Rick Santorum: Let’s call secularism a religion so it can be banned from the classroom

  • Thread starter Thread starter CaptFun
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Hello St.Francis.
St_Francis said:
LOL–you probably know more about this than I do then, as my children are homeschooled! Given my limited experience, which is what i experienced in school, what I read about is going on, and through the internet, it seems that there is something of a morality to secularism, and it comes in two parts.

The first is what comes through making Man the deity. Certain crimes, like theft, crimes against a person, etc., are considered “wrong” because they violate the autonomy of the individual. Abortion, however, is permitted because the unborn child is violating the mother’s autonomy by existing inside her.

The second, imo, comes through an excessive preoccupation with what they call equality and which I call sameness. This purports to be an effort to make things fair so that there will be no conflict, and hence no war.

Any attempt to be not-the-same is considered a violation, so there is the violation of divisiveness, which is bringing up differences, esp if one of the different things is put in a negative light by so doing.

Appeasement is considered a great good, because by appeasing, the aggressor will see that we are nice and thus trustworthy, and give up his aggressive tendencies, which are created by the unfairness he has experienced.

I have to admit that one of the main problems I see in schools is the lack of uplifting. Nobility of character, justice, kindness, all are flattened into mushiness by the secular morality of everyone’s being the same.
Click to expand...
There is a difference between secular humanism and secular atheism. One elevates man the other the state. In one, as you described, man is the arbiter of his fate or so he thinks, but his reality is much different. In pure secular humanism everyman is the king of his own castle, but only in his own castle, which creates a power grab in the political arena so the man can have a bigger castle. In secular atheism, there can be no elevation of man, he must remain subordinate to the state which holds all the power and any challenge to this absolutist mentality is quickly silenced. What is good for the state is good for the man and the man is to agree because the state is doing what is best for him, no matter how he, the man feels about it. He has to trust that those in power are doing whatever is best for him and he is expected to behave accordingly. Leaders of this sort spend a great deal of time explaining how good everything they do is for everyone and all they really are doing is preserving a state.

Oh well. I’ve said too much again. Have patience with me. Some day I’ll be all talked out. And please be kind because I am no expert on anything except fresh peach crisp again cause the last of the peaches for the year is near.

Glenda
 
On a personal note I was relieved when Rick Santorum stepped out of the arena. The way things are in government these days, it gets really tough staying faithful to the Church and I thought he deserved the break from having to swim in the sewer and attempt to smell like a rose on Sundays. I felt for the poor guy. He deserved a break from it all. It really could cost Heaven. I guess that is why the smart ones stick close to their Bishops and get the help they need to weather the storm politics is.

Glenda
 
I don’t know but when I was a student (admittedly, quite a while ago), neither I nor my parents felt threatened that secularism was being taught in the public schools. There was no mention of G-d creating the universe in science class and instead we learned about evolution. But that was fine; in fact, we didn’t expect or want ill-informed teachers to teach us a divine interpretation of the Creation. That was the job of my rabbi in Hebrew school. I can even remember when public schools in New York City were opened during Passover week. It was an era when the city public school system consisted mainly of non-Jewish teachers, a lot of them Irish. But the largely Jewish student population of my school adapted and brought kosher-for-Passover food to eat. It was no big deal for any of us. We didn’t feel abused by either antisemitism or secularism because we were in school to learn English, math, science, history, foreign language, music, and art, but not religion.
 
Hello Meltzer.
meltzerboy said:
I don’t know but when I was a student (admittedly, quite a while ago), neither I nor my parents felt threatened that secularism was being taught in the public schools. There was no mention of G-d creating the universe in science class and instead we learned about evolution. But that was fine; in fact, we didn’t expect or want ill-informed teachers to teach us a divine interpretation of the Creation. That was the job of my rabbi in Hebrew school. I can even remember when public schools in New York City were opened during Passover week. It was an era when the city public school system consisted mainly of non-Jewish teachers, a lot of them Irish. But the largely Jewish student population of my school adapted and brought kosher-for-Passover food to eat. It was no big deal for any of us. We didn’t feel abused by either antisemitism or secularism because we were in school to learn English, math, science, history, foreign language, music, and art, but not religion.
Click to expand...
I’m wondering what years your high schooling was? Care to share how old you really are?

Glenda
 
glendab said:
Hello St.Francis.

