Scalia: 'Don't cram' religious neutrality 'down throats of American people'
- Status
meltzerboy
New member
Scalia should realize that there is no religious neutrality since the moral values that are taught by religion are found in our everyday interactions with and comments about other people, including family, friends, strangers, co-workers, and so on. His recent comment about affirmative action to the effect that Blacks may very well be more successful in less demanding schools, says something about Scalia’s own application of moral values in the way he thinks about African Americans. In my view, Scalia in this instance is not living the morality taught by his own religion but instead living in the secular past as reflected in the Archie-Bunker stereotype of White middle-class residents of Queens, NY.
E
exnihilo
Guest
Scalia is of course correct that it is an invention of the courts that the state must be non-religious. He seems to be saying the state can’t favor one religion over another. But that is also an invention and if it was a principle would be the same as having to be non-religious. The federal government can’t establish a state or official church. But that is the limit of the constitutional restriction.
I understood Scalia to be saying that Blacks who are admitted to more rigorous schools then they are qualified for, for the sake of affirmative action, would do better academically at schools they are qualified for. If the admission standards have any value and if some schools are more rigorous then others then this seems to me uncontroversial.
meltzerboy
New member
Yes, of course, anyone would do better, not only Blacks. However, the fact Scalia is singling out Blacks, even though affirmative action also applies to other ethnic minority groups as well as women and the disabled, makes it appear he thinks that Blacks cannot cope with academic challenges because they are too stupid to do so. It is a telling remark and is not becoming of one who places such emphasis on the role of religious values in society.
E
exnihilo
Guest
I understand Scalia was referring to a brief. That brief may have only examined Black students. But even if it didn’t I don’t see the problem of referring to Blacks specifically. I would imagine Blacks are the biggest beneficiary of affirmative action in colleges. Regardless race, specifically Black and White, has been the context of education issues like segregation and affirmative action for half a century. In my experience this is almost always the main concern in any discussion, political or judicial action. Also, in many universities women outnumber men and so if anything affirmative action in sex should apply to men.
H
Hatikvah
Guest
I agree with Court Justice Scalia. This is getting ridiculous. But, notice how the more Islamic immigrants appear in the US, the more “fearful” we get of religion in public?
K
KathleenGee
Guest
Secularism is a belief system of itself and it is enforced by lawsuits. It is growing to block any religious expression in public places.
My son chose to go to an inner city high school rather than the elitist one close by. He took public transit 28 miles round trip, and like all the kids, they all had to be able to work on a job to pay for their tuition. The school was located in an inner city black Baptist neighborhood.
They had to dress formally for school, no hoodies, boys wearing white shirts and a tie, and hair cut a certain way, and my son hated it. His other friends could dress like they want.
But for the black kids, it was removing them from signs, signals, colors, associations, language use that would have kept them down. If they could not hold a job, they could not go to school there.
So the first work was to make them responsible right away at age 14 by giving them a job. Their grades would be secondary.
My son hung in there with support. It was so uplifting to see all the seniors up on the platform being called out and sharing what university or college they were accepted into. Practically all were going to 4 year schools; only two boys who were promiscuous and now had babies, couldn’t go on.
They went to the Cathedral Mass for graduating seniors. But because the vast majority were black Baptists, the diplomas were given at the main Baptist church in the area.
My son chose to go to an inner city high school rather than the elitist one close by. He took public transit 28 miles round trip, and like all the kids, they all had to be able to work on a job to pay for their tuition. The school was located in an inner city black Baptist neighborhood.
They had to dress formally for school, no hoodies, boys wearing white shirts and a tie, and hair cut a certain way, and my son hated it. His other friends could dress like they want.
But for the black kids, it was removing them from signs, signals, colors, associations, language use that would have kept them down. If they could not hold a job, they could not go to school there.
So the first work was to make them responsible right away at age 14 by giving them a job. Their grades would be secondary.
My son hung in there with support. It was so uplifting to see all the seniors up on the platform being called out and sharing what university or college they were accepted into. Practically all were going to 4 year schools; only two boys who were promiscuous and now had babies, couldn’t go on.
They went to the Cathedral Mass for graduating seniors. But because the vast majority were black Baptists, the diplomas were given at the main Baptist church in the area.
K
KEP1983
Guest
I forget where I heard this, but from what I remember, France officially defined (or plans to define) secularism as the official state religion?
We should probably get the courts to clarify some things about the definition of religion: 1) a religion or creed doesn’t need a god figure to be a religion (for instance, Buddhism is a religion without a god) and 2) we should define any belief system that makes claims about the nature of existence or morality of any sense to be a religion or creed and 3) with that background, both atheism and secularism would be officially defined as religions or creeds, and wouldnt be able to be put on a level above other belief systems in the courts.
