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..."

Comments

Seperation of Church and State

[TheGeneration]

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.

Re:Seperation of Church and State

[eugene ts wong]

Seperation between church and state? Well, okay. But must there be a seperation between church and city or church and school? Why can't each school decide for themselves?

Secondly, isn't there already a seperation between "church" and state? I figured that with so many religions involved that there was no official "church".

Also, where is the exact passage that contains "seperation between church and state"?

Re:Seperation of Church and State

[Eagle7]

Seperation between church and state? Well, okay. But must there be a seperation between church and city or church and school? Why can't each school decide for themselves?

Becuase the school is run by the state. And incientally, state applys to any government in this country - federal, state, local. And government operated school has to abide by the constitution. Not to get ad hominem (sp?) here - but this is really basic American civics.

Secondly, isn't there already a seperation between "church" and state? I figured that with so many religions involved that there was no official "church".

It's not about an official church, its about any religion have any more or less influence on goernment than any other religion. So if we let Religion A have a certain right, we need to let every other religion (even the one's that A doesn't like, or thinks is occult, etc) have the same right. What is often forgotten is that the same applies in reverse - all religion's have protection and free from the government. So the government can't decide to, say, tax your local Baptist church out of existence, and let your local synagogue or mosque get a free ride. Incidentally, the famous "Wall of Separation" quote was in response to a Baptist group writing the president thanking him for supporting the Seperation of Church and State - as they were facing oppression at the hands of thier Congregationalist controled local government.

Also, where is the exact passage that contains "seperation between church and state"?

Well, it all stems from the "Congress shall make no law..." clause in the Constitution about relgions. The actualy phrase was coined in the aforementioned letter by (I am almost sure, but I am tired) Thomas Jefferson. More details about all this can be found at a place like the ACLU or AU.

Re:Seperation of Church and State

[eugene ts wong]

I looked up the two links that you provided. I must confess that I didn't do a thorough search, but I did find this one explaining that religous activity in the public schools is allowed. That's sounds more like what I believe and what I was attempting to communicate. I would never allow a church to *directly* control the public coffers, even if it were my own church.

If you could search for the appropriate texts for me, I would appreciate it.

I said:

Why can't each school decide for themselves?

You replied:

Becuase the school is run by the state.

But what I am really trying to ask is why can't the US ammend the laws to allow each school to decide for themselves on what they want to do? I realize that this opens a whole can of worms, but the free market allows each company to set its own prices. Why can't the schools have the same freedoms?

To do this, school funds would have to be collected in another way, but let's say that each community managed to have their own school taxes directed to their own school. Why can't the laws be ammended?

Don't get me wrong. I'm sure that the voters will never accept this, but I still think it's worth debating about.

Re:Seperation of Church and State

[mselmeci]

I hate all this censorship BS. Schools shouldn't have such filtering software. The government shouldn't try to act as a babysitter to all the teenagers in the US, the teachers can take care of the kids.

Re:Seperation of Church and State

[Eagle7]

If you could search for the appropriate texts for me, I would appreciate it.

Well, I did find the letter I was refering to: here

To do this, school funds would have to be collected in another way, but let's say that each community managed to have their own school taxes directed to their own school.

Well, for one, at least in NY communities do provide the taxes for thier own schools. There are school lunch programs, etc from state/federal governments, but the majority of the funds are local.

The problem with have each community set its own standard is that the constitution is still the law of the land. This would be akin to a community deciding that it was legal to stop women from voting. The Constitution has the last word, so every government body at any level in the US has to abide by the minimum freedoms and laws set forth by the Constitution. From an ethical point of view, you have the problem that if a community did vote to have a government funded parochial school, even if 95% of that community was X religion, you are still violating the rights of 5% that are Y or Z religion. Not to mention the number of that 95% that feel that the schools should not be teaching thier children religion, but the parents should. Or the guy from another community who happens to move there and doesn't buy into what's being done (see the movie Footloose for what I mean).

OK, those are the facts. Now I am going to throw in some opinionated stuff. First, the Separation of Church and State is a good thing to just about anyone who isn't look to force thier religion on other people. It garuntees that everyone will have complete freedom to practice thier religion however they want, and that no one will have to worry about having to support someone else's religion, or face descrimination by the government for their religious choices. This is a very important thing. Second, if you look at religion as a private and community entity, the majority of times it is a worthwhile force. But when you look at religion mixed with government (or sudo-government) entities, you get things like the Crusades, nations that don't respect women, pilgrims crossing huge oceans just to practice thier religion, etc. Europeans first came to what is now the US becuase of the problems caused by State-sponsered religion. People seem to forget this.

I assume (perhaps incorrectly) that you are Christian, and therefore you are conveniently in the majority in the US. Imagine for a moment if the push for religion in schools/government was coming from the Jews, or the Hindus, or the Pagans, or the practitioners of Voodoo - and you were in the minority. I hope that it will help put things in perspective, and personalize the things at stake. And keep in mind the Danbury Baptists, and the Pilgrims - who relied on the Freedom of Religion to be able to practice thiers.

Re:Seperation of Church and State

[CrashPoint]

Re: But what I am really trying to ask is why can't the US ammend the laws to allow each school to decide for themselves on what they want to do? I realize that this opens a whole can of worms, but the free market allows each company to set its own prices. Why can't the schools have the same freedoms?

It's not about the schools' freedoms. It's about the students' freedoms. More to the point, it's about taking the power over what people can and cannot view and turning that power over to a corporation that won't release its list of blocked sites.

Re:Seperation of Church and State

[eugene ts wong]

When you deny the schools certain freedoms to decide for themselves what to teach, then everybody looses out--not just the students. Your arguement isn't about freedom. It's about preserving your views which are being taught in schools.

What you are also saying is that if they are taught one religion, they will automatically become undiscerning morons who can't figure out truth, as easily as you did. There are Internet connections all over. They are only banning certain sites in school, not everywhere the person goes!

Re:Seperation of Church and State

[eugene ts wong]

I took a look at the site. Thank you for taking the time to find it. I seriously do appreciate it.

