Interesting People mailing list archives
2 more on book burnings are next...
From: David Farber <dave () farber net>
Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2004 09:24:10 -0500
Begin forwarded message: From: Simon Higgs <simon () higgs com> Date: November 14, 2004 2:13:24 AM EST To: Tom Fairlie <tfairlie () frontiernet net> Cc: dave () farber net Subject: Re: [IP] more on book burnings are next... Hi Tom,Well context is everything. Public schools do not function effectively, especially if we use LAUSD as a benchmark. My assumption that faith is a logical conclusion of study and learning comes from observation. But then again, so do a whole pile of other things. Faith is not the exclusive result of study and learning. Maybe we don't have the same definition of the word "faith".
Faith is a presumption - a hypothesis - that builds over time based on either an expected outcome or tangible results. It may be totally wrong and part of something else - like denial, or it may be totally accurate and can be proven. But faith is a place where one can extend his/her trust. That may be atheism. Or it maybe religion. Or it may be a theorem. Or it may be that tonight's date will show up. We'll leave the ballot box out of this for now. ;-) But one thing that becomes clear is that faith is relational. It's between you and something outside of your immediate control. For some it's a personal relationship with their deity. For others it's a relationship with the gas in their gas tank and whether it will get them home.
Let me address the loving, caring, atheists. I know some. I know others that are not. Same goes for Christians. So what? People are people. Yes, behavior is an outworking of their beliefs but it's not the exclusive outworking. We have choices we make every day. Some are good and some are bad. Reputations get built by how those choices are perceived not how they were actually executed. As an Anglo-American, I think Jimmy Carter has been one of the best US presidents, but what he did that made him great has, to a certain extent, been kept hidden (and in some cases classified). He was seen as weak because he chose not to bluster around like Reagan.
So, back to choice. Public schools have an absolute mandate to teach one thing and one thing only. And that is simply how to learn. If it fails that small task, then the rest of the reading, 'riting, and 'riffmatic being taught is a complete waste of time. So is every other class or elective. I know, I've been there.
So what does learning actually mean? What is so special about learning that teaching can't provide? Look at the test scores across the country. Learning involves assimilating information. The core of learning to learn is to be able to evaluate and determine the value of the information being presented. Context. There's one tremendous benefit - the elimination of fear of the subject matter. So Christianity is a history lesson. Islam is a history lesson. Terrorism is a current affairs lesson. And yes, math is still boring. I was taught Islam, Hinduism, Christianity and other subjects at school, at the taxpayer's expense. What is the big deal?
Spiritual knowledge exists. It's just that, knowledge. But people are so afraid of it. So they ban the books from schools. They ban the prayer. What exactly are they afraid of? Turning that knowledge into a living breathing relationship with a supreme being? God asking them personally to be a missionary? Becoming accountable for one's own actions? Repenting of doing things that we thought were actually cool to do? Becoming enslaved to an out-of-control organization disguised as a religion? The Bogeyman? So much for allowing the individual their own choice, because the public schools won't allow it.
It's knowledge that brings you through each of these situations. If you don't have the knowledge, you don't have the choices. If Jim Jones were around today, would you drink the Kool-Aid? Have you learnt something from that? Today, I would have a piece of advice for Martin Luther King from what I've learnt. I'd tell him to duck. Maybe if Jesse Jackson had been assassinated he too would be a great man today. But no, we see the real man, warts and all. Why? Because we have the additional knowledge.
What are public schools rejecting when they reject ID? Isaac Newton's "Philosophiæ naturalis Principia Mathematica" for one. He did so well too. So what are the public schools going to say if he was around today? 'Sorry Isaac, your math is totally bogus because you started ranting on that we "must be all subject to the dominion of One" and then you started talking about "my God, your God, the God of Israel". How could you be so irresponsible to our public school children? So we reject your so-called gravity.'
This is history. This is science. This is philosophy. This is faith. It's all the same thing, just from different angles and points of view. You can't separate out the bits that you personally find uncomfortable. That is bad science.
I'm really not sure I'm worthy of inspiring someone to change for the better. I'd love to be a great example, but I know me well enough to know I have little confidence in that. Faith, spirituality, and beliefs are going to live or die on their own merits. I have mine and I'm going to stick with them. The science and math works out.
