I find the classroom of a school to be no place for the discussion of creationism or intelligent design or what have you. How lazy are parents these days when they try to force schools to not only teach their children, but in addition babysit, discipline, and - most germaine to this discussion - convey to their children their values and beliefs. Religion or other beliefr systems are not the purview of the schools, they are the purview of the parents. I don't mind whatever parents wish to teach their children about their values and beliefs... but if they abdicate that responsibility to someone else, they also, in my view, abdicate the right to choose the values and beliefs taught.
The fact that remains however that in some places groups of parents either have such an enhanced view of their own importance that they feel they can dictate what beliefs others can and should hold in addition to teaching them to their children, or, in spite of abdicating their duty and responsibility to convey their beliefs and values to their children still insist on having others teach their children their beliefs and values and still think they should get to choose which beliefs and values those are. Still others find their beliefs and values in conflict with scientific viewpoints and try to force others to see a conflicting dichotomy. In any case these persons sometimes try to force their beliefs, whether in the guise of creationism or intelligent design, or whatever else they might call it, into the school system. And not only into the school system but into the science classroom rather than a class on society, culture or religion.
Taking a cue from my conversation with the stubborn person related in my previous post, perhaps, once again, arguing is the wrong way to go about seeking a solution. Perhaps we could let them be right.
They often demand that time be given in science class for equal discussion of all theories of of the origins of the universe and existence - specifically creationism/intelligent design in addition to evolution. Let's do so. Of course when presenting creationism/intelligent design we, for fairness sake, must present all component subtheories it comprises - i.e. creationism/intelligent design as seen by Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Native Americans, the Aborigines of Australia, and so on until all competing theories have been given equal presentation. This would be a wonderful opportunity for an essays by the students comparing and contrasting different theories, discussing evidence supporting each theory, discussing which theories are in conflict with other theories and which are not... in other words a stellar opportunity for exercising the most vital skill in the modern world and the one which it is most vital for schools to teach above all others including reading, writing and arithmetic - Critical Thinking.
Just a thought as I sit here trying to solve the world's problems and dreaming of better tomorrows.
Sunday, June 15, 2008
Thursday, June 5, 2008
Conflicts over Marriage
I had a conversation with someone the other day and it got me thinking.
I mentioned in passing that in Germany, where I had lived many years and married my wife, there are two weddings - a state wedding, which must come first, and then, if you opt for it, a church ceremony. I mentioned that I thought this was marvellous - separation of church and state!
It seems so reasonable to me, and it seemed to me to, in one stroke solve all people's difficulties with the "immorality" of gay marriage - the state can marry who it wants to, the church can marry who it wants to, and neither are required to recognize the other's marriages!
The person I was speaking with was not of the same opinion. His contention was that if you were going to do that then the state should get out of the marriage business entirely anyway because, "it's was God's idea first." Then he left.
In retrospect as I continued to think on it, at first this seemed a ludicrous assertion - trying to show evidence that the state essentially copied "God's idea" is problematic to say the least - look at copyright infringement lawsuits, they're so complex and hairy and you're just trying to show which person had an idea first. Bring a supernatural all powerful all knowing being into it and there are just problems. At the very least, I thought, I could have argued that the idea was arrived at independantly by others - Ancient China, the Druids of western europe, and the marriages of other societies existing together with the ancient Isrealites - Pharonic Egypt, Canaanites and others had marriage and/or marriage like concepts. The state has a vested interest in the continuation of the state and in the interworkings of the individuals that make it up. Like Liebnitz inventing Calculus independantly from other people, besides God, could create a similar institution independantly.
Then I realized that this was exactly the wrong approach. We were speaking different philosophical languages and it didn't matter what I said, he would not have understood it. It would be like trying to program a computer in English - unless there's a English to Machine code compiler I don't know about, no matter how cool your "program" is, it isn't going to work because the computer doesn't understand.
So then I stopped and thought about it again. Now I think I have a better idea. I think I'll let him be right.
