A good question by all standards. Some have said yes, others have said no, but the poll figures show a general inclination for the former.

Actual numbers:

Yes (technology should be blah, blah, blah): 53%
No (technology should be blah, blah, blah): 47%

:up:

We went from education for good moral judgment — Athena

No, however many times to repeat the claim, you didn't. You went from a hodge-podge of state, municipal, private, religious and trades education to something more nearly coherent. Education was always aimed at producing whatever kind of work-force the economy required.

You do not have to agree with me, but throwing out information because it is old is a problem. — Athena

Keeping debunked and refuted data past their expiration date is also a problem.

For sure if education had not changed in 1958, we would not be where we are today. — Athena

Also if education had not changed in 1938, 1910, 1895, 1803, 1662, 1412, 976 and 535 BCE. Also, if there had not been two world wars, a Bolshevik revolution, a US civil war, the Seven Years' war, the war of the roses, the French Revolution, the Crusades and the Peloponnesian War... That's right; everything past produces the present. Not one event; all events.

The internet is the result of the 1958 National Defense Education Act and this applies directly to the subject of this thread. — Vera Mont

No, it didn't. The internet started before any of the students affected by that change could possibly have contributed to developing telecommunications. https://www.usg.edu/galileo/skills/unit07/internet07_02.phtml No, it isn't. Automation is a present fact, not a past hypothetical proposition.

The survival game (in whatever cultural setting, tribal, Western-industrial, pastoralism, farming, whatever), IS the "comply" part. If the person born into the survival-game doesn't like that game, they have no choice but to starve to death, free ride, etc. or kill themselves. It DOESN'T MATTER what the contingent social game the person is born into, imposing ANY game (arrangement of survival) is what is wrong. UNLESSS the game was LITERALLY someone's individualized idea of what a utopia is (one where even being bored doesn't exist), then forcing this arrangement of comply (with the game, any game) or die is wrong to do to someone else. That is what one is doing when procreating another person into the world... forcing them to comply with the game (of survival of ANY variety tribal, industrial, Robinson Crusoe, or otherwise) or die. That again, is wrong. — schopenhauer1

I don't know. The US seems to have a lot of freedom and I would rather live with the benefits of a good economic system than without them.

No, however many times to repeat the claim, you Obviousl. You went from a hodge-podge of state, municipal, private, religious and trades education to something more nearly coherent. Education was always aimed at producing whatever kind of work-force the economy required. — Vera Mont

You are in a philosophy forum. What do you think education for good moral judgment is?

Keeping debunked and refuted data past their expiration date is also a problem. — Vera Mont

What is refutable about Russia having nuclear powers and proving it can deliver? Sputnik proved the USSR had the ability to deliver a nuclear bomb. That is what justified the change in education, and IQ testing so teachers could select out those best suited for hirer education. That was not only a drastic change in the purpose of education but also a change in how we value people. What makes that history debunked and refutable?

Also if education had not changed in 1938, 1910, 1895, 1803, 1662, 1412, 976 and 535 BCE. Also, if there had not been two world wars, a Bolshevik revolution, a US civil war, the Seven Years' war, the war of the roses, the French Revolution, the Crusades and the Peloponnesian War... That's right; everything past produces the present. Not one event; all events. — Vera Mont

Is that information also debunked and refutable or do you think history and cause and effect have something to do with our reality today? In the history forum there is a part set aside to discuss alternative histories based on changing the events of history.

This thread is about the advancement of technology and employment changes, and hopefully social changes. Education for a technological society with unknown values is important to our present reality.

All children getting college prep educations instead of more art and music and literature and vocational training, impacts our reality. In the past people with 8th grade educations had no problem getting jobs and some of them even began their own businesses. Today children are marginalized at a very young age and excessive population has pushed the cost of living beyond many people's means. We are scrambling to deal with these problems and don't have grandparents on farms where the young can find refuge from the poverty of cities. Now, this is getting more on-topic. How can those who are not college educated have desirable lives?

You are in a philosophy forum. What do you think education for good moral judgment is? — Athena

Probably not what you think it is. I believe good and bad moral judgment are not products of formal schooling, but the example children are shown, and the values they absorbs from their family, peers and culture. You can teach them that honesty is best policy all you want, but if their life experience shows that cheaters do prosper and the honest man is considered a sucker, most of them will cheat.

