From: nospam-seesignature@ceddec.com
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 1997 15:17:10 -0800 (PST)
To: platypus@acmeonline.net
Subject: Re: Will Jews be Forced to Accept Christ in Public Schools?
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.3.93.971121184226.326M-100000@shirley>
Message-ID: <97Nov21.181732est.32259@brickwall.ceddec.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


On Fri, 21 Nov 1997, ? the Platypus {aka David Formosa} wrote:

> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> 
> On Tue, 18 Nov 1997 nospam-seesignature@ceddec.com wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
> > Both are necessary for the electorate in a democracy, and our supreme
> > court says we cannot teach virtue in public school, and the educators have
> > stopped teaching reason.
> 
> You are argueing that the religions have a monopoly on virtue?

No, but I am arguing that purely secular *GOVERNMENT* is incapable of
teaching it, or acting as an example - Normally you must know something or
be able to act out something in order to teach it.  Cypherpunks contains a
constant stream of government not even being hypocritical (the compliment
vice pays to virtue) - they simply act viceous.  If it ever gets something
right it is usually voiced as an unintentional consequence.  I can teach
saying Government is an example of what not to do, but Government itself
cannot do the same.  But even without getting religous I can teach virtue
as a positive instead of a series of negatives.

For example, you can teach virtue based on Aristotle, or even Socrates. 
Or as an objectivist might point out, Ayn Rand.  Although I haven't
attempted to create a curriculum, I have come across many books just in my
economics readings that don't mention God once, but mention various
virtues as such (though not always by that word).  I know someone who is
very far from my Religous beliefs, but otherwise we agree on Libertarian
ideas and the need to instill virtue - he now homeschools his children.

Even my religous view holds that those who don't hold it are exhonerated
or condemned by their own consciences (if properly formed which is a prior
responsibility) [Romans Chapter 1 is the most often cited passage]. 

Thrift (seeking higher quality at lower prices), Delaying Gratification
(e.g. Save instead of buying on credit), Temperance (we do have a drug
problem and we see how government approaches it), Prudence (ditto with
teenage sex) are all Virtues by natural law, and I could number more and
come up with a list that everyone who believe in the concept of virtue
would recognize.  These truths are accessible via reason alone - if people
would let reason reach the conclusion.

Religion is neither sufficient, nor even necessary to teach virtue, and
often fails to teach it.  But in the past it has tended to recognize
virtue and teach it before purely secular institutions.  The French
Revolution was (false) reason without virtue, and purely secular, and
everyone knows the result.  Our founders, including the Deists and
Unitarians all point out that virtue is necessary for liberty and
demonstrate that from reason. 

Within those who identify themselves as "The Religous Right", some I agree
with and some I don't, and within both, some positions are consistent and
reasonable, and some are not.  I tend to ask silly questions like my first
response to this thread ("public" school v.s. "government" schools).  If
they accept the authority of the Bible, I can usually win the argument,
but I have taken the time to develop a Libertarian Theology.  I also argue
that they do damage to their own cause by having government try to do
things which they will fail at and both the left and the right don't like
it when I argue for separation of church and state - but say that the
state should get entirely out of things like education and charity
(welfare and healthcare) because it is none of the state's business - the
churches (and other voluntary organizations) are responsible for these
functions.

--- reply to tzeruch - at - ceddec - dot - com ---