About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Forward one pageLast Page


Post 20

Tuesday, May 22, 2007 - 10:20pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Thanks, Bill. I'll find the specific movie which is the best example of what I meant and will say a little more later - actually, it's a damn stupid movie - so I think it would otherwise be a waste of time, except I do not and did not mean to offend.

Time for bed, but glad to see your post before I hit the sack.

Ted

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 21

Wednesday, May 23, 2007 - 7:48amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Like I’ve said a few times here, I was born and raised in Southern Louisiana. Obviously we’re a little different from the rest of the South when it comes to religion. There were a few Baptists around with a couple other Protestant churches but by and large everyone else is Catholic, my family included.

I spent my grade school years going to different Catholic and public schools; Catholic when my family could afford it and public when we couldn’t…we couldn’t in high school. Academically, there really wasn’t a question about which was better, there is a small Vietnamese community there and many of those parents (dedicated Buddhists, I was friends with a couple) sent their children to Catholic school simply because it was so much better. Now one of my friends who went to a Catholic high school recounted a story to me about how one of his teachers was arrested after a fight in a bar. I’m not too sure how they handle things like that in Minnesota but it’s not that big of a deal where I’m from, if no one is hurt you’re basically just taken back to the station to sober up and then they let you go home. In any event, the school didn’t fire him but had him apologize to the entire school the following Monday over the PA system. The only possible ‘violence’ I can think of that ever happened with a teacher is that in elementary school, if a student keeps misbehaving the principle will come to the classroom and paddle the student. Now before you start pointing fingers, public schools did the same thing, as far as I know still do. Maybe that’s just a Southern thing.

So even though I’ve been an atheist for years, I still look favorably toward Catholic schools, especially as compared to public schools. They don’t put up with multicultural BS, there are no fights in the halls, and the students are there to learn, not count the hours until they can get home. Of course there is the inevitable class on Catholicism but looking back it wasn’t really that bad. I’m sure that at some other schools it might be very different but at this one, Catholicism was treated less like a religion and more like a subject to be studied. Most of the time, the only prayer I heard during the day was during the morning announcements, again not a big deal.

I think your analysis of Catholicism is mostly accurate but it does leave a misguided impression on what the Catholic community is like. The way you put it, a person should run for the hills every time they see a Catholic priest. For example, never in my life was I told I could go to hell by a Catholic priest, and I’ve known several. The two times I’ve been to a non-Catholic church (a mega non-denominational with an aunt and a Baptist one with a girlfriend) I was told several times I could go hell because I was “insert sin”. Actually when I went to that Baptist church in North Louisiana, I was pretty much told to get the hell out after they figured out I was Catholic whereas the Catholic Church I usually went to pretty much began every mass welcoming people from other faiths.

I left the Church because there is no such thing as God; not because (at the time) I had a problem with the Catholic community or discipline in it. Granted I was raised in the Church so my view is biased but I could have turned out a lot worse. In getting their son educated my parents had two choices; private Catholic school with an excellent education and moral values or public schools where I would receive a mediocre education at best and where subjectivist morality ruled. I’ve been to both and there is no comparison, kids need to go to a school where they’re told, “This is right and this is wrong…Christopher Columbus was one of the greatest men in history…tuck in that shirt.” A school that really celebrated reason, Western Civilization, and taught values based on those ideas didn’t exist. I wish my parents had an alternative, I wish most parents had one now but as my uncle used to say “If wishes were all horses, we’d all ride”


(Edited by Clarence Hardy
on 5/23, 7:49am)


Post 22

Wednesday, May 23, 2007 - 9:40amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Granted, the Catholic schools are no longer citadels of violence and brutality, but that's because their teachers can no longer get away with it. If that kind of religious terrorism existed in the Catholic schools today, the Church would be paying stiff criminal and civil penalties for it and the perpetrators would all be in jail.

Nevertheless, it is disgusting and disgraceful in my mind to give these religious bastards any kind of moral support whatsoever. That is why I had such a problem with Ted's coming to their defense. They deserve every ounce of criticism they receive.

I'll tell you another reason why Catholic schools are a disgrace, despite the fact that they're superior in certain respects to the public schools, which, by the way, is due solely to the fact that they are private, have some educational autonomy and can expel trouble makers. To the extent that the instruction in Catholic schools is laudable, it is due to the rational, secular content of the curriculum. To the extent that any aspect of Catholicism makes its way into the instruction, it constitutes religious indoctrination and subverts the real purpose of education.

