If the representation of Muslims as normal people is a shock to your worldview, it's because you're probably prejudiced against Muslims. If merely being exposed to ideas that are inconsistent with your worldview is troubling to you, then you are the product of a successful indoctrination program. Beavis and Butthead made fun of this attitude about being exposed to different ideas in "Dumb Design."
Here's another poorly reasoned, pseudo-intellectual attack on philosophy.
This guy is talking out of his ass. The idea that no two philosophers agree on anything is simply false. It's an absurd statement. So absurd that he cannot possibly mean it literally if he has an informed view of the subject he's talking about. But, moreover, let's just run his argument the other way. There's widespread disagreement among religious people over which religion is correct. Theologians in different religions disagree with one another, but they also tend to have internal disagreements within those religious traditons as well. So, according to this guy's reasoning, religion is useless too.
NASHVILLE, Tenn. — A bill passed Friday by the Tennessee Senate would forbid public school teachers and students in grades kindergarten through eight from discussing the fact that some people are gay.
Opponents deride the measure as the "don't say gay bill." They say it's unfair to the children of gay parents and could lead to more bullying. Supporters say it is intended to give teachers clear guidance for dealing with younger children on a potentially explosive topic.
The bill isn't likely to be taken up by the House before lawmakers adjourn this spring, but the sponsor there has said he would push it forward in 2012 when the General Assembly comes back for the second year of the session.
Passage would make Tennessee the first state to enact such legislation, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. In 2003, Washington defeated a proposal similar to Tennessee's, as did California in 2005 and 2006. A Louisiana law forbids the use of sexually explicit materials depicting homosexuality in sex education classes.
Under the proposal, any instruction or materials at a public elementary or middle school would be limited to age-appropriate lessons about the science of human reproduction.
The legislation was amended from the original version, which said no elementary or middle schools will "provide any instruction or material that discusses sexual orientation other than heterosexuality."
To review. Do not talk about homosexuality, but be sure you "teach the debate" over Evolution. As another critic of the law points out, it may have other consequences.
However, a critic said the new wording could create other problems.
Sen. Roy Herron, D- Dresden, said it "may inadvertently prevent the teaching of ethics, morality and abstinence."
It's been an interesting couple of weeks in identity politics. David Barton and Prof. Richard Beeman were each on The Daily Show discussing religion, the Founders, and the Constitution. Some basic Dead White Male stuff regarding what the Founders intended regarding the sepeartion of church and state. Cornell West made some, er, suprising, criticisms of Obama. And, a Black Studies Professor and a Harlem activist debate black history and black consciousness on Democracy Now. Check out some highlights below the fold.
Continue reading "Identity Politics: From the Founders to Malcolm X and Obama" »
(RNS) Gay and supportive alumni of Wheaton College have formed a new organization following a recent chapel series at the flagship evangelical school on "Sexuality and Wholeness."
More than 400 signatories have signed an open letter to students at the Christian college in suburban Chicago to present an alternative message to one from a chapel speaker who supports gay celibacy.
"The recent chapel message on Sexuality and Wholeness and surrounding conversations may have left you feeling alienated, ashamed and afraid," reads the open letter. "Many of us felt trapped and unable to respond honestly to these messages while we were students."
Matthew Gore, a spokesman for OneWheaton and a 2004 Wheaton alumnus, said the group wants gay and lesbian students at the school to know that they have support among gay alumni.
"As it is, most of those students would be afraid to talk to anybody," he said. "That's just the environment there."
In an emailed response to the letter, Wheaton President Philip Ryken told students that the school considers gay people members "of the human family as created in the image of God himself," but remains committed to its covenant that condemns homosexual behavior.
A few years ago there was some controversy over Wheaton's discriminatory policy against hiring homosexual faculty members. This policy resulted the American Philosophical Association moving to censure Wheaton since its policy is contrary to the APA's own non-discrimination policy. That gave rise to a counter-petition in support of Wheaton's policy, which a number of prominent philosophers signed.
The same (dubious) argument that implies homosexuality is immoral, the argument from nature, also implies that contraception is immoral. But, we don't see Wheaton discriminating against people that use contraception now do we? The anti-homosexuality crowd hardly ever condemns contraception even though it's pretty obvious that there are more people using contraception than practicing homosexuality. So long as Wheaton's administration and its supporters and sympathizers fail to follow their argument to its logical conclusion and apply it consistently, I think it raises a question not only about their moral consistency, but about bigotry and prejudice against homosexuals. I wish the gay community at that Wheaton luck in their attempt to combat the moral arbitrariness of the school's administration. It's nice to see some alumni supporting them.