That was not only a drastic change in the purpose of education but also a change in how we value people. — Athena

That's what I keep telling you. It didn't. "People" as a concept may have been "valued" as a concept in the official documents, but on the ground, in the battlefields and cotton fields, mines, railroads and factories, the vast majority of people certainly never had been valued as anything but commodities. The "labor market" is not, and never has been, far removed from the stock market or the cattle market.
The purpose of education was always to turn out whatever kind of work-force the economy required. The requirements of the economy changed after the US dropped Fat Man and Little Boy, yes. It had to be directed more toward technology, more toward space race and world dominance, sure.
And education had to adjust. Again. Just as it had had to adjust in the early 20th century, when automation made a lot of illiterate unskilled labour unnecessary, and demanded more skilled and clerical workers. Just as it had in the west, when tractors and harvesters rendered many farm labourers redundant, and young people going to seek work in the city needed new skills. As it changed in the south, when white farmers became sharecroppers and needed all their kids to lend a hand, just so they could scrape out a living, but the landowners, bankers and war profiteers sent their kids to private schools in Europe. Education follows the economy.

Education for a technological society with unknown values is important to our present reality. — Athena

Obviously.
As the economy needs fewer engineers and computer programmers, those salaries fall and the courses leading to those careers will not be worth the tuition. (That's already happened, I believe; not sure all people know it yet.) When the economy no longer requires so many money-changers, fact-spinner, facilitators and executives, the education machine will stop churning out MBA's.

Not the other way around. As people become surplus to employment requirements (That was happening before Covid; now, it's less clear; a shift in attitude is under way.), they will stop trying to earn useless college degrees. For a while, there will be a continuing up-trend in building and maintenance trades, design and the crafting of functional items; some kinds of personal services, as well, but as the income distribution changes, so will the dynamics of who can afford what service.
Philosophy, literature, art and music, as well as nursing, early childhood education, food-craft, etc. will be taught after the economy settles down to some form of human-machine co-operative arrangement, so that people don't have to compete for increasingly scarce well-paid jobs. Of course, the government will to figure out a new way to fund itself before it can fund a new sort of education.

Probably not what you think it is. I believe good and bad moral judgment are not products of formal schooling, but the example children are shown, and the values they absorbs from their family, peers and culture. You can teach them that honesty is best policy all you want, but if their life experience shows that cheaters do prosper and the honest man is considered a sucker, most of them will cheat. — Vera Mont

Before one can have good moral judgment, one must learn the rules of logic. That requires education for learning logic and this begins with learning math and how to diagram a sentence. Scientific thinking improves logic.

Socrates was concerned with broadening our conscience, our knowledge, especially knowledge of virtues is important and the virtues must be learned before we can be aware of them. This is why classical literature is important. However, science is also very important to our conscience.

Before one can have good moral judgment, one must learn the rules of logic. — Athena

How do you teach the rules of logic to a three-year-old? By the time formal educators can teach him anything, he's already absorbed his society's values. They're not about logic; they're about what's cheered and what's booed.

Socrates was concerned with broadening our conscience, — Athena

No, he couldn't have cared less about us. He was concerned with the adolescents of his own time and place. His idea of virtue was probably a little different from the average American's, which is a little different from above and below average Americans'.

This is why classical literature is important. — Athena

It isn't, you know, any more important than all the literature that's been written in the last 2000 years. You seem to make a direct link between the golden age of Athens (less than 20 years, and even in that short time, some questionable situations arose) and some kind of golden moment, or maybe distilled essence
of America. There is no such link: everything in between happened. All the awful and hopeful, shameful and triumphant stuff happened. The moving finger writes; it erases nothing, forgets nothing.

