Re: After a Deep Breath

Janet,

I understand your reluctance to spend a lot of time with email correspondence. I work full time and also attend school full time in the evenings. The course work I am pursuing demands much of my time - the majority of that is spent doing research and writing papers, so I am sympathetic with your time constraints.

With that said, you are the one who "threw down the gauntlet," so to speak, with your letter to the editor, and therefore the burden of proof in this conversation is upon you. You made some very serious and unsubstantiated charges in your letter, and have yet to provide any logical or rational arguments to prove your points.

So far, what you have done is make high-sounding statements and provide common definitions that anyone with access to the Internet could provide. While phrases such as "Logic is only one of reason's tools; the other is empiricism. Without both, we cannot even catch those tantalizing glimpses of the truth that are all that Nature allows us" sound impressive, you have
yet to bring either logic or reason to the table. [I would also point out that there are many truths that we must accept without empirical evidence, so empiricism is not always necessary to arrive at truth.]

When are you going to address the points in my original letter to the editor, or answer any of the questions I asked you in my first email? You talk about addressing the larger issues, but have yet to even define what they are. I had hoped, since you are obviously in some sort of leadership position in your "Freethinkers" group that you would be able to back up your accusations with logical arguments and reasonable evidence.

Here are some of the assertions you made, which you have yet to prove:

• That Christian children being taught a Christian worldview is somehow "a horror"
  
• That I assume that all Christians share my "brand of belief"
  
• That public schools are not centers of indoctrination, but
  
• instead are "impartial purveyors of knowledge"
  
• That I am nostalgic for an "era when the only acceptable belief was one that agreed with [mine]"
  
• That I was being blatantly hypocritical in advocating public funding of private religious schools, when I had just complained [according to you] about taxes being used to support public schools
  

And finally, an assertion that is not only ludicrous but insulting as well:

"If you truly find that the only way to ensure that your children adopt your beliefs is by totally controlling their access to information, that is, by deliberately keeping them in ignorance, isn't that a pretty clear indication that what you believe is not true?"

In this one sweeping statement you assume that:

1) I think the only way to ensure that children adopt my beliefs is by totally controlling their access to information, by keeping them in ignorance; and 2) that somehow this strange statement ~proves~ that what I believe is not true.

You have yet to address any of the above issues, with the exception of a vocabulary and Bible lesson on hypocrisy, neither of which did anything to further your argument (whatever it is).

What you have managed to do is to lecture me on how strictly you will stick to the rules of argument, logic, reason, etc., and how you will make me tired of your insistence on sticking to specific meanings of words, etc. All fine and good, but where is the substance of your arguments?

Here are some of the questions that I asked you, which you have yet to provide anything like an answer:

• What is the basis for your assumption that only children in public schools have access to information?
• On what do you base your assumption that Christian parents and schoolteachers want to keep their children in an information vacuum?
• Why does a biblical worldview scare you? 
• What is your definition of a biblical worldview?
  

I also challenged you to prove that the public school system is not engaged in the process of indoctrinating children in the philosophies of secular humanism, atheism and narcissism, which you have not yet done.

Perhaps you bit off more than you can chew right now. If that is the case, then there is no dishonor in admitting it and dropping the whole thing. If you do wish to continue, then I am all for it, and I will find time between my home life, my job and my schooling to respond to you completely, in detail, with both logic ~and~ reason.

You indicated in one of your earlier posts that you are seeking the truth. So am I! Let us, like Socrates of old, pursue the facts to wherever they lead us!

Jesus said "You shall know the Truth, and the Truth shall set you free."

Sincerely,

Charles

P.S. Why did you capitalize the word "Nature"?

After a Deep Breath...

Hello Charles Cherry,

Janet sent you this message from Meetup.com:
----------------------------------------------------------------

Hello Charles,

Having taken a deep breath and paused to analyze the situation, I feel the need to say a couple of things.

First, as I noted at the beginning of our correspondence, because I don't have infinite time, I didn't undertake to enter an unlimited discussion. As far as I am concerned, I have committed myself only to defending what I said in my letter to the editor as a justifiable response to yours, but with the hope of addressing some of your other questions along the way.

