A possible solution to the threat of Islam


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 54
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Kyrel: “But only the actual, neutral, objective truth matters in judging whether or not someone is guilty of the crime of child abuse. And "the arbiter" of what this truth is, is reality and the real world. I don't think it all that difficult to gauge whether or not an overwhelmingly vulnerable kid is being indoctrinated and mentally poisoned by some ideology. Instilling false and evil ideas into defenseless children is very different from attempting to do so to potentially powerful, thinking, intelligent, rational adults.”

Of course this is true, but it’s irrelevant to the point you were making in your post. You recommended that the state should use force against parents and teachers who teach religion to children, that such malefactors should be sent to jail. But if the state sends such people to jail for their crime, if it has the right to use force against them, then it is the state (in the persons of a dictator or a president, or the majority of the citizens, or the elected representatives of the majority, etc.) ) that must define the exact nature of the crime. It is the state that must be the final arbiter of what ideas are true and what are not.

Kyrel: “With all due respect, I truly think the leading Objectivists of the Golden Era (of which you were one) somewhat missed the boat on the issue of the broad and deep evil of "god." And the problem remains with us to this day….

“Religion seems to be a greater horror and damager to the Individual and his society than most early Objectivist intellectuals supposed. And it was and is a phenomenon more pervasive and present in American society than you guys supposed, in my view….

“Is it possible, Barbara, you could share with us the thinking of the early Objectivists on this? I'd love to hear anything you have to say on the subject. I'd be especially interested in hearing about any disputes in the 1950s and 1960s as to how important religion was, and how great a menace to humanity, and how hostile to the essence and future ascent of Objectivism.”

Here, you are making an understandable mistake. You were not born when NBI was giving its lectures or when Rand was speaking at colleges and universities around the country, and so you don’t have first hand knowledge of their attitude toward religion in the 50s and 60s. But remember that Rand wrote in the 50s, in Galt’s speech.

“The alleged shortcut to knowledge which is faith is only a short circuit destroying the mind.”

And she echoed this conviction and elaborated on it in countless talks and in many articles and books.

Nathaniel, in his “Basic Principles of Objectivism” lectures – sanctioned by Rand – said:

“Observe that the mystic’s answer to all the problems and contradictions involved in the concept of “God” is: your mind cannot conceive of it. If your mind cannot conceive of the irrational, the contradictory, the senseless, the impossible, it is your mind that must take the blame.”

And:

“Let there be no misunderstanding about it: the belief in God and the philosophy of Objectivism are opposites that cannot be reconciled in anyone’s mind. No intellectual meeting-ground, no compromise, and no middle-of-the-road is possible between the belief in God and Objectivism. Or, putting the issue more broadly and fundamentally: no middle-of-the-road is possible between mysticism and reason. You cannot combine them.”

I was—and am -- equally vehement in my condemnation of religion.

However, in Objectivism’s early years, there was an ambivalence in some of Rand’s public statements about the evils of religion. At time, she spoke as if she exempted religious Americans from her criticism. For example, in answer to a question after a talk she gave in 1961, she said:

“In America, religion is relatively non-mystical. Religious teachers here are predominantly good, healthy materialists. They follow common sense…. I was pleased and astonished to discover that some religious people support Objectivism. If you want to be a full Objectivist, you cannot reconcile that with religion, but that doesn’t mean religious people cannot be individualists and fight for freedom. They can, and this country is the best proof of it.”

I was startled to discover this statement – not the part about religious people being able to fight for freedom, but the rest of it. If Rand meant that many Americans say they are religious but in fact give only lip service to it, that it does not represent their authentic convictions and they attempt to guide their lives and choices by reason – then I would agree with her. But her statement conveys much more than that.

Kyrel, I suspect it is such uncharacteristic statements as this that leads some people – not many – to conclude that Rand and other leading Objectivists were somewhat tolerant of religion in the early days of the movement. But I assure you – and the evidence can be found throughout Objectivist writings, lectures, and speeches in the 50s and 80s -- that if moderation in one’s criticism of religion is a virtue, if failing to recognize its danger is a virtue – then we were the blackest of sinners.

