"Why do you consider it a "concession" that I believe in the existence of Christians who believe that they have the very best of reasons to believe their religion?  Of course I do."

Perhaps because you don't tend to say as much?    I'm glad to have given you the opportunity to clarify yourself.  :)

"Perhaps you have confused my past remarks with those of others. I think that you've been guilty of that before.  After all, you do interact with quite a few atheists besides myself."

Yes and no.  I can remember some specifics (ie, I specifically remember your comment to... was it DT at the time?) but I am willing to allow the possibility.  A thread where both you and Stathei participate I can guess might tend to that.  That Stathei!

"Notice that I said "religion" and not "theism"."

I did notice.    So if a person believes in God that does not necessarily make them religious?  In your view, the question of God's existence is not a religious question?  Do I understand you right? 

"This is what I was thinking when I wrote that.  Atheism naturally accounts for the existence of evil, since it posits no omnipotent being that opposes evil.  Atheism does not attempt to explain a lot of things that religion does, but it does explain why religious explanations keep getting shot down by reality."

heh heh

I won't belabor this point, except to clarify one thing:  atheism does not actually account for the existence of evil.  On atheistic grounds, there is no basis for declaring anything as 'evil.'  At least, not absolutely.  There is ultimately no real moral difference between 6 million jews being exterminated and 6 million ants being exterminated.  Only since we are humans (and jews are humans) we care about the jews.  But this is really illusory.  Strictly speaking, atheism does not account for the existence of 'evil.'  It is a parasitical view, drawing off a concept of 'evil' native to theistic perspectives (as I reject your assertion that theism does not necessarily entail certain 'doctrines').  Thus the atheist's conclusion that the theist's notion of God's putative goodness is inconsistent with the theist's notion of evil.  The atheist's conclusion is to reject both.  Or, I should say, that is the consistent atheist's conclusion.  Most atheists prefer to reject God but retain their idea of 'evil' and then insulate themselves from the implications of that retention.

"By Jove, I think you've got it!"

:)

"They've still got that duty, just as parents have theirs."

Why, I'd say your position resembles jelly.  You just refuse to be pinned down, don't you?  It is clear by your answers that I did not represent you on this.  You're trying to have it all ways.

"There is a reason why we have a legal system.  Under ours, individuals have inherent rights, including children and even animals.  (i.e. there are animal cruelty laws)"

And who gets to contribute to that legal system?  Can Christians be involved?  If they do, can they do so from their distinctly Christian viewpoint?  Are they required to justify their involvement on purely non-Christian grounds?  If so, how would that be different from Christians not being involved at all since if you say that they can be involved but not on the basis of their beliefs then it gains nothing to say 'Christians' can be involved?  Or, don't you believe what I read recently:

Just the same, [Obama] seems to understand the separation between church and state, have been a professor of Constitutional law.

Obviously cloaking your comments behind something as noble sounding as 'we have a legal system' when you specifically believe that only secular humanist viewpoints- or positions framed on the basis of secular humanism- are allowed, then this is no comfort, is it?  Your whole position essentially gathers up to the state all power and authority of atheists to dictate to the rest of us what constitutes 'abuse' and consequently from there what the state should do about it.  And if you think raising children as Christians constitutes abuse...

"The point at which the government intervenes is debatable."

But on your view, only on secularist grounds.  Your 'moderation' hides the fertile soil that tyranny thrives on.

"When does home schooling become deprivation of basic education?"

Well, we have your answer right:

"I think that society has an interest in protecting the rights of children to be exposed to skills and concepts that are common to its members.  Parents have a right to disagree with concepts that their children are taught, and they have the ability to expose their children to alternative ideas at home.  I do not think that they have the right to prevent their children from being exposed to common ideas (e.g. scientific and political ideas) in school."

Sounds good.  But its really the road to tyranny.  Who decides these questions?  School boards?  But we already know from your argumentation that school boards also must be strictly secular.  Your approach can amount in the end to nothing short of the eradication of religion on this planet- if the secular humanists ultimately are able to have their way.  Your comments sound so much like the stuff I read in authors writing in Europe around 1910...

Question:  Do you think that this argument crosses generations?  For example, do you think that in the 1930s school boards had the right to decide what 'scientific and political ideas' are 'common' and are appropriate in 'school'?  For example, what about the science being taught in Tennessee that led to the Scopes Monkey Trial?  Do you think that people had the right to object to that science?

