Slashdot Mirror
Examining Religious Bias In Filtering Software
the_rev_matt writes: "eSchool News has a great piece about the religious influence present in filtering software. Not that this will be a surprise to most /. regulars, but the research behind it is interesting. Now if only eSchool News could change their name to something less horrible..."
So, what you're saying is that god cannot be moral? I'll agree with that.
If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
I don't know how to reply to this other than to say it's bullpucky. What about the desire to live within a decent society. What about the desire to be able to get along with those around you. No God there, although it certainly makes room for God, which your Closed minded Dogmatic argument doesn't reciprocate.
"as plurdled gabbleblotchits on a lurgid bee" - Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz. (One man's humorous is another mans flamebait)
Incidentally, regardless of what PP might say, good, scientific studies say that teaching kids about *only* abstinence won't work. Some kids are going to have sex - the only way to protect them from becoming STD victims or teenage parents is to teach them how to do what they will do anyway safely. It's common sense that is backed up by good research. It has nothing to do with religion - it has *everything* to do with human nature.
I do agree with the rest of your argument to some degree - and I would advocate that any pre-high school internet access in schools should *always* be supervised, and that high schools should employ a simple corporate-type filter that blocks only overtly pornographic type sites; computers should all be in public areas; and the adult in charge should be able to override the blocks at will on thier own judgement for a certain site.
Of course, we have a law on the books that won't allow this, so until the law changes, it is important that we ensure that our schools are not being unwittingly used to influence children in "non-sanctioned" ways.
_sig_ is away
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.
_sig_ is away
The software side is pretty simple. A perl script tied to MySQL will do the job. All that is needed is for the people who say they want children protected from this stuff to list the sites that they need to be protected from.
Personally I'm more on the side of logging and dealing with infractions rather than trying to create a padded cell. But even that approach would benefit from a list of sites to watch for.
Paul.
You are lost in a twisty maze of little standards, all different.
I wish some Christians would come to my house and block the BIG FUCKING slashdot ad on my screen.
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.
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?
Because with a national standard, there are less people involved. With less people involved there is a greater chance that the standards won't meet everybody's needs.
However, if each group can decide for themselves what to filter, then there is a better chance of everybody having their needs met.
This whole filtering philosophy can be about religion, but it doesn't *have* to be *only* about religon. What if the kids in one school are such Internet addicts that the school recognizes the value of filtering *everything* *except* for a particular site that is relavent and unbiased to the study at hand? A National Board wouldn't have enough time to deal with each school on a case by case basis.
That's a good arguement. And I respond by saying that they should decide on a case by case basis. Why should a community in Florida have to explain to a community in Washington State? It doesn't make sense. Why should Columbine High School have to justify their views to you? What if everybody in that community literally adopted the *exact* same beliefs? I know it's impossible, but for the sake arguement, let's examine the senario.
With today's laws would they be able to filter out according to their own beliefs? Remember, there is no disagreement, because they all of a sudden became followers in the same religion! I think that most people would cry foul and start submitting stories to
Disclaimer [in case someone wasn't following what I said]: I don't believe that everybody in that community has the same religion. It's just something for discussion.
Kids can get Internet access outside of school. We can't please everybody. With each school deciding for themselves, more communities will be happy. With each community deciding for themselves, it will be *harder* [not impossible] for mistakes to be spread to other communities.
testing out my trending skills
I think that alone would put an end to a *lot* of arguements. But I could be wrong. I believe that government organizations should be more transparent to the community in how their computers work. This way the community can have input, and concerned consultants would have brought up your suggestion, by now.
testing out my trending skills
Willard says in her report that the first time she visited the Global Internet Ministries web site, the lead article on the site was "Have we shamed the face of Jesus? Muslims in our pulpits," and the article drew the following conclusion: "... when we present Islam as another truth, we spit on the face of Christ and those who serve His kingdom in Islamic countries."
This is on its face unremarkable for a Christian website, so I can only deduct that Willard found the statements alarming for some reason. Certainly they're biased, and considering the source we should not be shocked. But what's implied when this material, especially that last quote, is held up as a bad example? It seems that the correct point of view is that Islam is "another truth!"