The essence of Objectivism – early, middle, and late Objectivism -- is the conviction that only reason makes human survival possible. That conviction stands in total opposition to any form of religious belief.

Barbara

For a brilliant analysis of the dangers of religious belief in America today -- with special attention paid to religious moderates -- I strongly recommend Sam Harris’ The End of Faith.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kyrel said:

Ultimately, I think this issue goes back to the history of early Objectivism. With all due respect, I truly think the leading Objectivists of the Golden Era (of which you were one) somewhat missed the boat on the issue of the broad and deep evil of "god." And the problem remains with us to this day.

Religion seems to be a greater horror and damager to the Individual and his society than most early Objectivist intellectuals supposed. And it was and is a phenomenon more pervasive and present in American society than you guys supposed, in my view.

It's easy enough to see why Rand, Nathaniel, yourself, Greenspan, Peikoff, and others evidently made a certain decision, and somewhat avoided this cultural and philosophical issue. You guys were battling heroically, and trying to slay a hundred different intellectual dragons at once. You didn't need or want another. Especially such a well-established and unshakeable one.

This issue (perhaps!) could also have been reasonably put off, for strategic reasons. Still, I wonder...

I suggest familiarizing yourself more with some of the core documents:

1) Rand's lecture "Faith and Force: Destroyers of the Modern Mind"

2) In NB's Basic Principles of Objectivism, Lecture on The Concept of God

3) Galt's speech in Atlas Shrugged. Whittaker Chambers had no problem detecting the hostility toward religion as a shortcut to knowledge.

What is in fact extremely impressive is the degree of frank speaking about atheism in Rand's writings and speeches, and those of Nathaniel Branden, at the time. Remember when this was written.

Rand commented (I can't find the quote at the moment - which probably means that I'll find it immediately after posting!) that the primary battle was not against religion, but for reason (my words, I would prefer to supply hers but can't find the cite).

But there is no reason to be confused about the hostility of Objectivism, from the time of The Fountainhead's publication, to religion.

Bill P (Alfonso)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One point worth mentioning is that as a result of the Supreme Court decision ending Bible reading in the public schools the most prominent voice of atheism was Madeline Murray O'Hara. Ms. O'Hara went out of her way to be offensive. Nathaniel Branden went out of his way to say that Objectivists were intransigent atheists not militant ones.

I would add in agreement with Bill P that the fight is for reason as a positive and not against "GOD".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From Ayn Rand's Journal, 9 April 1934:

"I want to fight religion as the root of all human lying and the only excuse for suffering."

and from that same entry...

"I believe—and I want to gather all the facts to illustrate this—that the worst curse on mankind is the ability to consider ideals as something quite abstract and detached from one's everyday life. The ability to live and think quite differently, thus eliminating thinking from your actual life. This applied not to deliberate and conscious hypocrites, but to those more dangerous and hopeless ones who, alone with themselves and to themselves, tolerate a complete break between their convictions and their lives, and still believe that they have convictions. To them, either their ideals or their lives are worthless—and usually both."

"I hold religion mainly responsible for this. I want to prove that religion breaks a character before it's formed, in childhood, by teaching a child lies before he knows what a lie is, by breaking him of the habit of thinking before he has begun to think, by making him a hypocrite before he knows any other possible attitude toward life. If a child is taught ideals that he knows are <jrnl_67> <jrnl_68> contrary to his own deepest instincts, [ideals] such as unselfishness, meekness, and self-sacrifice, if he is told he is a miserable sinner for not living up to ideals he can never reach and doesn't want to reach, then his natural reaction is to consider all ideals as out of his reach forever, as something theoretical and quite apart from his own actual life. Thus the beginning of self-hypocrisy, the killing of all desire for a living ideal."

