Kevin's Watch

Actually, in the beginning the "seperation between church and state" was to allow people the freedom for all beliefs, religious or otherwise, and not have a government church (like the Church of England). It was not put in place to squash religious beliefs. People have skewed it to mean that....

For more on St Nicholas, here is the website I got the information from:

www.stnicholascenter.org/Brix?pageID=38

Since I do think this to be a most powerful statement of what I think Cyberweez, Furls and myself are really trying to say, I'll repeat it in hopes that you'll notice it and respond.

rusmeister wrote:On the Prebe-Cyberweez exchange, I'll say that Prebe is right that the government is not to take a position, but that Cyberweez is right that this expression is used to silence all discussion of religion in public.

It is foolish, generally speaking, for a philosopher to set fire to another philosopher in Smithfield Market because they do not agree in their theory of the universe. That was done very frequently in the last decadence of the Middle Ages, and it failed altogether in its object. But there is one thing that is infinitely more absurd and unpractical than burning a man for his philosophy. This is the habit of saying that his philosophy does not matter, and this is done universally in the twentieth century, in the decadence of the great revolutionary period. General theories are everywhere contemned; the doctrine of the Rights of Man is dismissed with the doctrine of the Fall of Man. Atheism itself is too theological for us to-day. Revolution itself is too much of a system; liberty itself is too much of a restraint. We will have no generalizations. Mr. Bernard Shaw has put the view in a perfect epigram: "The golden rule is that there is no golden rule." We are more and more to discuss details in art, politics, literature. A man's opinion on tramcars matters; his opinion on Botticelli matters; his opinion on all things does not matter. He may turn over and explore a million objects, but he must not find that strange object, the universe; for if he does he will have a religion, and be lost. Everything matters--except everything.

Examples are scarcely needed of this total levity on the subject of cosmic philosophy. Examples are scarcely needed to show that, whatever else we think of as affecting practical affairs, we do not think it matters whether a man is a pessimist or an optimist, a Cartesian or a Hegelian, a materialist or a spiritualist. Let me, however, take a random instance. At any innocent tea-table we may easily hear a man say, "Life is not worth living." We regard it as we regard the statement that it is a fine day; nobody thinks that it can possibly have any serious effect on the man or on the world. And yet if that utterance were really believed, the world would stand on its head. Murderers would be given medals for saving men from life; firemen would be denounced for keeping men from death; poisons would be used as medicines; doctors would be called in when people were well; the Royal Humane Society would be rooted out like a horde of assassins. Yet we never speculate as to whether the conversational pessimist will strengthen or disorganize society; for we are convinced that theories do not matter.

This was certainly not the idea of those who introduced our freedom. When the old Liberals removed the gags from all the heresies, their idea was that religious and philosophical discoveries might thus be made. Their view was that cosmic truth was so important that every one ought to bear independent testimony. The modern idea is that cosmic truth is so unimportant that it cannot matter what any one says. The former freed inquiry as men loose a noble hound; the latter frees inquiry as men fling back into the sea a fish unfit for eating. Never has there been so little discussion about the nature of men as now, when, for the first time, any one can discuss it. The old restriction meant that only the orthodox were allowed to discuss religion. Modern liberty means that nobody is allowed to discuss it. Good taste, the last and vilest of human superstitions, has succeeded in silencing us where all the rest have failed. Sixty years ago it was bad taste to be an avowed atheist. Then came the Bradlaughites, the last religious men, the last men who cared about God; but they could not alter it. It is still bad taste to be an avowed atheist. But their agony has achieved just this-- that now it is equally bad taste to be an avowed Christian. Emancipation has only locked the saint in the same tower of silence as the heresiarch. Then we talk about Lord Anglesey and the weather, and call it the complete liberty of all the creeds.

Chesterton, "Heretics", ch 1

Change "Lord Anglesey" to "Obama" (or whoever) and it fits perfectly.
I have no idea why you should consider this sort of writing bad, Fist.

Prebe wrote:Rus: From a purely statistical viewpoint, any administration you can find in the US is bound to be permeated by christianity, and people who constantly push an agenda which is more or less christian. Something that most westerners won't even see as christian, because many christian ideas (luckily) happen to coincide with general humanistic ideas.

I simply can't understand how you can be afraid that the atheists will take over the world when the overweight of christians in the US is staggering.

