Slashdot Mirror
Examining Religious Bias In Filtering Software
the_rev_matt writes: "eSchool News has a great piece about the religious influence present in filtering software. Not that this will be a surprise to most /. regulars, but the research behind it is interesting. Now if only eSchool News could change their name to something less horrible..."
This information should lend itself to a clear cut Seperation of Church and State case regarding the filters mentioned in the article.
If the students are anti-filtering wish to have the filtering software removed from the systems all the need to do is find a lawyer willing to take the case up pro bono as a constitutional question case.
The Generation
I'd say something witty here, but I'm not that bright.
You can't have morals without an acknowledgement of a power higher than yourself. Without a God, you are simply basing your 'morals' on subjective experiences rather than on a solid set of teachings as set forth by a God.
I don't know how to reply to this other than to say it's bullpucky. What about the desire to live within a decent society. What about the desire to be able to get along with those around you. No God there, although it certainly makes room for God, which your Closed minded Dogmatic argument doesn't reciprocate.
"as plurdled gabbleblotchits on a lurgid bee" - Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz. (One man's humorous is another mans flamebait)
There doesn't seem to be any proof that the services' filtering is somehow affected by religions. All I see happening is that Conservative Christians buy filtering software (big surprised), and fund the companies which develop the software they buy.
This just in: Some parents find homosexual, occult, and weapon-related websites objectionable for their young children! Vast right-wing conspiracy suspected! Film at 11!
Incidentally, regardless of what PP might say, good, scientific studies say that teaching kids about *only* abstinence won't work. Some kids are going to have sex - the only way to protect them from becoming STD victims or teenage parents is to teach them how to do what they will do anyway safely. It's common sense that is backed up by good research. It has nothing to do with religion - it has *everything* to do with human nature.
I do agree with the rest of your argument to some degree - and I would advocate that any pre-high school internet access in schools should *always* be supervised, and that high schools should employ a simple corporate-type filter that blocks only overtly pornographic type sites; computers should all be in public areas; and the adult in charge should be able to override the blocks at will on thier own judgement for a certain site.
Of course, we have a law on the books that won't allow this, so until the law changes, it is important that we ensure that our schools are not being unwittingly used to influence children in "non-sanctioned" ways.
_sig_ is away
Can someone sum this article up for me? I skimmed it, but nothing I saw mentioned seems inappropriate to me. Yes, some parents do not want their small children to read about condoms, and some companies provide software that allow the parents to block those sites. The parents may be Christian. Where's the religious bias?
I don't care about ads. I'm not paying to remove them, so I can't complain about their presence. What I will complain about is attaching an ad to the end of an article without any line breaks. Without said line breaks, the ad pushes the last line of the article down about 5 centimeters and makes reading the article unnaturally difficult.
It also results in the ad being placed randomly about the screen.
Please add a line break before every ad, making it appear in a standard place and giving the site a professional appearance.
Thank you.
I realize that there is a slippery slope here, but why can't we allow each school to decide for themselves what their immediate needs are?
So the school which is predominately protestant can use the filtering software to push out mormon, catholic, jewish, and muslim (oh yeah, and gays, and sex education materials, and abortion) sites because they got to choose for themselves? I'm just curious why kids in one school will be able to handle exposure to certain types of info better than kids in any other school. I think it is much more neccessary for those who want local filtering control to argue why their kids need more filtering than anybody elses kids. Why shouldn't there be a national standard for filtration if filtration is mandated? (I of course think that filtration should not be mandated though.)
The Generation
I'd say something witty here, but I'm not that bright.
What you believe constitute a decent society may not be what I consider a decent society. I don't want my children exposed to fairy tales about super natural creators of the universe. I want my kids to believe in themselves and to be mindful of the traps of irrationality that religion presents. If you disgaree with that... I'm sorry. But I should not have to worry about my children having access to ANY religious website.
The Generation
I'd say something witty here, but I'm not that bright.
Since many of the organisations that buy these sorts of products have bias, they will select for that bias.Unless some significant market leader can manage to differentiate themselves as lacking in bias then these products will all end up reflecting conservative (american, christian) bias.
This is bad news for schools that want to avoid bias because the products that are most available will tend to be the ones that are successful in the whole market rather than in some underfunded part of it.
The software side is pretty simple. A perl script tied to MySQL will do the job. All that is needed is for the people who say they want children protected from this stuff to list the sites that they need to be protected from.
Personally I'm more on the side of logging and dealing with infractions rather than trying to create a padded cell. But even that approach would benefit from a list of sites to watch for.
Paul.
You are lost in a twisty maze of little standards, all different.
I wish some Christians would come to my house and block the BIG FUCKING slashdot ad on my screen.
Darn Slashdots system of making posts higher up in the thread disapear. I thought you were replying to me. My original response was out of context. My apologies.
The Generation
I'd say something witty here, but I'm not that bright.
