The role of religion in American public life is too often devalued or dismissed in public debate, as though the American people's historically vital religious traditions were at best a purely private matter and at worst essentially sectarian and divisive

The role of religion in America is bizarre. At once, it seems to hold too central a place - how on earth did Bush get elected otherwise, and on the other hand people seem to get offended when wished 'Happy Christmas'. Seriously guys, if someone wished me 'Happy Hannukah', or a 'Hungry Ramadan', or a 'Thoughtful Reason Day', or whatever, I'd be pleased that they wanted to share their culture with me.

I tend to think that the theory of 'separation of church and state' is a marvellously good one, but it seems that the way it is implemented in America is patchy and weird.

There are a whole bunch of European countries with tight integration of church and state (you even have to pay a church tax), where political decisions seemed to be made with less religious sectarianism.

Religon is an important part of American history. It may also inform peoples sense of morality, which should also be reflected in government, but that doesn't mean that just because someone happens to believe similar things to you about who created the earth, or your salvation that you should support all their political policies.

I think it's important for religious people to realise that it's perfectly possible for an atheist to be the most qualified candidate (perhaps even the one God would vote for) for a particular position of leadership.

Maybe people wouldn't think so much of the 'sectarian' and 'divisive' when talking about religon if faithalists tended to be a bit more diverse, thoughtful, humble, and more prepared to feed the hungry, cure the sick and give comfort to those who morn than they seem to be to complain.

This has turned into a bit of a rant, sorry about that.

Of course, "too often" is a subjective matter, but I'd actually be amazed if there was some matter of public debate where the matter of religion was NOT constantly at issue.

I suspect that, from certain Christian perspectives, nothing short of "totality" in terms of "often" and "valuation" would be sufficient.

Be careful, however, the second half of your claim is actually a separate claim which is presented as given in this one.

Roland:

Thanks for the link to Dawkins' reading of his book.

He doesn't sound like a big fan of the writer of Torah.

The Global Jewish population is approximately 14,000,000, or about 0.02% of the world population.

Jews are sometimes referred to as

People of the Book

Jews have been awarded approximately 125 Nobel Prizes of which approximately 43 were in Medicine
and approximately 51 in Physics. (my numbers may be way off)

I have no way of knowing if any of those winners were schooled in Torah or educated by those
who were schooled in Torah....

But if I was a betting man, and I wanted to increase the chances of my child winning one of those prizes,
then maybe taking

Deuteronomy 6:4-9

I don't think that's what does it. I think it's the significant cultural value of education that Jews have. It is based on writings in the Torah, but somehow the Christians seem to have thrown that away with a lot of the rest of the first five books. Not that no Christians value education, many do, but that it doesn't seem to come from their religion.

But Judaism is generally linked to a value in education, questioning, explaining, and debating. You are not supposed to accept the rules of your religion, but to learn where they came from and question them and debate them.

And education and literacy are seen as vital parts of being a good person. Intelligence is often valued over faith. In fact, faith is not generally required to be a good Jew. It's preferred, but actions are what matters. Judaism is a religion of good works. So, it's not surprising if it encourages a culture of learning about things and trying to do good things with that knowledge.

Not to say that Jews don't do bad things or culturally support bad things. That happens too. But it wasn't the mezzuzah on my door that supported my education. (Especially as I later found out that one of my brothers had removed the scroll from it and replaced it with something else.)

I think that any religion that places a value on personal textual analysis will be bound to have an educational benefit. This benefit only works though if people are encouraged to evaluate and study things for themselves and in an environment where questioning is allowed. The cultures of some religions may make it more likely than others that a believer would be part of a community like that, but such churches certainly exist in Christianity (and other religions), even if the most common impression people get is of blind faith in what is passed down the hierarchy.

When I was at school, the most intelligent kids were believers in one religion or another. I think it was because they'd been exposed to debate and analysis earlier and more often than the other kids.

Not to say that it wouldn't be possible for atheist parents to instill at least as much respect for learning - but it'd take a lot of discipline to force them to take extra lessons in rational thought with like minded people for a couple of hours every week throughout their childhood.

"with like minded people for a couple of hours every week throughout their childhood."

I assume that by "like minded people" (sic), you mean others who believe their children should be exposed to analysis and critical thinking. The first interpretation, of kids interacting with others who think just like they do -- would have the opposite effect.

D'A

Is it pedant o'clock already?

"like minded" is a phrase that uses a perfectly common definition of 'like' and a perfectly normal definition of 'minded'. If you really want a hyphen in there, imagine it yourself.

You are right of course, I did mean "like minded parents' children", since there's probably compulsion involved, but if I had meant your first interpretation, I dispute that it would have the opposite effect.

It's perfectly possible to be like minded but not same minded. In fact, hanging out with other rational people interested in logic and argument is a good way of learning more about logic and argument, where hanging out with people who care nothing for logic may give you a valuable alternative perspective on the world, but is unlikely to help your reasoning skills.

Roland Sassen:

Am I to infer from your statement parroting Dawkins ' view of child abuse that you are either a child or an abuse victim?