"Hitherto we have explained the phenomena of the heavens and of our sea by the power of gravity, but have not yet assigned the cause of this power." - Isaac Newton, Philosophiæ naturalis Principia Mathematica
Best Regards, Simon Begin forwarded message: From: Tom Fairlie <tfairlie () frontiernet net> Date: November 14, 2004 9:00:40 AM EST To: Simon Higgs <simon () higgs com> Cc: dave () farber net Subject: Re: [IP] more on book burnings are next... Hi Simon, First of all, let me just say that I enjoy reading intelligently written responses such as yours. I have a few friends that are similarly educated and yet diametrically opposed to my beliefs :-P I think you're right; context is everything. However, after reading your message, I can't quite tell what you are suggesting. If you stood up at a local school board and delivered it as a speech, I am sure that the parents would applaud and then continue as they were -- unsure of what was just said. However, if I try to derive a conclusion, it seems to be that faith is or should be a normal component of a child's education. Again, the problem with this has a lot to do with the nature of your reply, in that you are talking philosophy while children aren't even taught critical thinking (or *get* critical thinking) until 12th grade. I can teach my children mathematics simply by using blocks or fruit or my fingers. When they're ready for multiplication, I can show them how a local farmers estimates the number of seeds they will need by the number of rows that will fit in an acre. Reading, history, geography, etc. can all be taught slowly and progressively as the child is ready for the material. Faith, spirituality, religion, or whatever can be similarly taught. In this regard, you are totally correct. When a close relative died, I explained to my (younger) children about heaven and what happens to good people when their Earthly bodies expire. This all sounds normal, perhaps, but here's the rub: I don't necessarily believe in heaven. This is not the place to discuss my exact beliefs, but what I told my children was specific enough to not only get them over an emotional hump, but to fill their minds with images that may last their entire life and lay the groundwork for further imagery if I (or they) so choose. And this is why I reject the public schools taking over this highly personal responsibility of mine. No two people are going to have the same belief system and I'm sure that my personal beliefs (despite the relatively benign reference to a 'heaven'), if shared with the local school, would probably get a lot of blank stares. You talked about your own exposure to various religions, but the younger student isn't going to know enough to distinguish between them or figure out what to assimilate as knowledge and what to feel internally as 'truth'. In other words, teaching a child the 'important' articles of spirituality at a young age may be either pointless or profound. The bottom line, though, is that it's a rough course that is a world apart from teaching them how to add or read. Given my assumptions about early education, let's assume then that we're talking about secondary education. I have a daughter in high school, so this is an easy one for me to practice on. I had a long, heart-to-heart talk with her one day about faith and the afterlife and what it could possibly mean or entail. She listened intently, discussed (intelligently, I might add :-) the options, and then promptly decided to ignore each of the theories I proposed. Instead, she decided to believe in an 'Earth goddess'--a female deity who would watch over her and 'mother' her to success. As much as this conclusion bothered me (I'm an engineer; we're supposed to draw 'logical' conclusions ;-), I have to give her credit. I say this because her worldview, albeit a little off the beaten track, is completely moral and healthy. She doesn't burn incense or candles in her room and worship a statue. Instead, she constantly seeks to spread the love she feels inside with her peers and help them wherever she can. She has volunteered repeatedly to be a 'peer mediator' (problem solver) at her school. I'm not disclosing this highly personal information to express my pride, although there is some, but to exemplify the problem of putting this sort of vehicle into the public schools. Can you imagine the typical (admittedly, they don't exist) American parent sending their kid off to a school that covers Christian (and perhaps a few other varieties of) faith and find out that their child now believes in what is essentially a Wiccan deity? That teacher/principal/school board would be virtually crucified. Perhaps this is a pessimistic assumption, but here we get back to the whole faith/knowledge argument. Parents trust that their children will learn how to read, how to add and multiply, and how to write. They don't really care if Newton is deified in the school--they're more concerned with the basics. Beyond that, parents may be happy or proud if their child picks up an artistic talent, a physical ability (i.e., sports), or some other 'useful' skill. However, those that wish to impart a spiritual education should send their children to the appropriate private institution. There simply is no bandwidth to provide a balanced, faith-based education in the public schools and the teachers will certainly be blamed for falling short of the mark when they try. Sincerely, Tom Fairlie ----- Original Message ----- From: "Simon Higgs" <simon () higgs com> To: "Tom Fairlie" <tfairlie () frontiernet net> Cc: <dave () farber net> Sent: Sunday, November 14, 2004 1:13 AM Subject: Re: [IP] more on book burnings are next... Hi Tom, Well context is everything. Public schools do not function effectively, especially if we use LAUSD as a benchmark. My assumption that faith is alogical conclusion of study and learning comes from observation. But then