This limited agenda means that, while interesting, anything you say to back up your views NOW is actually irrelevant. What I wrote was solely and only in response to what you said before me, and it need be defended ONLY on that basis. To attempt to claim otherwise is to take quite unfair advantage.

So, I will be disregarding everything you just said about taxes, and concentrating on what you said in your letter to the editor.

Second, if we do manage to address larger issues, it's necessary that you understand what standards of argument I observe. From much of what you say, I get hints that you may subscribe to the common belief that reason is identical to logic. This is false, as thousands of years of human experience
have sadly demonstrated. Logic is only one of reason's tools; the other is empiricism. Without both, we cannot even catch those tantalizing glimpses of the truth that are all that Nature allows us.

Just so you know: I expect data, or at the very least verifiable examples, to back up assertions.

I will try to finish this project. But, I have a lot of other demands on my time this week, so it may be a while before I get back to you.

Janet 

The Babylonians are Coming

China sub stalked U.S. fleet

This story reminds me of the story of King Hezekiah and the Babylonian envoys.

It seems like the globalists in charge at the Pentagon and the State Department are doing everything in their power to give away all to China of our military, space and industrial secrets. One day this nation will have hell to pay, literally.

How is this story like that of Hezekiah?

Hezekiah became very ill, and the prophet Isaiah came to him with a word from the Lord. "Get your house in order, Hezekiah, because you are going to die of this illness."

Hezekiah cried out to the Lord for more time, and the Lord allowed Hezekiah fifteen more years on this earth.

Shortly after Hezekiah regained his health, the king of Babylon sent envoys to him to extend the king's well-wishes on his recovery. While the envoys were in Jerusalem, Hezekiah gave them a royal tour.

"Hezekiah welcomed the Babylonian envoys and showed them everything in his treasure-houses-the silver, the gold, the spices, and the aromatic oils. He also took them to see his armory and showed them all his other treasures-everything! There was nothing in his palace or kingdom that Hezekiah did not show them." 2 Kings 20:13

When Isaiah found out about what Hezekiah had done, he basically told him that the Babylonians would be back, looking to take home for themselves all the treasure they saw during their tour, and that is exactly what happened.

The Babylonians were not Israel's enemy at the time of King Hezekiah, and I suppose he thought he was being a nice guy by showing off everything he owned to them.

The Chinese are not officially our enemies right now, and I guess the globalists think they are being nice people by showing the Chinese everything we own.

Unfortunately for America, I think the results are going to turn out quite similar.

My Answer to the Unanswered Question

Janet,

I would hope that by now you have realized that I am not in the least afraid that my beliefs will not stand an assault. I also hope that you understand the difference between the beliefs of a mature adult and those of an impressionable child.

One cannot expect a child to sit in a public school classroom for over 1200 hours per year, for twelve or more years, under the powerful influence of schoolteachers, counselors, administrators and the like, and not be greatly influenced by the prevailing philosophies, values, morals and ethics of the public education system.

The public schools exert an enormous amount of influence on the minds and hearts of children during their most formative years. Add to the time spent in school the thousands of hours the average child spends in front of a television set, and the amount of time parents and Churches have to counter-balance the negative influences of the schools and the mass media is minimal at best.

Abe Lincoln once said, "The philosophy of the school room in one generation will be the philosophy of government in the next." That could easily be expanded to say, "The philosophy of the school room in one generation will be the philosophy of the nation in the next." The secular, humanistic, socialistic, progressivist philosophies of John Dewey and his disciples, instituted in the teachers' colleges seventy years ago, set in motion vast changes in our society that are ongoing even to this day.

It is my opinion, and I am in no way alone in my beliefs, that it was these very philosophies and those that they spawned, which have led our once great nation to the current sorry state it is in. Our educational system, once the envy of the world, is now a laughing stock. Our national morals have declined to such an abysmal level that Osama and his ilk can rightly call America "The Great Satan" because of the immoral filth that our mass media spews out to the rest of the world on a daily basis through television, Internet, magazines, movies, etc.

I could go on and on, but you have probably either stopped reading by now, or have "tuned me out" as a right-wing nut case.

In summary, the answer to your question "If you are so certain that what you believe is true, why are you so afraid that it won't withstand assault?" is this: I am not afraid. "Bring it on," "hit me with your best shot," yada, yada.

However, do not expect the same out of impressionable young children. To do so is both naive and ludicrous.