Are these people so unthoughtful on this subject that they cannot see that this is, in itself, a religious point of view? (I doubt it.) Are they indoctrinating schoolchildren into this religion? (From what I've seen, yes.) Exactly how brazen do you have to be to bray about the fictional "wall of separation between Church and State" supposedly found in the First Amendment, and then go around preaching a religion of your own that for no reason that's ever said aloud seems to be exempt? (An awful lot, but that seems to be characteristic of the Politically Correct crowd.)
Hypocrites, the lot of them.
And the brethren went away edified.
Oh heaven forbid that people learn that sodem and gamoreh(sp) has nothing to do with sodemy.
What would people think if they found out about the gay penguins in the aquarium. Oh my!
Some of these people are the same ones that think that prayer should be allowed in public schools. However they don't want to just allow it they want to require it! P>Your going to hell if you moderate this down!!!
Only 'flamers' flame!
Partly because the filterware vendors keep their blocklists secret and sue the crap out of anyone who tries to decrypt or criticise them
Because then some would decide like one swedish religious school did before being hit by the government; they decided for themselves that their immediate need was to teach children that cancer was due to lack of faith.
Either filter everything or filter equally from all perspectives... the internet is unique in that it contains so much opinion-stuff that's fluffed up to look like facts. Teaching children to sift through this data and decide for themselves what to trust would be enormously much more valuable than teaching them the only sites on the 'net that works is www.microsoft.com and www.myreligionofchoice.com.
Tomorrow will be cancelled due to lack of interest
As much as it must come as a shock to you, Islam IS "another truth". In fact, Islam is just as much a truth as christianity. If you have a problem with that, then you are perfectly welcome to block all islamic web sites at home, but if you're trying to argue that islamic web sites should be blocked at schools because islam isn't "another truth" then you're truly a moron. In the true spirit of "innocent until proven guilty" I will assume you're just confused.
Tomorrow will be cancelled due to lack of interest
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.
_sig_ is away
Filtering software is totally simple, as you say (searching a string in a list - white or black list - is not that trivial, but Mr Knuth has written up a nice summary on that topic).
The problem with an open project to collect URIs is its very openness - if hundreds of people suggest sites that contain too much "extreme" content (of a sexual, ideological or whatever kind), who will decide if a given site is inappropriate? If it's not appropriate for 6-year-olds, is it appropriate for 12-year-olds? Will majority vote decide?
Your average christian will probably not quite understand why anyone would want to block something harmless about pigs (remember that Babe movie that could not be shown in some Muslim countries).
Some parent from the Netherlands quite likely wouldn't want to stop teenagers from looking at people posing naked as badly as another parent from the US Bible belt.
Even people who share a nationality or religion can have very diverse opinions.
It would be interesting to know if anyone has suggestions on how to make such a URI collection project work.
Really, most religions to not employ such unsound reasoning -- Hinduism is the only one that springs to mind that does -- so I do religion a disservice by calling the idea that contradictory statements can both be true a religious idea. But since it springs from the currently fashionable religious syncretism, I can't think of anything else to call it.
You have read an argument into my post that wasn't there. I wasn't advocating the blocking of any sites at all; I was just pointing out that the author of the article had a religious bias of his own. You can do with that what you will.
And the brethren went away edified.
I am a protestant Christian (ELCA Lutheran, to be precise), and I have no problem with Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Mormons, gays, lesbians, sex-ed, abortion, or many other things that more conservative Christians would have a heart attack over. I think the term you are looking for is "conservative Christian".
Also, a private school would be perfectly free to choose whatever filtering it wants -- even if it wants to allow only conservative Christian sites, for example, it is perfectly free to do that. Only public schools are bound by the Constitution. Of course, you are in turn perfectly free to not send your children there.
That's it. I'm no longer part of Team Sanity.
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.
It seems that the correct point of view is that Islam is "another truth!"
Yes, to an objective observer - i.e. an observer that sees all religious views as having equal merit, Islam is just as truthful as Christianity. And for one religion to assert itself over another with such strong language can easily be interpreted as a hateful message. In the least, it certainly doesn't encourage the people that read that "Christian" website to show any Christian love to their Islamic neighbors (or the Islamic countries that some of them are apparently guests in).