The idea that secularism or atheism is somehow a neutral belief system that should be the default accepted belief system of society and law is absurd, since it’s a belief system just like any other, and should be subject to the first amendment.
D
DeusExMachina
Guest
A
abucs
Guest
Yes, godlessness makes great strides in societies that promote godless education through sponsoring only secular school systems.
Such a government is unjust, partizan and will not in the long run be supported by the people, nor should it be.
A
abucs
Guest
Perhaps Scalia is impressed by the work of Thomas Sowell and that is why he has explicitly used the Black minority as his example.
youtube.com/watch?v=5VrANfyzuW8
youtube.com/watch?v=XzT21b-BMQk
youtube.com/watch?v=Wln6lNTxVpY
P
Peter_J
Guest
I agree, but I think we should stress that this is only a definition of religion for legal purposes. It certainly wouldn’t do us any good to get mired in debate about whether atheism is a religion or not.
K
KathleenGee
Guest
KEP, yes…and I am trying to get into the habit to pray for good Catholic lawyers and others to define this secular ‘religion’ and show how it is trying to silence everyone else.
E
eddie_too
Guest
government run schools are full of teachings about the government’s beliefs.
for example, the government believes there should be no prayer in schools. that is not a truth or a fact. it is a belief.
the government believes that there should be teaching about prophylactics and artificial birth control. that is not a fact or a truth. it is a belief.
the government believes that teachers and other public school employees should not be allowed to express their faith during school hours. that is not a truth or a fact. it is a belief.
the government believes that the concept of a Creator should not be taught in their schools. that is not a fact or a truth. it is a belier.
rather than go on, I am sure there are many other examples but for brevity’s sake, I hope the above get the point across.
what irks me personally is the fact, the truth, that the government takes my tax money and uses it to promote its own belief system yet discriminates against using it for people who do not share the governments’ belief systems. this is blatantly unconstitutional. it is unjust. it is the government using force and intimidation to promote its beliefs and only its beliefs.
for example, the government believes there should be no prayer in schools. that is not a truth or a fact. it is a belief.
the government believes that there should be teaching about prophylactics and artificial birth control. that is not a fact or a truth. it is a belief.
the government believes that teachers and other public school employees should not be allowed to express their faith during school hours. that is not a truth or a fact. it is a belief.
the government believes that the concept of a Creator should not be taught in their schools. that is not a fact or a truth. it is a belier.
rather than go on, I am sure there are many other examples but for brevity’s sake, I hope the above get the point across.
what irks me personally is the fact, the truth, that the government takes my tax money and uses it to promote its own belief system yet discriminates against using it for people who do not share the governments’ belief systems. this is blatantly unconstitutional. it is unjust. it is the government using force and intimidation to promote its beliefs and only its beliefs.
meltzerboy
New member
How do you think teachers should talk about the Creator in public schools? A kind of generic Creator, or should they discuss a Trinitarian G-d according to Christianity, a non-Trinitarian G-d according to Judaism and Islam, a panentheistic G-d together with minor deities according to Hinduism, the existence of several gods based on Paganism, or something else? What about children of families who do not believe in any G-d or gods: what should they be taught in public schools? Finally, how well-trained, well-versed, and non-prejudicial are teachers to speak about the nature of G-d in any context?
E
eddie_too
Guest
I must have written very poorly since the point I was trying to make was clearly missed by at least one.
the point is that the government is using its power and intimidation to establish a system of beliefs on American citizens. that system of belief is the beliefs it teaches in government run schools.
I never said, nor did I intend to imply, that the government should stop teaching its belief system, as some maybe mistakenly understood.
I merely said it is unjust and unconstitutional for the government to support any single belief system while denying the same manner and type of support to other belief systems.
there is nothing innately superior or truthful about the governments’ belief systems that would merit there being exempt from the first amendment stipulations.
the point is that the government is using its power and intimidation to establish a system of beliefs on American citizens. that system of belief is the beliefs it teaches in government run schools.
I never said, nor did I intend to imply, that the government should stop teaching its belief system, as some maybe mistakenly understood.
I merely said it is unjust and unconstitutional for the government to support any single belief system while denying the same manner and type of support to other belief systems.
there is nothing innately superior or truthful about the governments’ belief systems that would merit there being exempt from the first amendment stipulations.
T
TheAtheist
Guest
The problem is, many of your co-religionists are already at that point…and so are the New Atheists really (you’ll see what I mean in a moment).
There’s always been a lot of a confusion regarding the status of what it means to be an atheist because the word is burdened by a number of accumulated historical associations.