The amendment says that government isn't allowed to force a religous view or action on a group/person. Now why are *you* insisting the government *force* its anti-religous view on the schools? Let the schools decide.

Re:Seperation of Church and State

[eugene ts wong]

[just came up with another idea]

The student's freedoms? Really? Are you sure?

Then private schools are unconstitutional, because the students are only presented with one view? or perhaps because they have filtered Internet access?

If it's only about protecting the students, then parents can't have any authority over the children either.

Sorry, but no.

Re:Seperation of Church and State

[Stevis]

But what I am really trying to ask is why can't the US ammend the laws to allow each school to decide for themselves on what they want to do? I realize that this opens a whole can of worms, but the free market allows each company to set its own prices. Why can't the schools have the same freedoms?

Public Schools aren't a free market, in most places. You go to the one closest to you; occasionally you can get shuttled around to certain schools that are strong in math/arts/whatever, like you can here in Chicago. And in most places parents can pay to send their kids to a different public school district, I think, though it costs them up front and in arranging their own transportation. Obviously, this is not available to lower income parents.

So no, sir, this is not even "worth debating about". The freedom of people to worship privately as they see fit is of utmost importance--depending on your view of ultimate importance of the here and now vs. the eternal, it may be even more important than free speech.

Stevis

Re:Seperation of Church and State

[Acrucis]

Say I belong to a minority religion and have kids in school. Even if 95% of the community at large is Christian and is happy with Christian censoring in the schools, I'm not. If the schools decide to teach Christianity, the government isn't forcing religion on schools, the schools are considered part of the government and are forcing religion on the students.

The school board, or even the parents in general, should NOT be allowed to decide, because you will likely end up with the majority trampling the rights of the minority.

Government is the only place those of us of minority religions get respite from this trampling. For example, right now the stores have aisles and aisles of Easter candy, but no snacks that can be eaten during Passover (similar annoyance affects all minority religions). This is expected because what the stores stock is determined by the market, but what the schools teach should be neutral.

Re:Seperation of Church and State

[CrashPoint]

Re: "When you deny the schools certain freedoms to decide for themselves what to teach, then everybody looses out--not just the students."

Public shcools are a state-run agency. They are supported by taxpayer money. They are subject to regulations governing federal employers. They are as much a part of the government as the police department, the FBI, or Congress. Thus, if a public shcool decides that websites about (insert unpopular religion/practice/philosophy here) are off-limits, then that amounts to government restriction on that religion/practice/philosophy).

Re: "Your arguement isn't about freedom. It's about preserving your views which are being taught in schools."

No, it isn't. If it were, I would insist that filters be implemented to block all religious sites and only allow sites about atheism, since I'm an atheist. But since I respect the religious rights of others, I want all filters removed from public computers so they can look up any damn religion they please, as per their rights under the 1st Amendment.

Re: "What you are also saying is that if they are taught one religion, they will automatically become undiscerning morons who can't figure out truth, as easily as you did."

Stop putting words in my mouth. What I'm saying that students should be taught about ALL religions, or at least not actually prohibited to learn about them using the school resources that they and their parents paid for. Net filtering is censorship. Censorship is denial of information. Denial of information is the opposite of what schools are for.

Re: "There are Internet connections all over. They are only banning certain sites in school, not everywhere the person goes!"

I've heard that one before, and it's quite possibly the lamest argument ever from the pro-filter crowd. Look, not everyone has an Internet connection at home. But everyone does pay taxes to support the libraries and public schools. Furthermore, everyone pays taxes that maintain the university/military/government servers and networks that form the backbone of the Internet (that's right, it's them and not AOL). And if those publicly-supported computers block sites about Religion A, then Religion A's taxpaying believers are being made to support a system that intentionally tries to stifle their beliefs.

Re: "Then private schools are unconstitutional, because the students are only presented with one view? or perhaps because they have filtered Internet access?"

No. Private schools are just that- private. They're not state-run, therefore any kind of religious/philosophical indoctrination they visit on their students is not government-backed like it would be at a public school.

Re: "If it's only about protecting the students, then parents can't have any authority over the children either."

Wrong. The family is a private institution. No backing by the state there, hence they can deny their kids any information they want without it amounting to government censorship.

That's the key thing here, Eugene. Daddy tells Junior that God made the earth in six days and forbids him to read about devilution- fine. Uncle Sam tells Junior that God made the earth in six days and forbids him to read about devilution- that's government censorship, regardless of which state agency is doing it.

Re:Seperation of Church and State

[Happy Monkey]

But what I am really trying to ask is why can't the US ammend the laws to allow each school to decide for themselves on what they want to do? I realize that this opens a whole can of worms, but the free market allows each company to set its own prices. Why can't the schools have the same freedoms?

There isn't a free market on public (gov't run) schools. There often isn't any overlap between the served areas of schools, much less enough for one school per major religion plus an extra for the odd ones out. Are you assuming that all communities have only one religion, and people should segregate themselves by the local school's religious affiliation? Private (non-gov't) schools are free to have any religious affiliation they wish. They provide the alternative for people who want religious instruction to be part of their school's curriculum.

Re:Seperation of Church and State

[Happy Monkey]

Now why are *you* insisting the government *force* its anti-religous view on the schools?

Anti != Non.

Let the schools decide.

How would a school decide? By vote? So if there were 30 Catholics, 20 Baptists, and 20 Jews, then the school should teach Catholic dogma? It's much better if the parents and religious leaders teach religion during services/sunday school/home sessions/etc.

Re:Seperation of Church and State

[eugene ts wong]

but what the schools teach should be neutral.

*But* what the government teaches *isn't* neutral. Who watches the watchmen?

If the schools decide to teach Christianity, the government isn't forcing religion on schools, the schools are considered part of the government and are forcing religion on the students.

I think that you'd be surprised at how bigoted you really are. Most, if not all people these days are surprisingly tolerant. No, they won't force you to believe, or else fail you. Yes, there may be cultural pressures to do this or that, but has the government *ever* stopped any type of cultural pressure?

My friend came out of a Catholic School, and *didn't* believe in Roman Catholicism [wrong spelling?], yet she is much more "Christian" than many people I know, *and* she did well academically. They never forced her to participate in Catholic practises.