Sincerely,

Charles

re: Unanswered Question

Charles,

It is, of course, the question I posed at the end of my letter to the editor. It might be rephrased as

"If you are so certain that what you believe is true, why are you so afraid that it won't withstand assault?"

Janet

Unanswered Question

Hello Janet,

I realized tonight that I never answered this earlier email from you:

“If I'm going to spend a lot of time answering all of your questions, how about spending a bit of time of your own and answering mine? There's only one, after all."

What question is that? I'll be happy to try.

Re: Greek

Hello Janet,
Charles Cherry sent you this message from Meetup.com:
----------------------------------------------------------------
Your etymology example was mostly correct.

You quoted:
"The word is arguably derived from hypo- meaning small, + krinein meaning to decide/to dispute. "

The Greek word "hypo" is a preposition, not an adjective (i.e., "small"). When used in the genitive case it usually means "by" in the sense of origin or posession. When used in the accusative case, it means "under" or "below" (i.e., hypodermic, below the skin).

The root word "krein" is used in many other
words, such as "kreino", meaning "I judge" or "I decide," "krinomai," meaning "I give an answer or reply", etc.

When you add hypo to the word kreinomai, it gives it the sense of coming from someone. So a hypokrisis is a response, or an answer, from one person to another.

The word hypokrites (hu-po-kri-TACE) (the word which Jesus uses in your examples) is a noun form of the verb hypokrinomai.

At some point in Greek history the word came to be used in stage acting, to describe one actor responding to or answering another actor. It wasn't long before the word took on a meaning of "to pretend to be someone or something you are not," or "give a false, dissembling or counterfeit response."

It wasn't a stretch to go from that to using the word to
describe a person who acts one way, but in reality is something quite different.

I'll bet you're sorry you asked ;-)

Not Relying on Jesus Words

Hello Charles Cherry,
Janet sent you this message from Meetup.com:
----------------------------------------------------------------
You said:
By the way, I find it a bit humorous that you, being an atheist, are relying on the words of Jesus to buttress your arguments :-)
----------------------------------------------------------------
I see the wink here, but of course I'm not doing any such thing: I just went looking for examples of what I meant, and these immediately sprang to mind. It seemed to me that you were unlikely to reject them out of hand as poor examples as you might have done had I quoted something else.

By the way, was the etymology wrong? It's not mine, I just copied it from a source, and I almost edited it out, but I was getting weary of copying and pasting and editing in that e-mail.

Janet

Re: Red Herring

Hello Charles Cherry,
Janet sent you this message from Meetup.com:
----------------------------------------------------------------
You said:
[that I said:]
"But before I do so, let me quickly dispose of a potentially confusing side issue, which is the validity of the supposed "tax fairness" argument itself. Though I chose not say so in my letter to the editor, I reject this argument regardless of who advances it. It's a red herring."

With all due respect, you cannot throw out a statement like this and expect it to stand without scrutiny.

I wasn't trying to persuade you; I was just trying to make sure that you understood that even though I wasn't making this the central issue, that didn't mean that I agreed with you on it.

It actually is peripheral to what I'm going to say whether this argument alone is valid or not; I don't plan to use this as the basis for further discussion. Honest.

Janet

Re: Hypocrisy Lesson

Hello Janet,
Charles Cherry sent you this message from Meetup.com:
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Janet,

Thanks again for the opportunity to respond, and thanks for the vocabulary lesson on hypocrisy. As a student of the Greek language, my first instinct was to correct your use of the Greek in your etymology, but I'll let that slide ;-)

I do agree that one meaning of hypocrisy is "holding to a double-standard." If that is what you meant when you said I was guilty of blatant hypocrisy, I'll take your word for it.

"And I suspect that you read my criticism of your argument as hypocritical as my calling you a hypocrite, which led to your initial accusation of name-calling. In fact I did no such thing, and your accusation is groundless. The criticism is of
your arguments, not you."

When you say that your criticism was toward my arguments and not towards me, it looks like you are equivocating.

Perhaps the reason I read that you were calling me a hypocrite (and thus resorting to ad hominem) is that it is impossible for an argument to be hypocritical. You see, an argument is just a serious of words and phrases strung together to form sentences and paragraphs. Those words can form valid, invalid or faulty arguments, but they cannot be accused of hypocrisy. Only humans can be accused of hypocrisy, because only humans can be hypocrites.