Because with a national standard, there are less people involved. With less people involved there is a greater chance that the standards won't meet everybody's needs.
However, if each group can decide for themselves what to filter, then there is a better chance of everybody having their needs met.
This whole filtering philosophy can be about religion, but it doesn't *have* to be *only* about religon. What if the kids in one school are such Internet addicts that the school recognizes the value of filtering *everything* *except* for a particular site that is relavent and unbiased to the study at hand? A National Board wouldn't have enough time to deal with each school on a case by case basis.
That's a good arguement. And I respond by saying that they should decide on a case by case basis. Why should a community in Florida have to explain to a community in Washington State? It doesn't make sense. Why should Columbine High School have to justify their views to you? What if everybody in that community literally adopted the *exact* same beliefs? I know it's impossible, but for the sake arguement, let's examine the senario.
With today's laws would they be able to filter out according to their own beliefs? Remember, there is no disagreement, because they all of a sudden became followers in the same religion! I think that most people would cry foul and start submitting stories to
Disclaimer [in case someone wasn't following what I said]: I don't believe that everybody in that community has the same religion. It's just something for discussion.
Kids can get Internet access outside of school. We can't please everybody. With each school deciding for themselves, more communities will be happy. With each community deciding for themselves, it will be *harder* [not impossible] for mistakes to be spread to other communities.
testing out my trending skills
I think that alone would put an end to a *lot* of arguements. But I could be wrong. I believe that government organizations should be more transparent to the community in how their computers work. This way the community can have input, and concerned consultants would have brought up your suggestion, by now.
testing out my trending skills
"Please pass those goddam spuds!" -- Gordie LaChance (The Body)
Willard says in her report that the first time she visited the Global Internet Ministries web site, the lead article on the site was "Have we shamed the face of Jesus? Muslims in our pulpits," and the article drew the following conclusion: "... when we present Islam as another truth, we spit on the face of Christ and those who serve His kingdom in Islamic countries."
This is on its face unremarkable for a Christian website, so I can only deduct that Willard found the statements alarming for some reason. Certainly they're biased, and considering the source we should not be shocked. But what's implied when this material, especially that last quote, is held up as a bad example? It seems that the correct point of view is that Islam is "another truth!"
Are these people so unthoughtful on this subject that they cannot see that this is, in itself, a religious point of view? (I doubt it.) Are they indoctrinating schoolchildren into this religion? (From what I've seen, yes.) Exactly how brazen do you have to be to bray about the fictional "wall of separation between Church and State" supposedly found in the First Amendment, and then go around preaching a religion of your own that for no reason that's ever said aloud seems to be exempt? (An awful lot, but that seems to be characteristic of the Politically Correct crowd.)
Hypocrites, the lot of them.
And the brethren went away edified.
Oh heaven forbid that people learn that sodem and gamoreh(sp) has nothing to do with sodemy.
What would people think if they found out about the gay penguins in the aquarium. Oh my!
Some of these people are the same ones that think that prayer should be allowed in public schools. However they don't want to just allow it they want to require it! P>Your going to hell if you moderate this down!!!
Only 'flamers' flame!
Because then some would decide like one swedish religious school did before being hit by the government; they decided for themselves that their immediate need was to teach children that cancer was due to lack of faith.
Either filter everything or filter equally from all perspectives... the internet is unique in that it contains so much opinion-stuff that's fluffed up to look like facts. Teaching children to sift through this data and decide for themselves what to trust would be enormously much more valuable than teaching them the only sites on the 'net that works is www.microsoft.com and www.myreligionofchoice.com.
Tomorrow will be cancelled due to lack of interest
As much as it must come as a shock to you, Islam IS "another truth". In fact, Islam is just as much a truth as christianity. If you have a problem with that, then you are perfectly welcome to block all islamic web sites at home, but if you're trying to argue that islamic web sites should be blocked at schools because islam isn't "another truth" then you're truly a moron. In the true spirit of "innocent until proven guilty" I will assume you're just confused.
Tomorrow will be cancelled due to lack of interest
How would you *know* that *any* of the US schools would do that? That's only a rehtorical question.
Secondly, to play the devil's advocate, how do any of us know that it isn't due to a lack of faith? Again, a rehtorical question.
The Bible has a story about a man born blind. The disciples asked Jesus, "Who sinned? This man or his parents?". He replied, "Neither. This was done that I should be glorified.". And then Jesus healed him, which stirred up a lot of controversy. By the way, that was only my paraphrase. Whether or not you believe in Jesus Christ or the Bible, is beside my point. Whether or not you believe that it was morally acceptable for God to allow that man to be born blind is beside my point. My point is that the Bible teaches that suffering isn't due to lack of faith. That school to having the right to teach that belief wasn't bad. It was their belief that was bad, and even the Bible disagreed with them.
