Quote:
I think that religious faith is a particular segment of philosophy, and an aberrant one at that.
This, I think, is the crux of the issue. There are those of us who adhere to religious faith above all else, so clearly to us it is not aberrant. Thus we are frustrated when our philosophies are treated as lesser than other, more contemporary philosophies. The question is, what makes one philosophy more worthy of addressing than another? Because some poeople don't like it or find it aberrant? Who gets to decide what is OK and what isn't?

Quote:
Personally, I don't think that Jesus' philosophy need necessarily be tied to religion. I know that there's that whole son-of-God thing, but, it seems to me that that's more an element of Paulism than Christianity
I guess this just depends on how accurate you believe the Bible is. If you take the Gospels at face value Jesus claims to be the son of God before Paul writes anything. Of course, you can always assume that Paul's theology influenced the gospels to include things Jesus didn't say, but once you start down that path you can justify anything.

Quote:
Of course, Paulism coopted Christianity in the first century AD, and the first no longer really exists
This is not quite as self evident as you state, since there are many, many Bible scholars who would disagree. But, ast you say, this is another dicussion.

Quote:
There are many secular philosophies, and there are many religious philosophies. But neither set requires adherence in order to study it. I can know about Existentialism and Deism and Taoism and Confucianism and Objectivism and Nihilism and Secular Humanism and Unitarianism and Neo-Conservatism and Naziism and Satanism without having to believe in any of it, just as I can know about Christianity and reject it just as much as I reject the others. The study of something does not mean the belief in something,
Agreed to this point.

Quote:
but when you start talking about the personal viewpoints of a person in a position of leadership, you start promoting those viewpoints.
I don't sense that it is taboo for someone to espouse humanism in a position of authority- only organized religion.

I think that it is inescapable for a person's personal philosophies to spill over into their teaching. It's part of the beauty of having a flesh and blood teacher rather than a computer or book. Yet we ask those of faith to stifle this part of themselves. It's an unrealistic expectation and a hinderence to letting childrent experience the true market of ideas that are out there.

If a teacher fails to teach their subject because he or she is preaching, that is a problem. If a teacher fails a student for not believing the right thing, that is a problem. But a teacher should be as free to talk about faith as they are their favorite football team or TV show. At least, that's what I think.
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.