"Now the term hypocrisy is a social term, one of opprobrium, which is probably why you so strenuously object to it."

There is a reason it is a term of opprobrium - hypocrisy is a serious moral failing. As such, it falls within the realm of ethics and morality. One reason why Jesus condemned the sin of hypocrisy in the religious leaders of the day was because they
were supposed to be representing God to His people. By acting hypocritically, they were grossly misrepresenting Him.

With all of that in mind, I am curious to find out from you how the arguments in my letter to the editor reveal my blatant hypocrisy ;-) 

"...it is a line of argument that is self-contradictory, and self-contradiction is a fatal flaw. No such argument can stand."

I couldn't have said it better.

Charles

By the way, I find it a bit humorous that you, being an
atheist, are relying on the words of Jesus to buttress your arguments ;-)

Of Taxes and Hypocrisy Part 2

Hello Charles Cherry,
Janet sent you this message from Meetup.com:
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hello Charles,

So, the question was, how do I think that the arguments about taxes in your original letter to the editor constitute hypocrisy?

Well, first we'd better establish just what hypocrisy is.

Here's a sampling of definitions.
1. Hypocrisy: the feigning of beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; insincerity.
2. Hypocrisy is the act of pretending to have beliefs, virtues and feelings that one does not truly possess. The word derives from the late Latin hypocrisis and Greek hupokrisis both meaning play-acting or pretence. The word is arguably derived from hypo- meaning small, + krinein meaning to decide/to
dispute. A classic example of a hypocritical act is to denounce another for carrying out some action whilst carrying out the same action oneself.
3. hypocrisy: a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not; especially : the false assumption of an appearance of virtue or religion
4. Hypocrisy: Lip service

But Wikipedia notes:
Truly believing in one's right to a behavior whilst denying others the same right does not fit under the definition of hypocrisy, but should rather be termed as holding a double standard, thus leading to the most common misuse of the word.

Examples of behavior mistakenly attributed to hypocrisy include issuing or enforcing dictates one does not follow oneself and criticizing others for carrying out some action while carrying out the same action oneself.

So there's a little disagreement on the exact application of the word. Perhaps most of interest to you is that Jesus appears to favor definition number two, for passage in Matthew 23 which ends in his famous denunciation of the Pharisees as hypocrites
begins:

23:1 Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples,
23:2 Saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat:
23:3 All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, [that] observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.
23:4 For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay [them] on men's shoulders; but they [themselves] will not move them with one of their fingers.

Also the classic warning against holding double standards that occurs in Matthew 7 begins like this:

7:1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
7:2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured unto you.

And ends with:
7:5 Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

So, for the purposes of this discussion I will be using the slightly looser definition of hypocrisy (2), which includes the double standard. That is what I had in mind when I wrote the letter, and I think it is certainly generally accepted if not absolutely technically correct.

Had anyone asked me, I would have said that in practical terms hypocrisy reduces to applying different standards to others than one does to oneself, for after all, why proclaim virtues one doesn't possess, if one doesn't expect others to admire them? Clearly a double standard is implicit even there.

Now the term hypocrisy is a social term, one of opprobrium, which is probably why you so strenuously object to it. And I suspect that you read my criticism of your argument as hypocritical as my calling you a hypocrite, which led to your initial accusation of name-calling. In fact I did no such
thing, and your accusation is groundless. The criticism is of your arguments, not you.

Why should the fact that a line of argument violates a social standard undermine it? Well, in most circumstances it wouldn't.

However, if you take the definition of hypocrisy I have
adopted, you see that a hypocritical line of argument in this case is one that takes one position in one instance, and then adopts an opposing position in another instance. In other words, it is a line of argument that is self-contradictory, and
self-contradiction is a fatal flaw. No such argument can stand.

Where does your self-contradiction lie? That's Part Three.

Janet

The Red Herring Redux

Hello Janet,
Charles Cherry sent you this message from Meetup.com:
----------------------------------------------------------------
Janet,

You said:
"But before I do so, let me quickly dispose of a potentially confusing side issue, which is the validity of the supposed "tax fairness" argument itself. Though I chose not say so in my letter to the editor, I reject this argument regardless of who advances it. It's a red herring."