The way to remedy the situation is to teach the parents the truth so that they can tell their schools what to teach.
For you to have a valid point, you would have to show me that the government controlling our schools will *improve* the quality of education ["quality" in this discussion refers to accuracy and practicalness of what is being taught]. Through my idea, I'm sure that a lot of people will have bad education, but I think that as a whole, everybody will get a better one.
testing out my trending skills
Filtering software is totally simple, as you say (searching a string in a list - white or black list - is not that trivial, but Mr Knuth has written up a nice summary on that topic).
The problem with an open project to collect URIs is its very openness - if hundreds of people suggest sites that contain too much "extreme" content (of a sexual, ideological or whatever kind), who will decide if a given site is inappropriate? If it's not appropriate for 6-year-olds, is it appropriate for 12-year-olds? Will majority vote decide?
Your average christian will probably not quite understand why anyone would want to block something harmless about pigs (remember that Babe movie that could not be shown in some Muslim countries).
Some parent from the Netherlands quite likely wouldn't want to stop teenagers from looking at people posing naked as badly as another parent from the US Bible belt.
Even people who share a nationality or religion can have very diverse opinions.
It would be interesting to know if anyone has suggestions on how to make such a URI collection project work.
Really, most religions to not employ such unsound reasoning -- Hinduism is the only one that springs to mind that does -- so I do religion a disservice by calling the idea that contradictory statements can both be true a religious idea. But since it springs from the currently fashionable religious syncretism, I can't think of anything else to call it.
You have read an argument into my post that wasn't there. I wasn't advocating the blocking of any sites at all; I was just pointing out that the author of the article had a religious bias of his own. You can do with that what you will.
And the brethren went away edified.
I am a protestant Christian (ELCA Lutheran, to be precise), and I have no problem with Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Mormons, gays, lesbians, sex-ed, abortion, or many other things that more conservative Christians would have a heart attack over. I think the term you are looking for is "conservative Christian".
Also, a private school would be perfectly free to choose whatever filtering it wants -- even if it wants to allow only conservative Christian sites, for example, it is perfectly free to do that. Only public schools are bound by the Constitution. Of course, you are in turn perfectly free to not send your children there.
That's it. I'm no longer part of Team Sanity.
Pardon me, isn't this the best filter out there: supervision. If a child knows he is being watched: s/he will not break the rules. Very odd how we, as a nation, rally around a cause, such as protecting young kids from the "Nasties of the Net", when it admits that out education system allows our children to be unsupervied for some time. Wouldn't it make more sense to put more money into training more teachers, instead of buying software?
You know who I think is crazy? All my ex-girlfriends!
It seems that the correct point of view is that Islam is "another truth!"
Yes, to an objective observer - i.e. an observer that sees all religious views as having equal merit, Islam is just as truthful as Christianity. And for one religion to assert itself over another with such strong language can easily be interpreted as a hateful message. In the least, it certainly doesn't encourage the people that read that "Christian" website to show any Christian love to their Islamic neighbors (or the Islamic countries that some of them are apparently guests in).
You, sir, are confusing objectivity and Religion. Asserting one Religion over another in a derogatory and hateful manner is a matter of bigotry (or, as you would have it, Faith). Asserting that all Religions have an equal right to existence and an equal claim in "truth" is nothing more than openminded objectivity.
_sig_ is away
You, sir, are confusing your own opinion with the Real Truth, and further confusing any opinions that contrdict yours with bigotry. I could make a better case for bigotry on your own part, since you failed to notice that I did not advocate anything being preached by the website being cited, not even Christianity itself, and instead imputed an opinion to me which I did not express but which you thought you could generalize from the context.
You obviously did not read my reply to Stary, but just to clear things up: It's incorrect to assume that I share the point of view of the website the article's author found so disturbing. I have not seen the actual website, just the quotation from it. To judge from the name of site, I probably do not agree with most of it. The point, which you would have seen me put more explicitly had you read my earlier reply, is simply that two contradictory statements cannot both be true, which is a foundational assumption for any logically consistent system.
You make another common error when you connect the assertion of the truth of one religion with a denial of the rights of others to exist. This is false. You err further when you associate faith with hatred. That's nothing more than flamebait, which is the tactic of someone who knows very well he's on shaky ground so I'll take point as conceded -- although I will mention that it's quite possible to believe that another person is mistaken on a subject without hating him. Your last claim I have already dealt with for the most part. Your website betrays your actual religious point of view, which is what you're preaching here and attempting to pass off as objective reality. Why you thought you could pull this off when you provide the link yourself I don't quite understand.
And the brethren went away edified.
Impossible. Even living, breathing, thinking humans can't nail down a concrete definition of "overtly pornographic"- no nannyware app is going to be able to be up to the task. Filtering keywords will block way more than goat-fisting sites, and I defy you to write software that can look at a JPG file and determine whether it contains any squishy pink bits. And even if you could, try teaching it to separate art from "HOT ASIAN SLUTS!!!"- again, that's something even us meatbrains can't always manage.
