On Tue, 21 Jan 2014 02:12:04 +0100, clipka wrote:

> Am 20.01.2014 05:35, schrieb Jim Henderson:
>> On Mon, 20 Jan 2014 01:20:06 +0100, clipka wrote:
>>
>>> => §1.4: Allow yourself and anyone else to freely and without shame or
>>> fear follow any rules they derive from their personal and current
>>> belief re the supreme something's existence or nature, within the
>>> limits imposed by §1.1 to §1.4 (sic!).
>>
>> You had me up to this point, and only not here in a nuanced way.
>>
>> I'm happy to let anyone follow any rules they derive from their
>> personal and current belief, so long as they don't try to impose those
>> on others ability to do the same - or if by doing so they put people in
>> harm's way.
> 
> Hence the explicit limitation of §1.4 not only to the confines of §1.1
> to §1.3, but also of §1.4 itself.

I guess I'm not seeing how this applies.

>> And also:  Texas Board of Education.  If the individuals want to
>> cripple their own childrens' understanding of science and handicap them
>> in the real world, that's less a decision I feel I should get involved
>> in.  When they use their influence to cram religious dogma into the
>> public schools in ways that affect the entire country - no, they're not
>> permitted to do that.
> 
> And why do you feel like that?

Because they're subverting both the first amendment to the US 
Constitution (which prohibits the government establishment of religion - 
and SCOTUS has found that pushing religious doctrine into classrooms 
violates the establishment clause), and because they are forcing their 
beliefs onto others and using the schools as a means to convert people to 
their beliefs.

And because creationism isn't science, and doesn't belong in science 
classrooms.  The only controversy about evolution is in the minds of 
people who don't understand it.  Rather than push an "alternate theory" 
because they don't understand evolution, they need to learn what the 
current state of evolutionary science is.

Amongst scientists who study evolution, there are few who think it's 
bunk.  But those scientists also very strongly contest that creationism 
is horseshit, and I tend to agree.

> I guess it's because it interferes with the rules you yourself derive
> from whatever world view you have - in this particular case it might be
> something like "strive to let future generations make educated, unbiased
> choices which religion or other world view to follow".

That's a good start.  I would certainly encourage parents to let their 
children figure out the path that's right for them, rather than 
indoctrinate them into their faith.  You can teach morals and ethics 
without steeping it in religious doctrine and dogma.

> So, here's a conflict between what two people derive from their personal
> convictions, and consequently neither can claim the right to invoke §1.4
> - the matter needs to be settled on other, more specific moral rules,
> not derived from the generic agnostic point of view but from whatever
> flavor of it you lean towards.

Ah, I think I understand that. :)

Jim



-- 
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and 
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw

Post a reply to this message