Sorry, your worse case scenario doesn't work for the rest of us.

The school board, or even the parents in general, should NOT be allowed to decide, because you will likely end up with the majority trampling the rights of the minority.

Sorry, but they are not more moronic than you. As if they don't have common sense. Come on.

This isn't about rights. It's about beliefs and the freedoms for a community to invest in its young people things that they believe are true.

You are legally correct in that the schools are a part of the government. However, that doesn't mean that it should be this way, anymore than they should be patrolling /. for guys like me. Nope. Sorry.

Re:Seperation of Church and State

[eugene ts wong]

I replied to this already, but it never showed up. It was probably 1 - 2 times as long as yours. The reason I point this out, is because I don't want you to think that you are going ignored.

Perhaps it's just as well. You probably aren't intending to change your view anytime soon and we both presented our views several times already, so it would be wasteful for both of us to continue this thread.

I do appreciate your time in bringing up your side of the arguement.

Maybe I pressed "Preview" thinking that I pressed "Submit", never bothering to check. Oh well.

Re:Seperation of Church and State

[eugene ts wong]

No, I don't have a hard time understanding the seperation between church and state. I was basically trying to point out that the constitution wasn't *only* about the rights of students.

Not trying to be rude, but you misunderstand me. Yes, you bring up a good point, but it's not related to my specific post.

I'm tired of this thread. You can conclude, if you want.

Re:Seperation of Church and State

[B1]

Uhm, what? You are *against* religion being taught in schools. In this debate you are *opposed* *any* religions being taught in school. That does pretty much make it "anti".

There *IS* a difference.

An anti-religious position would hold that religion is actually "bad", and would require teachers to teach anti-religious lessons.
A non-religious position is one that simply does not involve religion at all. The school simply takes no position at all about whether religion is good or bad, and makes no effort to promote any religious beliefs.

No. Just to take the worse case scenario, if *all* of us are taught Judaism, we would still become better people because all of these religions are based on the Old Testament.

How does being taugh from the Old Testament make us better people? And how is teaching Judaism the "worst case" scenario anyway? The vote is 30% Catholic, 20% Baptist, and 20% Judaism... Why isn't 'Baptist' the worst case scenario?

Remember, when local schools have control over ciriculum, then the local citizens also have control over the schools. When there is tax money from a wide variety of people, there will be compromises.
The best compromise is to leave it in the hands of parents and the church to teach their religious beliefs to children. Schools teach reading, writing and arithmetic. I'm against schools teaching religious beliefs for the same reason I'm against churches teaching arithmetic.

It's always better to have larger groups being served by a few. Please don't take that to extremes. What I'm trying to say is that when one person can specialize in teaching then we all profit, because other people can specialize at what they are good at. Are all people good teachers? No. They shouldn't be forced to become good teachers in order for them to pass on their beliefs and/or the truth.

I agree it's more *EFFICIENT* to teach larger groups, and to allow people to specialize. But to expect your school's teacher to teach religious views to your children? Even if they don't agree with *your* views? Would you be OK with teachers also teaching sexual education?

Honestly, even if you can't teach your religious beliefs to your children, they should still manage to pick them up as a result of your regular church attendance, and by emulating the way in which you live your life.

Re:Seperation of Church and State

[maxpublic]

No, it's precisely about rights. In a government-funded school system that uses my taxes for operation, I've every right to prevent you from employing my tax dollars to support your religion. It's that simple.

Furthermore, you have no right whatsoever to force your religion on my children. *I* decide what religious influences will be in their lives *not you*. Your 'community' doesn't have any business ramming its religious beliefs down my kids throats.

You have a choice. You and like-minded folks can start a private religious school and leave the rest of us the hell alone. It's not a hard concept to grasp. People have been doing it for quite some time now.

And, if for some reason you can't tolerate the fact that I don't want my children indoctrinated with your particular brand of religion, you always have the option of repealing the First Amendment. Go ahead. Give it a shot.

Max

Re:Seperation of Church and State

[maxpublic]

we would still become better people because all of these religions are based on the Old Testament.

Oh please, spare me this particular crock of shit. You sound like a Scientologist or Branch Davidian, insisting that if everyone followed your religion we'd all be 'better people'. Yeah, sure, take another hit from that crack pipe of yours.

when local schools have control over ciriculum, then the local citizens also have control over the schools.

And the Constitution is designed so that the majority, no matter what kind of fuckwits they represent, can't impose their wackiness on the minority. If you don't like it then change the Constitution. If you can.

None of them, even if true, would justify the rest of us being trampled by you, the minority.

Cry me a river! Because your brand of cultism isn't taught in public schools you're being oppressed! Try teaching your religious beliefs at home or in church, where my tax dollars aren't at work. Or send your kid to a religious school.

You don't have any right to dictate that my kid be indoctrinated with your religion. None. But I gather from your posts that's what really gets your goat - that you can't force your religious beliefs on the children of others. A damned good thing that is, given your complete disregard for the Constitution or the rights of others.

This is complex. Let the communities and courts decide on a case by case basis.

It's already been decided. The Constitution reigns supreme. If you don't like it, change it. But we already know it'll be a cold day in hell when you gather the support for that move, eh? Which is no doubt why you're so eager to disregard the Constitution and remand the law to local majorities of religious freaks.

Max

Re:Why it's so.

[PD]

So, what you're saying is that god cannot be moral? I'll agree with that.

Re:Why it's so much dogmatic crap

[SuperguyA1]

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.

Re:Nonsense

[eugene ts wong]

It's not nonsense. Anytime that anybody has a view that's different from the Linux community and /. community, they are automatically wrong and legalistic. /. tells you about your rights online, and *YOU* *MUST* *OBEY*.

;-p

Re:Abstain or Protection?

[Eagle7]

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.

Re:Abstain or Protection?

[TheGeneration]

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.)

Re:Why it's so much dogmatic crap

[TheGeneration]

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.

There will naturally be bias

[Karora]

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.

Time for OpenBlock?