Bottom line is this: Using filters to protect kids from Bad Stuff online is like using a snowshovel to take a fly out of a spiderweb- you could do it, but how much web will be left afterwards (pun intended)?
I also took a look at your website, and yes, you are a bigot. If there is truth in everything, then why can't we teach the *truthful* and *objective* facts in Christianity? or other religions? If the facts, are true and they are from other religions, then no problem. I don't mind.
Why don't you have any links on your web site that put down other religions because of their negative aspects?
testing out my trending skills
Your statement that all religious views have equal merit is not at all objective. It's a definite opinion in and of itself; a religious opinion at that since that's the subject to which it relates.
Hrm... in that case, what would be an "objective" view of Religions? Or would you advocate that an objective view does not exist?
and further confusing any opinions that contrdict yours with bigotry
Incorrect - I never said this, and I never said you were a Bigot. I said: "Asserting one Religion over another in a derogatory and hateful manner is a matter of bigotry", which is a very different thing.
To judge from the name of site, I probably do not agree with most of it.
I don't think I ever said, although I may have accidentally implied (but I don't think so), that you did agree. I tried to keep my comments to your stated opinion on the passage at hand - and not to your personal beliefs.
You err further when you associate faith with hatred.
Once again, I did not do this. I associated faith that is asserted in a dergoatory or hateful manner as being on shakey ground. I belive that this is true - especially when the faith in question (as do many philosophies) promotes universal love. But this is bordering on another discussion.
although I will mention that it's quite possible to believe that another person is mistaken on a subject without hating him.
I agree whole heartedly... once again, my comments were specific to the kind of language that I feel promotes more misunderstanding and hate between Religions that otherwise.
Your website betrays your actual religious point of view, which is what you're preaching here and attempting to pass off as objective reality.
My website states my personal beliefs, and my political beliefs. Yes, I have been arguing for the Seperation of Church and State, and I belive in this. I don't see anything wrong with supporting my views, and I have tried to do so in as factual manner as I can. As for this particular conversation, other than my belief that Religions should respect each other and not encourage hate of other beliefs, I don't see how my opinions have anything to do with this. I provide the link to my page, and the links on my page, partially so people can go there and evaluate what I say against my own slant on the world. If anything, I feel this increases my integrity in this forum.
_sig_ is away
I also took a look at your website, and yes, you are a bigot.
How are my views (expressed via the links on my website) bigotted? I am shocked that an open-minded person could think this.
If the facts, are true and they are from other religions, then no problem. I don't mind.
Problem is, that as far as schools are concerned, any facts that are backed up with Faith alone are not facts, they are beliefs. And you can teach those as beliefs (which happens all the time in History, Literature, and Comparative Religion classes), but not as fact. I find different Religions and philosophies intriguing, and I would love it if a standard course in our schools was a good comparative religion course. But teach religious beliefs as fact is just wrong in a public school. Note that more fussy things, such as ethics and civic morals, which are in general shared all religions, are promoted in schools, becuase this is what the majority of society supports. But they are (or should be) promoted without a specific relgious bent.
Why don't you have any links on your web site that put down other religions because of their negative aspects?
Huh? Becuase I don't see this as approprate. MY website lets other's know what I belive, because I think what I believe is pretty cool (which is good, since if I didn't, I'd probably be pretty unhappy). Other people can think whatever they want (although if I don't agree, I'll argue it with them) But they have that right, and I won't bash them by putting up "anti-whatever" links. What I don't like, and what I consider wrong and don't respect, is people bashing other people on thier beliefs in a hateful manner.
_sig_ is away
Just because a Christian says Christianity is best, that's ok, because they are Christians, so they aren't biased, or even if they are, that's ok too, because the bias is right out front?
But I bet when Osama bin Laden says Islam is best, and sets out to prove it, even though he's way out front with that bias, that's not quite ok, is it?
I think I get the picture. You'd'a done great during the Crusades.
Infuriate left and right
First, I think it's very cute how you capitalize the "Real Truth". It looks so much more convincing that way.
Truth is subjective. Other people's truth is differnet from your own. Truth is not fact. Neither Christianity nor any other religion's mythology has any facts to support it. There is no more evidence to support the contention that Jesus was God than there is that King Authur had a magic sword and was assisted by a wizard named Merlin.
Of course, you can choose to believe either story, as you can choose to believe in any other fairy tale or just-so story. But there is no evidence backing such beliefs.
Scythe
Hmm. I happen to be a Muslim-American, and I think that tricking schools into blocking Islamic sites by categorizing them as "occult" is inane.
It is within their rights if some Christians don't want Muslims to speak at their own churches, but it is not fair for these same Christians to prevent Islam, or any major world religion, to be discussed and known about in the public schools. Even in private Christian schools, I would imagine that a non-polemic study of world religions would be beneficial.