With all due respect, you cannot throw out a statement like this and expect it to stand without scrutiny. And, unless I am mistaken, you are about to use my call for an educational voucher system using taxpayer funds as an example of hypocrisy. If that is the case, then the issue of how I understand the
current tax situation is not a red herring, it is central to my argument.

"Though I admit it amuses me how much you sound like the Libertarian Atheists I know."

I can't claim to be Libertarian, but I am a conservative on many political issues. If our issues and arguments occasionally overlap, then that just proves that neither side has a corner on the truth.

Charles

Janet's Response to The Red Herring

Aack! You?ve taken the argument I called a red herring, and actually turned it into a red herring (figurative meaning) in this dialogue.

I only mentioned the argument, and did so briefly, because I wanted to set it aside so we could concentrate on the present issue.

To go overboard on the hunting metaphors, you are starting too many hares.

I'm sticking with the original issue. Though I admit it amuses me how much you sound like the Libertarian Atheists I know.

Janet

The Red Herring

Dear Janet,

Thanks for the quick reply. I’ll try to answer your argument that the “tax fairness argument” is an invalid argument and a red herring.

First, you say that the argument is easily dismissed because it rests on the fallacious assumption that there is no such thing as the common good. I disagree that the argument rests on this assumption, although I can understand how you might come to this conclusion. Also, I think we disagree on whether or not the public school system constitutes a “common good.” You think it does, I think it does not.

In my view, tax fairness does not mean that people should only pay taxes for things that directly benefit them. However, federal and state taxes should be reserved for those things that indirectly benefit all members at those levels of society. In other words, the federal government should not impose a tax on all Americans for something that will only benefit New Yorkers. The state government should not impose a tax on all citizens of Illinois that will only benefit people who live in Chicago. National defense and a national highway system are two things that benefit all Americans, either directly or indirectly, and therefore are things that are correctly taxed at the federal level.

The framers of our Constitution were very explicit in what power the federal government could exercise when it comes to taxation; anything not explicitly named in the Constitution was supposed to be left up to the states. It is needless to point out, but I will anyway, that our Federal government abandoned this Constitutional guideline many years ago. I hope that someday Americans will vote people into office people that will return to the principles and guidelines of the Constitution, but I don’t hold out a lot of hope for this.

This leads me, in a round-about way, back to my point that we disagree on whether the public school system is or is not an example of a common good. I agree that it is in our nation’s best interests to have a well educated populace. If the public school system was fulfilling its obligation in that regard, I would have no problem calling it an example of a “common good” for all America, and I would not be advocating abandoning it.

However, the public school system has proven itself to be an abject failure in its primary mission of educating children. In addition to this, the school room has become a place of anti-religious, secular humanistic indoctrination. So, not only is the public education system failing to properly educate our children, it is actively pushing agendas and philosophies that are morally repugnant to a large majority of the population, all the while draining billions upon billions of taxpayer’s dollars.

Now, I’ll admit that there are a minority of parents who want their children to be indoctrinated with an anti-religious, pro-homosexual, atheistic, hedonistic bias, while at the same time receiving an education that is on par with, say, that of rural Kazakhstan. I think the majority of parents, and definitely most Christian parents, would opt for something better, given a choice in the matter.

So, is it fair to tax all parents for something that, in reality, only benefits a small minority of parents? I don’t think so. However, if the Federal or State government is going to insist on taxing all Americans for something that only benefits a small minority, then I see no hypocrisy in calling for some of those billions to be used for what they are actually intended for: educating children. A voucher system that will allow the tax dollars to actually follow the child, regardless of which school he or she attends, would inject some free-market economics into the system, and perhaps force the public schools to improve. At the same time, parents would be free to send their children to schools that actually educate their children without undermining their values and beliefs.

“A little stringent examination reveals that it rests upon the fallacious assumption that there is no such thing as the common good, and also leads inevitably to the pernicious conclusion that there should be no such thing as government at all. Unless you are willing to defend both of these positions, you cannot defend the argument itself.”