[Paul Johnson]

Maybe the time has come for an Open Source web blocking program which provides for finer control, and maybe a selection of which blocking list to subscribe to.

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.

Re:Time for OpenBlock?

[Deagol]

Check out squidGuard (search freshmeat). As much as I loathe filtering software, if I was forced to set one up, I'd use squidGuard.

Re:Time for OpenBlock?

[StormyMonday]

I kicked this around as a busness idea a while back.

The software is completely straightforward, except for string-matching algorithms. (This just means that we probably couldn't use standard regexp stuff, as the block/pass lists will be quite long.)

First thing it would do on connection is read the filter list(s) from whatever lists the user subscribes to. A user subscribes to lists that match his/her prejudices about what kids should be allowed to see.

The software should certainly be open source, but the filter lists need full time maintainers. Salaries. Offices. Organization. Marketing. This means money. 'Way beyond my organizational abilities.

Sweet Jesus

[Anonymous Coward]

I wish some Christians would come to my house and block the BIG FUCKING slashdot ad on my screen.

Re:Why it's so.

[TheGeneration]

Right. Well since I don't believe in any god, and I know all religious texts were written by men then all morals by all people would be subjective.

I can easily argue that having a moral as simplistic as "Do unto others as you would others do unto you." is a higher, simpler, better moral.

I don't want to be killed, so I don't kill.
I don't want my stuff stolen, so I don't steal.
I don't want my children brain washed by a religion, so I don't brain wash your children.

Pretty frickin simple buddy.

Re:Too long

[spt]

The bias is that the filtering software is blocking religious sites that aren't Christian and letting through extreme Christian sites.

www.ExtremeIslamSite.Com : blocked
www.ExtremeChristSite.Com : allowed.

If you are a parent that would prefer your child not to be exposed to all extreme religious views then you are out of luck.

Re:Why it's so much dogmatic crap

[TheGeneration]

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.

Re:Why it's so.

[TheGeneration]

Actually, I'd rather make my external arbiter Ariel the flying dragon thing from The Never Ending Story as long as we're using fictional creatures to arbitrate our lives.

Re:This article is such bullshit

[spt]

Some parents find homosexual, occult, and weapon-related websites objectionable

Exactly. So why is Native American history blocked as being occult, yet resurrection in a Christian context is allowed?

Re:Abstain or Protection?

[eugene ts wong]

Why shouldn't there be a national standard for filtration if filtration is mandated?

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.

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.

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 /. Oh my!

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.

Re:Abstain or Protection?

[eugene ts wong]

and that high schools should employ a simple corporate-type filter that blocks only overtly pornographic type sites;

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.

Article has significant religious bias of its own

[CaptainCarrot]

It says at one point:

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.

planetout...

[josepha48]

I wonder if they filter out planetout? Wouldn't want those kids finding out that being gay is not as bad as they religions fanitics want you to think. Or the fact that these religious groups that say love thy neightbor, really teach love thy neighbor, but hate them if they are gay.

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!!!

Re:planetout...

[s20451]

It's Sodom and Gomorrah, as in:

Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom - both young and old - surrounded the house. They called to Lot, `Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.' (Genesis 19:4-5)

However, some scholars point to the following passage as the real reason why Sodom was destroyed:

Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. (Ezekiel 16:49)

Re:planetout...

[josepha48]

"so that we can have sex with them"

This is where the problem is. The transulation of "tok know was converted to " have sex with" was misinterpreted. It was actually:

" that we may know them."

There are Jewish scholars will tell you that "to know" has many meaning and while sex is one of them it is not necessarily the corect one here. I.E. "to know" as a friend or as a person. I "know" people and have not had sex with them.

Also in Ezekiel, as you pointed out said the sins of sister Sodem were "arrogance, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy." This would indicate that the reason that Soden was destroyed was not for sex acts but tbecause they were wicked.

Which is worse: to commit a consensual act between two consenting people, or to treat someone as less of a person?

Re:This article is such bullshit

[spt]

Partly because the filterware vendors keep their blocklists secret and sue the crap out of anyone who tries to decrypt or criticise them

Re:Abstain or Protection?

[Stary]

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?

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.

Re:Article has significant religious bias of its o

[Stary]

It seems that the correct point of view is that Islam is "another truth!"

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.

Re:Abstain or Protection?

[eugene ts wong]

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.

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.

The URI list is the key

[harmonica]

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.

Re:Article has significant religious bias of its o

[CaptainCarrot]

I would think a geek would know better. Two mutually contradictory statements cannot both be true. This is fundamental to any consistent system of thought. Islam and Christianity contradict each other. They cannot both be true.

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.

Re:Abstain or Protection?

[PurpleFloyd]

Note: this is slightly OT, sorry moderators.

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 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.

Filtering software = unsupervied fun

[The Donald]

There are a lot of sites out there that I would not want my kids (if I had any) to see out there on the net. At home, they would know I'll be around, checking up on them, making sure they do not surf over to the adult sites, or the other sites I don't feel it's right for a person their age to see.

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?

Re:Article has significant religious bias of its o

[Eagle7]

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.

Re:Article has significant religious bias of its o

[CaptainCarrot]

Your argument "begs the question", that is, it assumes the point under discussion. 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. As such it is no more provable on its face than any of the religions it seeks to syncretize -- or make equally irrelevant, which works out to the same thing.

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.

Block only porn? You're dreaming.

[CrashPoint]

Re: "and I would advocate...that high schools should employ a simple corporate-type filter that blocks only overtly pornographic type sites"

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)?

Re:Too long

[CrashPoint]

The point of the article is that public schools and libraries- BY LAW- are required to use some kind of filterware, and the companies that write/publish this software won't say what sites they're blocking, and they often make it unneccesarily difficult to override the block list from an administrative level. What this means is that near-total control over what you can and can't see on the Net goes to the lowest bidder in the area.

Re:Article has significant religious bias of its o

[eugene ts wong]

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?

Re:Why it's so.

[RDskutter]

I don't want asparagus to eat me, so I don't eat asparagus.

Asparaguses don't generally go around eating people. What was your point again ?