I submit that the only reason you are so relatively paranoid about christianity loosing it's grip on the "system", is that it is your religion of choice occasionally being questioned, but for every non-christian idea you cringe at, there are 20 christian ideas being implemented.

It's not atheism per se you mind, it is non-orthodoxy. Because, as Malik said (and I love that sentence): "We are both atheists, I just believe in one less god than you."

Hi, Prebe, you can take Chesterton's response (above) as mine. (For those who say they want to hear "my" words, I'll repeat them and make them mine. I DO say them, substituting Obama for Anglesey, etc.) But it is the ideas behind the words that matter, in any event.

I'll cheerfully respond to other things, such as the popular saying about "one less god" if we hash out GKC. But people generally find it difficult to respond to him, for the simple reason that he's right, however wordy. In my experience, silence frequently follows.

Your arrogance, rus... *shakes head* Yet again, you presume to know the minds and hearts of those who disagree with you. Yet again, you show that you have no idea what we think and feel. What do you believe you gain from that kind of insult? Time and again, people here very nicely tell you that your attitude toward those who disagree with you is offensive. What a ridiculous thing it is to claim to know that we do not respond to Chesterton because we know he is right. Which means we continue to cling to our unbeliefs, despite now knowing that we are wrong. How pathetic I am.

Any chance that silence frequently follows for any other reason? Any chance I know perfectly well that we will not see eye-to-eye on him, and see no point in debating him?

Frankly, I'm sufficiently content with my belief system that I have no desire to read Chesterton or any other authority on other belief systems. Hence, my silence on the subject of him.

Sort of like asking me to read something from an expert on origami, when I have no interest in paper folding.

Good post fist. I agree wholeheartedly.

There is something extremely ungratifying in debating a GKC quote-machine, which is why silence often follows. I don't quote Darwin or Dawkins constantly even if I find that they have a lot of things going for them.

That, and GKC has not read my post, hence he can't respond with any degree of detail, which is why posting quotes as answers to specific questions is not only annoying but also irrelevant. Yes, I said it.

rusmeister wrote:

Prebe wrote:Rus: From a purely statistical viewpoint, any administration you can find in the US is bound to be permeated by christianity, and people who constantly push an agenda which is more or less christian. Something that most westerners won't even see as christian, because many christian ideas (luckily) happen to coincide with general humanistic ideas.

I simply can't understand how you can be afraid that the atheists will take over the world when the overweight of christians in the US is staggering.

I submit that the only reason you are so relatively paranoid about christianity loosing it's grip on the "system", is that it is your religion of choice occasionally being questioned, but for every non-christian idea you cringe at, there are 20 christian ideas being implemented.

It's not atheism per se you mind, it is non-orthodoxy. Because, as Malik said (and I love that sentence): "We are both atheists, I just believe in one less god than you."

Hi, Prebe, you can take Chesterton's response (above) as mine. (For those who say they want to hear "my" words, I'll repeat them and make them mine. I DO say them, substituting Obama for Anglesey, etc.) But it is the ideas behind the words that matter, in any event.

I'll cheerfully respond to other things, such as the popular saying about "one less god" if we hash out GKC. But people generally find it difficult to respond to him, for the simple reason that he's right, however wordy. In my experience, silence frequently follows.

For all your complaining that Christians here are victimised (which is nonsense) or mistreated, Rusmeister, this post has made you look worse.

Prebe has said it best here - you're behaviour in this thread has shown you to be a GKC quote-machine, not a true debator. And now you have you have thrown all credibility out the window by insulting everyone who have disagreed with you. Nice work.

Perhaps it has, LM.
Look guys, I do not mean to insult you. The stuff I post is direct responses to your ideas, the things you say. I have noticed silence, and I have thought about the reasons for it. If you really think I am personally insulting you, you are wrong. I admit that my own communication skills need work and apologize for offense given, though it was not intended. At the same time, when I do offer a response, and get only silence, it is insulting to me that I have offered a superior point that counters an argument and get ignored.

I have gotten some good ideas on what you think and feel Fist (although I do not claim to be able to read your mind). I don't have Furl's skills of diplomacy and communication, and I would imagine that at the very first you may have had misunderstandings with some of your now longstanding acquaintances. When you say that Chesterton's magnum opus is very bad, and then offer no reason for it, even though it strikes to the heart of the arguments that you offered, that's not terribly polite, either - but I don't take it that you mean to offer offense, at least.