This is a Straw Man argument – you set up a non-existent problem, and then demand that I spend time and effort knocking it down. As you see, my argument does not rest upon a fallacious assumption that there is no such thing as the common good, and does not lead to the conclusion that there should be no government at all. My argument for tax fairness, with regard to public school taxes, rests on how the common good is defined; it rests on the assumption that government should not be collecting taxes for things that are not in the common good; and that the public school system does not fall within the pale of the common good.

I could also make an argument that, a well educated populace being crucial for the common good, the government should provide for a system whereby the most children will receive the very best education, regardless of where that education takes place. I’ll leave that for another letter, however.

Sincerely,

Charles

Of Taxes and Hypocrisy, Part I

Hello Charles Cherry,
Janet sent you this message from Meetup.com:
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hello Charles,

Okay, on to another specific point you raise.

You said in your response:

"His blatant hypocrisy in advocating public funding of private religious schools, when he has just complained about taxes being used to support public schools? The mind reels."

When did I complain about taxes being used to support public schools? This is what I said regarding taxes:

"The public schools receive federal and state tax dollars for each child that attends, anywhere from $5,000 to $10,000 per child, per year. Parents who take their children out of the public system still have to pay those taxes, and do not get the benefit of the money."

My point, which you missed entirely, is that parents have to pay educational taxes whether or not their children are in public school. If they take their children out of the system, they still have to pay the taxes, but do not reap any of the benefits of those tax dollars.

You read something into my statement that simply is not there; that is eisegesis, and that is an academic no-no. I am advocating for tax fairness, not complaining about paying taxes. Where is the blatant hypocrisy in that?

Firstly, I did not miss your point at all. I simply decided not to reiterate it, as it made for awkward wording. Here is my original version of that sentence:

"The blatant hypocrisy of advocating public moneys be used to support a private religious school system with a sectarian agenda, when he has just complained about the taxes of those who don't utilize the public schools being used to support them"

I thought that readers would be able to follow my reasoning if I abbreviated the point at issue. Perhaps I was wrong about that. I guess "blatant" was the wrong word! So, I will spell it out here.

But before I do so, let me quickly dispose of a potentially confusing side issue, which is the validity of the supposed "tax fairness" argument itself.

Though I chose not say so in my letter to the editor, I reject this argument regardless of who advances it. It's a red herring.

This argument, which is popular because it makes an emotional appeal to people's sense of justice and also provokes their automatic instinct to protect their pocketbooks, is in fact easily dismissed. A little stringent examination reveals that it rests upon the fallacious assumption that there is no such thing as the common good, and also leads inevitably to the
pernicious conclusion that there should be no such thing as government at all. Unless you are willing to defend both of these positions, you cannot defend the argument itself.

That, however, is not the point at issue. The question is, how did your particular arguments constitute hypocrisy?

That's part 2.

Janet

The Dialog Begins

Here is Ms. Factor's response to my reply (see previous post below):

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Introduction

Hello Mr. Cherry,

Well, I've taken a look at your letter, and I can see that there is far more there than can be dealt with in a single e-mail. Accordingly, I'm going to break up my response into multiple parts.

I will try to deal with the simpler, more specific questions first, then go on to the deeper and broader issues you raise. In those cases, books could be, and have been, written on the topics. If I feel that another writer has already expressed what I would say much better or more comprehensively, I will refer you specifically to them. But I will try to at least give you a sketch of my own view.

Before we go any further, I must give you fair warning. It is quite likely that you will find my style of writing offensive. I will be as honest and as specific in my meaning as I can, because I have learned from experience that that is the only way to make certain the other person grasps what you really mean. I will avoid vague words that enable evasion, and I will insist on the specific meaning of terms I use, probably until you are sick of such insistence.

All of this violates the prevailing social niceties. Talk of religion in this culture is typically avoided, and when engaged in, it is considered polite to defer to the other party's choice of language and meaning (which, being mutual, allows both parties to use the same words to mean entirely different things, thus talking past each other forever), and to pretend that no one can pass judgment on the religious beliefs of others. This is simply an exercise in protecting people's feelings, which is all right under most circumstances, but deadly if what you are seeking is the truth.

Atheists abide by this formula almost all of the time (which is why most people are startled when they find out how many atheists there really are in the population), but among themselves, and when challenged to a frank dialogue, they abandon them for the honest language of true intellectual discourse. This often comes as a shock to those who are used to respectful deference for their religion. They experience as a personal affront. It is not so intended. It is simply a requirement of the exercise. Truth cannot be apprehended through pretense.