Given that Muslims revere Jesus as a messenger from God, it is not fair to justify this censorship on the grounds of disrespect to Jesus (even if this was a valid grounds for Internet censorship in the USA). As far as disrespect to the efforts of "fellow" missionaries, this is ludicrous.
The people designing censorship software for schools have a responsibility to demonstrate that a missionary agenda is not reflected in the censorship. Otherwise they lose credibility as being a valid censor, and become a tool for forwarding that agenda.
If you read the article carefully, the issue is whether the censors themselves are seeking to obscure Muslim views (which might tempt them to obfuscate these sites). From the article:
NETcomply, which sells St. Bernard, Symantec, and 8e6 Technologies products to schools (as well as its own filtered ISP service, called QuickComply), is run by 711.Net Inc., which also operates the Global Internet Ministries.
I hope that you don't feel that public school students should restricted from viewing information from non-Christian websites on religion, since here you would be in the extreme minority.
I'm also curious regarding your comment that "these people" (i.e. Willard) is the kind of person attempting to indoctrinate schoolchildren into some non-Christian religion. On the face of it, it seems absurd. But perhaps there's more to it?
But it's plain your anti-Christian bias prevented you from reading the post you're replying to very carefully. Whatever I actually believe, I did not characterize my own views as the Real Truth. Pay attention next time.
And the brethren went away edified.
Remember, there is no disagreement, because they all of a sudden became followers in the same religion!
Would they also forbid anyone from a different religion from moving in later? Because that is illegal, too.
__
Do ya feel happy-go-lucky, punk?
I'd have called you an American who happened to be Muslim, since Islam is not an ethnic group that normally gets a hyphen (a wrong-headed procedure in any event) but a religion. I am not a Christian-American, but an American who is an Orthodox Christian.
But you're right. It's inane, and everything else you said. But that's beside the point of my post, which was that a significant bias was evident in the article. When bias is present, it renders even the factual content of the article suspect, and to me this is especially true when the article claims to be unbiased. That means there is already one lie present.
The point of view that informs the bias is that all religions are equally true. Surely you do not believe that Christianity is as true as Islam, do you?
Let me use a concrete example. We Christians say that Jesus was God incarnate, an idea repugnant to Muslims. Muslims say that Jesus was just a prophet, which is blasphemy to Christians. Are we both right? Are both statements true? How can they be; they contradict! But what is being taught in the schools is the point of view you've seen reflected in the other posts in this thread: that all religions are equally true. This is so obviously false that it's a bit of a wonder anyone believes it, but it's very common. And schoolchildren are being indoctrinated in it. The religion -- or more precisely, the religious doctrine -- is called syncretism. Most religions have something to say about syncretism. In Hinduism, it's the norm. But it's antithetical to Orthodox Christianity, and also Islam. It ought not be taught.
And the brethren went away edified.
Neither were the Christians.
Infuriate left and right
If filtering software becomes legally mandatory, and the software has religious bias embedded in its default configuration, then this is potentially a constitutional problem, regardless of what a reporter like Willard, or anyone else for that matter, happens to think about Christianity, Islam, or the contents of any particular website.
As for the "fictional[ity]" of the "wall of separation between Church and State", what else would you call it when one entity (Church) is protected from another entity (State) by a Free Exercise Clause, and protection is effected in the other direction via the Establishment Clause? With only a slight poetic license, this two-way protection is properly called a "wall". Feel free to take a Civics or Constitutional Law class if you require further enlightenment...
Is truth binary? You claim that the idea that two contradictory ideas cannot be true is the foundation of any coherent thought system, but what about statements that are neither false nor true, but either undetermined or at some intermediate fuzzy position? Two such such statements could well be 'equally true' (note: this doesn't _necessarily_ imply that they're either true or false!) despite being contradictory. As an example, 'Light is a prticle' and 'Light is a wave' are contradictory, yet equally true, no?
(Caveat: IANAQP)
Our thought is that all have the right to education and as a consequence the state (taxpayer) foots the bill.
At the same time we think that parents have the right to decide what type of education is appropriate and they set up their school board along their political or religious beliefs.
So the parents decide and the state pays.
(Off course the same amount for any type of school)
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
Sometimes the apparent contradiction arises only because of a hidden assumption. The particle/wave duality of light is like that. Saying "light is a wave" and "light is a particle" are both true is only a contradiction if we add "a particle cannot be a wave" and "a wave cannot be a particle" to the mix. In fact, physics tells us that all particles can be described as waves, so there is no real contradiction here.
Religions are most often not like that. There's a clear example from Christianity and Islam as an example. Christianity says, "Jesus is the Son of God." Islam says, "Jesus is not the Son of God." This is simple logical contradiction requiring no hidden assumptions to fully understand. Both statements cannot be true. Logically, either one, or the other, or both are false.