Maybe it does come down to an impossibility of communicating anything,. But at least I'm trying.

Again, I intend no personal offense. I hope that you can see through to the ideas that I have been trying to express, rather than focus on my communication weaknesses - although I will try to work on them. But saying that you will ignore Chesterton because you can't see eye-to-eye with him or because you find ideas that challenge your own offensive is poor debate. I AM Chesterton, or the best thing available here to defend what he defended, since he's no longer here to do it.

Please, I beg you to forgive me any perceived offense, and I hope that you will take the challenge I have offered anyway.

I have taken the challenge. As I have with other books. But I don't think of it as a challenge. I'm just looking to learn another point of view; hear someone else's beliefs; expand my understanding. In the case of some books that declare strong faith of one sort or another (Conversations With God; Fools Crow: Wisdom and Power; the Upanishads and Bhagavad Gita), I am enthralled. I see a logical structure. I see wisdom. I see beauty.

I do not find those things in The Everlasting Man. Hey, not every book or writer speaks to everyone. That's the way it is. I love Zindell's Neverness books, and Cameraman Jenn struggled mightily to get through the first one. I love Bach, and don't much care for Mozart. No, I don't disagree with every single one of Chesterton's ideas that I read. But I disagree with the vast majority of them. As I said, I'm not going to get into it with you. What's the point? If memory serves, you and I have not agreed on anything. Certainly, neither of us has changed the other's mind about anything. Going through TEM page by page, arguing over everything I think is, at best, wrong, and, at worst, gibberish, but you think is glorious wisdom, does not sound even remotely interesting or appealing.

And what's more, this is the last time I'm going to argue about not arguing about it.

Having slept on it...

I think I'm going to take an indefinite leave of absence. I do want to debate ideas; these arguments are very old. They were debated in our fathers', grandfathers', and great-grandfathers' time. For this reason it is silly to exclude their words from the debates - they have something to say, and most of the time you will find at some point in history someone who said it better than you possibly could - and thought of things you didn't think of and knew things that you've just discovered or haven't even learned yet. Each of us, if we limit ourselves only to what we can discover for ourselves without reference to anything learned by anyone who came before, can only learn a few things in this life. Like the scientist who accepts the scientific tradition - things learned before - and builds on them, the philosopher must also look to what has been learned, and not merely rely on himself and what he thinks - what a limited world where one looks only inside oneself for answers!

These ideas have been thought out very far indeed - and few know just how far they have been thought out. Thus, the format of posting, of reading soundbites, makes it nearly impossible to express the deeper and more profound thoughts. The pool of the space of a post is too shallow - but that's all most people on internet forum boards will read.

These factors - a refusal to tackle ideas unless they are original thoughts of the poster, and the necessity of limiting them to a paragraph or two, and saying that someone is wrong and you won't discuss why, make it impossible to discuss the differences. They cut off debate (which among other things, has people taking positions with the aim of proving them right or wrong).
Given all of that, I don't see how we can communicate.

To offer a reverse example, I have read Bertrand Russell's "Why I Am Not a Christian" and found it to be wrong - and can say why (in extreme short, he shows that he knows very little about Christian history and does not have a broad perspective on Christian theology - his learning of it seems limited to the narrow space and context of his youth). And I would have no problem responding to relevant quotes from Darwin or Dawkins.

LM - with all due respect, a true debater listens or reads carefully to the arguments of his opponents and counters them rather than ignoring them.

Fist, if you wanted the declaration of strong faith, I would've recommended "Orthodoxy" to you. www.cse.dmu.ac.uk/~mward/gkc/books/orthodoxy/ "TEM" is an exposition of man's unique place in the world (pt 1) and Christ's unique place in history (pt 2). Perhaps this page of quotations may offer some amusement and truth (although I imagine some might seem cryptic without further context):
chesterton.org/discover/quotations.html
You should get to know Chesterton - he is everything you take me not to be - most importantly, humble and humorous. Don't let my posting clumsiness get in the way!
chesterton.org/discover/who.html

Again, the one thing I don't want is for anyone to take my personal weaknesses and see them as arguments against my faith, and if we can't communicate, I don't see any benefit or wisdom in being here. Not slamming any doors, mind you! Just preferring to not be bound by the limitations I described.