There is a difference between secular humanism and secular atheism. One elevates man the other the state. In one, as you described, man is the arbiter of his fate or so he thinks, but his reality is much different. In pure secular humanism everyman is the king of his own castle, but only in his own castle, which creates a power grab in the political arena so the man can have a bigger castle. In secular atheism, there can be no elevation of man, he must remain subordinate to the state which holds all the power and any challenge to this absolutist mentality is quickly silenced. What is good for the state is good for the man and the man is to agree because the state is doing what is best for him, no matter how he, the man feels about it. He has to trust that those in power are doing whatever is best for him and he is expected to behave accordingly. Leaders of this sort spend a great deal of time explaining how good everything they do is for everyone and all they really are doing is preserving a state.
Click to expand...
I’ve been thinking lately that secular humanism ends up where you describe secular atheism to be, but have not finished thinking it through.
Oh well. I’ve said too much again.
Click to expand...
Oh, way to make a gal feel bad! I wrote a ton more than you did :lol:
Have patience with me. Some day I’ll be all talked out. And please be kind because I am no expert on anything except fresh peach crisp again cause the last of the peaches for the year is near.
Click to expand...
Glenda
Click to expand...
Good luck with the peaches!
 
Darryl1958 said:
It is one thing for us to rant on about how environmentalism is the religion of Gaia, and to note how secularism represents a clash of orthodoxies, as Robert P George does in his book with the same title.

Still, I don’t think it is a particularly astute political move for Rick Santorum to take up that line as a run-up to a political campaign. I would much rather him go advocate a universal voucher campaign, so that parents can select the kind of school and the kind of value system that they want their children to be educated in.

The problem is not that the public school system is too secular. It is that there is not enough choice so that people can have an affordable choice to school their children in a social culture that is more to their liking than the value system that the public system has chosen to be the only valid one.
Click to expand...
Re: Santorum and vouchers. In 2012 at least he favored them. Though he personally is outspoken in favor of homeschooling - and has his kids homeschooled. So … beyond just private schools getting vouchers.

THIS (below) article from 2012 report Santorum having repented from his vote for No Child Left Behind … because of the way some aspects of that program played out.

thehill.com/homenews/campaign/202997-santorum-is-a-longtime-critic-of-public-schools
“We’re just in a different era,” said Michael Petrilli, the executive vice president of the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, an educational advocacy organization.
Click to expand...
Petrilli said Santorum “represents the tension” in the Republican Party between advocating federally directed reforms in education and merely returning the bulk of authority and responsibility for schools to the states and local government. That debate is playing out in Congress, where House Republicans have proposed a series of bills to reform and reauthorize No Child Left Behind.
Click to expand...
In his advocacy of private school tuition vouchers and more parental choice, Santorum is “definitely within the mainstream of the Republican Party on education,” Petrilli said.
Click to expand...
But his writings and comments criticizing public schools stand out.
Click to expand...
 
CaptFun said:
Re: Santorum and vouchers. In 2012 at least he favored them. Though he personally is outspoken in favor of homeschooling - and has his kids homeschooled. So … beyond just private schools getting vouchers.

THIS (below) article from 2012 report Santorum having repented from his vote for No Child Left Behind … because of the way some aspects of that program played out.

thehill.com/homenews/campaign/202997-santorum-is-a-longtime-critic-of-public-schools

http://flaglerlive.com/wp-content/uploads/vouchers.jpg
Click to expand...
I am not surprised that he would be for all of that.
I think he would win support in a lot of unexpected places if his message is to take all the federal money that is being spent in public education now and re-allocate it to a voucher system where the parents get to decide what kind of school that they want for their kids.

It is not as if the teachers unions would be supporting him anyway. But it is not just conservative Catholic parents that would be interested in getting something more than a public education for their own kids. Many poor and disadvantaged parents-not the usual Republican base-would jump at the chance that their tax dollars would be theirs to spend on an education of their choice for their children. Many of them are thinking that they could do better than the value-free, valueless education that is now their lot in life through the public education system.
 
Darryl1958 said:
I am not surprised that he would be for all of that.
I think he would win support in a lot of unexpected places if his message is to take all the federal money that is being spent in public education now and re-allocate it to a voucher system where the parents get to decide what kind of school that they want for their kids.

It is not as if the teachers unions would be supporting him anyway. But it is not just conservative Catholic parents that would be interested in getting something more than a public education for their own kids. Many poor and disadvantaged parents-not the usual Republican base-would jump at the chance that their tax dollars would be theirs to spend on an education of their choice for their children. Many of them are thinking that they could do better than the value-free, valueless education that is now their lot in life through the public education system.
Click to expand...
online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303624004577338131609745296

An interesting article from April, 2012 on vouchers includes a story of one parent who fits your theory of outreach beyond the “usual” GOP demographic. Politics isn’t mentioned, just her decision to take her boys out of a failing Public School System and enroll them in a private school 22 miles away.
Torrianna Treaudo, a New Orleans mother, said her neighborhood school was so unsafe and academically inferior that she considered home-schooling her two sons. Instead, she signed up for the voucher program three years ago, and now her sons attend a small Catholic school 22 miles away.
Click to expand...
“I went through the New Orleans public schools myself and I know how bad they can be,” said Ms. Treaudo, who dropped out of high school and later got her GED. “The voucher saved our lives and gives my boys a chance for an easier life than I’ve had.”
Click to expand...
The GOP regularly mentions vouchers, but has not seemed to push them too hard IMO.

