Cancelling Dr. Seuss

[dismalist]

To think about Christianity, we should first think about the Romans, according to the life of Brian:

"All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?"

Turning to Christianity: The cultural influence of Christianity includes social welfare,[80] founding hospitals,[81] economics (as the Protestant work ethic),[82][83] natural law (which would later influence the creation of international law),[84] politics,[85] architecture,[86] literature,[87] personal hygiene (ablution),[88][89][90][91] and family life.[92][93] Historically, extended families were the basic family unit in the Christian culture and countries.[94]

Christianity played a role in ending practices common among pagan societies, such as human sacrifice, slavery,[95] infanticide and polygamy.[96] Scientists such as Newton and Galileo believed that God would be better understood if God's creation was better understood.[97] From the Wikipedia article on Christian culture.

And that ain't the half of it!

Being against Christianity is being against the West, and indeed against modernity, for Christianity got us here.

I eventually sent our daughter to Catholic school, though I am not attached to any Christian denomination. I am merely culturally a Christian.

[jimbogumbo]

https://slate.com/human-interest/2023/03/florida-principal-fired-michelangelo-david-statue.html

[nebo113]

https://slate.com/human-interest/2023/03/florida-principal-fired-michelangelo-david-statue.html

A CLASSICAL PUBLIC charter school sends out notices to parents that kidlets will see a classical penis.  A classical education involves "moral values, civic values, personal responsibility...." but "We don't have any problem showing David. You have to tell the parents ahead of time, and they can decide whether it is appropriate for their child to see it."   Do boys in Florida not have penises?

[jimbogumbo]

https://slate.com/human-interest/2023/03/florida-principal-fired-michelangelo-david-statue.html

A CLASSICAL PUBLIC charter school sends out notices to parents that kidlets will see a classical penis.  A classical education involves "moral values, civic values, personal responsibility...." but "We don't have any problem showing David. You have to tell the parents ahead of time, and they can decide whether it is appropriate for their child to see it."   Do boys in Florida not have penises?

ironically, the school is one of at least seven stated by Hillsdale. while Hillsdale is no longer associated with it, the school states it still uses the Hillsdale curriculum by an agreement with the college.

[Wahoo Redux]

For just about any issue, you will probably find Christians on both sides.

Well...yeah.  I don't remember anyone arguing this...

Rejecting faith-based arguments only when they give the "wrong" answer is no better than those who selectively use faith-based arguments on the other side on any issue.

Let me get this straight: I should not reject a faith based argument when it is "wrong" unless I also reject faith based arguments when they are "right?"

Don't think that holds water.

There is much to praise in the Bible. There are lots of "right" lessons.  It is when people misuse the Bible or cite the Bible as a means to justify bigotries or violations of civil rights that I object to.  So no, I will support those Biblical lessons that I feel are "right" (usually dealing with some version of love thy neighbor) and oppose those Biblical lessons that I feel are "wrong" (having to do with prejudice or violence).  Since I do not consider the Bible a holy article, I feel free to pick and choose from its wisdom.

How about we just leave faith based arguments out of the public sector?  That would solve the needs for these debates.

[Wahoo Redux]

To think about Christianity, we should first think about the Romans, according to the life of Brian:

"All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?"

Turning to Christianity: The cultural influence of Christianity includes social welfare,[80] founding hospitals,[81] economics (as the Protestant work ethic),[82][83] natural law (which would later influence the creation of international law),[84] politics,[85] architecture,[86] literature,[87] personal hygiene (ablution),[88][89][90][91] and family life.[92][93] Historically, extended families were the basic family unit in the Christian culture and countries.[94]

Christianity played a role in ending practices common among pagan societies, such as human sacrifice, slavery,[95] infanticide and polygamy.[96] Scientists such as Newton and Galileo believed that God would be better understood if God's creation was better understood.[97] From the Wikipedia article on Christian culture.

And that ain't the half of it!

Being against Christianity is being against the West, and indeed against modernity, for Christianity got us here.

I eventually sent our daughter to Catholic school, though I am not attached to any Christian denomination. I am merely culturally a Christian.

I am surprised this strawman took this long to show up.

No one is "against Christianity."

I've already thanked the Medieval Christians for saving Classical learning.

People are against the misuse of Christian doctrines in the public sphere.  People are against a purely white knight version of Christianity.

So let us take the good with the bad: Crusades, anyone?  Pope Urban helped set up 9/11.  Let's not forget that in our list.

[kaysixteen]

dismalist actually gave a decent summation of the many things that Christianity gave to civilization.   It is impossible to overemphasize just how different the ancient pagan Greco-Roman world was, prior to the adoption of Christianity, and how many things we would consider unambiguous benefits, good things, the Christians brought to the empire, and from there to the rest of the world.   Much of these things were in embryo seen in OT-era Judaism, but not all-- sexual mores were strengthened by the church, as well as peripheral aspects thereof, such as the (near)-elimination of divorce.   To the extent that we have decided to dispense with these many distinctive Christian developments in our increasingly post-Christian modern society, we have mostly taken a retrograde step that is bad for most people, and for society as a whole-- no one, for instance, who looks at the accumulation of 50 years of evidence in the no-fault divorce era, would be able to really argue that single parenthood is good for children, or at all as good as married two parent homes, unless one is a zealot, or a bad actor.