That's what I keep telling you. It didn't. "People" as a concept may have been "valued" as a concept in the official documents, but on the ground, in the battlefields and cotton fields, mines, railroads and factories, the vast majority of people certainly never had been valued as anything but commodities. The "labor market" is not, and never has been, far removed from the stock market or the cattle market.
The purpose of education was always to turn out whatever kind of work-force the economy required. The requirements of the economy changed after the US dropped Fat Man and Little Boy, yes. It had to be directed more toward technology, more toward space race and world dominance, sure.
And education had to adjust. Again. Just as it had had to adjust in the early 20th century, when automation made a lot of illiterate unskilled labour unnecessary, and demanded more skilled and clerical workers. Just as it had in the west, when tractors and harvesters rendered many farm labourers redundant, and young people going to seek work in the city needed new skills. As it changed in the south, when white farmers became sharecroppers and needed all their kids to lend a hand, just so they could scrape out a living, but the landowners, bankers and war profiteers sent their kids to private schools in Europe. Education follows the economy. — Vera Mont

The definition of democracy is copied from the series of grade school textbooks call "Democracy in America".

"Democracy is a way of life and social organization which above all others is sensitive to the dignity and worth of the individual human personality, affirming the fundamental morel and political equality of all men and recognizing no barriers of race, religion, or circumstance." General Report of the Seminar on "What is Democracy?" Congress on Education for Democracy, August, 1939.

Here are the characteristics that define the ideals and procedures of democracy. You can argue against them, but the point is this is an example of what was taught and I am proving what was taught.

1 Respect for the dignity and worth of the individual human personality.
2 Open opportunity for the individual.
3 Economic and social security.
4 The search for truth. (this is science)
5 Free discussion; freedom of speech, freedom of the press.
6 Universal education.
7 The rule of the majority; the rights of the minority, the honest ballot.
8 Justice for the common man, trial by jury, arbitration of disputes, orderly legal processes, freedom from search and seizure, right to petition.
9 Freedom of religion.
10 Respect for the rights of private property.
11 The practice of the fundamental social values.
12 The responsibility of the individual to participate in the duties of democracy.

The original purpose of free public education in the US was to Americanize the flood of immigrates and prepare everyone for democracy as this was understood in Athens. We really need literacy in Greek and Roman classics to understand what democracy is about but even teachers today are illiterate of the necessary literature. That technological adjustment made in education is devastating for our democracy which is no longer understood and this very much is about good moral judgment because people with the power of voting or even becoming a member of our government devastate democracy and liberty and right now we are in fight to defend our democracy with zero understanding this needs to begin with education. This is a crisis and Trump made us aware of it as he and his followers actually thought they use violence to take control of our government.

We did not have vocational training until 1917 when we mobilized for the first world war against an enemy that had far better military technology than the US. No one knew what the new vocational training would do to our lives and economy but for the first time, the new technology and vocational training made dirt poor people interested in having their children educated instead of keeping them home to help with the farm. This education was the best thing that could have happened to our nation.
If you want to argue this, fine, just do so instead of thinking you can avoid an argument by saying this history does not matter because it is old information.

While vocational education was added to education, preparing our young to be good citizens remained the priority until 1958, because before the military technology of the second world war, our defense depended mostly on patriotism. Citizens had to make big sacrifices to fight those wars. Not like today when we can engage in war without disturbing our morning routine and carrying on our lives as though there was no war.

How do you teach the rules of logic to a three-year-old? By the time formal educators can teach him anything, he's already absorbed his society's values. They're not about logic; they're about what's cheered and what's booed. — Vera Mont

Yes, as I have been saying that is the problem with education for technology. The children are educated but left ignorant of what everyone good citizen should know. Seriously we did not depend on immigrant parents to prepare their children for democracy. We knew the parents would learn from their children.

We knew the parents would learn from their children. — Athena

"You" must have been very wise to realize that all non-English speakers are too stupid to understand about democracy before they decide to make the huge sacrifice of leaving their kith, kin, worldly goods and homeland and take a chance on the new World.

No, he couldn't have cared less about us. He was concerned with the adolescents of his own time and place. His idea of virtue was probably a little different from the average American's, which is a little different from above and below average Americans'. — Vera Mont

If you think you know enough about Socrates to tell me about him, let us start a thread for that purpose.

Socrates > Quotes
“The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing.” ...
“The unexamined life is not worth living.” ...
“I cannot teach anybody anything. ...
“There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance.” ...
“Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle.” ...
“Wonder is the beginning of wisdom.”
More items...