Please forgive me for any offense taken!

Hey, I was once dubbed the Quote King here! Others here may have a problem with quotes, but I'm generally ok with them. And for exactly the reason you stated: Chances are extremely good that somebody already said it better than I can, so I'll let them say it.

Of course, there are some ideas that I'm not going to agree with no matter how they're said. That's the way it goes. I simply disagree with some things. It would be silly to expect to change my mind about something just because you think you've found an expression of it that's worded amazingly well. It doesn't work like that.

All hail the Quote King!!

Rus, I don't think anyone wants you to leave the Watch. Please reconsider.

Furls Fire wrote:All hail the Quote King!!

Rus, I don't think anyone wants you to leave the Watch. Please reconsider.

Thank you, Furls. It's not that I want to leave - but I evidently cause a lot of offense around here - and that's something that is spiritually bad for me and others. "Love your enemies" was a shocking thing to say 2,000 years ago - people take it for granted in the west (although they never have in Asia) due to 1,000 or 2,000 years of Christian influence. The custom was always to kill your enemies.

Chesterton and George Bernard Shaw were great and lifelong friends, although their philosophies clashed mightily. I guess I would like to find that kind of relationship, as well as a pub for a new generation of "Inklings".
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inklings

For me, debate and intellectual challenge are fun - but they do involve proving somebody wrong and somebody right. Sometimes, through carelessness, I cross the line into offense. Sometimes offense is taken in vain - a person reads an attack upon himself, rather than his idea. But either way, people are angered. I'm not Jesus Christ or even Chesterton - I'm just trying to learn from them. But this IS a site dominated by pagans, atheists and agnostics for whom the Christian message, which I and Christians in general do claim to be THE Truth, is a threat to what they believe, and those beliefs ARE wrong (although they hold varying degrees of truth) and I state that dogmatically. I can't apologize for that, although apologies are in order when I make wrong assumptions about individuals. In any event, I don't see the value of offending others who don't want to hear what I have to say, and don't want their beliefs challenged.

I realize it's only intellectual and nothing can replace personal experience or living examples (rather than words).

Just tossing quotes around is precisely not an examination of the deeper ideas behind the quotes. I outlined the reasons above on how evasion of those questions happens around here:

These factors - a refusal to tackle ideas unless they are original thoughts of the poster, and the necessity of limiting them to a paragraph or two, and saying that someone is wrong and you won't discuss why, make it impossible to discuss the differences. They cut off debate (which among other things, has people taking positions with the aim of proving them right or wrong).
Given all of that, I don't see how we can communicate.

Again, no slammed doors, no drama queen. But right now that's how things seem to me now.

I'll probably still lurk for a while, maybe even post occasionally, but find it the better part of wisdom to curtail my presence here.

My thanks to you all for the good exchanges we have had!

I'll second Furl's plea, Rusmeister - please don't leave!

For what it matters (not being involved in the debate) I don't think you've been offensive. But then again I'm used to extremely offensive Christians! I find your posts informative even if I don't agree!

Perhaps you should spend a few days perusing the 'Tank, and you'll see how offensive some posts can get, and change your mind!

rusmeister wrote:But this IS a site dominated by pagans, atheists and agnostics

An interesting phenomenon. I wonder why SRD would attract us more than you? By and large, I believe most SRD readers here came upon him individually.

rusmeister wrote:for whom the Christian message, which I and Christians in general do claim to be THE Truth, is a threat to what they believe, and those beliefs ARE wrong (although they hold varying degrees of truth) and I state that dogmatically. I can't apologize for that,

No need to. As long as you understand that you're the one who's wrong.

rusmeister wrote:although apologies are in order when I make wrong assumptions about individuals.

Usually not even then. A simple, "Ah. I see. I misunderstood/assumed/whatever." The apologies come at different times. I might say, for example, "You're a Christian, so you believe that you must confess your sins to a priest." Some might take offense, feeling only the need to confess to Jesus, and feeling that repentance is the real issue. But I was only mistaken about the definition of Christian, assuming it is objectively defined by one particular thing I had heard. However, if I said, "Christians only believe out of fear of going to Hell." Well, that's stupid, arrogant, and insulting.

rusmeister wrote:In any event, I don't see the value of offending others who don't want to hear what I have to say, and don't want their beliefs challenged.