Now I might well engender howls of outrage here, by saying a few positive things about the Crusades, which were certainly not the unalloyed Christians-bad, Muslims-good thing their detractors suggest.   They were problematic, of course, and the religious motivations undergirding them, especially the 'Deus vult' notions the Popes promulgated suggesting openly that participation therein would earn pardon from God, a place in Heaven, etc., are notoriously unbiblical, but that said, putting oneself in the shoes of an 11th c. Christian, one can clearly see how he might have decided to undertake a Crusade, in order to expel the Islamic invaders from the Holy Land, and restore Christian sovereignty to the place, freeing the oppressed Christian minority there from the rule of said Islamic invaders.

[Kron3007]

dismalist actually gave a decent summation of the many things that Christianity gave to civilization.   It is impossible to overemphasize just how different the ancient pagan Greco-Roman world was, prior to the adoption of Christianity, and how many things we would consider unambiguous benefits, good things, the Christians brought to the empire, and from there to the rest of the world.   Much of these things were in embryo seen in OT-era Judaism, but not all-- sexual mores were strengthened by the church, as well as peripheral aspects thereof, such as the (near)-elimination of divorce.   To the extent that we have decided to dispense with these many distinctive Christian developments in our increasingly post-Christian modern society, we have mostly taken a retrograde step that is bad for most people, and for society as a whole-- no one, for instance, who looks at the accumulation of 50 years of evidence in the no-fault divorce era, would be able to really argue that single parenthood is good for children, or at all as good as married two parent homes, unless one is a zealot, or a bad actor.

Now I might well engender howls of outrage here, by saying a few positive things about the Crusades, which were certainly not the unalloyed Christians-bad, Muslims-good thing their detractors suggest.   They were problematic, of course, and the religious motivations undergirding them, especially the 'Deus vult' notions the Popes promulgated suggesting openly that participation therein would earn pardon from God, a place in Heaven, etc., are notoriously unbiblical, but that said, putting oneself in the shoes of an 11th c. Christian, one can clearly see how he might have decided to undertake a Crusade, in order to expel the Islamic invaders from the Holy Land, and restore Christian sovereignty to the place, freeing the oppressed Christian minority there from the rule of said Islamic invaders.

Many of the things listed are not unique to Christianity at all.  Hospitals predate Christianity for example.  Surez they built many, but so have Muslims, Hindus, etc.

Regarding Divorce, it is more complex than your version.  How many women were stuck in abusive relationships due to the essential ban on divorce?  Perhaps we are now too quick to divorce, but it is not a black and white issue.

I also remember my father telling me that he was not allowed to play with Bastard children when he was young.  Those children suffered because of their parents choices and your lovely Christian mores.  Just lovely.

[marshwiggle]

People are against the misuse of Christian doctrines in the public sphere. 

During covid, people were misusing science to argue against masking, vaccinations, etc. No-one suggested that science itself should not be used because of that, In fact, they argued that the public needed a better understanding of science to refute the misuse.

The implication that Christianity should be avoided in the public sphere because of misuses suggests that the overall effect of Christianity on the world has been negative. We might as well bring up Hiroshima every time science is mentioned.

[Kron3007]

dismalist actually gave a decent summation of the many things that Christianity gave to civilization.   It is impossible to overemphasize just how different the ancient pagan Greco-Roman world was, prior to the adoption of Christianity, and how many things we would consider unambiguous benefits, good things, the Christians brought to the empire, and from there to the rest of the world.   Much of these things were in embryo seen in OT-era Judaism, but not all-- sexual mores were strengthened by the church, as well as peripheral aspects thereof, such as the (near)-elimination of divorce.   To the extent that we have decided to dispense with these many distinctive Christian developments in our increasingly post-Christian modern society, we have mostly taken a retrograde step that is bad for most people, and for society as a whole-- no one, for instance, who looks at the accumulation of 50 years of evidence in the no-fault divorce era, would be able to really argue that single parenthood is good for children, or at all as good as married two parent homes, unless one is a zealot, or a bad actor.

Now I might well engender howls of outrage here, by saying a few positive things about the Crusades, which were certainly not the unalloyed Christians-bad, Muslims-good thing their detractors suggest.   They were problematic, of course, and the religious motivations undergirding them, especially the 'Deus vult' notions the Popes promulgated suggesting openly that participation therein would earn pardon from God, a place in Heaven, etc., are notoriously unbiblical, but that said, putting oneself in the shoes of an 11th c. Christian, one can clearly see how he might have decided to undertake a Crusade, in order to expel the Islamic invaders from the Holy Land, and restore Christian sovereignty to the place, freeing the oppressed Christian minority there from the rule of said Islamic invaders.