Socrates Quotes (Author of Apología de Sócrates) - Goodreads
https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/275648.Socrates

"You" must have been very wise to realize that all non-English speakers are too stupid to understand about democracy before they decide to make the huge sacrifice of leaving their kith, kin, worldly goods and homeland and take a chance on the new World. — Vera Mont

What I am saying is it requires education to understand and defend democracy. The issue is not a person's native tongue, but in the past immigrants did not have experience with democracy and they did not understand our institutions. Today that is true of most Americans thanks to education for technology replacing the education for citizens that we had. I also think Socrates is miss represented when people say he hated democracy. He hated ignorance, not democracy, and so do I.

Today that is true of most Americans thanks to education for technology replacing the education for citizens that we had. — Athena

You keep talking about this wonderful education you used to have. I find no historical trace of it, and no resemblance to the Athens that also didn't live up to your ideal representation. And I still can't see any relevance of either to the thread topic.

It isn't, you know, any more important than all the literature that's been written in the last 2000 years. You seem to make a direct link between the golden age of Athens (less than 20 years, and even in that short time, some questionable situations arose) and some kind of golden moment, or maybe distilled essence
of America. There is no such link: everything in between happened. All the awful and hopeful, shameful and triumphant stuff happened. The moving erases nothing, forgets nothing. — Vera Mont

Yes, it is more important than the large volumes of books printed since 2000 if the subject is democracy. Some good books about democracy have been written in modern times, but how popular are they? Which of them have you read?

You keep talking about this wonderful education you used to have. I find no historical trace of it, and no resemblance to the Athens that also didn't live up to your ideal representation. And I still can't see any relevance of either to the thread topic. — Vera Mont

Yes I am linking ancient Athens with the democracy of the US, before 1958.

Why do you keep arguing about something you know nothing about? What do you think separates the East from the West? Athens was the Mother of western culture and the Father of science and the parent of democracy. Athena taught men how to govern themselves. You know them not.

You keep talking about this wonderful education you used to have. I find no historical trace of it, and no resemblance to the Athens that also didn't live up to your ideal representation. And I still can't see any relevance of either to the thread topic. — Vera Mont

Come to my home and I will show gladly show you the evidence. Or you can start your own search for the American values every child was taught. That is how I came to the information I have. I wanted to prove a commentator wrong when he said teachers should not have to waste their time on poor students. Back in my grandmother's day, teachers thought it was their purpose to teach good citizenship and prepare the young for adulthood, and also to help each child discover his/her own talents and interest. Let me be very clear about this, the education was for the individual child's benefit and the dream is those so benefited will be enabled to give the country their very best. Democracy through education lifts the human potential.

My grandmother felt so strongly about her purpose in life that she continue teaching long after she was forced to retire because of her age. She did this with love for our democracy which liberates the individual and aims at justice for all. Athena is represented as the Statue of Liberty, The Lady of Justice, and the Spirit of America as she is portrayed in the mural of gods at the Capital Building. All of them have the Sword of Justice. Liberty holds a book representing knowledge that sets us free. The Lady of Justice holds a scale as justice is a balance. As the Spirit of America, she brandishes a sword that defends liberty and justice and she stands for morale, that good feeling we have when we believe we are doing the right thing. In the past, we associated virtues with strength, and our honor or reputation was very important along with our dignity.

Think thread begins with a moral question of right and wrong. Giving up the education that made us great to focus on education for technology was a huge mistake. Only when democracy is defended in the classroom is it defended and we are not doing that. Our present amoral society does not reflect the values that made us great. That same thing happened to Athens, leading to Socrates finding fault with democracy.

Democracy through education lifts the human potential. — Athena

So, where did all of those properly educated citizens - which should be ever American who went to school - go? What happened in 1958 to disappear any effect they might have had? Why didn't they stop the steal?

In the past, we associated virtues with strength, and our honor or reputation was very important along with our dignity. — Athena

I don't know which past or which "we" that refers to, but it doesn't leave much trace in the history books. Maybe it's just in the elementary school readers and the inscription of statues. Symbolic.

So, where did all of those properly educated citizens - which should be ever American who went to school - go? What happened in 1958 to disappear any effect they might have had? Why didn't they stop the steal? — Vera Mont

Why didn't they stop the steal? Number one all those people knew no more about education than you do. Nor do Americans know any more about philosophy and the Age of Enlightenment and what both have to do with democracy and education than you do. OR if they did know about education for democracy and good citizenship as my grandmother did, they were powerless because unlike you all the people who do not know what it is so important to know, they just don't care and they don't argue or ask questions, they just ignore the subject. Do you see many people engaging in the argument?