Jim, that was a massively inappropriate question for a public forum. I wouldn't have expected as much from you.

Roland Sassen:

Thank you for pointing me to that fascinating interview of Dr. Feynman.

I would have loved to have been one of his students.

I was struck by his comment that "a fundamental part of his Soul is to doubt."

I like how he said that he already received the prize by receiving pleasure as the byproduct of discovery.

This was in response to his comments about the Nobel Prize.

He tried to minimize the importance of honors and prizes by likening them to epaulette on uniforms.

This was only after he had offered (boasted) that he had won the Nobel Prize.

He said that not understanding math was a severe limitation in understanding the world.

He also said that experiencing love does not require an understanding of math.

I was struck by Feynman's discussion of calculus.

Newton played a role in describing calculus.

I suspect Newton did not share Dawkins' disdain for Biblical faith.

We do indeed stand on the shoulders of giants.

XavierAM: I think any reasonable person who listens to the Dawkins' link proffered by Roland Sassen, and infers the motivation of Roland Sassen's comment about child abuse
will think my question appropriate in the context of this discussion.

It is never appropriate to query somebody, outside of an intimate friendship, about that sort of thing. What if they have, and are terrible upset about it?

There is no aspect of a public, philosophic / theoretical discussion which makes personal history relevant. Discuss his reasoning, not his motivation.

I am astounded by your lack of tact.

XavierAM:

Reread my question.

Nothing about my question goes beyond what Roland Sassen has publicly stated here or referred to in his links or comments.

...and I too am astounded "that gambling is allowed in Rick's Cafe!"

Having been raised atheist-Jewish (not as impossible as in most religions. I was an out atheist in Hebrew School and still my teachers' favorite student - mainly because I found the material interesting and was there by choice) and having a small gaggle of niecelings and nephewlings, I can say a fair bit about the raising of children without religion being a strong factor, but with debate.

I and some of the *lings were exposed to constant debate and discussion of philosophy, science, etc. for our entire lives. It was always going on around us. As we got older, we started participating.

Sometimes it was quite fascinating, and sometimes it was quite stupid (like my brother and my father being in violent agreement, but neither recognizing that the other was saying the same thing).

Being in an environment of constant debate and discussion, with a willingness to have things explained, seems to have been very helpful to all of us, especially when respect has been kept.

The nine year old nephew is really the best example, as he's had the constant exposure of parents, grandparents, and some aunts/uncles and is old enough for many of the effects to show. He's also had things explained to him whenever he asks about them. He is basically never brushed off with an overly simple answer, even if it means saying well, I don't know, but let's see if someone else does or let's research it.

Random people will sometimes stop to tell his mother how smart he is. We went out for lunch and he was asking something about cloning and stem cells, and some guy came over to say how he's a teacher and do you know how smart your son is? His regular teachers comment about it too. It's actually a little worrisome to me, becuase I don't want him always being the smartest, most knowledgeable kid his age. Nor do I want him to grow up without learning how to put real effort into learning (sometimes you have to, and sometimes it is the most rewarding learning you can do).

However, it is fully possible to raise a kid who is in the habit of questioning things, learns huge amounts, and generally does well simply by exposing him/her to a lot of adults who do that sort of thing and include the child. It only requires treating the child with respect, and a willingness to take time out to explain things.

I guess my real point is:

couple hours every week? That's ludicrous. It should be a regular part of life. It should be many hours every week. With long, engaging conversations on the weekends.

I cannot imagine how him linking to Dawkins or that other article creates any presumption that he wishes to put would would be a traumatizing personal experience on the table as a public aspect of our discussion here.

Perhaps you can be more explicit with your reasoning why. But I strongly believe that somebody's personal life is exactly that, unless they have OPENLY and OVERTLY brought it to the public table.

I'm sorry, Jim, but that's really fucked up of you.

XavierAM:

If I recall correctly, Dawkins said something like, Parents who teach their children Scripture are committing child abuse....and
Roland Sassen wrote,"telling children what they have to believe is child abuse."

I wonder where Roland Sassen came up with that belief?

Could it be that Roland Sassen is a victim of Dawkins' teaching?

Who said anything about a traumatizing personal experience?

If Roland Sassen was parroting Dawkins without thinking the whole matter through, then maybe it is safe to question if Roland Sassen is still learning to think and respond as an adult.

Rachel: The couple of hours a week wasn't really a suggested blueprint for the raising of kids, more just an analogy with what most kids raised in a religious family go through.

I understand that; I just wanted to state my opinion and view on it.

Jim,

It is almost profound to me that you are so determined to avoid an awareness of what an ass you made of yourself.

I will not engage in this discussion any further.

X.

Time Magazine:

Einstein & Faith

by Walter Isaacson

April 16, 2007
page 46

To what extent are you influenced by Christianity? "As a child I received instruction both in the Bible and in the Talmud. I am a Jew, but I am enthralled by the luminous figure of the Nazarene."

You accept the historical existence of Jesus? "Unquestionably! No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life."