You, sir, are confusing objectivity and Religion. Asserting one Religion over another in a derogatory and hateful manner is a matter of bigotry (or, as you would have it, Faith). Asserting that all Religions have an equal right to existence and an equal claim in "truth" is nothing more than openminded objectivity.
_sig_ is away
You, sir, are confusing your own opinion with the Real Truth, and further confusing any opinions that contrdict yours with bigotry. I could make a better case for bigotry on your own part, since you failed to notice that I did not advocate anything being preached by the website being cited, not even Christianity itself, and instead imputed an opinion to me which I did not express but which you thought you could generalize from the context.
You obviously did not read my reply to Stary, but just to clear things up: It's incorrect to assume that I share the point of view of the website the article's author found so disturbing. I have not seen the actual website, just the quotation from it. To judge from the name of site, I probably do not agree with most of it. The point, which you would have seen me put more explicitly had you read my earlier reply, is simply that two contradictory statements cannot both be true, which is a foundational assumption for any logically consistent system.
You make another common error when you connect the assertion of the truth of one religion with a denial of the rights of others to exist. This is false. You err further when you associate faith with hatred. That's nothing more than flamebait, which is the tactic of someone who knows very well he's on shaky ground so I'll take point as conceded -- although I will mention that it's quite possible to believe that another person is mistaken on a subject without hating him. Your last claim I have already dealt with for the most part. Your website betrays your actual religious point of view, which is what you're preaching here and attempting to pass off as objective reality. Why you thought you could pull this off when you provide the link yourself I don't quite understand.
And the brethren went away edified.
Your statement that all religious views have equal merit is not at all objective. It's a definite opinion in and of itself; a religious opinion at that since that's the subject to which it relates.
Hrm... in that case, what would be an "objective" view of Religions? Or would you advocate that an objective view does not exist?
and further confusing any opinions that contrdict yours with bigotry
Incorrect - I never said this, and I never said you were a Bigot. I said: "Asserting one Religion over another in a derogatory and hateful manner is a matter of bigotry", which is a very different thing.
To judge from the name of site, I probably do not agree with most of it.
I don't think I ever said, although I may have accidentally implied (but I don't think so), that you did agree. I tried to keep my comments to your stated opinion on the passage at hand - and not to your personal beliefs.
You err further when you associate faith with hatred.
Once again, I did not do this. I associated faith that is asserted in a dergoatory or hateful manner as being on shakey ground. I belive that this is true - especially when the faith in question (as do many philosophies) promotes universal love. But this is bordering on another discussion.
although I will mention that it's quite possible to believe that another person is mistaken on a subject without hating him.
I agree whole heartedly... once again, my comments were specific to the kind of language that I feel promotes more misunderstanding and hate between Religions that otherwise.
Your website betrays your actual religious point of view, which is what you're preaching here and attempting to pass off as objective reality.
My website states my personal beliefs, and my political beliefs. Yes, I have been arguing for the Seperation of Church and State, and I belive in this. I don't see anything wrong with supporting my views, and I have tried to do so in as factual manner as I can. As for this particular conversation, other than my belief that Religions should respect each other and not encourage hate of other beliefs, I don't see how my opinions have anything to do with this. I provide the link to my page, and the links on my page, partially so people can go there and evaluate what I say against my own slant on the world. If anything, I feel this increases my integrity in this forum.
_sig_ is away
I also took a look at your website, and yes, you are a bigot.
How are my views (expressed via the links on my website) bigotted? I am shocked that an open-minded person could think this.
If the facts, are true and they are from other religions, then no problem. I don't mind.
Problem is, that as far as schools are concerned, any facts that are backed up with Faith alone are not facts, they are beliefs. And you can teach those as beliefs (which happens all the time in History, Literature, and Comparative Religion classes), but not as fact. I find different Religions and philosophies intriguing, and I would love it if a standard course in our schools was a good comparative religion course. But teach religious beliefs as fact is just wrong in a public school. Note that more fussy things, such as ethics and civic morals, which are in general shared all religions, are promoted in schools, becuase this is what the majority of society supports. But they are (or should be) promoted without a specific relgious bent.