Next: finally, an answer to something you said. :-)

Janet

------------------------------------------------------------
Here is my response:

Hello Janet,

Charles Cherry sent you this message from Meetup.com:
Subject: Your Introduction

I originally missed your introduction because of the flood of spam that has been filling up my inbox. As I was cleaning it out this morning I found it, and read it, so this email is in response to that.

You said:

"It is quite likely that you will find my style of writing offensive. I will be as honest and as specific in my meaning as I can, because I have learned from experience that that is the only way to make certain the other person grasps what you really mean. I will avoid vague words that enable evasion, and I will insist on the specific meaning of terms I use, probably until you are sick of such insistence."

On the contrary, I find that such insistence is not offensive at all. In fact, I fully agree that words have specific meanings in specific contexts; it is only by sharing a common definition of terms that real discourse can take place. I do not subscribe to the currently prevailing trend that some call "tolerance," but which in reality is nothing more than "political correctness" run amok.

On the other hand, it is entirely possible to engage in lively debate without resorting to ad hominem attacks, which are rather offensive, and which indicate a lack of competence on the part of the debater or a lack of solid, well-reasoned arguments. You will not offend me by attacking my positions with good, solid evidence and sound arguments.

You said:

"All of this violates the prevailing social niceties."

I am not interested at all in the prevailing social niceties. I am interested in the Truth.

You said:

"Talk of religion in this culture is typically avoided, and when engaged in, it is considered polite to defer to the other party's choice of language and meaning (which, being mutual, allows both parties to use the same words to mean entirely different things, thus talking past each other forever), and to pretend that no one can pass judgment on the religious beliefs of others."

I agree, and I believe this is because of the prevailing trend of "tolerance." To most people, "being tolerant" means "Do not say or do anything that might I disagree with, because that will offend me." I believe this mindset is due to the fact that most people do not really know what they believe or why they believe it, and if they do, they do not have the skill to defend what they believe.

Again, I do not fall in with the "tolerance" crowd, and I will not be offended if you want to "pass judgment" on my religion.

"This is simply an exercise in protecting people's feelings, which is all right under most circumstances, but deadly if what you are seeking is the truth."

I wholeheartedly agree.

Finally, I am encouraged that you are interested in an open and honest dialog; I certainly did not expect it. You have indicated that you are willing to spend a lot of time with this. That is commendable. However, it might be better if we agree up front on what topics or questions would make the best use of our time.

For example, I don't think it would be very productive for us to debate the existence of God. As you know, this is a debate that has been ongoing for literally thousands of years. One cannot prove God's existence; one can only weigh the evidence for and against, and come to a conclusion based on faith. One believes that a transcendent creator God exists or one believes that all matter and energy just is - it came from nothing, or it has existed eternally in some form or other, but it had no "first cause." Either option takes a significant amount of faith, since neither option can be "proven" scientifically.

I personally have engaged the various arguments for and against God's existence, off and on, over the past twenty or thirty years. I have come to the conclusion that the evidence for God's existence is far and away greater than the evidence against God's existence.

If you want to debate the evidence for and against God's existence, I am up for it, but that was really not the main point of my original letter to the editor. That point was this: Christian parents need to take responsibility for the education of their children, and in doing so need to ensure that their children are being taught a biblical worldview in addition to receiving a quality education. This is not happening in the public school system. Therefore, Christian parents need to look closely at the "exit strategy" being put forward by the Southern Baptist Convention, and consider something similar for themselves and their children.

It looks like I am about out of characters, according to the little notice below this edit box on the Meetup Site, so I have probably been too verbose. If you would like to continue this conversation without the limit of the Meetup box, perhaps we can do so via email. My email address is: ccherry@cama-inc.com.

Sincerely,

Charles

An Atheist Responds...

A local atheist responded to my recent letter to the Editor of the Springfield Journal-Register, a shorter version of my recent post on the Southern Baptist public school exit strategy. Here is her letter:

Writer must not be confident of beliefs

When I read the letter last Tuesday by Charles Cherry advocating wholesale abandonment of the public school system by Christians in order to ensure that children develop a biblical worldview (all the horror I needed for Halloween day!), I hardly knew where to begin in replying.