Opponents to vouchers often cite examples where Public Schools sometimes outperform private schools - but even there the question is begged - are these Public Schools doing better due to the competition?

Vouchers mostly channel monies through the parents and instead of JUST governmental officials - but the monies go toward educating particular students. When parent(s) find the local public school system is undermining the core principles of one’s family (re: faith and values) - they sometimes opt to pay tuition to a private school (virtually forfeiting the “free public” benefit their child would have gotten by doing so. They still pay taxes that support the indoctrination they oppose - but must sacrifice further to send their children to a school that is not hostile to the family’s values.

Meanwhile some (all?) teachers’ unions feel free to take union monies to back ONE political party … even though a good percentage of their member teachers belong to the OTHER party. Should a religious school set up a similar system - there’d probably be a lawsuit. :hmmm:

If “official secularism” gets challenged at the local school board level - as it is sometimes - Santorum’s comments have served a good purpose of oversight.

But as it’s High School Football season now, we can likely expect a fresh lawsuit or an employment dismissal of some coach who leads or allows a prayer amongst his team.
As the end of one’s football career, and one’s superior athletic talents can come to an end with “like a thief in the night …” suddenness - it is not unusual to see football players, more than any other sport IMO kneeling in prayer. Before, after, or during games (this last especially when there has been an on the field injury). Public Schools too.
 
I disagree. I watched the removal of God not just from the classroom but from many public places. The ACLU was allowing us to practice our religion by their rules. They sued cities for having a Nativity in front of their City Hall, and removed “religious monuments” from public places. These things were crimes? They put themselves there by themselves? I watched a video of a priest laying prostrate across the stone steps of a building as a stone carving of the Bible was taken out. This is a crime? In a nearby community, shopkeepers would play Christmas music from speakers attached to the outside of their stores. Then the City Council heard a complaint and passed an ordinance that said you could play the music but without the words. Imagine “Silent Night” without the words.

In one of the news weeklies, I saw a photo of a man carrying a sign that read: “America! Get off your knees!”

Peace,
Ed
 
Hello DG.
DaddyGirl said:
It might make sense if everyone:

a) believed in God
b) believed in the* same* God
c) Agreed on and followed the same religion.

But none of these things are true.

We do have World Religion classes in some schools, of course. Young people can learn about all the religions in those classes, and how people have related and integrated in and out of religions throughout history.

“Removing” God from the classroom does not “force” secularism. It does keep it neutral. It’s not the job of the school to teach a faith–it’s there to teach Math, Science, English…

It’s the job of the parents, priests, rabbis, etc, to teach their children about what beliefs the family follows.

.
Click to expand...
For me it isn’t so much about what they teach but what they will allow practiced in the school by the children during school hours. Children were stopped from praying grace before their meals in a lunchroom. Kids got suspended for wearing T-shirts with Crucifixes on them. Religious jewelry that some girls wore was forced to be removed. They were forbidden to pray together during free period. They aren’t allowed to even bring a Bible to school, but by some twist of legalities they do provide them in the school’s library, just no reading it aloud. The list could go on. Read the news. There has been more than one lawsuit of such nonsense. Children are given a clear message, when on school property keep your religion to yourself. That is a direct infringement upon the free exercise amendment. How bad does it have to get? If I say my prayers before my Big Mac at Mickey D’s will I be asked to leave and escorted out by security? Is that how bad it has to get before the sleeping wake up? Ever try to practice your religion in public DG? What would you expect if you did?

Glenda
 
glendab said:
Hello DG.

For me it isn’t so much about what they teach but what they will allow practiced in the school by the children during school hours. Children were stopped from praying grace before their meals in a lunchroom. Kids got suspended for wearing T-shirts with Crucifixes on them. Religious jewelry that some girls wore was forced to be removed. They were forbidden to pray together during free period. They aren’t allowed to even bring a Bible to school, but by some twist of legalities they do provide them in the school’s library, just no reading it aloud. The list could go on. Read the news. There has been more than one lawsuit of such nonsense. Children are given a clear message, when on school property keep your religion to yourself. That is a direct infringement upon the free exercise amendment. How bad does it have to get? If I say my prayers before my Big Mac at Mickey D’s will I be asked to leave and escorted out by security? Is that how bad it has to get before the sleeping wake up? Ever try to practice your religion in public DG? What would you expect if you did?

Glenda
Click to expand...
Sometimes restrictions are found to be unlawful infringements and sometimes they aren’t. Without citing specific cases it’s not possible to tell the difference. See this article for some recent cases regarding religious expression and how they were resolved.
 