I will always maintain that being an atheist is simply the disbelief or lack of a belief in a supernatural deity or higher force/power/mechanism of the cosmos that goes beyond a naturalistic explanation for the universe.
And that’s it - however the social usage of the word is quite different.
For many coming from a religious background the following seems to be a set of ideas cemented in your heads:
Atheism = Humanism = Materialism = Secular Government = Communism(?) = Totalitarian Order
But…if any of you actually bothered to take a look at the history of all those ideas, you’d notice that many of them “grew up” in isolation from each other and slowly came to be associated depending on some rather interesting circumstances.
Part of the issue I think, is that a particular portion of the religious population never really made peace with the transition to the modern world as we know it.
And frankly, neither did some people who self-describe themselves as atheists.
Many of us…
on’t talk about the ascribed evils of religion all day (why would we?)Don’t collect together on some agreed evening to read the latest tract on humanist literature and pat each other on the backs about how special we are
Don’t spend our time plotting the latest “public display” to counter a Nativity scene or the Ten Commandments being put up also in a public space.
IE: Being an atheist isnt the defining characteristic of our lives.
And actually I’d say the majority of atheists are like that - we live our lives doing activities that are unrelated to any thought of religion…or lack thereof.
…and then there are the “New Atheists”… who better fit the description of the phenomenon you are objecting to.
How to put this plainly = They Hate You.
The amount of emotional ire that radiates off some of these people are quite shocking even to me.
For all their claims about rationality/order/reason/etc. and scientific progress etc. etc. etc… one can’t help but notice that, what I like to call emotional baggage coloring their outlook of the world and people in general.
Its because ultimately at the end of the day, they are more than just “mere atheists” - they are Rejectors of Religion - they are Anti-Theists.
The problem is of course in the religious mindset, it seems
Atheist = Anti-Theist
And the reason why that is the case is because, they are the only ones really “interacting” (can we call it that though? Yelling at each other doesn’t really seem like an actual dialogue) with the religious.
Ie: You “Feed” each other’s viewpoints a little too well.
In fact i’d say that the average “interaction” one tends to see by the “motivated” type of each group is downright…ritualistic in nature at this point. This elaborate pantomime of 5 arguments for/against god(s), some attempted parlor games like “Pin the Organizational Tail on the Mass Murdering Dictator,” followed by some rather…shall we say sloppy historical conversations…
Its as regular and predictable as a washing machine cycle…and just as boring really.
I can’t help but think however, that this desire to label the phenomenon as “New Atheism” as a religion simply stems from the fact that well religion means so much to you all.
Some of you literally can’t conceive of a life without it. That this category must be present in some manner in a person’s psyche in order to well… to just be.
So you are all looking to find a way to codify a group of people who happen to be inimical to your views.
Conversely - I think the “New Atheists” have an identity crisis.
The only thing that unifies them is…well… opposing you guys.
Beyond that - they don’t (can’t) really agree on what else happens once “God is dead.”
Furthermore, their distaste for religion mirrors your own enthusiasm for it… so much so that they start calling things “religions” whenever they hate/despise it.
The majority of “New Atheists” come from Western liberal democracies - and so castigate Communism (a political ideology that happens to take a standpoint about the existence or non existence of god(s), you’ll notice there are many other political ideologies don’t concern themselves with the question) as being "like a religion"
If you are a Cultural Libertarian atheist type, chances are you are branding the phenomenon of “Social Justice Warrior” atheists as being “religious without a deity.”
hence ----> jordantrudgett.com/2013/01/03/feminism-dogma-and-critical-thinking/3sdk7x/
In the same way many of you can’t think outside of a religious category, these people can’t think outside of a hatred of religion.
It results in this …bizzare reduction of all of life’s woes resulting from the metaphysical beliefs in your heads as opposed to other factors like politics, economics, warfare, etc.
Its gotten to the point that even individuals who publicly self-described themselves as atheists a la the dictionary definition of the term have had to retreat from using the term to dry and draw a distinction in your minds that “I may not believe in God…but don’t you dare associate me with these people who coming knocking on your doors”
As is the case with Neil DeGrasse Tyson → youtube.com/watch?v=CzSMC5rWvos
P
Peter_J
Guest
P.S. To be honest I’m a bit torn: a part of me says that legal language should use the word “religion” but with the understanding (perhaps noted explicitly) that atheism is being counted as one. Another part of me says that a slightly different term should be used instead of “religion”, perhaps “religious belief system”.
P
Peter_J
Guest
Good video.