Re:This article is such bullshit

[ronc_LAemigre]

I am on principle against filtering; however, this article is seeped in the moral relativism that pervades education thinking. The same issues that this article attacks as a threat are the ones that education advocacy groups want to see taught to as young as they possibly can to promulgate their beliefs. Alternative lifestyle and beliefs need to be accepted (and that acceptance needs to be indoctrinated at an early age)
It does not matter that certain religions or beliefs teach animal or human sacrifice, or that non-believers should be killed, that is as moral as any other belief. Grafitti is an art form, it does not matter if you deface or steal other people's property.
I do not want the schools (unless private) teaching Christianity or it's set of beliefs as doctrine; but, at the same time that the seperation of church and state came to be more broadly interpreted starting in the 1960's there has been nothing to replace it. One of the reasons that the Fundamentalist Christian organizations have been able to promote religion in the schools is that many of the parents feel that there has been wholesale abandonship of simple ideas of citizenship and cooperation. It has been replaced with the Nike mentality of "Just Do It" and if you screw over most everyone in your pursuit of doing it it is just their tough luck

Re:Article has significant religious bias of its o

[Eagle7]

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.

Re:Article has significant religious bias of its o

[Eagle7]

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.

So in other words...

[A nonymous Coward]

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.

Re:So in other words...

[CaptainCarrot]

It's interesting that you have to reach back 800 years to find something you can point the finger at Christians over.

But in this case you're pointing the finger in the wrong direction. I'm an Eastern Orthodox Christian. The Orthodox were thrown out of the shrines of Palestine by the Crusaders, who thought they were the wrong kind of Christian, and the greatest city of Eastern Christianity, Constantinople, was sacked by the 4th Crusade.

But even without these things, I always find it interesting that people like you who say things like this never ask the simple question: how did the Moslems get to own the Holy Land to begin with? (Hint: they weren't invited.)

Re:Why it's so.

[anomaly]

Ok. If there's a god, how can it be that god would not be moral? What is your definition of god?

What is your standard for determining morality?

Re:Why it's so.

[PD]

The person I replied to said that a higher power is required to define morality. Who defines morality for god?

Re:Article has significant religious bias of its o

[CaptainCarrot]

An interesting consequence of the liberal takeover of our institutions of higher learning is the degredation of the language. By any reasonable standard, your definition of "truth" is absurd. Just so you know, I meant it in the ontological sense it always had before people with brains of mush began to muck about with the meaning of the word.

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.

Re:Abstain or Protection?

[Happy Monkey]

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.

Re:Article has significant religious bias of its o

[CaptainCarrot]

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.

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.

Hint:

[A nonymous Coward]

Neither were the Christians.

Re:Separation of Church and State

[Teun]

Funny how we in The Netherlands interpret that separation of church and state so differently.
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)

Re:Article has significant religious bias of its o

[CaptainCarrot]

I caught the implications of "equally true" in the post in question, but as the author seemed to be saying (as an absolute) that both were false, I chose to regard it as flamebait and left it lying there.

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.

Re:Article has significant religious bias of its o

[CaptainCarrot]

Where does Willard ever imply that Islam is "another truth!"? You're imputing that viewpoint to her.

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.

Pork Buttocks

[HKTiger]

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...

Uh huh

[A nonymous Coward]

Wasn't too popular with the prevailing opinion, was it? The existing occupants didn't exactly spread their arms in joyous welcome.

One stupid argument

[A nonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Why it's so.

[StormyMonday]

a power higher than yourself

You mean the Government? God is the Government? The Government is God? You need to watch your phrasing; you're not talking to True Believers here.

I live by moral codes derived from social norms, scientific principals, and Government laws. You live by moral codes that "God" whispers in your ear.

You may call it "morals"; I call it schizophrenia.

Re:Article has significant religious bias of its o

[eugene ts wong]

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!

Offtopic: light and matter

[eugene ts wong]

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.

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*

Re:Offtopic: light and matter

[CaptainCarrot]

Oh, it's no more off-topic than anything else in this thread, IMO. Unfortunately, you're not correct: an electromagnetic wave such as visible light, radio waves, or gamma radiation, requires nothing more in the way of a medium than empty space. There's no way to explain this without citing a bunch of math, so you might want to do a Google search for Maxwell's Equations which are foundational to this branch of Physics.

Re:Abstain or Protection?

[eugene ts wong]

Once again, this is a hypothetical situation, but I'll try to answer.

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 /. 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*.

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.

stating the obvious...

[Revolvyerom]

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?)

Re:Why it's so.

[anomaly]

I doubt you will like my answer.

By virture of the fact that He created the universe, He gets to set the rules for his creatures. It's immoral for me to commit adultery because God says it is, and for no other reason.

If God had been created by a greater being, then He could be held to a standard other than his own. Since He has no creator, there is no one for him to be accountable to.

We can be thankful that a perfect and holy God, (who would be defiled by anything less than perfection) has made a way for us - who are clearly imperfect - to still have relationship with him.

I'm grateful that God sent Jesus to die for my sins - and that He gave me the opportunity to have relationship with Him. It's through Christ's perfect life, and His choice to die - taking my punishment, that I can have relationship with a perfect God. (But you knew that already, didn't you?)

Re:Why it's so.

[PD]

You're right, I don't like your answer. It is completely and utterly irrational.

Is this stuff that matters?

[wumingzi]

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.

Re:Is this stuff that matters?

[Silver Rose]

The problem expressed in the story has very little to do with the religious bent of many filtration software. This is incidental to the main issue involved, which is the fact that software filtering on a religious bias is being used in schools. This then restricts the access of students to information not approved of by a religious, rather than a cultural authority. Therefore, students are being subjected to religion (allowed access to only one religion) in school, which is unconstitutional. That's why the story is an issue. In reading the article, for instance, I noticed that one of the filters has an "occult" topic. If I were in a high school library, and tried to look up information on Wicca/Witchcraft, I would not be permitted to view at least some sites. On the other hand, if I were to look for a myriad of pro-Christian sites, I would find no trouble viewing those. While this would be fine (or at least legal) if it were on my or my parents' home computer, it is not okay in a school environment. It would imply (especially to younger children) that there is something inherently wrong with Wicca which does not apply to Christianity... the school would be then supporting one religion over another, which is unconstitutional. Now, the other issue discussed in the article is one that seems to have escaped you notice entirely, which is that some of the filters are also preventing access to Gay/Lesbian educational sites, /in the same category as sites on 'how to' sex sites./ Now, how much of a non-issue is that?