And the brethren went away edified.
Re-read my quote from the article, and then ask why Willard found it remarkable. I'm sure there was a lot of other material from this website. What was so unusual about this particular quote unless she particularly disapproved of it?
The software filtering companies are simply serving their largest markets. I quite agree that it's (in general) unhealthy to filter out websites based on the fact they present a religion other than those on the "approved" list. But that's what the filtering software market wants right now. If it ever becomes mandatory in libraries and schools, I guarantee you that market forces will cause more politically and religiously neutral filters to spring up to fulfull the need. That's how a free market works.
As far as taking a class in Constitutional Law, I'd only consider if it requires me to actually read the Constitution. It's not at all difficult these days even in reputable law schools to fulfull the Constitutional Law requirements without that. But really, the Constitution is written in plain (if slightly archaic by now) English. Banning any form of religious expression on public property is a long way from merely forbidding the establishment of a church, which is what the Constitution actually does. But suppose the wall did exist: the syncretic crap that gets shoved down students' throats these days is every bit as objectionable as outright proselytism of Christianity. It's in direct contradiction to the teachings of my religion, and a great many more besides. Only, the people who shout loudest about the wall of separation deign not to notice it.
And the brethren went away edified.
With all due respect, your comment assumes two things: 1) that humans are incapable of thinking rationally on subjects such as ethics, or indeed of ethical conduct on their own account, and 2) that any dictate of a superior power is by definition moral. And I'd have to comment "Get a grip". Moral!=dictated from above. Read any of the copious quantities of writings on the subject of ethics before you continue...
Wasn't too popular with the prevailing opinion, was it? The existing occupants didn't exactly spread their arms in joyous welcome.
Infuriate left and right
This idea that Muslims don't belong in the Holy Land because they weren't invited is incredible. Christians weren't invited either; Jesus was a reknowned trouble maker. And it also depends on how wide you define your area. Mohammed may not have been born in Palestine, but he was born a lot closer to it than Christians were to most of Europe, not to mention the Americas. I don't recall the natives inviting the Christians into the Americas. Nor the Philipines, Australia, etc.
As for going back 800 years, keerist (sic) almighty, who said I had to go back that far? Look at current day Ireland; maybe you should go their to fight the infidels. Only problem is, which side is the Christian side? They evidently both think that the other isn't.
So go back and answer your own question: who invited the Christians to own the Holy Land? Hint: they weren't invited.
Further hint: the Jews weren't invited either.
In fact, in almost every case, the current occupants of ANY place weren't invited. They just sort of invited themselves.
Infuriate left and right
Eagle7 is basically saying that no school is smart enough to decide what to do for themselves.
Also, have you noticed that there's lots of truth from every religion, when he's trying to make his point, but when we try to make ours, we are complete imbiliciles who can't learn and evaluate the facts.
Come on, Eagle7. This is ridiculous!
testing out my trending skills
I would go so far as to say that waves of *any* energy form, require matter. But alas! I'm not a scientist, and I don't have evidence, so Eagle7 won't let me be *right*, without answering to him. *Sigh*
testing out my trending skills
Once again, this is a hypothetical situation, but I'll try to answer.
/. and have influence over me, that 1 family can have influence. It only takes one. Remember, just because they have a religous belief, doesn't mean they are morons. People learn. People change for better or for worse. Many people go to church while they are young [and *oh-so-influential* and *brainwashable*] and yet they *still* have the capacity to decide for themselves. I know this, because many people leave the church *all* *the* *time*.
Whether or not they would forbid someone from moving in is a slightly off-topic, but relavent issue. You can't make laws based on the worst case scenarios. That's why we have a free market. People get ripped off all the time, yet the government doesn't *have* to intervene in *every* situation, as if they are *automatically* the *only* people who can decide what is best.
You've got to remember, religions want to convert people; often times for the genuine interest of others. So it's not as if the average school like our hypothetical one would *strictly* *forbid* anyone else from coming in. *And* it's not as if the non-religous community is immune from discrimination.
To sum things up in answer to your literal question: I don't know what they would do. That's why I want to give them the freedom to decide for themselves.
However, what you probably really want to know is whether or not there is a way for someone to come into the community and not believe in the same religion, and still have a voice in the decision making. The answer is yes. Just as *you* can post on
Also, it's not as if I'm giving the school the legal right to forbid someone from going to public schools. Your question is completely out of context. It's like asking, "So, will this black family be able to go to the school controlled by the KKK?". No matter how I answer, I'll probably be percieved as guilty. It's obvious that you ran your eyes across the page and only tried to understand enough so that you could argue.