Many of the things listed are not unique to Christianity at all.  Hospitals predate Christianity for example.  Surez they built many, but so have Muslims, Hindus, etc.

Regarding Divorce, it is more complex than your version.  How many women were stuck in abusive relationships due to the essential ban on divorce?  Perhaps we are now too quick to divorce, but it is not a black and white issue.

I also remember my father telling me that he was not allowed to play with Bastard children when he was young.  Those children suffered because of their parents choices and your lovely Christian mores.  Just lovely.

Also, from the stats I have seen, divorce rates are actually higher in the Christian population than the non religious in the USA.  You say divorce is against Christian values, yet they are leading the charge, with more than 30% divorce rates (including evangelicals) and supported by the church .  So, it would seem that divorce is not against Christina values, just your interpretation of them. 

It is ironic that you have a book from God outlining your code, yet there is no agreement within your community on some of the more fundamental aspects.

[marshwiggle]

Also, from the stats I have seen, divorce rates are actually higher in the Christian population than the non religious in the USA.  You say divorce is against Christian values, yet they are leading the charge, with more than 30% divorce rates (including evangelicals) and supported by the church .  So, it would seem that divorce is not against Christina values, just your interpretation of them. 

Not sure about the statistic, but that's not exactly an apples-to-apples comparison. Since living together unmarried is much less acceptable in Christian circles, then the real question is about how many conjugal relationships break up in both groups. Otherwise it's like discussing gun crime and only referring to legally-owned guns. "Divorce" in religious terms isn't merely a moral issue for legally-married people.

[FishProf]

People are against the misuse of Christian doctrines in the public sphere. 

During covid, people were misusing science to argue against masking, vaccinations, etc. No-one suggested that science itself should not be used because of that, In fact, they argued that the public needed a better understanding of science to refute the misuse.

Note that during Covid, SCIENCE and SCIENTISTS were visible, vocally fighting against that misuse.  It is all to common for someone to act based on their religious motivation and to hear essentially crickets from co-religionists.

"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."
― Mahatma Gandhi

[Kron3007]

Also, from the stats I have seen, divorce rates are actually higher in the Christian population than the non religious in the USA.  You say divorce is against Christian values, yet they are leading the charge, with more than 30% divorce rates (including evangelicals) and supported by the church .  So, it would seem that divorce is not against Christina values, just your interpretation of them. 

Not sure about the statistic, but that's not exactly an apples-to-apples comparison. Since living together unmarried is much less acceptable in Christian circles, then the real question is about how many conjugal relationships break up in both groups. Otherwise it's like discussing gun crime and only referring to legally-owned guns. "Divorce" in religious terms isn't merely a moral issue for legally-married people.

Sure, you cant make a direct comparison, but if a group has a divorce rate of over 30%, it is hard to claim divorce is against their moral code or that the increase in divorce is from the non-Christian sector.  It appears that at least a third of them disagree, and likely more than half (some people who did not divorce are likely not against it in principle).  I also know many "Christians" that co-habit, so I dont know how much water that argument really holds anyway.

This leads to the obvious argument that they are not "real" Christians and that they are not living by Christian moral codes, but therein lies the problem.  If Christians cant agree on a core moral code, how can you claim that they even have one?  Even "though shalt not kill" is up for grabs with the relatively large support for capital punishment and war-mongering among many Christian circles.

 

[marshwiggle]

https://slate.com/human-interest/2023/03/florida-principal-fired-michelangelo-david-statue.html

A CLASSICAL PUBLIC charter school sends out notices to parents that kidlets will see a classical penis.  A classical education involves "moral values, civic values, personal responsibility...." but "We don't have any problem showing David. You have to tell the parents ahead of time, and they can decide whether it is appropriate for their child to see it."   Do boys in Florida not have penises?

From the article:

We have a practice. Last year, the school sent out an advance notice about it. Parents should know: In class, students are going to see or hear or talk about this. This year, we didn't send out that notice.

This year, we made an egregious mistake. We didn't send that notice. Look, we're not a public school. We're a public charter.

Parents will decide.

Parents don't decide what is taught. But parents know what that curriculum is. And parents are entitled to know anytime their child is being taught a controversial topic and picture.


Parents choose this school because they want a certain kind of education.

The rights of parents, that trumps the rights of kids.

I've edited out lots, but the point seems to be that this charter school basically has a policy to run everything potentially controversial past parents. Not doing that violates their own policy. Whether that's a good idea or not, if it's their policy, then they need to abide by it.

(While that's not a bad idea in principle, it seems it will be impossible to identify every potentially controversial topic, so I don't see how it's workable. It is a definite improvement on a system where parents are intentionally kept in the dark about what their kids are going to be exposed to.)

[jimbogumbo]

Don't you find it at all ironic that a charter school that advertises that it uses a classical curriculum would consider a picture of a classic piece of art controversial?