This is a false claim of equivalence: very different things are happening. A liberal education does not 'shelter' students from religion -- instead, they are more likely to learn about it critically, perhaps in comparison with various faiths and histories.
Personally I can say that I've learned a much greater depth about religion and spirituality outside of formal religious contacts.
Perhaps something about the organizational setup of religious-based and funded programs is counterproductive for skeptical minds who might otherwise be curious.
But that's my point... I went to a normal school. Even though it was religious, I wasn't exposed to any conservative ideas (religious != political conservatism). The school kinda went along with the general zeitgeist. Perhaps your experience is different. We did a cursory (and I mean extremely cursory) view of all world religions, as I think many schools may offer, but we never went in depth.
But again, religion is not conservatism, whether political or even social (Stoicism is a 'conservative' philosophy, despite not being religious and perhaps even anti-religious).
It wasn't until I was older that I began studying these topics in any great detail.
> Personally I can say that I've learned a much greater depth about religion and spirituality outside of formal religious contacts.
That's not really germaine. Did you learn it in a public school? Because if not, I think my point stands.
>> Personally I can say that I've learned a much greater depth about religion and spirituality outside of formal religious contacts.
> That's not really germaine. Did you learn it in a public school? Because if not, I think my point stands.
I took classes in history, philosophy, and ethics at a public university (one with considerable public funding). My public high school, on the other hand, had very limited capabilities or structure for teaching liberal arts well.
I'm very confused about the meaning of 'liberal' in this thread - it's quite overloaded anyway, but is it also like 'conservative' in having quite a different (or at least more specific) meaning in the US vs. UK (and especially vs. capital-C 'Conservative' party)?
But also it seems to be assumed contradictorily to imply each secular and not?
Yeah, he brought up religion for no particular reason. To be clear, when I say 'traditional' ideas, I mean those ideas that have captured the secular zeitgeist of generations before us. For example, the idea that the family is the foundational element of society today has religious connotations, but only because it is carried over from Roman times. The Romans achieved this conclusion through secular means. It's now associated with religion because the Catholic church basically is the current implementation of the late Roman empire's value system.
> Yeah, he brought up religion for no particular reason.
Saying that someone brought something up "for no particular reason" is not respectful. Just because you don't understand the reason is not a valid justification for being dismissive.
We were talking about liberals and conservatives. Conservatives are not universally religious and liberals are not universally irreligious. What is more disrespectful is attempting to change the subject to take the discussion in a direction that, if it were headed there to begin with, I would not have engaged.
> What is more disrespectful is attempting to change the subject to take the discussion in a direction that, if it were headed there to begin with, I would not have engaged.
I'm flabbergasted by your words. I don't know your life circumstances, your age, where you live, what you've been through, etc. I do wonder if you are having a particularly bad day or week or month.
I don't mean this as an insult: if you need support, please seek it out.
Perhaps (like many) you lack some important communication skills or emotional awareness. These can be learned.
In my other comment, I expressed concern about your well-being. Here I'm discussing the substance of your comment ...
> We were talking about liberals and conservatives. Conservatives are not universally religious and liberals are not universally irreligious. What is more disrespectful is attempting to change the subject to take the discussion in a direction that, if it were headed there to begin with, I would not have engaged.
1. I've said this before -- not sure if I did on this thread -- so I'll say it again: you seem to think that you get to define what is on topic and isn't. No, you don't. People are free to discuss as they see fit.
2. Logic isn't the whole story. Your words are coming across as self-important. That will not serve you well. It repels people, including me. I'm only writing in the hopes that this will get through to you or someone else that reads it. There are too many people here lacking fundamental discussion skills.
3. Invite feedback and learn. Ask 10 wise people to read your sentence. Do not pre-bias them. Ask for their unvarnished feedback. Discuss and actively listen without defending yourself.
4. What you wrote looks like a justification to make you feel better about yourself. Almost everyone does it. Some people become aware of it. Some people learn to do better.
> I'm very confused about the meaning of 'liberal' in this thread - it's quite overloaded anyway, but is it also like 'conservative' in having quite a different (or at least more specific) meaning in the US vs. UK (and especially vs. capital-C 'Conservative' party)?
"""Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on the rights of the individual, liberty, consent of the governed and equality before the law. Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but they generally support individual rights (including civil rights and human rights), liberal democracy, secularism, rule of law, economic and political freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, private property and a market economy."""
The major purpose of establishing public schools was to fight the parochial system brought over by Irish and Italian immigrants. Perhaps that's what he's talking about?