Re:Is this stuff that matters?

[wumingzi]

The problem expressed in the story has very little to do with the religious bent of many filtration software. This is incidental to the main issue involved, which is the fact that software filtering on a religious bias is being used in schools.

Thanks for responding.

I am at a disadvantage in that I have neither administered nor been, uh, subjected to, any of the pieces of censorware out there. My public school days ended when Reagan was president and that big ol' Information Superhighway was just a dirt road. :-)

Anyhow, because you brought it up, I read the article again. The core points I read in the article were as follows:

1) Symantec, N2H2, and 8e6 (all of which sell to schools), also sell to a lot of Conservative Christian churches. This is fallacious on the face of it. Sun and Cisco sell a lot of hardware to the government of the People's Republic of China. Ergo, do Sun and Cisco's management condone totalitarianism and forced abortions? No. They want to make money.

2) Five other companies (none of which I believe are big players in the school market) have strong ties to right-wing foundations and/or Conservative Christian churches. This is of slightly greater concern, but again, since these companies do not (I beleive) sell much to public schools, this is an issue of a seller connecting with a willing suck////buyer.

3) The author of the report "thinks" there is a bias in the filters, but admits she can't prove it. (I will be happy to give her some ideas on how to look for such a bias if she is interested in looking for this). [1] She makes quite a bit about the fact that the exact contents of the lists are closed. File under "important if true", but she seems to be fishing at this point.

4) The author of the report is curious about some of the filtering categories which can be turned on. They hit her as being overly vauge.

I agree fully with your points, but these were referred to only eliptically in the original article as examples of places there could potentially be problems. There could also be 30-foot-long moles living in giant tunnels underneath California (how else can you explain all the earthquakes?), but absent some more concrete research, it's not here.

It's very important when reading newspaper articles (or any other source material) to look at what they have which is concrete and provable (in the case of this article, almost nothing), and where the author is kicking back and speculating (in this article a lot), and when the author IS speculating, what background the author has to base this speculation on (again, it seems pretty light here).

[1] An interesting project would be to go through some well-organized list of web pages (such as the Google hierarchical directory or the DMOZ with a Perl script and see what percentage are blocked by the censorware programs in different categories. Do this and you'll have something worth writing a paper about.

j.

Re:Ad bug

[Gordonjcp]

Wouldn't it be great if they had unobtrusive, simple little text ads like on the other site?

I actually click on these, from time to time. I do so, for no other reason than they catch my eye - briefy - as I read the page. If they seem interesting, I'll click the link.

They don't flash, they don't make noises, and they're not 400x300 gif's.

Re:Why it's so.

[anomaly]

Much of the human experience is irrational.

Can you measure loyalty, love, honor, committment, trust, hope, emotions?

Do you doubt that they exist? Would you discard them as concepts merely because they cannot be quantified?

Here is where we enter into what is perhaps irreconcilable disgreement - To attempt to describe the totality of the human experience in terms that can be rationally expressed is itself irrational - mere folly.

Respectfully,
Tom Cooper

Re:Why it's so.

[PD]

Your argument is changing the subject. The first statement talked about morality requiring a higher authority, meaning that god cannot be moral. The explanations given for that are merely unbased handwaving. That's what's irrational.

Please look up to meaning of rational. It's not quantification, it's providing a reason. If you have no reason to believe in one mythos (Jesus) then why is it you don't believe in another mythos (the kool-aid will help you get to the comet where the aliens are)?

Re:Why it's so.

[Sir Robin]

I think I kinda have to side with PD here, Tom. If I told you how to behave, because I said so, and for no other reason, you'd laugh at me. Saying "God said it, I'll follow it" doesn't make any more logical sense than saying "The Bhagwan said it, I'll follow it." It relies on your a priori belief in the perfection of God. As long as you believe in the perfection of God, you needn't worry about what God tells you to do. When/if that faith starts to crumble (or, in the case of many people, especially many slashdotters, it never existed), then you worry (assuming you give the issue any thought at all :).

I think the critical part of your post lies in this quote:

We can be thankful that a perfect and holy God [...]

A casual reader of the Old Testement can easily get the impression that God doesn't follow his own rules, and see God as evil and capricious, (and here's the irony) based on the moral code descended in large part from that very tome.

Re:Why it's so.

[maxpublic]

The Christian god didn't create the universe. A pack of lies and propaganda from an upstart deity.

No, the universe was formed from chaos, with the giants first among sentient creatures. We know that because the Eddas tell us so. The gods - Odin, Thor, Frey, etc. - came after the giants and supplanted them, kicking their sorry behinds and banishing them to lands of ice and fire.

Yessirree bob! That's what *really* happened. All this Christianity crap - "only one god, yada yada" - that came later, from a group of spastics who couldn't tolerate competition.

And when Ragnarok comes all you junior god worshippers are gonna be damned! Me, I'll be in Valhalla eating, drinking, fighting and screwing, day in and day out! A pox on the lot of you one-god clowns!

Max

Re:Nonsense

[maxpublic]

and *YOU* *MUST* *OBEY*.

Jeez, and people keep telling me that's what the Christian god demands. Are you saying that Slashdot is a tool of god? Perhaps an addendum to the New Testament?

Max

Re:Abstain or Protection?

[maxpublic]

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

Re:Nonsense

[eugene ts wong]

I said: "It's not nonsense. Anytime that anybody has a view that's different from the Linux community and /. community, they are automatically wrong and legalistic. /. tells you about your rights online, and *YOU* *MUST* *OBEY*.

;-p"

You said: "Jeez, and people keep telling me that's what the Christian god demands. Are you saying that Slashdot is a tool of god? Perhaps an addendum to the New Testament?"

