Notice how people point to the good values of christianity without point to the bad ones. If christianity has any good values in the real world, it’s because the bad ones have been dropped – for what ever reasons. I don’t know to what influences the moderation of christian vice should be attributed, and that in and of itself might make an interesting thread. But the fact is that you’ll find very few christians today who’ll put someone to death for wearing garments of two types of cloth should be put to death (Le 19:19) or call it a sin to call any man on Earth “Father” (Mt 23:9). I am awfully suspicious that the values that we value come from someplace other than christianity, or from it as a response to its evils. That christianity was in Britian during the Enightenment seems more likely coincidence than not.
Precisely what are these “Christian Values”? Can they not be enumerated so that we may judge them? Or must we accept that a “pig-in-a-poke” be jammed down out throats?
December:
No valid underlying basis whatsoever? A reasoned approach may not be able to completely rid itself of unproven axioms when pressed to the absolutes. But there can be plenty of factual or rational bases along the way.
Let’s examine one particulat issue, homosexuality.
The Christian view:
Homosexuality is a form of behavior that is highly immoral. It is prohibited and condemned by Almighty God, of whom the Bible is the inerrant word. Homosexuality is a lifestyle choice that is a threat to all marraiges, all families, and the fabric of society. Homosexuals are guilty of or inspire all sorts of other immoral behavior, and are to blame for various natural disasters due to God’s retribution. Homosexuality causes AIDS, which is one of God’s punishments. Homosexualty can be cured with therapy involving a great deal of Christian worship, but unrepentant homosexuals should be barred from public life. Tolerance of homosexuals will result in more children becoming homosexual. This is held to by faith.
The secular view:
Homosexuality is pre-existing–possibly inborn–orientation where one is sexually attracted to members of the same gender usually just as strongly as heterosexuals are to the opposite. Homosexual behavior causes no outward harm. Homosexuality is not a choice or an addiction. It is not a mental illness or a physical defect. Gays are seldom truly “cured”. Anal intercourse is somewhat more likely to spread STDs including AIDS, but lesbian sex is least likely of all to spread STDs. Gays continue to suffer from a great deal of prejudice and discrimination. Many gay couples already consider themselves married and many have shown themselves to be good parents. There is a great deal of data supporting these assertions.
Now #2 when pressed would yield a number of unproven axioms underlying. But if is reasonable and probable, with a great many underlying facts, whereas #1 is nothing but unproven assertions. #2 is based on experience with the Real World, while #1 is based on a completely other-worldly mythology. They’re not equal.
-I don’t believe in Christianity, but I admire many its values. It’s not a coincidence that Martin Luther King was a Christian minister and that Christians in England and the US led the battle against slavery, IMHO.
Let us not forget it was Christians who were responsible for The Crusades, The Spanish Inquisition, the Salem Witch Trials, and the murder of Doctors who perform abortions.
That is not to say that Christianity is bad or evil; in gerenal, quite the opposite. It just means when you have an originization that has many different doctorines under the same belief system, people who believe they are doing good may be reviled as evil by others. All while proclaiming to be doing God’s work.
If have seen on several occaisions that if you don’t believe in anothers deeply held belief, they take it as an insult; as if by your disbelief you are attacking the sanctity of thier faith.
That being said, Paige has every right to say what he believes and he should be forced to resign because some people don’t agree with his comments. That amounts to liberal censorship.
That being said, Paige has every right to say what he believes and he should NOT be forced to resign because some people don’t agree with his comments. That amounts to liberal censorship.
Count me among those who found Bennett’s defense far worse than the original comment.
I’d much rather debate Bennett’s position than some off-hand remark on a personal preference that somebody made in a christian magazine.
As far as animosity towards God, I don’t really know what they consider animosity. Do they mean not teaching creation science, not allowing prayer in schools? Those seem pretty reasonable to me.
Bennett seems to be saying christian values are good enough for everyone no matter their religion, and I have to take exception to that.
December, I find it ironic to be arguing against you where you’re praising “Christian values” – because I strongly believe in Christian values – as my church teaches them.
But the term has been hijacked by the Religious Right and converted into a shibboleth for their particular set of values.
For example, I find nothing in Christianity that suggests that I should condemn Esprix and gobear for their “lifestyle” – and some strong words about what judgment faces me if I do. But the typical person advocating “Christian values” would immediately argue against me. (This is not to hijack this into a Christians vs. gays argument, but to use that as perhaps one of the pre-eminent examples of the hijack of the term that I spoke of above.)
You said a mouthful! I taught for twenty years in public schools and did not see any “animosity” towards God in public schools. Not once! I was, however, forced to sit through hellfire and damnation sermons by visiting televangelists with big diamonds on their pinkies and bad cases of “preacher’s voice.” I’ve been harassed because my Christian views are different from the administrators that were my bosses. I’ve been harassed by fundamentalist Christian teachers who screamed at me that the Bible said that I should “Pray without ceasing.” I’ve sat through daily Bible readings by the principal over the intercom and situations in which I was in a “forced fundamentalist prayer” post of duty. Not only did that violate my students’ rights – it violated mine.