Why don't you have any links on your web site that put down other religions because of their negative aspects?
Huh? Becuase I don't see this as approprate. MY website lets other's know what I belive, because I think what I believe is pretty cool (which is good, since if I didn't, I'd probably be pretty unhappy). Other people can think whatever they want (although if I don't agree, I'll argue it with them) But they have that right, and I won't bash them by putting up "anti-whatever" links. What I don't like, and what I consider wrong and don't respect, is people bashing other people on thier beliefs in a hateful manner.
_sig_ is away
Just because a Christian says Christianity is best, that's ok, because they are Christians, so they aren't biased, or even if they are, that's ok too, because the bias is right out front?
But I bet when Osama bin Laden says Islam is best, and sets out to prove it, even though he's way out front with that bias, that's not quite ok, is it?
I think I get the picture. You'd'a done great during the Crusades.
Infuriate left and right
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?
But Herr Heisenberg, how does the electron know when I'm looking?
The person I replied to said that a higher power is required to define morality. Who defines morality for god?
If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
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.
__
Do ya feel happy-go-lucky, punk?
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.
__
Do ya feel happy-go-lucky, punk?
But it's plain your anti-Christian bias prevented you from reading the post you're replying to very carefully. Whatever I actually believe, I did not characterize my own views as the Real Truth. Pay attention next time.
And the brethren went away edified.
Remember, there is no disagreement, because they all of a sudden became followers in the same religion!
Would they also forbid anyone from a different religion from moving in later? Because that is illegal, too.
__
Do ya feel happy-go-lucky, punk?
I'd have called you an American who happened to be Muslim, since Islam is not an ethnic group that normally gets a hyphen (a wrong-headed procedure in any event) but a religion. I am not a Christian-American, but an American who is an Orthodox Christian.
But you're right. It's inane, and everything else you said. But that's beside the point of my post, which was that a significant bias was evident in the article. When bias is present, it renders even the factual content of the article suspect, and to me this is especially true when the article claims to be unbiased. That means there is already one lie present.
The point of view that informs the bias is that all religions are equally true. Surely you do not believe that Christianity is as true as Islam, do you?
Let me use a concrete example. We Christians say that Jesus was God incarnate, an idea repugnant to Muslims. Muslims say that Jesus was just a prophet, which is blasphemy to Christians. Are we both right? Are both statements true? How can they be; they contradict! But what is being taught in the schools is the point of view you've seen reflected in the other posts in this thread: that all religions are equally true. This is so obviously false that it's a bit of a wonder anyone believes it, but it's very common. And schoolchildren are being indoctrinated in it. The religion -- or more precisely, the religious doctrine -- is called syncretism. Most religions have something to say about syncretism. In Hinduism, it's the norm. But it's antithetical to Orthodox Christianity, and also Islam. It ought not be taught.
And the brethren went away edified.
Neither were the Christians.
Infuriate left and right
Our thought is that all have the right to education and as a consequence the state (taxpayer) foots the bill.
At the same time we think that parents have the right to decide what type of education is appropriate and they set up their school board along their political or religious beliefs.
So the parents decide and the state pays.
(Off course the same amount for any type of school)
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
Sometimes the apparent contradiction arises only because of a hidden assumption. The particle/wave duality of light is like that. Saying "light is a wave" and "light is a particle" are both true is only a contradiction if we add "a particle cannot be a wave" and "a wave cannot be a particle" to the mix. In fact, physics tells us that all particles can be described as waves, so there is no real contradiction here.
Religions are most often not like that. There's a clear example from Christianity and Islam as an example. Christianity says, "Jesus is the Son of God." Islam says, "Jesus is not the Son of God." This is simple logical contradiction requiring no hidden assumptions to fully understand. Both statements cannot be true. Logically, either one, or the other, or both are false.
And the brethren went away edified.
Re-read my quote from the article, and then ask why Willard found it remarkable. I'm sure there was a lot of other material from this website. What was so unusual about this particular quote unless she particularly disapproved of it?