My only point in that context was whether or not a community could have the right to decide for themselves, under the condition that they all agree. This has nothing to do with a real life situation. *NOTHING*. As impossible as this situation is, you still won't even grant me a "yes". Always forcing the belief that nobody can get along. However, you would never allow that. Always assuming the worst, you bring in concepts of forbidding and antagonism. You simply refused to even answer my question. It just goes to show that you insist on controlling *everybody* even a large body agrees *among* *themselves*, but disagrees with *you*.
The desire to have the government control the schools is only a desire by evil people who insist on keeping the status quo, because it already suits them.
testing out my trending skills
Wouldn't it just make SENSE, that for a program that helps to guide children along a 'morally sound' development, there is a huge interest from the religious community? How about Jewish organizations, did they check for those? Or Muslim? I'll bet (in proportion) they're just as strong. Or...here's a crazy idea...maybe even SCHOOLS use this software (and don't they keep religion out of EVERYTHING?)
Just because you're classified as paranoid doesn't mean they AREN'T out to get you.
I generally refrain from baiting the editors, but this is a non-story.
It's filterware for pete's sake! Whether or not the owners of the software are religious, it's a type of software that a certain group of people who are vocally demonstrative of their piety think is just wonderful. (this is not to say that all pious people like filterware. This has been beaten to death elsewhere).
Next we're going to find out that so many more people per capita in San Francisco own boats than in Wichita, KS. We can post 150 articles debating this bizarre phenomena to death. Pro-boat and anti-boat people can beat each other over the head. Maybe we can bring it full circle and see if Scripture justifies the use of boats for recreational purposes!
I have zero love in my heart for censorware or for zealots of any religion. Timothy, please. I know you try to post a lot of "softer" stories which relate technology to human issues. I often enjoy reading these (who cares about the specs of the latest silicon gidget anyhow?), but learn to discriminate between relevant stories dealing with social issues and fishing expeditions like this one.
They may know their code, but they wouldn't know good front-end design if it hit them in the face.
I bet Jakob Nielsen's blood pressure goes up 20 points every time he sees the front page of this site.
The desire to have the government control the schools is only a desire by evil people who insist on keeping the status quo, because it already suits them.
The desire to teach a particular brand of religion in public school regardless of the wishes of *all* parents is the purest expression of evil in it's insistence on forcing its religious beliefs on others. It's about power, control, and the indoctrination of children into the cult favored by the majority.
Max
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
To paraphrase my earlier reply: the original post was a joke for those who aren't humor-impaired.
Max
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
-1 should be reserved for overt trolls and horror author stephen king is dead posts. I see nothing that warrants this just because someone uses the sentance "If people want to surf for certain political information, like how to kill Jews and become a Nazi" which is obviously why this post is sitting at -1.
I'd give you a +1 funny!
Cheers,
Anomaly
But Herr Heisenberg, how does the electron know when I'm looking?
An interesting debate. Of course it's biased, isn't everything?
I think he means, and I myself believe, that if something is the truth, it should not be afraid of scrutiny and hold up to any test - it's too bad there aren't any ways to test your beliefs!
Consider this though - all of your arguments for god, all of them, can be used by, say, Hindu's. Do you believe in an Elephant god? They do...
What you say about human experience, love, etc., would have to hold true for them as well - so which is the right way, Hindu or Christianity?
Neither can be proven in any traditional sense as you yourself have stated. Lets face it, most people on slashdot are familiar with Christianity for political reasons dating way back - the Romans became christian during their last 200 years or so and so you are too - I'm sure you didn't wake up one day and sought to seek a higher power, then chose Christianity after researching all of the competing religions...
I won't buy, "they are all basically the same - the common thread being a higher power" either, because most christians you will talk to think that it's satanic to even consider religions with multiple gods such as Hindu...
Not to sound like flamebait, but if Hindu really bothers you, perhaps you have Bush add it to his axis of evil group - after all, there are millions of "satanic pagan" folk there - perhaps we could nuke them and god will not allow any more of our buildings to get bombed.
Do you see the irony, at least? All religions being considered equaly, I chose, "nay". Show me god, and THEN I'll believe, not before. As for tests, well, good luck...
I think that, opposite to what you say, human experience lends itself to no god at all, let alone Christ.
Would you still write that if atheism is the "cult favored by the majority?"
there are plenty other religions that have contradictory statements in their doctrine - c.f Buddhism and Taoism - and also logical forms of thought centered around contradictory settings existing in the same item - c.f. fuzzy logic and deconstructionism.
dude, leave him alone. he's trying, but all those carrots still haven't helped his sight.
I'm tolerably familiar with Buddhism and have read parts of the Tao Te Ching. I find no contradictory statements in the doctrine of either. Buddhism, particularly the Zen variety, uses seeming contradiction as a pedagogical technique, but that's not doctrine. I can't recall anything self-contradictory in Taoism -- in fact, the Tao sounds very close to the Christian Logos. Perhaps you can cite something specific. Deconstrutcionism I reject as invalid, and I'm certainly not alone in that opinion. Fuzzy logic has more to do with degrees of certainty (which exist whatever the truth might be) than with ontology.
