From BlessedCause.Org
From
BlessedCause.Org
The "religious individuals" are correct, it’s called religious freedom! And to subject impressionable children to pluralist fascist reprogramming is a violation of the First Amendment, both clauses.
Certain individuals (sometimes called fideists) have argued, for instance, that religious beliefs are not of a type properly subject to rational assessment
Faith does gain a perspective that is hard for those without it to understand, but the only "rational assessment" it fails are those devised by critics attempting to disprove it.
and/or that assessing such beliefs demonstrates a lack of faith (Peterson et al. 2003, 45-48).
In the case of the Christian, every believer asks the Holy Spirit to explain by studying the Bible while praying. There are mysteries in the Bible and God speaks to each of us individually through the Word. Jesus did not rebuke "Doubting Thomas" when Thomas doubted, Jesus just showed Him. He would show anyone if you sincerely asked Him.
But few philosophers currently hold this position. Most maintain that the exclusivist has at least the right to assess her beliefs in the face of religious diversity.
(I am finding it really hard to believe the audacity of this provision).
There continues, however, to be significant debate on whether an exclusivist is under an obligation to engage in such belief assessment. Some philosophers agree with Robert McKim that "disagreement about an issue or area of inquiry provides reason to think that each side has an obligation to examine beliefs about the issue" (McKim 2001, 140).
Who is it that is "obliging" a Christian to examine their beliefs? Especially if this pertains to children in public school under the guide of pluralists, happening today. I don’t think I have ever read anything so evil, so opposite of the cherished freedom that Americans revere.
The underlying assumption here is that when an individual's perspective on any issue, be it personal, social, economic, political, or religious, has important consequences for that person or others, then that individual is under an obligation to find the truth of the matter — to maximize truth. And an individual, in this case a religious exclusivist, can only attempt to maximize truth or avoid error in the face of diverse claims, it is argued, if she attempts to resolve the conflict.
What duplicity! In our state standards, it is demanded that children learn to "give-and-take," to not argue, and yet, when pluralists demand "religious exclusivist" submit to a pluralist analysis of their faith, you insist that we argue? Our state standards also blame religious passion for intolerance. Yet the "tolerant" pluralist is devising ways to insist we fight on the pluralist playing field? Insist that we "resolve the conflict?"
It is discernment when a Christian decides not to argue with unbelievers, not the right of the pluralist to engage in a conflict, especially if through teachers to impressionable young children!
The contention here, it must be emphasized, is not that such resolution is always possible or that an exclusivist must necessarily give up her belief if no resolution is forthcoming. Discussion concerning those issues is yet to come. The claim, rather, is only that the exclusivist is obligated at the very least to assess the evidence for and against the beliefs in question and to try to "get a sense of the appeal and of the concern of those who advocate them" (McKim 2001, 146).
(Shaking head in disbelief) These must be truly frustrated pluralists that insist Christians are obligated to engage in conflict with them. This is truly pathetic.
McKim, who believes the exclusivist is obligated to defend their faith, is a professor of religious studies at the University of Illinois, a part time instructor at Yale, New Haven and Weslayan Universities. He has a PhD from Yale, is a member of the UIUC and has published many books and articles. McKim and pluralists like him have hugely impacted public schools today which have already implemented these covert programming views in history/religion classes.
Others philosophers disagree. For example, Alvin Plantinga acknowledges that if a proponent of a specific religious perspective has no reason to doubt that those with whom he disagrees really are on equal epistemic footing, then he is under a prima facie obligation to attempt to resolve the conflict.
Why? Can’t people enjoy the freedom of their faith?
However, Plantinga denies that the Christian exclusivist need ever acknowledge that he is facing true epistemic parity — need ever admit that he actually is differing with true epistemic peers. Although the Christian exclusivist, we are told, may grant that those with whom he is in disagreement have not violated any epistemic duty and may know of no arguments that would convince those with whom he is in disagreement that they are wrong and he is right, the exclusivist is likely to believe that he "has been epistemically favored in some way." He might believe, for instance, that he has been graced by "the Internal Witness of the Holy Spirit; or perhaps he thinks the Holy Spirit preserves the Christian church from serious error, at least with respect to the fundamentals of Christian belief; or perhaps he thinks that he has been converted by divine grace, so that he now sees what before was obscure to him — a blessing not so far bestowed upon the dissenters" (Plantinga 1997, 296).
It seems pluralists want to fight with God through His children...demanding that we fight with them...this is truly truly sad. No, Christians do not believe we have been graced over and beyond those who are not...we believe that Christ so loved the WORLD that He gave His only begotten Son that whosoever believe... We believe, pluralists do not, but pluralists were also invited. God did not reject them, He sent His Son for them, pluralists rejected Him. It is wrong to try to paint Christians as though Christians think God bestowed blessings upon us and not pluralists. We did not save ourselves, Christ did, we are all sinners saved by grace. Seek Him and you will find Him.
Moreover, if any beliefs of this type are true, Plantinga contends, then the Christian exclusivist is quite probably "in a better position, epistemically speaking," than those who reject the exclusivistic belief in question.
To be in Christ IS a better position, epistemically or not. We have peace. He is our Shepherd. He tells us what we need to know, when we need to know it, and we trust Him for the rest.
Therefore, since it cannot be demonstrated that Christian belief of this sort is very likely false, the Christian remains justified in maintaining that the proponents of other religious perspectives are not actually on equal epistemic footing.
Mysteries are nothing new. There are some things we will not know until we reach heaven. The Bible says,
"For now we see through a mirror, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known." (1 Cor 13:12)
And the same, Plantinga acknowledges, might well be true for exclusivists in other religious belief systems (Plantinga 1997, 296).