There you go. Insulting. "You don't want your beliefs challenged." Is that why I don't agree with you? No, it is not. You simply aren't challenging my beliefs. Neither has anything I've read of Lewis or Chesterton. The reason I have read the things I've mentioned is that I do want my beliefs challenged. There is no value in those of us who share my beliefs sitting around, patting each other on the back, saying, "Well done! We're so smart!" The value lies in being challenged. In finding areas of things like ignorance and dishonesty, and seeing if my beliefs can hold up to a better-informed or more honest look at myself.

This is the kind of thing I've done for many years. I've been involved in many, long lived discussions just like the ones we've had here, and I've read a decent amount about various things. My beliefs aren't going to be challenged by the kinds of things you're saying.

rusmeister wrote:I realize it's only intellectual and nothing can replace personal experience or living examples (rather than words).

Possibly true. But I'm holding out hope that someone of great faith will say something that challenges my beliefs in a way that I can't easily refuse. And I wouldn't mind if I couldn't refuse at all. As I've said, if God is out there, I want to know about it! I won't refuse to believe in something that agrees with the principles and ideas I espouse just because it points to God's existence.

Fist and Faith wrote:

rusmeister wrote:But this IS a site dominated by pagans, atheists and agnostics

An interesting phenomenon. I wonder why SRD would attract us more than you? By and large, I believe most SRD readers here came upon him individually.

I don't think that's true actually. Just not so many christians post in the Close these days...(Ah, the old days...Barad...Iryssa...Xar...)...but I think a poll would...wait...there you go Kevin's Watch Religious Composition (Nov. '07) ...Christians the highest represented belief-system at 34%. Admittedly, only 44 respondents, (more than actually post in the Close *ahem*), but I suspect a greater sample would yield similar results.

Anyway, I certainly agree with everybody, and echo them in hoping you'll stay around. I don't think anybody has actually taken any real offense, and gods know the Close would be quieter without you. If you're just tired of making your case of course, then don't post in the Close. There's a whole wide Watch out there with many other things to talk about.

--A

These Atheist/beleiver disscussion remind me of the Abortion dissussions on the Watch.

I don't think that ANYONE no matter WHAT their beleifs are would change the beleifs that they hold strong to their hearts because someone who has opposing beliefs (that may be just as strong or stronger than others) posted something on a message board.

In my oppinion trying to turn someone away from beliving in (a) God is just as bad as someone who is trying to turn some TO believing in (a) God.

People have to make up their own minds.
Sugestions of reading matterials is one thing.
As is telling someone WHY you beleive what you do...
But just telling omeone they are wrong..well thats..just ...WRONG!

I'm not pointing any fingers (at either sinde) but personally, this kind of argument (especially on a mesage borad) seems kind of redundent (like the abortion arguments) NO one is going to change their mind becuase of what they read in a post.

drew wrote:These Atheist/beleiver disscussion remind me of the Abortion dissussions on the Watch.

I don't think that ANYONE no matter WHAT their beleifs are would change the beleifs that they hold strong to their hearts because someone who has opposing beliefs (that may be just as strong or stronger than others) posted something on a message board.

In my oppinion trying to turn someone away from beliving in (a) God is just as bad as someone who is trying to turn some TO believing in (a) God.

People have to make up their own minds.
Sugestions of reading matterials is one thing.
As is telling someone WHY you beleive what you do...
But just telling omeone they are wrong..well thats..just ...WRONG!

I'm not pointing any fingers (at either sinde) but personally, this kind of argument (especially on a mesage borad) seems kind of redundent (like the abortion arguments) NO one is going to change their mind becuase of what they read in a post.

You are quite right that nearly no one is going to change their beliefs because of a few good posts. However, a person who tries to be intellectually honest may on occasion discover, thanks to good posting, that they had made a mistake and revise their opinions accordingly.

However, as to telling people they are wrong being wrong...
There could be no such thing as debate if we accepted that principle. Presidential debates would have to be canceled (although those are the most intellectually dishonest of all - their goal is not at all to arrive at truth). The sciences (and other areas of objective knowledge) would be turned on their head.
If one wishes to prove that their ideas actually contain truth (never mind how much of the truth) they have to, at some point, express objective conclusions and some of those conclusions are likely to contradict each other, at which point people interested in truth will have to determine not only whether the ideas of others are wrong, but whether their own ideas hold water.
Chesterton said somewhere that we are becoming a race of people too mentally modest to believe in the multiplication table.

