discussion of his teachings could be included in the discussions regarding public right and wrong, according to secularists.

They certainly can provided the religious can avoid the assertion that the validity of Jesus' teaching are founded upon the infallibilty of God, whose existence and infallibilty is a premise that remains subject to question.