Santorum said it ONE way … an opposite (but complementary) way per the desired results (Religious Freedom/Freedom from Faith Interdiction and a de facto official atheism) would be THIS (below). Note the second line of Reagan’s quote below.

youtube.com/watch?v=S-sSRjZrOjE

From a 1982 speech of then President Ronald Reagan:
If the President of the United States can pray with others in the Oval Office - and I have a number of occasions - then let’s make certain that our children have the same rights as they go about preparing for their futures and the future of this country.
Click to expand...
No one is suggesting that others should be forced into any religious activity.
Click to expand...
But to prevent those who believe in God from professing their faith is an outrage.
Click to expand...
And the relentless drive to eliminate God from our schools can and should be stopped.
(25:58 - 26:21 on the link above)
Click to expand...
 
DaddyGirl said:
I’m pretty confident that this kind of thinking is the worst kind of “intolerance”.
You are wanting just one belief to be taught to children, and not the others.
And you are not admitting or seeing this.

.
Click to expand...
I apologise DaddyGirl, I raced into this thread a bit too quickly, what I really need to ask (what I should have asked before I raced in and said what I did), is what exactly are they trying to do in the school system?

As you mentioned in another post DaddyGirl, I am a little bit confused regarding the issue in the public school system, as I don’t really see how teaching English, Maths, Geography etc raises the issue. :confused:

So I am unsure what the go is, what it is that either side are trying to do.

God Bless

Thank you for reading
Josh
 
glendab said:
Hello DG.

For me it isn’t so much about what they teach but what they will allow practiced in the school by the children during school hours. Children were stopped from praying grace before their meals in a lunchroom. Kids got suspended for wearing T-shirts with Crucifixes on them. Religious jewelry that some girls wore was forced to be removed. They were forbidden to pray together during free period. They aren’t allowed to even bring a Bible to school, but by some twist of legalities they do provide them in the school’s library, just no reading it aloud. The list could go on. Read the news. There has been more than one lawsuit of such nonsense. Children are given a clear message, when on school property keep your religion to yourself. That is a direct infringement upon the free exercise amendment. How bad does it have to get? If I say my prayers before my Big Mac at Mickey D’s will I be asked to leave and escorted out by security? Is that how bad it has to get before the sleeping wake up? Ever try to practice your religion in public DG? What would you expect if you did?

Glenda
Click to expand...
OK, Glenda, this is another, albeit related matter. I think it’s a question, from the secularist viewpoint, of whether the children who practice their religion in school are behaving so blatantly that they are in effect endorsing a particular religion and thereby having an unwanted influence on other children who cannot help but observe them. It’s a tricky issue. My feeling is they should be allowed to practice their faith in public schools within certain confines of behavior, and that lawsuits which infringe upon this in all instances are often frivolous. But I can understand the occasionally legitimate concerns of the opposing side.
 
DaddyGirl said:
It might make sense if everyone:

a) believed in God
b) believed in the* same* God
c) Agreed on and followed the same religion.

But none of these things are true.

We do have World Religion classes in some schools, of course. Young people can learn about all the religions in those classes, and how people have related and integrated in and out of religions throughout history.

“Removing” God from the classroom does not “force” secularism. It does keep it neutral. It’s not the job of the school to teach a faith–it’s there to teach Math, Science, English…

It’s the job of the parents, priests, rabbis, etc, to teach their children about what beliefs the family follows.

.
Click to expand...
I agree, DaddyGirl, that this is the heart of the issue.
 
DaddyGirl said:
The priest has the right to protest whatever he likes, of course.
But a carving of a bible doesn’t necessarily belong in a City Hall–which is a building for governmental/judicial/political affairs.

A City Hall with a nativity scene would be a problem if they are not also representing every other religion that the people of its city believes in.

It is not a religious institution.
It can’t condone or promote just one religion, as you know.
.
Click to expand...
Well…

I believe this is where the word games come in for atheist and other groups to try and supress religion as much as they can.

I have a problem with the idea that ‘secularism’ namely ‘atheism’ is neutral ground while everything else is ‘infringing.’

In my humble opinion, it’s like saying *“Well, no one can all agree on speed limits, so lets remove all speed limits.” *saying that *“How can you be against a ‘no speed limit’ it isn’t anything, it’s neutral.” *It is irational thinking I believe, because obviously we need speed limits, and no speed limits is not nothing or neutral.

So if you relate ‘secularism’ to ‘no speed limits’ and ‘religion’ to ‘many different speed limits’ than it makes absolute sense to call ‘no speed limits’ (secularism) itself a ‘speed limit’ because it is ‘unlimited’ as fast as you want, it’s not neutral/nothing.

God Bless

Thank you for reading
Josh
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top