So the question becomes whether the context is debate of truth or not. Certainly there are times when it may be inappropriate to tell someone they are wrong. But (for example) in Fist's last response to me he tells me I'm wrong, and I take it in the spirit intended, rather than as a proposition of truth that I agree with. (I also don't take offense just because someone tells me that I am wrong.) In serious discussions the question is, are they right or not, and why or why not?

Fist and Faith wrote:

rusmeister wrote:But this IS a site dominated by pagans, atheists and agnostics

An interesting phenomenon. I wonder why SRD would attract us more than you? By and large, I believe most SRD readers here came upon him individually.

It seems obvious to me. Donaldson is a victim of the common modern view (see my education posts) that religion is essentially bad - the moral people are not believers and religious people are generally immoral, if not crazy. I think an excellent embodiment of the principle is the film "The Kingdom of Heaven" (Orlando Bloom in the Crusades, 2004, I believe). It's almost caricaturic, really.
I read Donaldson at the time in my late teen/young adult period when I was falling away from faith. Upon re-reading twenty years later I find a fair portion of his philosophy to be in error and... the modern view of faith.

Fist and Faith wrote:

rusmeister wrote:In any event, I don't see the value of offending others who don't want to hear what I have to say, and don't want their beliefs challenged.

There you go. Insulting. "You don't want your beliefs challenged." Is that why I don't agree with you? No, it is not. You simply aren't challenging my beliefs. Neither has anything I've read of Lewis or Chesterton. The reason I have read the things I've mentioned is that I do want my beliefs challenged. There is no value in those of us who share my beliefs sitting around, patting each other on the back, saying, "Well done! We're so smart!" The value lies in being challenged. In finding areas of things like ignorance and dishonesty, and seeing if my beliefs can hold up to a better-informed or more honest look at myself.

This is the kind of thing I've done for many years. I've been involved in many, long lived discussions just like the ones we've had here, and I've read a decent amount about various things. My beliefs aren't going to be challenged by the kinds of things you're saying.

I think the only point of dissonance here is that you (seem to) take statements made in general and apply all of the points to yourself personally. The old saying "If the shoe fits, wear it" would avoid a lot of the perceived insult. There have been a number of other posters, here and in other threads, that such comments might better describe. And certainly I myself am only going on perception. One thing I've learned over the past few years is how easy it is to miscommunicate online, particularly in printed form, where all kinds of personal communication happens in a rather impersonal manner.

There is no value in those of us who share my beliefs sitting around, patting each other on the back, saying, "Well done! We're so smart!" The value lies in being challenged.

:bow icon: I do think in this that you are rather the exception than the rule, and I am in solidarity with you on it.

Fist and Faith wrote:

rusmeister wrote:I realize it's only intellectual and nothing can replace personal experience or living examples (rather than words).

Possibly true. But I'm holding out hope that someone of great faith will say something that challenges my beliefs in a way that I can't easily refuse. And I wouldn't mind if I couldn't refuse at all. As I've said, if God is out there, I want to know about it! I won't refuse to believe in something that agrees with the principles and ideas I espouse just because it points to God's existence.

This would be the one reason why it would seem to me to be worth staying. However, as I said in the limiting factors,

saying that someone is wrong and you won't discuss why

makes discussion/debate impossible. In other words, we are back to talking about the weather.

In Moscow it is below freezing with no precipitation and has been cloudy for weeks.

Maybe I react too quickly when people say they are insulted. But it still feels spiritually bad for me (and my faith says it is for others, too) when things repeatedly reach a point of claims of insult, and it is worse when they are (even somewhat) true.

FWIW, Fist, I'll encourage you to try the first couple of chapters of "Orthodoxy" (linked above) - a personal journey - the kind of thing it seems you'd be more open to. Read online, don't buy it unless you like what you see (through ch 3, at least). If authorial style doesn't prevent you from considering the ideas, you would at least get better insight into the way I think now and some of the things I have said might make a little more sense.

Donaldson is a victim of the common modern view (see my education posts)

Considering that most of Donaldson's education occurred in India where he spent most of his childhood, I don't think you can equate his issues with anything revolving around the education system of this country. His beliefs were a byproduct of his witnessing of Presbyterian missionary work in India...not anything here.