I don't know which past or which "we" that refers to, but it doesn't leave much trace in the history books. Maybe it's just in the elementary school readers and the inscription of statues. Symbolic. — Vera Mont

My grandmother walked away from the schools that made the change because the school interfered with classroom discipline. She went on to a private school that did not interfere with her classroom. And then she became a Vista Volunteer and worked with immigrant children and taught their mothers how to play the piano in the evening. When she could no longer reenlist in Vista she went home and volunteered at another school. And our local newspaper was staffed with people of her generation and they were as well-mannered and virtuous as she was I am sorry younger people can never experience the reality we had because now all these older people are dead and every generation we get further from them, the worse things get. If you knew those old people, we would not be arguing.


Have you seen Eisenhower's explanation of the change? Can you try this? Think about this thread and the question about technology when you watch the video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWiIYW_fBfY

That warning goes with Billy Graham working with Eisenhower to create fear of those godless people of the USSR, and bonded our pledge of allegiance with the Christian God. And it goes with schoolchildren being drilled to duck under their desks and cover their heads with their hands, and selling those who could afford them, private bomb shelters. Following WWII was a period of paranoia made all the worse by a behind the scene grab of our country, and industry increasing their contracts with government during a time of peace. Before this, the Roosevelt administration, with the help of Hoover designed the bureaucratic structure that is essential to increasing the power of government bureaucratically. Eisenhower added to it, a new relationship between government and research for military purposes and a new relationship with media.

If you find what I said unbelievable, please ask questions that require more information or validation. I am well impressed by your tenacity in continuing your arguments and asking questions. I wish our arguing would catch the attention of others who may remember the people who are now dead. It is a challenge to find a find a written record of their existence but I can think of one more video that may help you see for yourself we have a different past. And I kind of like the challenge you have given me. :grin:

https://www.google.com/search?q=video+of+walter+cronkite&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS926US926&oq=Video+Walter+Cronki&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j0i22i30l2.11208j0j15&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:1d287e8c,vid:G5tdqojA26E

Education is important and by education I mean a wholesome one. Statistics should aid you and @Vera Mont decide who's right even if only partially. Who is a better human being? The average American, the average Chinese, the average Indian, ...? Why? Education!

:coffee:

Number one all those people knew no more about education than you do. Nor do Americans know any more about philosophy and the Age of Enlightenment and what both have to do with democracy and education than you do. — Athena

If they didn't know, your grandmother had wasted her effort on them.

if they did know about education for democracy and good citizenship as my grandmother did, they were powerless — Athena

What's the point of a democracy where the properly educated citizens are powerless against an elected government's decision to change their good education system for a bad one?

Do you see many people engaging in the argument? — Athena

Yes, quite a lot, now, present company included. But I didn't hear any arguments in 1958 (granted, I was 11 and wouldn't have understood much), when Americans were, according to you, educated in good and democratic citizenship. What I should have asked, more literally was: Why didn't they stop Eisenhower??"

You seem to think they were gulled into compliance by paranoia (The threat of nuclear war was pretty damn real; I understood that!) and a large civil service. If they all had the superior democratic education you claim for them, why was it so easy to hoodwink them? And if they were powerless, what do you expect from Americans now, with their inferior education?

Who is a better human being? The average American, the average Chinese, the average Indian, ...? — Agent Smith

Two things about that: NONA and There is no such animals as an average person.

Two things about that: NONA and There is no such animals as an average person — Vera Mont

The average person, how would you define him/her?

The average person, how would you define him/her? — Agent Smith

I wouldn't. I don't believe in them.

I wouldn't. I don't believe in them. — Vera Mont

How about if I ask "what would most Americans/Iranians do?" Does that make sense?

How about if I ask "what would most Americans/Iranians do?" Does that make sense? — Agent Smith

It might, if you provided a context. What would most Americans do, if... when... with... about... what?
In any case, I don't know most Americans. I know some things about some Americans. If you asked "What would Heather Pilsik do if she suspected her son of taking drugs?" I could hazard a guess.
"What would Stewart Rhodes do if his fearsome leader accused his vice president of disloyalty?" I would be able to say definitively.
But most Americans or any Iranians? No frickin idea.

