Utterly Meaningless » Blog Archive » BACK-PEDALING (I THINK)

BACK-PEDALING (I THINK)

Filed at 3:08 pm under by dcobranchi

Either Mary Pride was badly misquoted or she (sort of) hung her son out to dry:

Mary Pride is president of Homeschool World, which publishes Practical Homeschooling magazine. She also is the author o f Mary Pride’s Complete Guide to Getting Started in Homeschooling , a leading homeschool text. She called the flap with LIFE a “nonstory.”

“What we’re looking at here,” she said, “is Christian bashing.”

Her son and Web master, Ted, was not authorized to make the statements he e-mailed to Willingham, she said.

“I theologically agree with him,” she said of her son’s e-mail. “But I would not want to be hung up with him … If I put this stuff on our Web site, it sounds like we are condoning it, we approved it.”

That’s just strange. Does she back him or not? And then there’s this:

The word “inclusive” has been used by homeschoolers for years. In some cases it means inclusive to all Christian denominations. In others, it means the group is secular and discourages any religious discussion.

What?! Inclusive means secular. Always has, always will. I’ve been blogging home education stories for 3+ years and not once have I run across the use of the word “inclusive” to mean restricted to Christianity. Since when did the Ministry of Truth take over home education? (via Chris)

13 Responses to “BACK-PEDALING (I THINK)”


Comment by
Chris
June 30th, 2005
at 3:44 pm

I took her comments to mean, “He is right, but he should have checked with me first anyway.”

Or something like that.


Comment by
Anonymous
June 30th, 2005
at 4:30 pm

Well, we’d have to start with a definition of secular and go from there. Its definitely true that in the US, secularism is in practice inclusive, but some of the most secular societies today and in history have been decidedly non-inclusive.

Secular humanism is considered to be a religion, BTW.

Christian apologetics teaches that in the US, secularists have incorporated Christian absolutes such as tolerance, but without the logical basis for them. Consequently, as time passes and US secularism becomes further removed from its Christian roots, it will become much like it has become in other places – morally relativistic, and decidedly non-inclusive.

The reason the US is such a strong advocate of human rights is due to its Christian heritage. Similarly, the reason Cuba, China, and North Korea do not advocate or respect human rights is due to their honest commitment to their secular values, and following them to their logical conclusion.

Sorry, but I have tasted that fruit for too long and don’t want any more of it. Thankfully, my mom got out of Cuba…


Comment by
julie
June 30th, 2005
at 9:05 pm

“What we’re looking at here,” she said, “is Christian bashing.”

OMG!
I cannot belive that she went there.
That’s the thing with that group, call them on something and you are “Christian Bashing”.
~sheesh~
I have to admit that I thought the Pride’s were long gone after the whole Gentle Spirit debacle.


Comment by
Tim Haas
June 30th, 2005
at 10:00 pm

Secular humanism is considered to be a religion, BTW.

By whom? People with poor reading comprehension skills?


Comment by
Anonymous
June 30th, 2005
at 11:52 pm

Typical HEOS inclusiveness…. brow beat people when they disagree…

Anyway, here’s a definition that is consistent with what I have experienced dealing with secular humanistic folks… (christ...2.html)

“First, Secular Humanism is a worldview. That is, it is a set of beliefs through which one interprets all of reality – something like a pair of glasses. Second, Secular Humanism is a religious worldview.[2] Do not let the word “secular” mislead you. The Humanists themselves would agree that they adhere to a religious worldview. According to the Humanist Manifestos I & II: Humanism is “a philosophical, religious, and moral point of view.”[3]”


Comment by
Natalie
July 1st, 2005
at 2:40 am

Anonymous chickens.


Comment by
ChrisW
July 1st, 2005
at 7:55 am

“Anonymous chickens.”

Is this the sum total of your debate skills? If that is the best you can do, perhaps it’s time to rethink your philosophy.


Comment by
Tim Haas
July 1st, 2005
at 8:03 am

I’m not browbeating anyone. You made a throwaway assertion, and I, as someone rather familiar with secular humanists, questioned that assertion.

You’ve now provided at least some evidence by referencing HM I — written in 1933 by religious humanists, or what used to be called deists — and HM II, written in 1973, which, while retaining some flavor of religious humanism, is pretty rough on the anything smacking of the supernatural (“As in 1933, humanists still believe that traditional theism, especially faith in the prayer-hearing God, assumed to live and care for persons, to hear and understand their prayers, and to be able to do something about them, is an unproved and outmoded faith. Salvationism, based on mere affirmation, still appears as harmful, diverting people with false hopes of heaven hereafter. Reasonable minds look to other means for survival.”). Also, please note that the phrase “a philosophical, religious, and moral point of view” comes not from the manifestos themselves, but from a book preface.

You omit — inadvertently? — any reference to the modern HM III, which invokes neither religion nor faith.

Secular humanism is undoubtedly a worldview, perhaps even a philosophy — but no more. Surely you don’t want to cheapen religion by equating it with something that’s merely philosophy …

If anyone is interested in an exploration of religious vs. secular humanism, this is a great place to start. And here’s some discussion of myths about secular humanism.


Comment by
Tim Haas
July 1st, 2005
at 8:40 am

And before we go circular by devolving into accusations of “Christian bashing”, let me state that I do not consider myself a secular humanist in the (quasi)doctrinaire sense and I don’t necessarily agree with SH views on the role of religion in society and individuals’ lives. I am taking issue only with characterization of SH as a religion, not religion in general or anyone else’s religion specifically.


Comment by
Daryl
July 1st, 2005
at 8:54 am

SH-basher!!!


Comment by
Tim Haas
July 1st, 2005
at 10:13 am

Surely you don’t want to cheapen religion by equating it with something that’s merely philosophy …

This came off as smartass, but I was trying to make a serious point — religious critics seem to throw the “religion” label at SH in a dismissive way, as if they’ve internalized the secular connotations of “religion” and “faith” as “irrational set of beliefs”; in effect, conceding the game before they’ve even played. Seems to be a disconnect there to me. Would it not be stronger to defend religion and theism vigorously and attack SH as simply a worldview?

Yes, I have replied to myself twice. I enjoy these public interior monologues. Why do you ask?


Comment by
Tim Haas
July 1st, 2005
at 10:14 am

SH-basher!!!

I don’t have to listen to no RCS.


Comment by
Daryl
July 1st, 2005
at 11:18 am

Funny. Actually this is kind of strange; Google was supposed to stop indexing comments here. Evidently not.