I don't understand what your problem is. Maybe I'm out to lunch, but don't you think that I'm just joking when I use " ;-p "? Why else would I do that? I'm just joking around. Maybe it isn't funny to you, and that's fine, but it just implies to me that you're doing this for the sake of trolling. Give me a break.

Re:Why it's so.

[anomaly]

Morality is imposed by a higher authority. Since there is no higher authority than God, He is not subject to any morality other than His own.

With all due respect, you are skirting the issue that *you* raised. You lifted up the 'reason' issue as a standard for whether a particular position has merit - as if reason was (is) the ultimate standard.

My point is that the human experience is far broader than mere reason. It is unreasonable to try to boil the human experience down to logic and facts alone.

The link to quantification is that in order to use reason, one *must* quantify each of the items to be evaluated. How can you use logic two compare things that cannot be quantified?

My rationale for believing that Jesus is Lord of the universe is based on the evidence that he has provided.

My rationale for rejecting kool-aid as a mechanism to deliver me to aliens is that
a) I've seen no evidence that there are aliens, and
b)I'm not aware of kool-aid's use as a transport, just as a thirst-quencher.

For you to compare the two that way sounds clever, but it's intellectually dishonest, don't you think?

Re:Why it's so.

[PD]

Why do you stop at god? If the rule is that moral authority is imposed by a higher authority, then that should hold for god as well.

My point is that the human experience is far broader than mere reason. It is unreasonable to try to boil the human experience down to logic and facts alone.

Then how is it possible to decide between gods. Worship Jeezus, or worship the tooth fairy. Each one has equal support.

My rationale for believing that Jesus is Lord of the universe is based on the evidence that he has provided.

I have equal evidence for the tooth fairy. It's not intellectually dishonest, in fact, it's the only honest position available to me. Without evidence, I can't say much about god at all.

Re:Why it's so.

[anomaly]

What evidence would be sufficient for you to believe that Jesus is Lord of the universe?

Re:Why it's so.

[PD]

Direct observation and testing through repeatable experiment. The properties of god are well conjectured, and must be testable. I presume this would require the full cooperation of said deity. In other words, direct and full answers only - no symbolism or evasion would be allowed.

1) omnipotence - this would require a source of power. Where is it? If it is extradimensional or "outside" the universe, then we'll require access to it for complete testing.

2) omnipresence - once again, we'd need a complete test of this, and the ability to replicate it in the lab. If god shows us how it's done, we should be able to do it too, especially if we have access to the power source from item #1

3) omniscience - full documentation is required, along with a very convincing explanation of how the deity gets around the boundaries of what is knowable, and what cannot be known. We must have access to the method for determining truth (for example, an algorithm that the deity would use for solving the halting problem). As a bonus, a nice short solution to Fermat's Last Theorem would be good to see.

That takes care of the "lord of the universe" part. To prove that he is Jesus, I would have to use what I learned in the testing of points #1, #2, and #3 above to collect DNA samples from the original Jesus, and compare them to the supposed deity standing in front of me. That would just about do it, I think.

Remember, extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. Without evidence the tooth fairy looks just as good as Jesus to any rational person.

yet another damned post disappears

[maxpublic]

To paraphrase my earlier reply: the original post was a joke for those who aren't humor-impaired.

Max

Re:yet another damned post disappears

[eugene ts wong]

To paraphrase my earlier reply: the original post was a joke for those who aren't humor-impaired.

After what appears to be an inflamatory trolling towards me in another thread, you come into this thread and *joke* around? Oh, okay. I'm humour-impared then. Whoever doesn't get your joke is impared.

Re:yet another damned post disappears

[maxpublic]

It wasn't a joke intended for *your* benefit. After all, you're one of the religious cultists attempting to spread his radical beliefs by imposing them on the children of others via the vehicle of school.

You, sir, are an anti-Constitutional nutcase.

Max

Re:Why it's so.

[anomaly]

Very clever. I give you high marks for style, too.

Your tests require applying the context of your humanity to something superhuman. Once you move from something material to something 'supermaterial' (or perhaps non-material would be more accurate) the physical laws on which you base your tests are no longer applicable. And you know that.

There *are* valid tests within the human context that provide credibility to the claims of Christ. There are no such claims or evidence to back the tooth fairy.

So what you're really saying is that there is no evidence that would be sufficient. Which brings you to the table with a bias that at least equals religious intensity.

Do you admit that you are not open minded to the possibility that God exists?

Re:Why it's so.

[anomaly]

OK SirRobin....I'll bite :-)

You don't have the right to tell me how to behave. Iff you created me, from your own resources - from nothing - you would have that right.

I'll also take issue with your assertion that my posting contains an a priori assumption that God is perfect. I think you're reading something into what I wrote, merely because we're friends and you know where I stand.

God has the right to define parameters for his creatures solely as a result of the fact that He created us, regardless of whether His behavior is consistent with what He tells us to do.

My point is that we should be thankful that the God who created the universe is not only consistent with the rules that He lays out, but also that He is full of compassion and love for His creatures.

WRT the 'casual reading' of the Hebrew scriptures, much is lost when reading anything from antiquity without context. Irony, sarcasm, sociopolitical references, even caustic epithets can be totally missed. Use at least the same standard of care when reading the OT as you should with any work.

If God was evil and capricious:

1. We would have no basis on which to stand when accusing Him, and

2.We would all have been utterly destroyed many many years ago.

I for one am glad that He is righteous, as well as tender and forgiving for those who recognize their imperfection and ask for His mercy.

If only I had points and could post and moderate

[anomaly]

I'd give you a +1 funny!

Cheers,
Anomaly

Re:Why it's so.

[PD]

Your tests require applying the context of your humanity to something superhuman.

The tests are not in any way specific to a "superhuman". The claims are clear. A god is supposed to have certain abilities. Either the god has the abilities or he doesn't. The tests make that quite clear.

There *are* valid tests within the human context that provide credibility to the claims of Christ. There are no such claims or evidence to back the tooth fairy.

