Like many jeremiahs Ken Salt (Bay Times 14 September) laments the passing of an imaginary golden age. He goes on to lay the blame for today’s problems in schools at the feet of atheists. He offers no causal connection between atheism and these problems. For him it is self-evident that those who believe in his god are good, and those who do not are, not only wrong, but wicked. Finally he comes to his point – he has something to sell – a plug for Christianity in schools, presumably state schools since most private schools are religious in nature.
When New Zealand’s state schools were established as secular in 1877, this was in no small part due to the fact that the various denominations of Christians could not agree to teach one particular brand of Christianity. Ken Salt should come clean and tell us which brand he has in mind. Is it the liberal Christianity that acknowledges the limitations of the Bible, that tolerates other worldviews, that welcomes gays into the clergy, that accepts the fact of evolution? Or is it the fundamentalist kind that takes the Bible literally, that teaches creationism, that vilifies gays, atheists and anyone else who dares to have a different philosophy of life?
Showing posts with label Salt. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Salt. Show all posts
18 October 2006
Atrophied values
Bay of Plenty Times, 26 September 2006, published this under the heading "No link to lawlessness".
Ken Salt apologised for misquoting the humanist Manifesto and then proceeds to misrepresent me. In no way did I suggest that Humanism is responsible for lawlessness. My point was that New Zealanders are rejecting the atrophied values of the mainstream churches. Traditionalists react by repeating again and again the message that has been rejected. They have no other choice because they believe that the last word in ethics was written two thousand years ago. (I understand that repeating an action over and over and expecting a different result is a sign of insanity. It is certainly a denial of reality.)
Humanists on the other hand believe that all values are human creations and need to be updated in the light of increasing human knowledge and experience. Like most people we teach our children the golden rule and that it is wrong to kill, to steal, to lie, etc. But we encourage them to have an open mind: a healthy scepticism is more likely to lead to better ideas than blind beliefs. We teach them the ideals of an open society: tolerance and appreciation of differences are better than bigotry based on ignorance. I don’t know any humanists who advocate lawlessness, but I know of traditional Christians who teach religion in state schools and practise corporal punishment in private schools, both of which are against the law.
Ken Salt apologised for misquoting the humanist Manifesto and then proceeds to misrepresent me. In no way did I suggest that Humanism is responsible for lawlessness. My point was that New Zealanders are rejecting the atrophied values of the mainstream churches. Traditionalists react by repeating again and again the message that has been rejected. They have no other choice because they believe that the last word in ethics was written two thousand years ago. (I understand that repeating an action over and over and expecting a different result is a sign of insanity. It is certainly a denial of reality.)
Humanists on the other hand believe that all values are human creations and need to be updated in the light of increasing human knowledge and experience. Like most people we teach our children the golden rule and that it is wrong to kill, to steal, to lie, etc. But we encourage them to have an open mind: a healthy scepticism is more likely to lead to better ideas than blind beliefs. We teach them the ideals of an open society: tolerance and appreciation of differences are better than bigotry based on ignorance. I don’t know any humanists who advocate lawlessness, but I know of traditional Christians who teach religion in state schools and practise corporal punishment in private schools, both of which are against the law.
Traditional values
Your correspondents I Tomson and KH Salt (Bay Times, 18 August 2006) are two of a kind. Both complain that traditional values have been replaced by “today’s condom culture” or “atheistic humanist laws”. Neither considers that the problem may lie with traditional values and those who cling to them. Maybe humanistic values and solutions are simply filling the vacuum left by the failure of traditional values. If a new generation have rejected traditional values and this has resulted in rising rates of venereal disease, Tomson and Salt are free to carry on flogging a dead horse, but why do they criticise those who try to reduce the damage? Salt in particular even goes so far as to bear false witness by attributing to the Humanist Manifesto a quote about “the rotting corpse of Christianity”. I have checked the text of Humanist Manifestos I, II and III. None of them contain this phrase. In fact I cannot find any reference to Christianity at all. The three manifestos were written by some eminent thinkers of the twentieth century. Salt should have the courtesy to read what they actually wrote before attempting to quote them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