And the brethren went away edified.
CaptianCarrot, you are missing something of vital importance. When one speaks of a separation of church and state, or of having an "objective" view of religion, there is no truth-assertion being made. Look at this logically: There is no definite proof of the existence of God. God has not shown up and demonstrated (his | her | its) presence. Most phenomena present in the world can be explained through rational, scientific thought and experiment; those phenomena that cannot be explained so readily inform our knowledge of the world. It's how we advance.
Once you bring God into the equation, science and logic break down; especially if we are speaking of the traditional Judeo-Christian-Islamic god(s). God is supposed to be omnipotent, meaning that ANY phenomenon can be attributed to God's will. Science and reason no longer have a place in mankind's world since any given phenomenon can be attributed to God's will.
Leaving aside the intense territorialism that comes will deeply held spiritual beliefs, one might now be able to see why religion taught in schools has to be an all-or-none proposition. When we speak of religion in science and rationality, we must be agnostic. God, unfortunately, gets in the way of learning. By saying NOTHING about religion, or that there is no evidence that leads us to choose one religion over the other, we as a species continue to advance.
So, rather than stating that all religions are equally true, perhaps we should state it thusly:
There is no evidence to lead us to choose one religion over any other.
If you can prove not only the existence of God, but that (he | she |it) is of a particular faith, THEN we can start talking about the "truth" in religion. Otherwise, you are being just as illogical as your critics.
She sat at the window watching the evening invade the avenue.
You invalidate your own point in stating it. Christians believe precisely that God has shown up and demonstrated his presence, and to say that he has not is to therefore state a religious doctrine in opposition to Christianity. I do not want your religion to be taught as an "objective truth" in public school any more than you want mine.
Once you bring God into the equation, science and logic break down;
They don't have to, and in fact they don't. This thread is proof of that; it started when I complained about a logical fallacy.
especially if we are speaking of the traditional Judeo-Christian-Islamic god(s). God is supposed to be omnipotent, meaning that ANY phenomenon can be attributed to God's will. Science and reason no longer have a place in mankind's world since any given phenomenon can be attributed to God's will.
Funny that: it was people who believed in God who invented the scientific method in the first place, in an academic atmosphere surrounding universities founded by Christian religious organizations.
Yes, God can do anything, so anything you see might be a direct expression of his will. But Christians are very well aware that the universe generally operates according to a consistent set of laws. Those occasions when it does not are what we call miracles. What would be so special about a miracle if nothing can ever happen without God's direct intervention? We call them miracles precisely because they violate laws we are very well aware of, and so reveal God's hand in the matter.
Yes, I know you don't accept that this ever happens. My purpose is to explain my own point of view. I don't expect you will adopt it, but you seem to have a false idea of how religious people actually think, so I'm trying to make it clear to you. Possibly unsuccessfully; I really should have been in bed several hours ago.
When we speak of religion in science and rationality, we must be agnostic. God, unfortunately, gets in the way of learning. By saying NOTHING about religion, or that there is no evidence that leads us to choose one religion over the other, we as a species continue to advance.
A valid religion is and must be rational, based on data from divine revelation. So please drop "rationality" from the discussion here. In terms of science, I agree fully that it has nothing to say about God.
You're treating two very different statements as if they were equivalent. Since I keep saying it but no one ever acknowledges it, I don't think I'm too far out of line to say that it seems a very strong mental block is preventing you guys from recognizing that I am repeatedly, explicitly, calling for the advocacy of no religion over another in the public schools. This is what I take you to mean by "saying NOTHING about religion" so we are in full agreement there. We obviously cannot do exactly what you say in the schools when teaching history or world culture; religion is a very important part of both, so it must be mentioned. But not advocated.
It's quite another thing to say that there is no evidence to make us choose one over the other. If this were true, I and many others I know would simply have made up our own religion rather than adopting the one we had become convinced was the true one. (I am aware that many people have indeed done this very thing.) This is something agnostics seem to fail to recognize: religious people become that way because they have had some sort of experience that leads them in that direction. It may not be the sort of experience that can readily be shared with others, but that does not make it unreal, or untrue. We don't just pull a set of dogmas out of thin air. The evidence does exist even if it appears subjective in nature. It's not the business of the schools to invalidate this evidence, and by extension any religion that a student may choose or be raised in as a result.
At least with your reformulation of the doctrine we're using the same definition of "true" which is a step in the right direction as far as I'm concerned.
As far as God "getting in the way of learning", you have a lot of history to read if you think that's true. It's just not an idea that can (in general) be supported by the facts.
This may ramble a bit, as I'm posting it in the small hours of the morning. I find that the ideas I had in my head weren't quite what wound up on the screen, but I'm too tired to put it any better.
And the brethren went away edified.