"Religion is also the first enemy of the ability to think. That ability is not used by men to one tenth of its possibility, yet before they learn to think they are discouraged by being ordered to take things on faith. Faith is the worst curse of mankind; it is the exact antithesis and enemy of thought. I want to learn why men do not use logical reasoning to govern their lives and [solve] their problems. Is it impossible to them or has it been taught to them as impossible?"

"I believe this last. And the teacher is the church. Thought and reason are the only weapons of mankind, the only possible bond of understanding among men. Anyone who demands that anything be taken on faith—or relies on any super-mental, super-logical instinct—denies all reason."

Toward the end of that entry:

"I want to be known as the greatest champion of reason and the greatest enemy of religion."

Then, from 15 May 1934:

"All consciousness is reason. All reason is logic. Everything that comes between consciousness and logic is a disease. Religion—the greatest disease of mankind."

Here's the quote I was searching for earlier about the issue for Rand being reason.

"In accordance with the principles of America and of capitalism, I recognize your right to hold any beliefs you choose—and, on the same grounds, you have to recognize my right to hold any convictions I choose. I am an intransigent atheist, though not a militant one. This means that I am not fighting against religion—I am fighting for reason. When faith and reason clash, it is up to the religious people to decide how they choose to reconcile the conflict. As far as I am concerned, I have no terms of communication and no means to deal with people, except through reason."

From a letter by Rand, dated 28 December 1963:

"Objectivism is incompatible with any form of mysticism or religion."

Read in "The Chickens' Homecoming" - found in The New Left or the original periodical, and see the characterization by Rand of religion as "helplessly blind groping" there.

That's a very small sample of her writings/thought on the subject(in addition to what I have cited in my post a bit earlier in this thread). Hopefully this, and Barbara's post above, begin to make Rand's attitudes (and those of the early Objectivist community) more clear.

To see how much this permeates the early writings, just pick up the bound volume of The OBjectivist Newsletter or The Objectivist and start reading. (Not bad advice in general, by the way.)

Bill P (Alfonso)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey!

I was told the damn class was going to be in English or Swahili!

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Religion is also the first enemy of the ability to think. That ability is not used by men to one tenth of its possibility, yet before they learn to think they are discouraged by being ordered to take things on faith. Faith is the worst curse of mankind; it is the exact antithesis and enemy of thought. I want to learn why men do not use logical reasoning to govern their lives and [solve] their problems. Is it impossible to them or has it been taught to them as impossible?"

I wonder how Ayn Rand accounted for Isaac Newton who was a God Phreak. He wrote twice as many words on religion as he did on natural philosophy (aka physics).

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Religion is also the first enemy of the ability to think. That ability is not used by men to one tenth of its possibility, yet before they learn to think they are discouraged by being ordered to take things on faith. Faith is the worst curse of mankind; it is the exact antithesis and enemy of thought. I want to learn why men do not use logical reasoning to govern their lives and [solve] their problems. Is it impossible to them or has it been taught to them as impossible?"

I wonder how Ayn Rand accounted for Isaac Newton who was a God Phreak. He wrote twice as many words on religion as he did on natural philosophy (aka physics).

Ba'al Chatzaf

Ba'al:

Ever read:

Alain Bauer's "Isaac Newton's Freemasonry: The Alchemy of Science and Mysticism"

or

Michael White's "Isaac Newton: The Last Sorcerer"?

Bill P (Alfonso)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From Ayn Rand's Journal, 9 April 1934:

"Religion is also the first enemy of the ability to think. That ability is not used by men to one tenth of its possibility, yet before they learn to think they are discouraged by being ordered to take things on faith. Faith is the worst curse of mankind; it is the exact antithesis and enemy of thought. I want to learn why men do not use logical reasoning to govern their lives and [solve] their problems. Is it impossible to them or has it been taught to them as impossible?"

Aside from reading fiction which started me down the path of reason, I read a book that this passage reminded me of - The Jesus Conspiracy.