They have every right to believe what they choose.
The strength of this line of reasoning depends in part on the debatable issue of who shoulders the burden of proof on the question of equal epistemic footing. Those siding with Plantinga argue in essence that unless an exclusivist must acknowledge on epistemic grounds that are (or should be) accepted by all rational people that those holding incompatible beliefs are actually on equal footing, the exclusivist can justifiably deny that this is so and thus need not engage in belief assessment.
pluralist priests on a quest to find truth...I thought they were on quests of tolerance but they seem to think they have the right to analyze and label everyone in the process. This is not tolerance. Judging wholly legitimate beliefs to grant who is right and who is wrong is not tolerance. Then assaulting free Americans with demands to follow their pluralist faith in humanist truth is pure evil. Especially when preying on innocent children.
Those supporting obligatory belief assessment argue that it is the exclusivist who shoulders the burden of proof. Unless it can be demonstrated on epistemic grounds that are (or should be) accepted by all rational people that proponents of the competing perspectives are not actually on equal epistemic footing, the exclusivist must consider his challenger on equal epistemic footing and is thus obligated to engage in belief assessment (Basinger 2001, 26-27).
Though this is sanitized by claims it is all "epistemic," the threat has become real as pluralism was born through these means and then implemented in public school. This is outrageous. This document has been published by Stanford as assorted beliefs of the pluralist elite. This is an illicit license to attack our children’s faith. This is the reprehensible reasoning that Judge Hamilton and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals use when forcing children to worship other gods and compare all gods. This is fascism, totalitarianism. Educators must STOP attempting to program our children, especially by crafty pluralist reasoning designed to confuse them.
Justice Fortas ruled, "In our system, students may not be regarded as closed-circuit recipients of only that which the State chooses to communicate. They may not be confined to the expression of those sentiments that are officially approved." Tinker v. Des Moines 393 U.S. 503
Let’s look at this again:
"Unless it can be demonstrated on epistemic grounds that are accepted by all rational people that proponents of the competing perspectives are not actually on equal epistemic footing, the exclusivist must consider his challenger on equal epistemic footing and is thus obligated to engage in belief assessment."
Philosophers, determined to waste time stuck in "epistemic" thought, pondering humanist riddles that can never be answered are far from "rational" and have no right to force their sickness on children under the guise of pluralism.
Another influential type of challenge to obligatory belief assessment in the face of religious diversity has been raised by Jerome Gellman. The focus of his challenge centers on what he identifies as rock bottom beliefs. Such beliefs, as Gellman defines them, are the epistemic givens in a religious belief system — the assumed, foundational truths upon which all else is built. Gellman grants that if a religious belief affirmed by an exclusivist is not rock bottom (is not a foundational assumption), then it may well be subject to obligatory belief assessment in the face of religious diversity.
This sounds like the revised Islam in public school textbooks, denying what Islam’s rock bottom core is, the Koran, which instructs Muslims to kill unbelievers. This is what pluralist priests want to do to all religions. Take out the foundation, rewrite it, skim it, then ask children to justify it which of course they can’t, and the whole thing is thrown out as irrational, illogical, unreasonable...but not in so many words. pluralist priests are so careful that their very artifice is evidence that the deception is intentional.
However, he argues, since belief assessment only makes sense when one isn't certain that the belief in question is true, and since rock bottom religious beliefs are among the foundational truths — the basic, assumed truths — in an exclusivist's epistemic system, no assessment is necessary. Rather, when an exclusivist encounters a challenge to such a belief — for example, a challenge to her rock bottom belief in God's ultimate control over all earthly affairs — she can, utilizing the G. E. Moore switch, justifiably maintain that because her rock bottom belief is true, the competing belief can be rejected (Gellman 1993, 345-364; Gellman 1998, 229-235).
(Trying not to laugh...this is a very frustrated pluralist). Christians see evidence of God all over creation. We don’t have to flip any switches. All I see is frustration that Christians are not accepting pluralist ideals at face value.
Furthermore, Gellman has added more recently, even if we grant that rock bottom beliefs are at times open to belief assessment, the exclusivist need not engage in such assessment in the face of religious diversity unless she finds the awareness of such diversity causes her to lose significant confidence in her own perspective.
When this happens we simply find it in the Bible, or we find it in the Hebrew or Greek, or we ask a pastor, or we seek God through the Bible where often the Holy Spirit explains it to us.
In the absence of this type of internal conflict, she "may rationally invoke her unreflective religious belief to defeat opposing religious claims, without having to consider the question any further" (Gellman 2000, 403).
Unreflective? (I think Gellman is jealous that we have peace).
Some, though, remain uneasy with Gellman's contention that we need only assess those basic, rock bottom beliefs in which we have lost confidence. It is clearly the case that exclusivists do sometimes lose confidence in beliefs in which they once had a great deal of confidence, and that this was frequently due to the fact that these beliefs were rationally assessed.
Well then stop "rationally assessing" us and let us believe in peace. Stop trying to shape how America thinks as applauded by a the National Middle School Association. We walk by faith not by sight. Constantly demanding Christians apply pluralist humanist measurements to our beliefs only proves that pluralist priests cannot allow anyone to believe other than they do. This is the epitome of intolerance, and the hypocrisy is pluralist priests do this in the name of tolerance. This goes against everything America stands for.
.[3]Consequently, if we assume, as it seems Gellman does, that one of our epistemic goals should be to maximize truth, then it doesn't appear, some maintain, that the fact that a challenged basic belief isn't at present "squeaking" is a sufficient reason for the religious exclusivist faced with diversity of opinion not to engage in belief assessment (Basinger 2001, 42-43)
Back to BlessedCause.Org