The right to pray in schools has never been blocked. But one student’s right to pray aloud or sermonize stops where my other students’ ears (and mine!) begin. Silent prayer is allowed and this teacher took full advantage of it!
Polycarp, I don’t think I’ve ever read anything you’ve posted that I have disagreed with – until now. (It’s about time, eh?)
December, I believe that all residents of America must be free to speak about their own personal views even in a sensitive position – as long as the situation is appropriate and no arms are being twisted. I will save most of my criticism of the Secretary of Education for the time when he tries to tell me or my students what to believe.
That’s going to be difficult since I retired fourteen years ago. But once a teacher, always a teacher.
My point, Zoe, is that compassion, empathy, acceptance, not forcing one’s faith but showing others what it means to you, that sort of thing, is for me what “Christian values” include. Rather obviously, that is not what the Immoral Minority counts as “Christian values.” And, as I expressed in my first post here, the man has a right to his opinion – so long as he does the job we’re paying him to do in accordance with the laws of the land – and in particular the Constitution.
You make an interesting point, Polycarp. I certainly didn’t mean to advocate homophobia when I praised Christian values! Your comment leads to the question of just which Christain values Paige was thinking of. Paige said he preferred the values taught by Christian colleges to the values taught at secular colleges. Do you know which values are taught at those colleges?
I see nothing wrong with Paige’s comments. Per se.
The only point at which problem appear is if Paige’s comments are perceived as unproblematic while, let’s say, someone else in the administration were to catch hell for making a statement like “All things equal, I would prefer to have a child in a school that has a strong appreciation for the values enshrined by the Muslim community, where a child is taught to have a strong faith” or “All things equal, I would prefer to have a child in a school that has a strong appreciation for the rational values exemplified by the atheist humanist community, where a child is taught to have a strong ethical inquiring mind” or “All things equal, I would prefer to have a child in a school that has a strong appreciation for the traditions and spirit of the Wiccan/Pagan community, where a child is taught to respect spiritual experience in all its varieties”.
As for me, all things equal, I’d prefer to have politicians and other public figures feel free to voice their own personal opinions and only experience retaliation for truly abhorrent ones.
So… first of all you know for a fact that the Secretary was referring only to colleges such as Bob Jones and its ilk (as opposed to, say, Jesuit colleges)… second of all you believe without a shadow of a doubt that a college that claimes to provide a fundamentalist Christian education should hire non-Christian teachers. Gotcha.
Since the Secratary is a Baptist I was assuming that Jesuit colleges were bot what he was referring to. Second, the CCCU includes a large number of Christian Colleges including Baptist colleges. Third, it seems un-American (not to mention unconstitutional) to exclude employees because of religion.
But he didn’t say a Baptist education was better, he said a Christian education was better. The statement is vague enough that neither of us can say exactly what he meant.
My bad, I did originally miss that that bit applied to all CCCU churches. Still, membership in the CCCU is not required for a college to provide a Christian education. (For example, Bob Jones U, which claims to provide a Christian education, apparently is not a member)
Well, if it’s a private institution, frankly they can hire whomever they want (with a possible exception on the basis of race; I’m not sure how far-reaching EEO is.) They want to provide a totally Christian college experience. As long as they’re not getting government funds, there’s no reason they can’t exclude based on religion. At any rate, the only people they require to be Christians are full-time professors and administrators; this seems reasonable to me.
[sub]Can we institute some form of Godwin’s Law where all accusations of “Un American Behaviour” are automatically changed to something that hasn’t been tainted by years of abuse? I understand the sentiment, but I just can’t read that without suffering “eye glaze”[/sub]
There is “a” Christian view on homosexuality? Wrong. I don’t know where you get the idea that extreme fundamentalist Christian beliefs = all Christian beliefs. The assertion that homosexuality causes AIDS, that AIDS is God’s punishment, and that homosexuals should be barred from public life, is an insult to the great majority of Christians. You’d better come up with citations to support your allegations that there are the beliefs of the majority of Christians.
Nor is there “a” secular view of homosexuality. Homosexuality has been squelched by atheistic governments as vigorously as anyone else.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by december * It’s not a coincidence that Martin Luther King was a Christian minister and that Christians in England and the US led the battle against slavery, IMHO.
It’s also not a coincidence that the people that upheld the battle for slavery in the South were also Christians in the U.S. (e.g. by citing Biblical passages that upheld the ownership of slaves). There were a heck of a lot of Christians in the U.S. during the first half of the 19th century, and some Christian sects are known for being vocal about political issues.
Um … even if we ignore the fact that democracy was not an American invention, Christianity is not known for being particularly democratic in the first place. Practically the only form of government mentioned throughout the Bible was centralized absolute rulership, e.g. monarchy.
But once a teacher, always a teacher.
So… first of all you know for a fact that the Secretary was referring only to colleges such as Bob Jones and its ilk (as opposed to, say, Jesuit colleges)… second of all you believe without a shadow of a doubt that a college that claimes to provide a fundamentalist Christian education should hire non-Christian teachers. Gotcha.