Catholicism demands acceptance of the unintelligible on faith, which is incompatible with a true educational orientation. True education consists of looking at the real world and of seeking genuine understanding, not of memorizing religious doctrine handed down by priests and nuns. The latter approach saps one's incentive to learn -- to study and understand the world -- as it did mine. Education under this model becomes a gray, boring duty, which the student must endure, because the religious authorities demand it. Faith makes a mockery of learning and understanding; it is the enemy of education, not its ally.

Just as we have a separation of church and state, we should have a separation of church and school. If there is one area that should be protected from the influence of religion, it is the mind -- especially the young mind.

- Bill

Post 23

Wednesday, May 23, 2007 - 12:06pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Bill wrote:
Just as we have a separation of church and state, we should have a separation of church and school.
By law or simply by choice?  If you suggest by law, I see difficulties with reconciling that idea with the Objectivist principle of freedom of mind and limited government.

A regular columnist in American Atheist magazine has suggested outlawing the teaching of religion to minors due to its psychological harm but he is not an Objectivist.


Post 24

Wednesday, May 23, 2007 - 12:16pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I have read of the idea of teaching religion to minors as being child abuse..... which seems similar here...

Post 25

Wednesday, May 23, 2007 - 12:32pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
This idea of outlawing the teaching of religion to minors begs many, many questions too numerous for me to post now.

I hope Bill can clarify what he meant in Post 22 of this thread.


Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Post 26

Wednesday, May 23, 2007 - 4:14pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I wrote, "Just as we have a separation of church and state, we should have a separation of church and school." Luke replied,
By law or simply by choice? If you suggest by law, I see difficulties with reconciling that idea with the Objectivist principle of freedom of mind and limited government.

A regular columnist in American Atheist magazine has suggested outlawing the teaching of religion to minors due to its psychological harm but he is not an Objectivist.
No, no. I didn't mean outlaw, and I realize now that my comment wasn't clear, because the separation of church and state is a legal one.

I do, however, understand where the columnist from The American Atheist is coming from. If we can outlaw sex between children and adults or the sale of drugs to minors, then why can't we outlaw the teaching of religion to children? When they're old enough to make up their own minds, then they can be exposed to it. I don't think this principle necessarily interferes with freedom of speech, any more than outlawing sex between children and adults or outlawing the sale of drugs to minors interferes with freedom of choice. In their fullest expression, these freedoms are understood to apply only to adults.

However, this kind of prohibition would be very difficult to enforce and could generate an army of snooping censors that invaded people's privacy. Moreover, once you start dictating what ideas children can be exposed to, you can end up with the state's telling parents what political and philosophical ideas they can teach their children. There is a slippery slope and a real moral hazard here, which makes this type of prohibition different from those against child molestation or against the sale of drugs to minors, from which there can be measurable harm, both physically and psychologically.

- Bill
(Edited by William Dwyer
on 5/23, 4:17pm)


Post 27

Thursday, May 24, 2007 - 2:35pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Luke Setzer notes that a columnist for American Atheist favors criminalizing the teaching of religion to minors. Richard Dawkins, author of current best-seller The God Delusion, advocates this as well. I've long championed this. 

But Bill Dwyer notes: "...this kind of prohibition would be very difficult to enforce and could generate an army of snooping censors that invaded people's privacy. Moreover, once you start dictating what ideas children can be exposed to, you can end up with the state's telling parents what political and philosophical ideas they can teach their children. There is a slippery slope and a real moral hazard here..."

This problem may not be as difficult as it seems. Religion, properly understood, is a kind of pure irrationality and a pure evil which is very different from other merely mistaken beliefs. You kind of have to make this intellectual 'error' on purpose. The key legal point here is you just aren't allowed under Natural Law to brain-wash your kids, nor to psychologically torture them.

Given some practice, and a much more rational world, this crime could be fairly easy to see, test, and enforce in all kinds of ways. It may always be somewhat tricky to spot -- like the childhood beatings and sexual attacks mentioned above -- since children are naturally vulnerable to kinship crime, and tend to not volunteer this information to family outsiders. But in a world where everyone is mostly rational and civilized, a thousand different pressures from a thousand different sources should come to bear against the crimes of "god", physical cruelty, sexual molestation, etc. All this should happen far less, but when it does, it should be spotted by society far more.