again, so do a whole pile of other things. Faith is not the exclusive result of study and learning. Maybe we don't have the same definition of the word "faith". Faith is a presumption - a hypothesis - that builds over time based oneither an expected outcome or tangible results. It may be totally wrong and part of something else - like denial, or it may be totally accurate and can
be proven. But faith is a place where one can extend his/her trust. Thatmay be atheism. Or it maybe religion. Or it may be a theorem. Or it may be
that tonight's date will show up. We'll leave the ballot box out of thisfor now. ;-) But one thing that becomes clear is that faith is relational. It's between you and something outside of your immediate control. For some
it's a personal relationship with their deity. For others it's a relationship with the gas in their gas tank and whether it will get them home. Let me address the loving, caring, atheists. I know some. I know others that are not. Same goes for Christians. So what? People are people. Yes, behavior is an outworking of their beliefs but it's not the exclusiveoutworking. We have choices we make every day. Some are good and some are bad. Reputations get built by how those choices are perceived not how they were actually executed. As an Anglo-American, I think Jimmy Carter has been one of the best US presidents, but what he did that made him great has, to a certain extent, been kept hidden (and in some cases classified). He was
seen as weak because he chose not to bluster around like Reagan. So, back to choice. Public schools have an absolute mandate to teach onething and one thing only. And that is simply how to learn. If it fails that
small task, then the rest of the reading, 'riting, and 'riffmatic beingtaught is a complete waste of time. So is every other class or elective. I
know, I've been there.So what does learning actually mean? What is so special about learning that
teaching can't provide? Look at the test scores across the country.Learning involves assimilating information. The core of learning to learn is to be able to evaluate and determine the value of the information being
presented. Context. There's one tremendous benefit - the elimination offear of the subject matter. So Christianity is a history lesson. Islam is a
history lesson. Terrorism is a current affairs lesson. And yes, math isstill boring. I was taught Islam, Hinduism, Christianity and other subjects
at school, at the taxpayer's expense. What is the big deal? Spiritual knowledge exists. It's just that, knowledge. But people are soafraid of it. So they ban the books from schools. They ban the prayer. What exactly are they afraid of? Turning that knowledge into a living breathing
relationship with a supreme being? God asking them personally to be amissionary? Becoming accountable for one's own actions? Repenting of doing
things that we thought were actually cool to do? Becoming enslaved to anout-of-control organization disguised as a religion? The Bogeyman? So much
for allowing the individual their own choice, because the public schools won't allow it. It's knowledge that brings you through each of these situations. If you don't have the knowledge, you don't have the choices. If Jim Jones werearound today, would you drink the Kool-Aid? Have you learnt something from
that? Today, I would have a piece of advice for Martin Luther King from what I've learnt. I'd tell him to duck. Maybe if Jesse Jackson had been assassinated he too would be a great man today. But no, we see the real man, warts and all. Why? Because we have the additional knowledge. What are public schools rejecting when they reject ID? Isaac Newton's"Philosophiæ naturalis Principia Mathematica" for one. He did so well too. So what are the public schools going to say if he was around today? 'Sorry
Isaac, your math is totally bogus because you started ranting on that we"must be all subject to the dominion of One" and then you started talking
about "my God, your God, the God of Israel". How could you be so irresponsible to our public school children? So we reject your so-called gravity.'This is history. This is science. This is philosophy. This is faith. It's
all the same thing, just from different angles and points of view. Youcan't separate out the bits that you personally find uncomfortable. That is
bad science. I'm really not sure I'm worthy of inspiring someone to change for thebetter. I'd love to be a great example, but I know me well enough to know I have little confidence in that. Faith, spirituality, and beliefs are going to live or die on their own merits. I have mine and I'm going to stick with
them. The science and math works out."Hitherto we have explained the phenomena of the heavens and of our sea by the power of gravity, but have not yet assigned the cause of this power." -
Isaac Newton, Philosophiæ naturalis Principia Mathematica Best Regards, Simon