His assumption that all Christians share his brand of belief? His conviction that schools must be indoctrination centers for an ideology, rather than impartial purveyors of knowledge? His nostalgia for an era when the only acceptable belief was one that agreed with his? His blatant hypocrisy in advocating public funding of private religious schools, when he has just complained about taxes being used to support public schools? The mind reels.

However, upon reflection, I have decided that the heart of the issue lies not in these things, but in a larger question, one that seems never to have occurred to Cherry.

That question is this: If you truly find that the only way to ensure that your children adopt your beliefs is by totally controlling their access to information, that is, by deliberately keeping them in ignorance, isn't that a pretty clear indication that what you believe is not true?

Janet L. Factor, Springfield

------------------------------------------

I did a quick Google search and found out that Janet heads up a group called "The Springfield Area Freethinkers Meetup Group," which is organized under the Atheists section on the MeetUp site: http://atheists.meetup.com/462/.

I sent Janet a reply to her letter to the editor. Here is my response to her:

Janet,

I read your response to my letter to the editor in the SJ-R about Christians removing their children from public school.

As you might expect, I heartily disagree with your portrayal of the main points of my letter, but you are entitled to your opinion, as am I. On the other hand, I do think you could have been a little more polite in your response. Ad Hominem attacks, name-calling and insulting people's intelligence does nothing to advance your cause of atheism.

Nowhere did I ever state, or even imply, that all Christians share "my brand of belief." As a Christian, however, I do have the right to assume that all other Christians share the same ~basic~ beliefs that I do, otherwise we could not all call ourselves Christians!

What is the basis for your assumption that only children in public schools have access to information? That sounds rather elitist to me, and tends to strengthen my point that today's public education system is more about secular indoctrination than about quality education.

Along that line, on what do you base your assumption that Christian parents and schoolteachers want to keep their children in an information vacuum? I wonder if you have ever visited a Christian school, or dialogued with a young college student who has had a home school education.

You said in your response:

"His blatant hypocrisy in advocating public funding of private religious schools, when he has just complained about taxes being used to support public schools? The mind reels."

When did I complain about taxes being used to support public schools? This is what I said regarding taxes:

"The public schools receive federal and state tax dollars for each child that attends, anywhere from $5,000 to $10,000 per child, per year. Parents who take their children out of the public system still have to pay those taxes, and do not get the benefit of the money."

My point, which you missed entirely, is that parents have to pay educational taxes whether or not their children are in public school. If they take their children out of the system, they still have to pay the taxes, but do not reap any of the benefits of those tax dollars.

You read something into my statement that simply is not there; that is eisegesis, and that is an academic no-no. I am advocating for tax fairness, not complaining about paying taxes. Where is the blatant hypocrisy in that?

I have another question. Why does a biblical worldview scare you? What is your definition of a biblical worldview?

As a Christian, I have a biblical (Christian) worldview. I do not think that you really understand what I mean by that, or you would not be so frightened by it.

As an atheist, you have an atheistic worldview. There are places in the world where Christians (and others of various faiths) are now and have been actively persecuted by people with an atheistic worldview. Of course, I am referring to the old Soviet Union, Communist China, Communist Viet Nam, ?>?>?>?>Laos and Cambodia, Cuba, various Marxist regimes in Africa and Latin America, etc. These regimes have combined to murder close to 250 million people over the last hundred years or so, many of those simply because they espoused some form of religion. If any worldview is to be feared, it is that of the atheist.

One more thing – since when are public schools "impartial purveyors of knowledge"? Impartial is not a word I would use. Public educators are very partial about what they will and will not teach.

Whether or not you want to label what is happening to children in most classrooms "indoctrination of an ideology," that is exactly what is happening. The fact that children are being indoctrinated is indisputable. The definition of indoctrination is "instruction in the fundamentals of a system or belief." The belief system, or ideology, is Secular Humanism. I challenge you to prove me wrong on that.

I think it would have been instructive to the readers of your letter if you had made known your own ideology, atheism, before lambasting mine (and that of millions of others). Knowing that you are a purveyor of atheism puts an entirely different slant on your response.

Feel free to respond to me at ccherry@cama-inc.com; I look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

Charles Cherry

--------------------------------------

I look forward to her reply.