Just abstractly mentioning or lightly promoting an amorphous "god" to your kids seems to me like a fairly serious act of immorality, but not a punishable crime. It's a bit like promoting and/or practicing over-spanking, bedtime at 7 PM, no t'v', Scientology, Freudian psychology,etc. This is all bad parenting, but possibly not a real crime. But clear indoctrination, mental torture, and brain-washing -- such as with the very cruel Catholicism mentioned by Bill at the start of this discussion -- seems like a fairly easy thing to determine and punish.    


Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Post 28

Thursday, May 24, 2007 - 6:37pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Well, physical violence, such as existed in my high school, should be punished, but punishing the simple teaching of religion has real problems. Once you endow the state with the right to determine what constitutes "brain-washing" and the right to punish it, you will get brainwashing by the state itself. It will dictate the content of education, and prevent private schools from teaching any unauthorized or "subversive" doctrine. You don't want to go there, Kyrel! :-)

- Bill

Post 29

Thursday, May 24, 2007 - 7:35pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Only You Can Make You Happy


The 1985 movie to which I had referred was Heaven Help Us. The keywords on iMDb are:

Corporal Punishment / Bare Butt / Child Nudity / Male Nudity / Swimming Pool...

This movie featured:
Donald Sutherland ... Brother Thadeus
John Heard ... Brother Timothy
Andrew McCarthy ... Michael Dunn
Mary Stuart Masterson ... Danni
Kevin Dillon ... Rooney

As I remember, when the sadist monk is exposed, he is discredited. The overall effect of the movie was like that of a tabloid newspaper decrying smut, and "featuring pictures on page 3!"

A search under "Catholic school comedy" returned 145 results.

As for Catholic schools, atheist Robert W. Wilson just donated 22.5 million for scholarships, the largest one time donation to the NYC archdiocese. Many of the children who get these scholarships will be non-Catholics. None will be beaten, pun intended.

My father was the product of a Jesuit up-bringing at West Catholic in Philadelphia. He always repeats the motto he was taught there: "Only you can make you happy." While there was corporal punishment, he never brought up the issue to me, except to tell of one time, when as a limber boy, he put his feet behind his ears in grammar school. The Nun who found him sitting that way during the bell had him stay in that position throughout the class period. I was perhaps spanked 3 times as a boy by my own father. Having been well taught by the Jesuits, my father dropped out of secular college in his first semester when his introductory philosophy professor said that we can't prove that existence isn't a dream. I have never met anyone more moral by his own or Objecvtivist standards than my father.

School boys being brutalized is a long and storied tradition in all cultures.

I have no more to say on this issue. I think Clarence spoke well.

Ted Keer

(Edited by Ted Keer
on 5/24, 7:40pm)


Post 30

Thursday, May 24, 2007 - 10:28pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
School boys being brutalized is a long and storied tradition in all cultures.
Well, it didn't occur in the public schools I attended -- the elementary and middle schools -- only in the Catholic high school.

- Bill

Post 31

Thursday, May 24, 2007 - 11:09pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Bill, I will append this.

My own anecdotal knowledge of brutality in American schools is that certain teachers at certain Catholic schools were undoubtedly some of the worst offenders. Again, there is something about the mindset of certain people who are low-level authority figures, whether in Yeshivas, Anglican schools, public or Catholic schools, or even the pedagogs of the ancient past. I spoke to a man once who worked in a juvenile detention facility. He told me of his sexual pleasure in watching delinquents be strapped down, stripped, shaved, beaten and medicated. What could be more evil save murder? Brutal so-called boot camps for children still exist run as private institutions in states where corporal punishment is less.

This incident you related occurred some 50 years ago, and your letter is half that age. My own personal impulse would be, if not to forgive or move beyond these people, at least to pity them. (Pity not being a positive thing.) Advocating against such evil wherever it occurs is certainly laudable. People who have undergone such injustices have gone on to live great, happy, and productive lives, so long as they have been strong enough not to internalize unearned guilt. No one as evil as these martinets lives a happy life, he suffers each night alone in his own soul. For me, knowing that and moving on is often satisfaction enough.