Hi Simon, Let's start over shall we. It's far too easy to go down our current path and wind up making arguments that have nothing to do with each other. Plus, I have had this debate more than 100 times in the past few years and that's no exaggeration. My only points are thus: 1) We agree that religion and faith have nothing to do with each other. Game, set, and match. 2) I disagree with your assumption that faith is a logical conclusion of study and learning, in the context of our public schools. For example, someone could be incredibly bright, ethical, hard-working, and moral, yet still have no faith whatsoever in a supreme being, a higher power, or whatever. I personally know at least two atheists that are an order of magnitude more moral (i.e., loving, helpful, charitable) in the acts they do than any Christian I have ever known. Would you assume that these people must be subconsciously following a higher power and don't know it? I can tell you the answer. They are both incredibly smart, were raised to be religious, have studied the issues at length, and have consciously decided to be an atheist. Any attempt to have taught them otherwise in a public school setting would have mitigated their kind acts later in life (in my humble opinion). The spiritual path one takes is and should be a personal one. Trying to force such a path on young children seems not only fruitless (in the sense that they may just as readily reject such teachings in their teenage years as they seek independence) but also inherently flawed because one person's definition of spirituality, faith, or even morals is always going to differ from everyone else's. I believe that it is the parent's responsibility to impart a moral sense in our children. Why I would want to outsource that function to a public school teacher is beyond me. You say that faith can be taught. The home is the school. 3) You argument about what is 'real', what is 'belief', and what is 'knowledge' are all philosophical rabbit holes that can be debated, but have little impact on the question of public school curricula and here is why. Suppose you wanted to expose the children in public schools to (a) moral/ethical thinking, (b) religious principles, (c) spirituality, or (d) general teachings related to 'b' or 'c'. Case 'a' is easy. There used to be a show called "Ethics in America" that is still available on VHS tape. Watch it and you'll realize that ethics and morals can be intellectually debated without being couched in a spiritual context. If you wanted to apply such thinking to a younger audience, you would just have to tailor the subject matter and the analysis appropriately. I have no problem with any of this. Case 'b' is possible only if every major religion is represented in a fair and balanced way. Given the state of America's public school system (at least from where I sit; I have 4 children in the Midwest), I doubt that we have the teaching resources necessary to provide such a robust and inclusive curriculum. Falling short of the goal, which is far too easy, will inevitably lead to rampant bias in what is taught and will invariably lead to an increase in intolerance and polarization--two things we need to combat, not encourage. Case 'c' is much more problematic than 'b'. I suppose it's possible to cover such a topic, but the demand on the teacher is severe. I can just imagine one teacher talking about the rapture and another talking about some Far East philosophy and a third discussing the benefits of polygamy. Given the incredibly high bar that would have to be set, this is realistically a non-starter. Case 'd' appears to be where ID attempts to insert itself, although I tend to view it as 'b'. The problem here, just as in Bush's Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, is the inherent bias such a system will promote. In other words, how many teachers are going to cover Islam and the teachings of Mohammed? How many children are going to feel wrong or ashamed because they don't get or don't agree with what the teacher is pushing. Again, this is an issue for the home. 4) Let me explain my 'belief' argument again (perhaps fruitless, assuming that you're going to equate Einstein's equations with Pat Roberton's predictions--not that you did, but there you go :-). The scientific community has built upon itself over centuries (and against the church, btw) and has created a body of knowledge that allows me to drive a car to work, use a computer to create incredibly complex devices, microwave my food, listen to high- fidelity music wherever I go, keep in touch with my wife and children through a wireless network, react to my baby crying (on a monitor) when I'm out of earshot, and read about world events with the click of a mouse button. I believe in these scientists because I use the fruits of their labor every day. People like Dr. King require more belief. If I completely disbelieved in him and his work, I could try to write him off as just another charismatic speaker. However, millions of Americans look up to him not just as a leader, but as someone who fought to change the legal system to finally end discriminatory practices. Thus, if I have even a small belief in him and his work, I can easily attribute a lot of good to what he did and the impact he had on society. My last example, Dr. Dobson, requires the most faith; not just because he accomplishes little, but because his subject is faith itself. The analogy is the scientist who talks about science itself. Stephen Wolfram, a reputed genius and the inventor of the popular software program Mathematica, wrote a book a couple of years ago called "A New Kind of Science". In this book, he described a new paradigm that was intended to put the entire scientific community on its ear and change the way scientists work. Perhaps his tome will be accepted some day (Einstein had to wait years for people to simply confirm his math, let alone agree with him), but