In it, there are two scientists who go to great lenghts to shed light on the Shroud of Turin, believed to have held the phyisical body of Christ. The visage that remains on the cloth bear hallmarks of the written account of the abuse that Jesus suffered at the hands of the Romans - bleeding wrists and feet from the nails, bleeding head from the crown of thorns, and bloodied back from the countless floggings. The face, surprisingly, is serene and peaceful.

The two scientists (I'm doing this from recollection of 10 years past...bear with me) basically challenged the tenet of the Christian religion that Christ had risen from the dead, by concluding this - Christ did not die on the cross. To my understanding, they had a LOT of empirical data to back this up. What does this all mean? That if true, it would topple Christianity at its core since Christ had not died on the cross for our sins, but survived instead of rose. The Vatican went to great lengths to screw up the testing process so that the carbon-dating tests would come back proving that the Shroud of Turin was a fake painting dating to the 1200-1400s. The scientists had an answer for that too.

My point is that not only does religion and faith swallow man's ability to think, but it will go to drastic lenghts and fight tooth and nail to persevere against reason. It is fundementally evil. It doesn't sit back in the shadows to wait for the mentally irrational, it actively seeks victims that have almost no chance to resist - children, prisoners (that's a whole issue in and of itself), the destitute, and millions of others who reach for hope because the other millions pointed them in the direction of God.

I could go into more detail, but I'm inclined to start a new topic rather than throw this thread off-course.

~ Shane

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"My point is that not only does religion and faith swallow man's ability to think, but it will go to drastic lenghts and fight tooth and nail to persevere against reason. It is fundementally evil. It doesn't sit back in the shadows to wait for the mentally irrational, it actively seeks victims that have almost no chance to resist - children, prisoners (that's a whole issue in and of itself), the destitute, and millions of others who reach for hope because the other millions pointed them in the direction of God."

Although I sympathize, there's a problem in this statement, originating from the first sentence: religion is referred to as an "it;" as if it were a conscious entity running around the planet. I am not sure if that was the intention, I doubt it, but it does point out what I see to be one of the fairly common errors that crop up in discussions like these, another one being failure to discriminate between (or the lumping together of) what is the ecclesiastical (the religious group, and their actions) and what is individual religious consciousness, which is predominately an internal, contemplative process.

The former is generally the one to which I apply the most scrutiny, since it is most likely to apply some kind of organized, real-world action out there--frequently enough, actions that give me cause for concern. The latter is generally the one from which I notice greater benefits arise.

And before someone jumps on that--yes, one can generate evil ideas during an internal, contemplative process, by allowing the integrity of that process to fail and revert to the practice of not being in a meditative state, but rather quietly considering various "ideas." This is a failure, and usually a discipline or practice issue--meditative process is meditative process, whether one enters into it from a place of considering spiritual matters, or not. That is why I might speak of developing my "individual religious consciousness"--I am simply clarifying my point of entry, rather than just talking about developing my consciousness in general (which, in the end, is all that matters); I am talking about my approach, and a part of my full context (the works of other people, for me maybe it might one day William James, another one e.e. cummings, for that matter...).

So, it means that, given that we have two different things A and B (organized religion, individual spiritual practice), it only stands to reason that we address them and their actions specifically. We can do that, and the second way we can talk about it is in terms of the impact of one upon the other--that's about it. Remember, "B" is not always entirely subject to "A."

And we know that an idea is simply an idea until executed. I hate when bad ideas get executed.

I don't think that it requires, really, all THAT much evolution of consciousness for a person to know a bad idea when they see it. The problem, though, is that many bad ideas are quite persuasive, just like their makers.

Bad people have for all time created, invaded, and generally made evil use of religious organizations-- as long as both have existed. Bad people also have, for all time, created, invaded, and generally made evil use of pretty much any other organization they can get their hands on, and that's been going on forever as well.

Coming from an Objectivist standpoint, the bottom line seems pretty straightforward to me: if a bad idea makes you do some evil-doing, it's your fault, because, at the least, your ability to reason is messed up, if not your sense of life itself.