↪Athena Education is important and by education I mean a wholesome one. Statistics should aid you and Vera Mont decide who's right even if only partially. Who is a better human being? The average American, the average Chinese, the average Indian, ...? Why? Education!

:coffee: — Agent Smith

Wow who is the better person and why? I am afraid I can not give a good answer. You caused me to doubt my firm position on education because you made me aware it is very culturally biased. If we live with each other, education for democracy is essential but that is not so everywhere. There are areas of the earth that provide adequate diets and resources for small groups of people who are very happy people. They live in Eden and maybe we should not destroy that. I am hesitant to say our more technologically dependent society is better. But for a large society, we may be doing better than in China and for sure we are doing better than Aghanistan or Hatti.

Why? Climate is one reason, the environment is another, and knowledge of science is important. The size of the population is very important. We become impersonal and instinctively more dependent on discrimination and formal laws when we live in large populations.

Culture is another serious matter. Culture is taught and used for social control. Now I think we get into climate and environmental factors. People are more liberal and less fearful in mild climates and their culture would build on the climate and environment they experience. Life in Siberia is going to be different than on a tropical island. I would not be so pompous to run around the world and say everyone should have the education that the US needs.

Ok. The issue was whether education makes a difference/not. How would you go about answering this question?



You're of course correct, but we were discussing education.

The issue was whether education makes a difference/not. How would you go about answering this question? — Agent Smith

Of course it makes a difference. It turns people who don't know something into people who do know something. What they are taught varies by time, place and culture, as well as economic, political and military considerations.

In the context of the OP, changing education - in any country - would have no effect on automation or the advancement of technology or the ownership of the means of production, or the government's power to regulate business, industry and the movement of capital. So, if it made a difference, it would be on the individual level.

One kind of change could make some employees more compatible with emerging technology, and thus employable longer, while having no effect on the redundancy of most. Another kind of change in education might render the surplus population better adapted to their unemployable status, while still having no effect on their ability to make a living. Yet a third kind of change might prepare students for occupations outside industrial production, packaging, transport and distribution - all of which are in the process of automation - again, bearing in mind that this can apply only to a minority of workers.

If we had in place the political and economic mechanism to guarantee all the redundant employees a decent standard of living, they would then be free to choose whatever kind of education they personally considered most useful to themselves and/or their children. Only then would education be changed to meet those demands.

What's the point of a democracy where the properly educated citizens are powerless against an elected government's decision to change their good education system for a bad one? — Vera Mont

My grandmother wasted no time but opened opportunities to thousands of young people and successfully defended the US democracy in the classroom. The success of teachers includes winning two world wars and also preparing our young to advance our nation in every way, and those who continued their education and got college degrees were almost guaranteed upward economic opportunity. Nothing has done more for individuals and our nation than education.

Who knew the change would lead to serious problems? In 1917 and again in1958 there was a lot of fear and immediate action seemed necessary. At the same time, we were flying high on our successes in technology and medical advancements and had what some may say was an unrealistic faith in technology. And a very big determiner of events was, and is, the influence of Christianity.

From the beginning of the US, secular people were pitted against the religious people. The majority believe humans are born in sin and bound to do wrong unless they are saved by a spiritual force. Only a small handful of people were literate in the classics and understood what education, other than reading the Bible, has to do with democracy and lifting the human potential. Only the Age of Enlightenment, secular people, believed science and democracy would manifest a New Age, a time of high tech, peace, and the end of tranny. While religious people wait for a God and the last days. Everyone's intentions were good. What was lacking is a good understanding of what culture has to do with high human potential, liberty, and justice, and what education has to do with culture.

Let me make this clear, religious people expect a God to take care of us, and they are not enlightened. Science tells us masks, distancing, washing our hands, and vaccinations are essential to stopping the spread of disease, and ministers were telling their flocks to ignore science and they stirred paranoid fear of our government being evil, setting the stage for a violent attempt to take control of the National Capitol Building and overturn the election. This is what is wrong with education for technology and leaving moral training to the church and you can bet Christians and their ministers do not see themselves as part of the problem. They oppose public education for good moral judgment and do not understand their fight to be the authority of what is moral, and for what they believe, is part of the problem.

Our relationship with Christianity is kind of like our relationship with slavery. We have kept both for the benefits while denying the problems.