Ahhhh, but I have excellent evidence of the tooth fairy. The teeth disappeared, and dollars appeared in their place. My parents have denied any involvement, and they are certainly trustworthy. If the tooth fairy gives me a dollar for a single tooth, imagine what the tooth fairy will do for me when I die! Oh sweet heavenly toothfairy reward! The claims that I have seen "in the human context" are far far weaker than the tooth fairy evidence.

So what you're really saying is that there is no evidence that would be sufficient. Which brings you to the table with a bias that at least equals religious intensity.

That's completely and absolutely wrong. I have told you exactly what evidence is sufficient. It's not a bias at all. Do you know about the burden of proof? Are you in effect admitting that whatever god you appeal to is incapable of providing evidence that would satisfy critics? What a pathetic god...

Do you admit that you are not open minded to the possibility that God exists?

I am absolutely open minded. Once again, I must tell you to go back to your dictionary and look up some words. I can hardly fault you though, quite a lot of people whose thinking is non-rigorous don't have an understand of the concept of an open mind.

1) Closed mind - This is a person who will NOT accept a theory, despite having been given sufficient evidence. This person will typically say "I see your evidence, but I'm not even going to consider anything you say."

2) Open mind - This person is a skeptic. He will not believe anything out of hand, but will demand evidence. When the evidence is presented and the open minded person has no objections that are not addressed by the evidence, then he will be forced to believe.

(I fall into this category. I do not know about any gods. I have heard about what gods are supposed to be capable of, and if that capacity was demonstrated to me, I would have no choice but to believe that god exists. Worshipping him would require further testing to determine if that god is worthy of worship. Suppose that god is sadistic and tempermental - that god wouldn't be worthy of worship.)

3) Unguarded - many religious people fall into this category (but not all!) They believe without questioning, and when confronted with a nonbeliever that has throught things through completely, accuse him of being intellectually dishonest and closed minded. Their mantra is "believe in god. Why? Because. That's as intellectual as we get."

So, I repeat. I'm open. Show me, and I'll have absolutely no choice but to believe.

Re:Why it's so.

[Vuarnet]

There *are* valid tests within the human context that provide credibility to the claims of Christ. There are no such claims or evidence to back the tooth fairy.
What you say!!!

When I was a kid, I lost a tooth (I lost a whole bunch of them, actually, but let's use just one for this example). I put it under my pillow, and the next morning there was a big, shiny coin in its place. I asked my parents about it, and they told me that it was because of the Tooth Fairy.

When I was a kid, I lost my grandfather (I lost only one of them, and I'm pretty sure my other grandpa wouldn't want to be included as an example here). I asked my parents about his death, and they told me that it was the will of God.

So why is one more believable than the other? Just because of one Book?

Re:Why it's so.

[eugene ts wong]

...then he will be forced to believe...I would have no choice but to believe...

What makes you think that you can't rationalize things away? Even after being presented with absolute facts?

I could just picture you saying, "Yeah, but how do we know that that is one inch? Yeah, but how do we know that that ruler is accurate? Yeah, but how do know that the standard hasn't changed? Yeah, but how do know...", and on, and on, and on.

In your defense however, to a certain degree, this kind of scepticism helps. I could just hear the following conversation.

"How do we know that there was a brontasaurus [correct sp?]?"
"Because the fosils are so close together?"
"But that doesn't guarantee anything."
"I'm a paleantological expert. It's obvious that you are being closed minded."

Yet, we can see that there was *never* any brontasaurus, and those who were sceptical, were rightfully so. The paleontologists abused their status and taught false ideas. Logic is very frail, and it doesn't help nearly as much as universities may indoctrinate their followers to believe.

Re:Too long

[nalfeshnee]

if you're the kind of parent that needs site-blocking software in the first place, then you're not much of a parent.

Re:Why it's so.

[PD]

What makes you think that you can't rationalize things away? Even after being presented with absolute facts?

Facts cannot be rationalized away. When confronted with a statement such as 2+2=4, rationalization is immediately revealed. Denial of a fact is not rational.

I could just picture you saying, "Yeah, but how do we know that that is one inch? Yeah, but how do we know that that ruler is accurate? Yeah, but how do know that the standard hasn't changed? Yeah, but how do know...", and on, and on, and on.


I am not a solipcist. On the contrary, it is religious people who have that tendancy. When they say things such as "not everything can be thought of as based on evidence" or "I believe in Jesus despite the complete lack of evidence". This is not a rational position, and those who hold it do not realize just how close they really are to statements such as the one you gave in the example.

"I'm a paleantological expert. It's obvious that you are being closed minded."

You should not accept an answer like that. The burden of proof is on the paleantologist, and his dismissal of your questions isn't likely to convince you, is it?

Yet, we can see that there was *never* any brontasaurus, and those who were sceptical, were rightfully so. The paleontologists abused their status and taught false ideas. Logic is very frail, and it doesn't help nearly as much as universities may indoctrinate their followers to believe.

So, you are suggesting that we rely on things such as superstition to decide between two ideas? I am amazed, that you can say that, and also accuse me (I think that was you who said it) of being intellectually dishonest.

Jesus said it himself. "Blessed is he who believes without seeing." That statement is the antithesis of science, and the antithesis of thinking. The idea that a person should not use their brain to think through the problems and options that face us all is repugnant to me, and should be repugnant to every person with a brain. And now you're telling me essentially that thinking is a useless thing, and that what a person gets at a university is indoctrination.

But your way is hardly any better, since you can't give any answer at all to my questions. I ask "why?" and you answer "because". Because is not an answer.

Re:Why it's so.

[Sir Robin]

Aside from all your other good points,

If God was evil and capricious:
[...]
2.We would all have been utterly destroyed many many years ago.

This may be the best demonstration of that point I've ever seen. :)

Re:Article has significant religious bias of its o

[CaptainCarrot]

Of course the believers of each point of view have the right to think themselves correct. So does the writer of the article, who believes himself to be correct at the expense of Christianity, Islam, and others. He and those of like mind with himself have no more right to impart that belief in the public schools than I have to preach Christianity.

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.

Re:Article has significant religious bias of its o

[mshomphe]

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.

Re:Article has significant religious bias of its o

[CaptainCarrot]

God has not shown up and demonstrated (his | her | its) presence.

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.