I'm pretty equal opportunity as far as evil goes, it all sucks to me and I don't much care where it comes from.

I can understand why people lump it all together...a lot of times it is from a very strong, negative emotional reaction to some past dealings with the ecclesiastical side of religion. Other times, the same reaction, but from past dealings with a single person who was full of bad ideas, in this case ones that were religious in context.

Try it this way:

I know (know, not believe) that The Inquisition was evil. Part of my makeup is that I sometimes pursue my devlopment from what you would call a spiritual or even religious standpoint; I'm a member of a religious community, but I disdain the practices of that particular group (The Inquisition, the Catholic Church of those times) and the individuals that bought into it.

You clearly do not come from that background, but you also agree that The Inquisition was evil, likely for the same reasons.

So there we are, no problem, right? But how do we know? I don't care how or if a person explains it, as long as they know.

Edited by Rich Engle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

By "it", I meant to refer to organized religion, not the individual. Thanks for pointing that out, Rich.

~ Shane

Edited by sbeaulieu
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, no, thanks to you--I was all but sure I knew what you meant. It urged me to point out a disntinction that I wanted to write on a bit more.

I'm very adamant about the subject, because I expect people to act with individualism--their convictions being, in the end, their own. What all the things are that they draw from (their knowledge base) is theirs uniquely--as long as it works to the good and their actions are those of truly free men.

You can study religion, spirituality to a number of benefits, depending on what you do with it. You can belong to a religious community to a number of benefits, depending on what/who that community consists of and what you do with it. But with the community, one thing you have to ask is whether they are covenant-driven, or creed-driven: that usually separates the wheat from the chaff. There are churches, though, that simply use the organization as a vehicle, a means to an end. Often, this means giving a little lip service. I guess you have to make the best of what you have when confronted with choosing from only a few spiritual communities in your area. That would be a drag. These days I have very little to do with mine, since I live so far from it. But, most times I know that dealings with other Unitarian Universalists will be rational, friendly ones. No guarantee, but almost always--it's built in, you wouldn't be there if you didn't want that.

As to Objectivism's, Rand's view on religion, I am in agreement, within the specific confines (not that there are many confines). I mean, for the most part, we're talking about traditional, organized religion, likely Theistic religions. I don't believe in God, either, none of that kind of stuff. In modern spiritual practice, God is often used in a non-Theistic way; you could just as well say "all and everything." The other type being addressed is the overboard mystic, and their witch doctors. People in those states of consciousness are not all bad, but many of them are unstable, and lacking in reason. They can be volatile, dangerous; there are intricate psychological conditions at play here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Barbara -- Many thanks for the long and thoughtful Post! :) Sorry I'm so slow to reply.

I like the fact that you strongly recommend Sam Harris's book on religion. Despite some odd flaws and speculations toward the end of this book, he really got the New Atheist ball rolling. I read his book a long time ago, as well as his more recent Letter to a Christian Nation. Harris, Richard Dawkins, Chistopher Hitchens, and Daniel Dennett (and Victor Stenger -- secretly the most hard-line) have all written marvelous books on atheism in the past few years, in my view. Their passion, energy, intransigence, confidence, ambition, fire, and fury have quietly changed the world forever, I think. They're just like Rand (albeit much less intellectually powerful). These truly dynamic guys have planted terrific seeds of truth which will only grow and become greater over time. (Little do today's pious and holy know it but: Religion is fu----, uh, doomed! :whistle: )

My hearty thanks also to BillP for his many quotes from AR's journals. As evidenced there, her pre-Objectivist attitude toward religion was terrific and right-on. But -- that's the point. She didn't manifest that ferocity in her public face, in my judgment. That was her considerable error. Lucky for humanity, the above New Atheist writers are filling in for her lacuna.