the truth is that is currently an exceedingly large paperweight. Whereas Wolfram selfishly pursues knowledge (even if flawed), someone like Dobson pursues an agenda that is selfish in the sense that it serves only his own purposes. If Wolfram is completely wrong, it has no impact on me. If he's right, I can only benefit. If he's wrong, but the scientific community mistakenly follows it, then they may hurt themselves, but will eventually right the ship over time. In Dobson's case, his agenda can neither be declared right or wrong because someone will always lose whether there is a benefit or not. This is because his tactics polarize rather than unite. He possesses the 'truth', yet becomes a hate monger when challenged. He is a child of God, but apparently believes that only half the electorate is worthy of similar status. My point here is that it takes pure faith, in both Dobson and his narrow message, to derive a benefit from him. You could easily argue that Dobson is an extreme example, and you'd be right. However, history books are stuffed with examples of what goes wrong every time faith (or religion) mingles with the apparatus of the state. Instead, I believe that the only way to inspire someone to change for the better is to live your life as an example to them. Famous people like Bill Bennett (former drug czar) tried to take the shortcut by writing pamphlets like "The Book of Virtues" without making the sacrifices necessary to live up to them. When his million-dollar gambling addiction was exposed, he denied that it was a problemat all. My point here is to let faith, spirituality, and beliefs live ordie on their own. We don't need to incorporate any of this into public schools. 5) I didn't get what you mean when you said:"Saving the innocents? Consequences and accountability? Religious crusades?That is all for now. Fingers are tired. Tom Fairlie ----- Original Message ----- From: "Simon Higgs" <simon () higgs com> To: "Tom Fairlie" <tfairlie () frontiernet net> Cc: "David Farber" <dave () farber net> Sent: Saturday, November 13, 2004 4:30 AM Subject: Re: [IP] more on book burnings are next... Tom,With all due respect, I think you're missing out on several important aspects of the issue at hand and my response to it. First of all, equating science to religion on the basis of both being 'knowledge' is outside the borders of this discussion.Then it's hardly a discussion. It's either knowledge or it's not. Banning knowledge simply on the basis of it's content is well outside the borders of a true education. Part of a decent education is to learn the true value of knowledge and place it in proper context with other knowledge. Knowledge and facts are different animals. Do you know what you know? Do you know ifwhat you know is fact or fiction?Our public school system is intended to prepare our children to become productive members of the workforce and that's all there is to it.Then, in the real world, it's a total failure and not meeting thatobjective. But, hey, I live in Los Angeles, home to the most dysfunctionalschool district in the world.It was nice when they used to teach kids about the 'arts' and put on plays and such, but unless you live in the suburbs, that's mostly gone today. I think your equation also fails once you mention the word 'belief'. I don't have to 'believe' in Einstein or Newton in order to derive benefit from their knowledge.Yes, you do. You have to believe in their theories and proofs to derivebenefit. Conversely, you have to disbelieve them to reject them. Either wayyou expressed a measure of faith. Not necessarily in them, but in their work.In the middle ground, I *would* have to at least partially 'believe' in the work of someone like Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. in order to consider him a great man. (I do.) However, one could hardly consider someone like Dr. James Dobson a good man unless they had *total* belief in him and his acts. (I don't.)You're expressing greatness in proportion to how much faith you have in a person. You've rejected Dobson because you don't/won't have 100% faith inhim, yet you are willing to accept far less than 100% from MLK. It just sounds like you're prejudice.Furthermore (and speaking of Einstein), he proved that everything is relative in terms of your point of view (Cf. Special Theory of Relativity). It was a radical thought at the time and yet nobody challenged it once it was understood. I suspect that you might doubt this sort of orthodoxy, but the irony here is that Science (capital "S") and the [real] scientists who practice it actually challenge long-held beliefs and adapt them or improve them over time. Of course, there is often a lot of inertia to overcome and scientists can certainly be bullheaded about change, but nonetheless, their feedback look reinforces the quality of their work.Sounds like a basis of faith to me. Faith in Relativity and the relationship of space and time. Much of our confusion results from the assumption that time and space are things that exist independently of faith. Remember that the next time you walk on water.The fact that organized religion (and Christianity, to be specific) demonstrates very little of this introspection, leads them to adopt a very absolutist worldview. Perhaps consistency is maintained, but at a high cost; and in reality, few practice it. Many is the Christian who preaches the sanctity of life for the unborn fetus and yet champions the death penalty; glorifies our military adventures against Islam while ignoring the innocent civilian casualties; sees nothing