"I am not familiar enough with the specifics of these issues to know how far I would go in supporting them, but I support compulsory education for children, not to mention laws against more physical forms of child abuse."

But of course by 'compulsory education' you mean 'compulsory education' on your terms.  You don't see how this ultimately completely offsets your insistence that 'parents have their duties'?  Parents 'have their duties' only so far as they comport with the interests of the state, and the state must keep a strict separation 'between church and state.'  Isn't it obvious exactly what that means in the end, no matter what else you say?

Something's got to give, Cop.  I'd like to think you are sincere here.  I'd like to think that you really have only the most noble intentions in all of this.  But it is impossible that your noble intentions if implemented will not lead to the most horrid of abuses, if not the 1984 or the Brave New World itself.

In my view, I have no objection to you generally having the sentiments you do.  If I had to put my finger on one spot where the most damage is potent, it is on your assertions that there must be a 'separation of church and state' and that all religious people must frame their views on secular grounds or else not submit them at all if they want to be included in the 'legal system' you so lauded.  Otherwise, it de facto leaves in place only people who believe like you do and may not be so reticent in the future.   Look to history, my friend.  Where are your checks and balances?

""Finally, you listed " taught to suppress natural skepticism and critical thinking" in your list as not being in the 'worst sense of child abuse'""
"Actually, you got that wrong.  Go back and reread what I wrote.  The "worst" sense of child abuse is physical and sexual."

No I didn't.  I bolded the relevant part.  More Chianti? 

"Actually, I don't see you as the kind of parent who would do that."

heh no of course not.  In fact, we're already having interesting debates (oldest age 7).  I used myself as a metonymy.  Now answer the question.  :)

"I agree with your general point here, and neither Dawkins nor I believe that our beliefs should be imposed on others.  Dawkins has made this point explicitly many times."

I am aware of no Dawkin explicit points on this matter.  Feel free to share them.

"The whole point of democracy and rule by law is that these things are not decided by individuals alone."

And that stuff about the separation between church and state?  I know I don't have to remind you of your many comments insisting that religious people must offer secular reasons for their positions...

"In general, I do not support home schooling. ...  Might as well confine that aspect of "home schooling" to Sunday School."

So, yes, you would favor laws that outlaw it.

FTR, we don't currently homeschool and aren't sure if we will.  That said, homeschooling is one of those checks and balances that a democracy needs.  If you take homeschooling away you force the populace to abide by the dictates of the state.

A state, by the way, that you have emphatically urged should be secular.

Of course you'd let us have Sunday School.  Letting us unsophisticated Christians have one hour a week while you have the kids for 40 hours, well, thanks for the generosity! 

"But I admit to splitting hairs on the distinction between theism and religion.  Most of the time, we associate theism with religious doctrine."

heh thanks.

""On atheistic grounds, there is no basis for declaring anything as 'evil.'  At least, not absolutely...""
"True.  Atheism tells us nothing about good and evil.  Humanism does."

"Really?  How is it any more illusory than for your version of morality?"

Yea, really.  You just admitted that atheism tell us nothing about good and evil and it is atheism that was the context of my statement about jews and ants.

You are splitting hairs again trying to divide atheism from humanism.  I don't think the operation can be carried out very cleanly, if at all.  I'll leave that for another day.

"Many Christians actually see the wisdom of a government that doesn't try to take a stand on religion.  Laws need to have a secular basis in order for them to pass Constitutional muster, and that is as it should be."

See, you just can't keep it straight even in a single paragraph.  Christians can be involved- but on secular terms.  That's what you keep saying, dude.  Saying that they must have a secular basis is the same net effect of depriving Christians from expressing their values in the government.

"Why bring the government into it to meddle in the lives of those who do not buy into your religious doctrine?"

I have no intention of doing that at all.  I want the government to mind its own business.  But in the manner that it does conduct itself, I want as much right as you to provide input on.

"When have I ever said anything remotely like this?  Are you unaware of the fact that I was raised as a Christian?  I do not think of a Christian upbringing as child abuse, but certain forms of it can be."

I'd say that saying 'certain forms of' Christianity is child abuse is 'remotely' like that.  Wouldn't you?

