On Wed, Jul 11, 2007 at 01:33:24AM +0900, Todd B. wrote:
mean “free only on the condition that it does not offend some vocal
minority”. It means free!
Any time tax money is spent to display a set of religious precepts like
that, it amounts to official endorsement. Endorsement of one set of
religious precepts without endorsing all of them (including precepts of
atheism and agnosticism which, for these purposes, might as well be
counted as religions) is equivalent to an act establishing a specific
relationship between government and a given religion. You may recall
that the First Amendment specifically forbids that.
There are actual Christian nations in the world – nations where the
government’s constitution (if it even has a constitution) does not
forbid
establishing a state religion, and where it is customary for the
government to endorse one religion in particular – just as there are
Muslim religions. These nations might be more suitable to display of
the
Ten Commandments at courthouses. I speak, of course, as one US citizen
to another.
As far as schools, same things go there. I don’t think the state has
a place in picking the spiritual views for students, that seems to
really push the envelope if you ask me.
I don’t think the state is doing that here in the US. As a matter of
fact, they are doing the opposite. They are squelching religous
expression, because Group “ABC” might offend Group “DEF”.
I agree with you insofar as schools actually forbid children to form
prayer groups and otherwise express themselves. I do not, however,
agree
with you in cases where teachers lead prayers in class, “intelligent
design” is taught in science classes, and the “under God” part of the
Pledge of Allegiance is enforced (despite only having been added to the
Pledge relatively recently). In fact, I disagree with the enforcement
of
any recitation of the Pledge in “public” school at all, but it doesn’t
surprise me that a government-funded institution would enforce
recitation
of an oath of fealty to the government – but that’s a separate matter.
The key here is that habit can lead to belief, and habitual exposure to
one particular belief system is tantamount to teaching it as the “right”
belief system. This is so far outside the legitimate functions of
government in a free nation as to be laughable, if it wasn’t so
disturbing in its implications.
It’s also antithetical to the core values of mainstream Christianity,
since faith – the single most important concept in such religious
practice – is entirely dependent upon the exercise of free will.
There’s nothing free about brainwashing. An intellectually honest and
logically consistent Christian philosopher should be more strenuously
opposed to any state endorsement of Christianity over other religious
belief systems than even a secularist, in my estimation at least.
Don’t kid yourself – as long as tax revenue is poured into mandatory
education, anything thusly-funded schools do (in line with established
policies attached to that funding) to present the precepts of one
religious belief system while ignoring another is in effect a form of
endorsement, even if it wasn’t intended to be. One must be diligent
even
in avoiding mistakes.
One would hope that, as someone who takes offense from the use of the
term “god” to name a gem even if it was not intended, you would
recognize
the similarly detrimental effects of accidental endorsement of religion
in government-funded (and -regulated) schools.
It seems like you used the name of this library which really is just
clever and appropriate as a soap stand for your particular religious
beliefs, and it seems pretty far out of the scope of discussion here.
I don’t agree the name is clever or appropriate.
I didn’t think it was all that clever, either – though it does create
plenty of opportunity to be clever with method names. Appropriateness
is
(at least in this case) entirely in the eyes of the beholder.
On the other hand, it’s also easy (at least in retrospect) to see how it
could be seen as inappropriate by many, especially in the relatively
Christian-leaning political climate of the US in the last few years.
Unless controversy was the intent, I think “deus” would be a much better
name than “god”, and would probably have been my choice given those
options for other reasons as well (such as the fact it’s just a
cooler-sounding name – Latin always makes things sound smarter).
Now, time for me to be perfectly honest. This is the first time in my
life I have ever taken a stand for my beliefs in a public forum. Call
me a slow starter. I typically steer away from these discussions like
the plague. However, I wanted to make a point that Tom could have
picked a better name. I think I’ve made that point now.
I guess that depends on your definition of “better”. If the goal is to
stir up controversy without unduly offending too many people, he could
definitely have done worse than to call it “god”. Programmers tend to
be
fairly tolerant of vague references to religious issues in this manner,
so the ratio of offended to unoffended parties is probably fairly
optimal
in this regard, whereas racial slurs would be well past the point of
effectiveness – at least, based on my experience of programmers. If
the
intent, however, was just to name it something that fits the
functionality without offending anyone, then I agree – it could have
been a “better” name.
As for my beliefs: there’s no reason to specifically identify them here.
If you really want to know, you might be able to find out via Google,
because I’m not shy about them – but be aware that making assumptions
based on my arguments and common American expectations of what arguments
go with what belief systems is prone to failure in my case. Regardless,
take what I have to say on its own merits, as I have made a distinct
effort to divorce my reasoning in this email from my religious and/or
philosophical beliefs.
Seems several of us have to let some steam