He's right, marriage is God's idea and, to further the idea of separation of church and state, the state should not deal with marriage at all. It will not be asked for or cared about in census reports or tax forms any more than a person having had First Communion or a Bar Mitzvah or Bat Mitzvah is asked. Nor will it have any legal standing in any other sense. Husband-Wife communication will no longer be priviledged communication, marriage has no effect on the distribution of personal effects should a person die without a will. Currently marriage is discriminatory. It provides special rights and priviledges to some people, and denys them to others. You could even go so far as to say it makes "all people equal, but somepeople are more equal than others" to paraphrase George Orwell. I think that for a political institution discrimination of this sort is wrong. If people are opposed to removing discrimination from the political aspect of marriage in spite of allowing individual religious institutions to keep discriminating as they think they must then the only other ethical solution, politically speaking, is to completely remove marriage as a political/governmental institution and let it remain in existance as a purely religious ceremony.
This has the additional benefits. Religious people claim that marriage is being destroyed, not only because of gay marriage, but because of the ease with with divorces seem to be able to be obtained. Eliminating marriage as a consideration in the political sphere means to get a divorce you'd have to go back to the church, and they could deal with that as they choose.
It might also reduce some of the complexity of government as tax and other governmental forms would no longer require any consideration of marriage. Of course this would make getting a green card for a foreign spouse, like mine, much harder... but it would also mean the INS wouldn't have to wonder if it was a green card marriage.
Just a thought as I sit here trying to solve the world's problems and dreaming of better tomorrows.
I mentioned in passing that in Germany, where I had lived many years and married my wife, there are two weddings - a state wedding, which must come first, and then, if you opt for it, a church ceremony. I mentioned that I thought this was marvellous - separation of church and state!
It seems so reasonable to me, and it seemed to me to, in one stroke solve all people's difficulties with the "immorality" of gay marriage - the state can marry who it wants to, the church can marry who it wants to, and neither are required to recognize the other's marriages!
The person I was speaking with was not of the same opinion. His contention was that if you were going to do that then the state should get out of the marriage business entirely anyway because, "it's was God's idea first." Then he left.
In retrospect as I continued to think on it, at first this seemed a ludicrous assertion - trying to show evidence that the state essentially copied "God's idea" is problematic to say the least - look at copyright infringement lawsuits, they're so complex and hairy and you're just trying to show which person had an idea first. Bring a supernatural all powerful all knowing being into it and there are just problems. At the very least, I thought, I could have argued that the idea was arrived at independantly by others - Ancient China, the Druids of western europe, and the marriages of other societies existing together with the ancient Isrealites - Pharonic Egypt, Canaanites and others had marriage and/or marriage like concepts. The state has a vested interest in the continuation of the state and in the interworkings of the individuals that make it up. Like Liebnitz inventing Calculus independantly from other people, besides God, could create a similar institution independantly.
Then I realized that this was exactly the wrong approach. We were speaking different philosophical languages and it didn't matter what I said, he would not have understood it. It would be like trying to program a computer in English - unless there's a English to Machine code compiler I don't know about, no matter how cool your "program" is, it isn't going to work because the computer doesn't understand.
So then I stopped and thought about it again. Now I think I have a better idea. I think I'll let him be right.
He's right, marriage is God's idea and, to further the idea of separation of church and state, the state should not deal with marriage at all. It will not be asked for or cared about in census reports or tax forms any more than a person having had First Communion or a Bar Mitzvah or Bat Mitzvah is asked. Nor will it have any legal standing in any other sense. Husband-Wife communication will no longer be priviledged communication, marriage has no effect on the distribution of personal effects should a person die without a will. Currently marriage is discriminatory. It provides special rights and priviledges to some people, and denys them to others. You could even go so far as to say it makes "all people equal, but somepeople are more equal than others" to paraphrase George Orwell. I think that for a political institution discrimination of this sort is wrong. If people are opposed to removing discrimination from the political aspect of marriage in spite of allowing individual religious institutions to keep discriminating as they think they must then the only other ethical solution, politically speaking, is to completely remove marriage as a political/governmental institution and let it remain in existance as a purely religious ceremony.
This has the additional benefits. Religious people claim that marriage is being destroyed, not only because of gay marriage, but because of the ease with with divorces seem to be able to be obtained. Eliminating marriage as a consideration in the political sphere means to get a divorce you'd have to go back to the church, and they could deal with that as they choose.
It might also reduce some of the complexity of government as tax and other governmental forms would no longer require any consideration of marriage. Of course this would make getting a green card for a foreign spouse, like mine, much harder... but it would also mean the INS wouldn't have to wonder if it was a green card marriage.
Just a thought as I sit here trying to solve the world's problems and dreaming of better tomorrows.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)