wrong with capitalism while millions go without their basic human needs being met.Saving the innocents? Consequences and accountability? Religious crusades?You're confusing Christianity with the actions of some American church goers. Sad but true. This is the classic confusion between religion and Christianity.You bring up Darwin's twilight regrets. I hadn't read that about Darwin, but given the world in which he lived, are you sure that he wasn't bemoaning the use of his theories by eugenicists?Not in that specific context, but they may be included along with theLinnean Society of London as well as the Royal Society of London and theBritish Association for the Advancement of Science. All of them contributed.After all, his half first cousin, Francis Galton, was the pioneer of eugenics and helped make the latter half of the 19th century andthe first half of the 20th a living hell for tens of millions of people--most famously the Jews under Hitler. This is the further irony of Darwin; that his theories are laughed at by people who seem to think that Social Darwinism is perfectly acceptable. Hardly a Christian concept by my definition. One last thing on Darwin; his theories certainly do hold up to scientific scrutiny. Remember that Darwin proposed theories, not proofs.Then why are Darwin's theories taught as proofs and without the benefit ofalternative theories?While scientists have been poking and prodding his work for more than a century and important anomalies have been found and studied, the vast majority of scientists aren't ready to throw the baby out with the bathwater. By contrast, the folks behind ID took one of Darwin's anomalies (the complexity problem), ignored the scientific theories that may explain it (e.g., the law of big numbers, et al), and then used it as a pretext to push Christian teachings as opposed to scientific reasoning.Look from the other side, the scientist with a faith has to reconcile that somehow. There isn't an ulterior motive, there is simply another theory orproof in the equation which has to be accounted for. More data to extrapolate from.I can't take such debate seriously, since it is by definition un- scientific and has such an obvious ulterior motive.Yeah, but those are two very unscientific reasons to reject a theory orproof. You are guaranteed the wrong results because you don't have all the data. We're back to knowledge you have eliminated instead of putting it incontext.Assuming that you're not clumsily falling into this trap and sincerelywant religion taught in our public schools, then I guess we could be persuaded towards this thinking if the education included all of the major religions of the world and a fair analysis--with the pros and cons--of each.And the problem you have with that is what exactly?I don't have a problem with this at all, which is why I suggested it. Of course, this suggestion is tongue-in-cheek, since almost nobody I know is interested in debating such topics. The overwhelming majority of people I know who have truly studied religion have little or no interest in talking about their faith as a subject of debate. Extrapolating this to the community at large would seem to indicate that this debate would go nowhere fast and would only seek to inflame people on both (all?) sides. You implied that I'm against such a debate, while the truth is that I'm against such a non-starter of a topic. Speaking of which, you implied that I was 'silly' for allegedly ignoring your theory that teaching our children basic skills would inevitably lead to their discovery of a higher power. Pure nonsense.You have data to back that up? ;-pEvery person operates uniquely and their modus operandi cannot be so easily predicted. Personally, my own belief that there is a higher power came not from school, science, or the Catholic school (and church) in which I was raised; I came upon that discovery through personal intuition and spiritual maturity--both ways that cannot be taught no matter hard you or anyone else can possibly try.You learnt, didn't you? Then you can't say that it can't be taught. Everything that can be learnt can be taught. But we're back to putting knowledge in it's proper context.However, by undertaking such an educational effort, you or the professional proselytizers you seem to support would be embarking upon a costlyand risky mission that: will certainly be very inefficient; is inherentlyprejudiced against a large percentage of the population; may stimulate the opposite effect in many children; and will inevitably be borne by taxpayers that have no idea about or interest in such outcomes.Ah, now I get it. That's fear talking. Fear of brain washing. Fear of indoctrination. Fear of lifestyle accountability. Fear of loosingindividual choice. All rational reasons. However, you need to recognize the difference between religion and faith. Religion breeds cults and is overall highly unhealthy. Faith breeds self-sacrifice and service to the community. You've just got to know the difference. And don't confuse religion with Christianity. They're polar opposites.Thus, who is being the silly one here?So when do I get a choice where my taxes are spent?Sincerely, Tom Fairlie PS. Sorry for ending this note on a quasi-insulting tone. However, you started it. :-)Thbbttthhhttt... ;-p Best Regards, Simon Higgs
------------------------------------- You are subscribed as interesting-people () lists elistx com To manage your subscription, go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/
Current thread:
- 2 more on book burnings are next... David Farber (Nov 14)