Ted Keer
(Edited by Ted Keer
on 5/24, 11:15pm)


Post 32

Friday, May 25, 2007 - 10:35amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ted,

I'm not saying I haven't moved on. But I don't think it's any coincidence that this sort of behavior, while occurring decades ago, was connected to the dogmatic authoritarianism of the Cathoilic church. The latter provides a perfect rationale for it. Thankfully, such violent abuse no longer exists and hasn't for many years, something which is due not to any reformation of Catholicism, but to an enlightened shift in attitudes about corporal punishment within society at large. Such conduct is now so politically and legally unacceptable, religious authorities can no longer get away with it.

- Bill

Post 33

Friday, May 25, 2007 - 5:21pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
No, Bill, I won't argue that point at all, that dogmatic authoritarianism has its consequences. But there has always been a tension between Jesus' words and the church as an authoritarian hierarchy. Quite a set of mixed premises. I wonder whether you were taught by Jesuits? Authoritarian themselves, they do follow Aquinas, the best of Catholic authorities.

Ted

(Edited by Ted Keer
on 5/25, 9:49pm)


Post 34

Saturday, May 26, 2007 - 11:20amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ted,

As far as I am aware, the Christian Brothers, also known as Lasallian or De La Salle Brothers, are not Jesuits. They're a teaching order founded by French Priest Jean-Baptiste de la Salle, who trained and organized a group of men to live together in a community and conduct Christian schooling. Ironically, de la Salle is credited with establishing a regimen of education that emphasized the good of the student, banning corporal punishment from its institutions. So the violence and brutality perpetrated by the Christian Brothers at my high school was in flat contraction to the goals of their founder, which were set forth as early as the 17th Century.

De La Salle's stated goals and intentions, however, were not strong enough to overcome the influence of a religion with a punitive and vengeful God as its standard of justice and morality. Benevolence cannot compete, nor co-exist, with Hell, a place of everlasting punishment and torture. So, it's no surprise that corporal punishment was eventually reinstated into the very Catholic schools from which it was initially banned.

- Bill
(Edited by William Dwyer
on 5/26, 12:44pm)


Post 35

Friday, June 1, 2007 - 1:21pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Bill:

     I do think you basically hit the nail on the head re your 1st argument about the hidden conflict in Catholicism's teachings that are the base of some accepted use of the near-random corporal punishment you've seen: the Old Testament 'god' is where it's really all at. I suggest however that your personal experience might, ntl, have been a bit anomolous. Then again, mine, re all nuns, may have been so. ('Father'=disciplinarian; 'Mother'=empathic; both with mucho exceptions.)

    Further, I've only dealt with priests, not 'brothers'; in a sense, the latter might see themselves as how 'ropes' in military training schools often see themselves: 'gods' who get carried away with the power of demanding that others not disobey.

LLAP
J:D


Post 36

Friday, June 1, 2007 - 1:55pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
 
who get carried away with the power of demanding that others not disobey.

Thus demanding FEAR ... so much for the so-called 'doctrine of love'.....

Post 37

Saturday, June 2, 2007 - 12:37pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
     Yet, the 'song' is bought, regardless the history of the actions of the singers. That says something also about the sheep...but not why there are s-o   m-a-n-y  feeling a need to be sheared.

LLAP
J:D


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 38

Tuesday, June 5, 2007 - 8:01pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hi Bill,

Just wanted to say thanks for posting this, and I found it useful.

Not to subtract from your article, but I had been thinking about this god and devil stuff recently before reading this. I was thinking about it all from an Objectivist perspective. Without getting too deep into the alleged details of this myth, it's interesting to look at the big picture.

It seems like God rewards the irrational, those who live by faith and sacrifice. He's particular happy with people who grovel and throw themselves at his feet. He promotes collectivism on earth. He's homophobic. He allows any atrocity by humans as long as they acknowledge him as their god and never anyone else. He promotes irrationality. He subverts justice.

The devil, on the other hand, seems primarily concerned with upholding justice. He rounds up all of the evil-doers in the world and punishes them. The degrees of punishment are based on the wickedness of the individuals. It doesn't matter what group they belonged to, the devil is an individualist who upholds personal responsibility for a person's moral actions.

It's all nonsense, of course, but slightly interesting to think about the ideals being presented in each case.

Post 39

Wednesday, June 6, 2007 - 6:01amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Is also interesting Lucifer is the Bringer of Light, and the equivilant of Prometheous...

Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.