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 ---