A growing body of social science research reveals that atheists, and non-religious people in general, are far from the unsavory beings many assume them to be. On basic questions of morality and human decency — issues such as governmental use of torture, the death penalty, punitive hitting of children, racism, sexism, homophobia, anti-Semitism, environmental degradation or human rights — the irreligious tend to be more ethical than their religious peers, particularly compared with those who describe themselves as very religious.
Consider that at the societal level, murder rates are far lower in secularized nations such as Japan or Sweden than they are in the much more religious United States, which also has a much greater portion of its population in prison. Even within this country, those states with the highest levels of church attendance, such as Louisiana and Mississippi, have significantly higher murder rates than far less religious states such as Vermont and Oregon.
As individuals, atheists tend to score high on measures of intelligence, especially verbal ability and scientific literacy. They tend to raise their children to solve problems rationally, to make up their own minds when it comes to existential questions and to obey the golden rule. They are more likely to practice safe sex than the strongly religious are, and are less likely to be nationalistic or ethnocentric. They value freedom of thought.
This "science" clearly has a liberal bias since its findings are contrary to the self-image of religious believers.
According to this story in the NYT, gay student groups are popping up on conservative Christian college campuses like Baylor.
WACO, Tex. — Battles for acceptance by gay and lesbian students have erupted in the places that expect it the least: the scores of Bible colleges and evangelical Christian universities that, in their founding beliefs, see homosexuality as a sin.
Decades after the gay rights movement swept the country’s secular schools, more gays and lesbians at Christian colleges are starting to come out of the closet, demanding a right to proclaim their identities and form campus clubs, and rejecting suggestions to seek help in suppressing homosexual desires.
Many of the newly assertive students grew up as Christians and developed a sense of their sexual identities only after starting college, and after years of inner torment. They spring from a new generation of evangelical youths that, over all, holds far less harsh views of homosexuality than its elders.
But in their efforts to assert themselves, whether in campus clubs or more publicly on Facebook, gay students are running up against administrators who defend what they describe as God’s law on sexual morality, and who must also answer to conservative trustees and alumni.
Facing vague prohibitions against “homosexual behavior,” many students worry about what steps — holding hands with a partner, say, or posting a photograph on a gay Web site — could jeopardize scholarships or risk expulsion.
“It’s like an unstoppable force meeting an immovable object,” said Adam R. Short, a freshman engineering student at Baylor University who is openly gay and has fought, without success, for campus recognition of a club to discuss sexuality and fight homophobia.
The best reason why Baylor and these other universities should drop these sorts of prohibitions and discriminatory practices is because there are not really any good arguments against homosexual acts. A small minority of philosophers might claim otherwise, but their arguments are not probative. Moreover, if you follow the argument from nature to its logical conclusion then you'd have to discriminate against people that use birth control. You could revise the argument so that the purpose of sex is broader than mere reproduction, but doing so is likely to imply the inclusion of some homosexual acts within the scope of moral permissibility. So, it's not even clear that homosexual acts are immoral from a natural law perspective.
If you are religious and want to understand why so many atheists seem angry about religion that clip should explain it all. For O'Reilly, like many others, God serves as an explanation for what he does not understand. Perhaps the most charitable way to interpret O'Reilly's remarks is as an example of design in nature. But, of course there's a really good scientific explanation for why the tide goes in and out, as most with an 8th grade grasp of science know. So, it's simply not the case that we cannot explain the tide. But, even if it was an unexplained phenomena, why should we conclude that God does it? The conclusion that 'God directs the tides' does not follow from the absence of another explanation. O'Reilly's line of reasoning is based on factual error and an appeal to ignorance fallacy. It's pretty bad reasoning but he seems convinced that he's correct and the skeptic is wrong nonetheless.
Religious communities often, I think, discourage education at least when it comes to subjects where a student might encounter something critical of that religion. Pharyngula directs us towards the Jehovah's Witness anti-intellectualism.
When I was a high school senior the youth minister at my church held a special Sunday School class for all of us about to head off to college. The talk was about how we should be careful to watch out for those liberals in higher education that have an agenda to undermine religious belief. But, for these folks, encouraging people to think critically about their religious beliefs constitutes an attempt to undermine religion.
Religious communities often, I think, discourage education at least when it comes to subjects where a student might encounter something critical of that religion. Pharyngula directs us towards the Jehovah's Witness anti-intellectualism.
When I was a high school senior the youth minister at my church held a special Sunday School class for all of us about to head off to college. The talk was about how we should be careful to watch out for those liberals in higher education that have an agenda to undermine religious belief. But, for these folks, encouraging people to think critically about their religious beliefs constitutes an attempt to undermine religion.
Recent Comments