Not to get off-topic, but after that one I followed the link to “Bill Nye: Creationism Is Not Appropriate For Children”. That was … “interesting”. Not so much for the “Not Appropriate For Children” thing (not sure how that made it into the title, as it’s just something he spends 10 seconds on at the end) but for things like his opening sentence “Denial of evolution is unique to the United States” – I always find it “interesting” when someone wants to complain about something and bolsters their argument by claiming it is “unique to the United States”.
T
TheAtheist
Guest
Ah Peter… but why do i get the funny feeling you are the only one who watched it.
Am I on a fool’s errand i wonder?
Well, if I can at least furnish one lone Catholic with a set of facts, so be it.
Speaking of which, i’d like to make an apology - I spoke in error about something in the last post.
Its in regards to the whole Atheistic Government/Communism canard that gets tossed around in the same way the “Hitler was a Catholic” meme gets pushed around within the New Atheist community.
Opposition to Communism from certain atheists is actually a lot older than I had thought - courtesy of a philosophy grad student I was having lunch with today:
Do you know who Bertrand Russell is? The British philosopher/logician -
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand_Russell (i really hate wikipedia for its inaccuracies, but i figure anybody reading this isn’t going to bother to read through
plato.stanford.edu/entries/russell/ - which is a much better sort of retelling of his work).
If I had to take a stab at it, Russell inhabits a similar social position that Richard Dawkins currently does in terms of public prominence…with a lot more class I might add. This was after all a different time period when people i suppose were a lot less…shrill and a lot more civil even with opposing viewpoints.
Russell was a bit of a social activist (for someone in the 1940s at least), and a rather strong anti-Marxist. Apparently as it goes, one of his colleagues actually tried to “convert” him to Marxism…
His response was “Now why would I want to join your religion?”
and proceeded to make the following comparison on Blackboard no less
Yahweh = Dialectical Materialism
The Messiah = Marx
The Elect = The Proletariat
The Church = The Communist Party
The Second Coming = The Revolution
Hell = Punishment of the Capitalists
The Millennium = The Communist Commonwealth
He then asserted that the terms on the Left Column give the Emotional Content of the Terms on the Right, and its this emotional content familiar to those with a Jewish or Christian upbringing which makes Marx’s “eschatology” as he put it seem credible to those people.
Translation: "You left your Religion and decided to accept another set of Unprovable Metaphysical assumptions because it offers a sense of belonging, camraderie, “Togetherness” and puts a positive spin on the world even without a God…
…No thank you…"
His colleague was apparently quite miffed about the comparison being made…
[An Aside: Of specific interest to you and yours, Russell actually debated Father Frederick Copleston - the Society of Jesus member who wrote that magisterial work “A History of Philosophy.”
The Actual Broadcast on BBC 1948: - YouTube
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Copleston
If you listen to it, you’ll notice that its a far cry in comparison to what gets proffered up as “debate” in the modern age. They even apparently shared a bottle of port together after the broadcast…how very English i guess?
]He’s incorrect…but he’s a mechanical engineer, not a historian of science.“Denial of evolution is unique to the United States” – I always find it “interesting” when someone wants to complain about something and bolsters their argument by claiming it is “unique to the United States”.
1.) If we’re talking historically - the Soviet Union actually suppressed Evolution because it conflicted with Marxist Dogma and propped up the pseudo-theory of Lysenkoism.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism
libraryblogs.is.ed.ac.uk/towardsdolly/2014/01/13/the-lysenko-controversy-soviet-genetics-and-edinburgh/
scientificamerican.com/article/the-lysenko-affair/
The Scientific American article is pretty good, and I would also suggest a monograph if you feel so inclined:
The Cold War Politics of Genetic Research: An introduction to the Lysenko Affair by William deJong-Lambert.
As i understand there’s a moratorium on the discussion on Evolution, i’ll let you look into that by yourself (And apologies to Eric Hilbert and Co. if I’ve crossed the line with this reference).
2.) France’s scientific community, while not “against” Evolution, for a long period of time ** were Pre-Darwinian.**
youtube.com/watch?v=2cqTE_bPh7M
This is a portion of a discussion from Noam Chomsky regarding the idiosyncratic nature of French Intellectual life. Its mostly about the Postmodernist wave, but he also goes into discussions about how, contrary to popular views, France is a very insular culture.
The tidbit about biologists not accepting Evolution is buried somwhere in the beginning of the video. There’s also a discussion about why the French Intellectual sphere was so late in coming to denounce Stalinism/Maoism in comparison to the rest of the First World.
Hey Peter, care to take an extra step with me?
Ever wonder how Evolution in a place like Saudi Arabia and Iran are taught?
academia.edu/870964/Evolution_Education_in_Muslim_States_Iran_and_Saudi_Arabia_Compared
- Status