I admit -- as you point out, Barbara -- that having the state decide what constitutes illegitimate indoctrination in kids is a bit scary. But I see no alternative. Maybe we should just think really hard and clear about this, and then make the law extra objective, and deeply factually neutral. Strip away as much subjectivity and personal opinion as possible in the judges.

You wrote:

But I assure you – and the evidence can be found throughout Objectivist writings, lectures, and speeches in the 50s and 80s -- that if moderation in one’s criticism of religion is a virtue, if failing to recognize its danger is a virtue – then we were the blackest of sinners.
This is a beautiful quote.

My fundamental disagreement with the founding fathers of Objectivism can be encapsulated in one idea:

We are/were intransigent atheists -- not militant ones.
Perhaps not surprisingly (for me!), I think considerably more militancy was called for. But then -- that's pretty much my solution to everything. :tongue: More fire and fury, folks!

My final main dispute with the early Objectivist thinkers relates to my own private theory of religion. I don't want to bore you with it (altho' an old version can be read on the Rebirth of Reason website), but I essentially think Rand and the others were wrong to use the term "mysticism" so much. They conflated and confused three or more very different things: (1) mere superstition and random irrationality, (2) organized polytheism (which is rather harmless charming helpful fiction, and the forerunner to philosophy), and (3) religion (which is the horrifically evil death thing). I find the concept of "god" blacker than any midnite inside the deepest coal mine. Maybe this is because I have vivid memories of my mom lovingly teaching me about "god" at age three. The psychological wreckage was greater than I could ever tell you. (And this from a person who never attended church, or read a bible, or spoke of "god," or anything else.)

Just some thoughts!

Another might be: We should much more call ourselves passionate reasonists and champions of reason, rationality, logic, science, and math -- not "atheists."

Another thought might be: "god" leads far more naturally and quickly to altruism than the early (and even current) Objectivists supposed.

And I have a few more thoughts on the topic of religion/monotheism as well. But maybe I should write an article about it, instead of briefly shallowly sharing it with you all here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another might be: We should much more call ourselves passionate reasonists and champions of reason, rationality, logic, science, and math -- not "atheists."

Atheist - a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

I think that sums Objectivists up. Granted, it's general in nature, but it does belong. There are atheists that don't fall under Objectivist tenets, so you calling O'ists passionate reasonists is what would segregate us from mainstream atheists.

~ Shane

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kyrel: "I admit -- as you point out, Barbara -- that having the state decide what constitutes illegitimate indoctrination in kids is a bit scary. But I see no alternative. Maybe we should just think really hard and clear about this, and then make the law extra objective, and deeply factually neutral. Strip away as much subjectivity and personal opinion as possible in the judges."

Sounds good -- if you're talking about Utopia. But in our present context, who in fact is the "we" you refer to? If something like the new Swedish law were to be adopted here, would you ask our left-liberal Congress to please make sure the law is carried out objectively and rationally? Would you go to the other side of the aisle and ask religious conservatives? We do not live in Utopia and are not likely ever to do so. Government must be controlled, and, above all, never, under any circumstances, be given the right to decide the truth or falsity of ideas. And even if your "we" referred to Objectivists, which Objectivists in particular would you be willing to have tell you what you may and may not teach your children? Surely you know something of the blood-stained history of state-determined truth. I, personally, would not trust anyone on earth -- including the total of the world's geniuses-- to tell me what I must regard as true and what false. Would you?

There is certainly an alternative. Free speech. In this case, its first implementation would be to get the state out of education, rather than, as the Swedish law does, giving it absolute power over every aspect of it. Private schools must be allowed to teach whatever they choose -- rather than what you, or I, or assorted politicians and bureaucrats think is valid -- and parents would decide, according to their own convictions -- not your convictions, or mine, or the government's -- what their children are to be taught. Only then can there be a fair fight among opposing ideas.

Barbara

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Barbara; I seem to doing this a lot. Good points in your last post.