The software filtering companies are simply serving their largest markets. I quite agree that it's (in general) unhealthy to filter out websites based on the fact they present a religion other than those on the "approved" list. But that's what the filtering software market wants right now. If it ever becomes mandatory in libraries and schools, I guarantee you that market forces will cause more politically and religiously neutral filters to spring up to fulfull the need. That's how a free market works.
As far as taking a class in Constitutional Law, I'd only consider if it requires me to actually read the Constitution. It's not at all difficult these days even in reputable law schools to fulfull the Constitutional Law requirements without that. But really, the Constitution is written in plain (if slightly archaic by now) English. Banning any form of religious expression on public property is a long way from merely forbidding the establishment of a church, which is what the Constitution actually does. But suppose the wall did exist: the syncretic crap that gets shoved down students' throats these days is every bit as objectionable as outright proselytism of Christianity. It's in direct contradiction to the teachings of my religion, and a great many more besides. Only, the people who shout loudest about the wall of separation deign not to notice it.
And the brethren went away edified.
Wasn't too popular with the prevailing opinion, was it? The existing occupants didn't exactly spread their arms in joyous welcome.
Infuriate left and right
This idea that Muslims don't belong in the Holy Land because they weren't invited is incredible. Christians weren't invited either; Jesus was a reknowned trouble maker. And it also depends on how wide you define your area. Mohammed may not have been born in Palestine, but he was born a lot closer to it than Christians were to most of Europe, not to mention the Americas. I don't recall the natives inviting the Christians into the Americas. Nor the Philipines, Australia, etc.
As for going back 800 years, keerist (sic) almighty, who said I had to go back that far? Look at current day Ireland; maybe you should go their to fight the infidels. Only problem is, which side is the Christian side? They evidently both think that the other isn't.
So go back and answer your own question: who invited the Christians to own the Holy Land? Hint: they weren't invited.
Further hint: the Jews weren't invited either.
In fact, in almost every case, the current occupants of ANY place weren't invited. They just sort of invited themselves.
Infuriate left and right
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.
Welcome to the Turing Tarpit, where everything is possible but nothing interesting is easy.
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?)
But Herr Heisenberg, how does the electron know when I'm looking?
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.
You're right, I don't like your answer. It is completely and utterly irrational.
If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
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.
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
But Herr Heisenberg, how does the electron know when I'm looking?
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
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
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
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
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
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
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?
But Herr Heisenberg, how does the electron know when I'm looking?
What evidence would be sufficient for you to believe that Jesus is Lord of the universe?
But Herr Heisenberg, how does the electron know when I'm looking?
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.
If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
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?
But Herr Heisenberg, how does the electron know when I'm looking?
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.
But Herr Heisenberg, how does the electron know when I'm looking?
I'd give you a +1 funny!
Cheers,
Anomaly
But Herr Heisenberg, how does the electron know when I'm looking?
I'm tolerably familiar with Buddhism and have read parts of the Tao Te Ching. I find no contradictory statements in the doctrine of either. Buddhism, particularly the Zen variety, uses seeming contradiction as a pedagogical technique, but that's not doctrine. I can't recall anything self-contradictory in Taoism -- in fact, the Tao sounds very close to the Christian Logos. Perhaps you can cite something specific. Deconstrutcionism I reject as invalid, and I'm certainly not alone in that opinion. Fuzzy logic has more to do with degrees of certainty (which exist whatever the truth might be) than with ontology.
And the brethren went away edified.
CaptianCarrot, you are missing something of vital importance. When one speaks of a separation of church and state, or of having an "objective" view of religion, there is no truth-assertion being made. Look at this logically: There is no definite proof of the existence of God. God has not shown up and demonstrated (his | her | its) presence. Most phenomena present in the world can be explained through rational, scientific thought and experiment; those phenomena that cannot be explained so readily inform our knowledge of the world. It's how we advance.
Once you bring God into the equation, science and logic break down; especially if we are speaking of the traditional Judeo-Christian-Islamic god(s). God is supposed to be omnipotent, meaning that ANY phenomenon can be attributed to God's will. Science and reason no longer have a place in mankind's world since any given phenomenon can be attributed to God's will.