"I personally do not think that the best thing for the child, but I am certainly not advocating that the government try to intervene in such matters."

Why not?  You still concede it is abuse, even if 'mild.'  A more humanitarian form of abuse, I guess? 

"Rubbish.  Most Christians do not really want the government to intervene on religious matters.  Your position is (thankfully) in the minority on that issue."

Not rubbish.  You just said:  "Laws need to have a secular basis in order for them to pass Constitutional muster, and that is as it should be."

It is your position.  You have stated it in virtually in the same breath as renouncing it as rubbish.

[re school boards]

"They have always had that right.  What they have lacked is the good sense to keep their hands off of the science curriculum in public schools."

Science is constitutionally protected?  If people believe, sincerely, that creationism is scientific, on what grounds do you have to deprive them of the right to include it?

So I take that you think it was wrong for Tennessee to forbid the teaching of evolution?

"I hope that you are someday capable of understanding what I mean, but that is not today, unfortunately."

I'm pretty sure that I would need your brain in order to understand a heap of self-contradictions in the course of a single post.  Perhaps we can get together.  You have your Chianti I'll have some whiskey and beer, and by the end of the discussion your arguments will appear to be cogent. 

"Schools are secular, because they have to accommodate people of all religious backgrounds, not just yours."

Again, the practical effect of this is to allow the secularists to have their way utterly and completely while Christians must either shut up altogether or find a way to cloak their views in language and intention that the secularists will approve of.  It makes, essentially, secularism the government's established religion.  And I for one want government to stay out of our affairs!

"I do not think that our secular public school system has led to tyranny or is likely ever to lead to it. "

It isn't the secular public school system I am referencing, but rather the attitude that demands Christians bend over and meet the secularist's terms on everything.

Secularism is not neutral.  Humanism is not neutral.  You talk as though secularism represents some sort of ambiguous common ground that is value-free and does not have its own 'religious' beliefs.  This is all false.  By demanding that secularism rule the day in every sphere of the government you are really arguing for the opposite of all you've said.  Ie, you don't want religion involved in government, but for your own religion you're happy to make an exception.

All I'm saying is that all religions get to come to the table.

Your answer here is predictable:  secularism is not a religion.  Well, some of us think it is and we have as much right to believe that and act on it as you do your beliefs.  To say otherwise and act otherwise is to go another step down the path to tyranny.

"Neutrality on religion is what secularism is all about in the American context."

Except secularism is not neutral and humanism is very much religious.

The constitution says that no one religion can be established.  It allows that all religious people everywhere can have equal say.  And that is a huge difference.  Your view would gut the government of all 'religious' influence.  My view would allow all people of all religious persuasions to come forward, have their say, and then receive an 'up or down' vote by the American people.

You want to be the gatekeeper, dictating that secularism must rule, and then defining secularism according to your own purposes.

The trend has been pretty clear over the decades.  Secularists continue to gather up to themselves more power and authority and right to decide for everyone else what 'gets in.'

"For the positions on LAW, not general philosophy or public debates.  You keep fuzzing over that point."

I'm not fuzzing over that point!  That IS the point!  I said that your position is that Christians can be involved in government but only if they shed their values and beliefs or frame those values in secular terms.  The whole post I'm responding to says exactly that!  Good grief.  You have confirmed every last bit of what I've said.

Now, the additional point is that the net effect of that view is that Christians (and people of all religious persuasions) cannot be involved in legislation, policy, government, etc, in any way that is distinguishable as 'Christian.'

"Secular government is supposed to be neutral, not pro or con, with respect to religion."

See?

It is worth highlighting too that again you have equated secularism with neutrality.  You live in a fairy tale land if you really believe it is neutral.  If we were arguing over something truly neutral I probably would be taking a different tact.

I thought it was admitted now that neutrality is a fiction.  Everyone brings their own attitudes to the table, etc.  Isn't that the prevailing view, and certainly the prevailing view of the 'neutral' humanists who argue for the 'non-religious' position of moral relativity?  If neutrality is a fiction, the appropriate approach is to construct a way for all people of all positions to come to the table in a fair manner.

"Not really, but I would impose stronger restrictions on it.  Not every parent is qualified to teach children a proper school curriculum.  I'm not the biggest fan of many Education courses, but teaching is a profession that requires some expertise and training."

One wonders how they did it for thousands of years before public schools were invented.