Kyrel; People really do have free will and many very bad ideas taught by religious parents are overcome. I know I did and I suspect there are other people on this forum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is certainly an alternative. Free speech. In this case, its first implementation would be to get the state out of education, rather than, as the Swedish law does, giving it absolute power over every aspect of it. Private schools must be allowed to teach whatever they choose -- rather than what you, or I, or assorted politicians and bureaucrats think is valid -- and parents would decide, according to their own convictions -- not your convictions, or mine, or the government's -- what their children are to be taught. Only then can there be a fair fight among opposing ideas.

Barbara

Yup. Privatizing education and schooling is a necessary step. Also removal of subsidies for religious organizations. The tax break has got to go. As long as tax law is even handed and not aimed against (or in favor of) any particular sect, there is no violation of the spirit of the First Amendment.

In intellectual discourse we also have to stop affording religions privileged status. Religious doctrine has to meet the same standards of logical consistency and coherence as any other form of philosophical discourse.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yup. Privatizing education and schooling is a necessary step. Also removal of subsidies for religious organizations. The tax break has got to go. As long as tax law is even handed and not aimed against (or in favor of) any particular sect, there is no violation of the spirit of the First Amendment.

In intellectual discourse we also have to stop affording religions privileged status. Religious doctrine has to meet the same standards of logical consistency and coherence as any other form of philosophical discourse.

The churches have always been untaxed. Of course, more and more of them (specifically Protestants) are violating their 501c3 status by preaching politics from the pulpit. How about just reducing the tax burden on everyone else instead of adding some new tax? If you are advocate a new tax, then please advocate removing some other ones.

Ultimately, this is why I am against most schooling per se. It simply teaches people to bow to authority figures. Thomas Paine always liked to point out that Quakers were largely anti-authoritarian because they had no priests. Schools aren't much different from churches.

Here's a cool article from Robert X. Cringley about technology and its impact on the schools. He complains "they are ready to dump our schools."

http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2008/pu...321_004574.html

I hope they do.

Edited by Chris Baker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Folks:

As a teacher at various points in my life, I would only ask you to seek out some home schooled children in your respective communities and speak with them for an hour or so.

Then come to me and demonstrate one aspect of public education that merits continuing to put a gun to each taxpayers head and say:

1) We, the all powerful Great and All Knowing State, have the right to tax you whether you have children or not!; and

2) We, also know the perfect way to educate children because as our God, John Dewey stated:

We must separate the child from their family, their country and their religion so that we can create the common child.

Doesn't Marxism sound so coooool!

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kyrel: "I admit -- as you point out, Barbara -- that having the state decide what constitutes illegitimate indoctrination in kids is a bit scary. But I see no alternative. Maybe we should just think really hard and clear about this, and then make the law extra objective, and deeply factually neutral. Strip away as much subjectivity and personal opinion as possible in the judges."

Sounds good -- if you're talking about Utopia. But in our present context, who in fact is the "we" you refer to?

Barbara,

Do you mean to ask who in the end should decide what is "extra objective, and deeply factually neutral" and what "subjectivity and personal opinions" need to be "stripped away" in the judges?

Why, Kyrel, of course.

He has made that clear in many posts.

:)

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kyrel thinks things would be right if we just got those pesky humans out of the way.

Strip away as much subjectivity and personal opinion as possible in the judges."

And who better to do the stripping, right?

If only it were that easy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kyrel: "I admit -- as you point out, Barbara -- that having the state decide what constitutes illegitimate indoctrination in kids is a bit scary. But I see no alternative. Maybe we should just think really hard and clear about this, and then make the law extra objective, and deeply factually neutral. Strip away as much subjectivity and personal opinion as possible in the judges."

Sounds good -- if you're talking about Utopia. But in our present context, who in fact is the "we" you refer to?

Barbara,

Do you mean to ask who in the end should decide what is "extra objective, and deeply factually neutral" and what "subjectivity and personal opinions" need to be "stripped away" in the judges?

Why, Kyrel, of course.

He has made that clear in many posts.

:)

Michael

We could vote on it! Wait, never mind...

~ Shane

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now