Leaving aside the intense territorialism that comes will deeply held spiritual beliefs, one might now be able to see why religion taught in schools has to be an all-or-none proposition. When we speak of religion in science and rationality, we must be agnostic. God, unfortunately, gets in the way of learning. By saying NOTHING about religion, or that there is no evidence that leads us to choose one religion over the other, we as a species continue to advance.
So, rather than stating that all religions are equally true, perhaps we should state it thusly:
There is no evidence to lead us to choose one religion over any other.
If you can prove not only the existence of God, but that (he | she |it) is of a particular faith, THEN we can start talking about the "truth" in religion. Otherwise, you are being just as illogical as your critics.
She sat at the window watching the evening invade the avenue.
You invalidate your own point in stating it. Christians believe precisely that God has shown up and demonstrated his presence, and to say that he has not is to therefore state a religious doctrine in opposition to Christianity. I do not want your religion to be taught as an "objective truth" in public school any more than you want mine.
Once you bring God into the equation, science and logic break down;
They don't have to, and in fact they don't. This thread is proof of that; it started when I complained about a logical fallacy.
especially if we are speaking of the traditional Judeo-Christian-Islamic god(s). God is supposed to be omnipotent, meaning that ANY phenomenon can be attributed to God's will. Science and reason no longer have a place in mankind's world since any given phenomenon can be attributed to God's will.
Funny that: it was people who believed in God who invented the scientific method in the first place, in an academic atmosphere surrounding universities founded by Christian religious organizations.
Yes, God can do anything, so anything you see might be a direct expression of his will. But Christians are very well aware that the universe generally operates according to a consistent set of laws. Those occasions when it does not are what we call miracles. What would be so special about a miracle if nothing can ever happen without God's direct intervention? We call them miracles precisely because they violate laws we are very well aware of, and so reveal God's hand in the matter.
Yes, I know you don't accept that this ever happens. My purpose is to explain my own point of view. I don't expect you will adopt it, but you seem to have a false idea of how religious people actually think, so I'm trying to make it clear to you. Possibly unsuccessfully; I really should have been in bed several hours ago.
When we speak of religion in science and rationality, we must be agnostic. God, unfortunately, gets in the way of learning. By saying NOTHING about religion, or that there is no evidence that leads us to choose one religion over the other, we as a species continue to advance.
A valid religion is and must be rational, based on data from divine revelation. So please drop "rationality" from the discussion here. In terms of science, I agree fully that it has nothing to say about God.
You're treating two very different statements as if they were equivalent. Since I keep saying it but no one ever acknowledges it, I don't think I'm too far out of line to say that it seems a very strong mental block is preventing you guys from recognizing that I am repeatedly, explicitly, calling for the advocacy of no religion over another in the public schools. This is what I take you to mean by "saying NOTHING about religion" so we are in full agreement there. We obviously cannot do exactly what you say in the schools when teaching history or world culture; religion is a very important part of both, so it must be mentioned. But not advocated.
It's quite another thing to say that there is no evidence to make us choose one over the other. If this were true, I and many others I know would simply have made up our own religion rather than adopting the one we had become convinced was the true one. (I am aware that many people have indeed done this very thing.) This is something agnostics seem to fail to recognize: religious people become that way because they have had some sort of experience that leads them in that direction. It may not be the sort of experience that can readily be shared with others, but that does not make it unreal, or untrue. We don't just pull a set of dogmas out of thin air. The evidence does exist even if it appears subjective in nature. It's not the business of the schools to invalidate this evidence, and by extension any religion that a student may choose or be raised in as a result.
At least with your reformulation of the doctrine we're using the same definition of "true" which is a step in the right direction as far as I'm concerned.
As far as God "getting in the way of learning", you have a lot of history to read if you think that's true. It's just not an idea that can (in general) be supported by the facts.
This may ramble a bit, as I'm posting it in the small hours of the morning. I find that the ideas I had in my head weren't quite what wound up on the screen, but I'm too tired to put it any better.
And the brethren went away edified.