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

[edwest2]

Just go to secularhumanism.org It’ll make things clear.

Best,
Ed

 

[meltzerboy]

Lol, no offense, but have you actually read the First Amendment?

It has something known as the ‘Free Exercise Clause’:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or ***prohibiting ***the free exercise thereof…”

Now what was it when one had an ‘establishment of religion’? You had what was common at that time, a central state, usually a monarchy then, that had the support and endorsement of a specific sect of Christianity, and it in turn was the official religion of that state.

So we had at the time of the American Revolution the Church of England which shared it supreme clerical office with that of the head of state of England. So the king of England was also the head of the Anglican Church. The taxes you paid to the British government also went to support the Anglican church, and many of our Founding Fathers considered that tyrannical, to take mans money from him and use it to support a religion he considered evil or at least morally maligned.

So secularists have argued that having the local state do things that ‘endorse’ religion is tantamount to moving toward a degree and kind of an establishment of religion, but isn’t that like saying a kiss is moving toward and degree of a kind of marriage?

Nonetheless, the Free Exercise Clause states that the government cannot limit the free expression of religion. Now who was being addressed? The individual officials and employees of the federal government, that is who.

Each state already had their own little state churches, or a good many of them anyway. In Virginia it was the Anglican church (rebranded as Episcopalians), in Mass. it was the Congregationalists, in PA it was the Quakers, in New York it was the Presbyterians, and so on. People feared that one states religion might one day dominate the federal government and all the states would have a renewed tyranny on their hands. So they put the establishment clause in to prevent that, and to guarantee that no employee of the federal government would ever have to take an oath of loyalty to some church he was not a member of.

To take the Establishment clause and use it to turn the Freedom of Expression Clause upside down is absurd and contrary to the history, context and intent of those who wrote that amendment…

If only it were that simple, as numerous court cases attempting to define and apply both the establishment clause and the free exercise of religion in our present society can attest to the complexity. Nonetheless, thank you for the history lesson.

 

[abucs]

It is inevitable of course that any school will have to teach values. A value-free education is for the most part valueless. In a society where separation of church and state is effectively written into the constitution and the fabric of the law, there is good reason for government to withdraw from the education system and defer to private institutions which reflect the values of the communities that they draw students from.

Yes, this has to be the inevitable outcome.

 

[Helpful_Atheist]

An important thing to remember in this argument though is that Santorum is wrong in regards to secularism. Lack of a religion is not a religion in the same sense that lack of food is a type of snack. Yes people who don’t believe in gods have different viewpoints on religious issues but that doesn’t make it a religion. And Secularism or Atheism is not a religion is an answer to a question(the question being do you believe in a god or gods?) Just because there are famous atheists does not make it a religion. And in regards to the teaching of evolution(and you know how you said Darwinian evolution is still a theory well do you know what else is “just” a theory, gravity. Theory is the highest honor an idea can receive in the scientific community.) well evolution is supported by proof(and micro evolution is undisputed fact) whereas creationism or intelligent design is an entirely religious idea and not supported by fact and has nothing to do with science and should not be taught as such.

 

[adawgj]

An important thing to remember in this argument though is that Santorum is wrong in regards to secularism. Lack of a religion is not a religion in the same sense that lack of food is a type of snack. Yes people who don’t believe in gods have different viewpoints on religious issues but that doesn’t make it a religion. And Secularism or Atheism is not a religion is an answer to a question(the question being do you believe in a god or gods?) Just because there are famous atheists does not make it a religion. And in regards to the teaching of evolution(and you know how you said Darwinian evolution is still a theory well do you know what else is “just” a theory, gravity. Theory is the highest honor an idea can receive in the scientific community.) well evolution is supported by proof(and micro evolution is undisputed fact) whereas creationism or intelligent design is an entirely religious idea and not supported by fact and has nothing to do with science and should not be taught as such./QUOTE

Perhaps Mr. Santorum could have simply said public schools shouldn’t promote political, religious, or philosophical ideologies in the classroom.

 

[Helpful_Atheist]

Helpful Atheist;12337225:

An important thing to remember in this argument though is that Santorum is wrong in regards to secularism. Lack of a religion is not a religion in the same sense that lack of food is a type of snack. Yes people who don’t believe in gods have different viewpoints on religious issues but that doesn’t make it a religion. And Secularism or Atheism is not a religion is an answer to a question(the question being do you believe in a god or gods?) Just because there are famous atheists does not make it a religion. And in regards to the teaching of evolution(and you know how you said Darwinian evolution is still a theory well do you know what else is “just” a theory, gravity. Theory is the highest honor an idea can receive in the scientific community.) well evolution is supported by proof(and micro evolution is undisputed fact) whereas creationism or intelligent design is an entirely religious idea and not supported by fact and has nothing to do with science and should not be taught as such.

I think that would have been a much better thing to say. However Santorum is also saying that by not teaching religion we are teaching irreligion which should be called a religion and banned from classrooms.

 

[adawgj]

adawgj;12337240:

I think that would have been a much better thing to say. However Santorum is also saying that by not teaching religion we are teaching irreligion which should be called a religion and banned from classrooms.

This is one of the difficulties with separation of church and state. Sometimes it’s confusing where to put things in the state category and church category.

 

[Helpful_Atheist]

Helpful Atheist;12337252:

This is one of the difficulties with separation of church and state. Sometimes it’s confusing where to put things in the state category and church category.

Well I think it is quite simple, state funded schools should not teach any religious idea as true or false and privately funded schools should be allowed to teach a religion as true provided they meet standards of education

 

[RGCheek]

If only it were that simple, as numerous court cases attempting to define and apply both the establishment clause and the free exercise of religion in our present society can attest to the complexity. Nonetheless, thank you for the history lesson.

Case law often goes far afield from the original writing and intent of the authors, for example the Dred Scott decision and Kelo.

 

[meltzerboy]

Case law often goes far afield from the original writing and intent of the authors, for example the Dred Scott decision and Kelo.

Yes, at times it does and at other times it does not.

 

[glendab]

Hello Contra.

If I am not mistaken, most people here would agree with this.

But is the secularist movement (I believe it is a movement) OK with this, or do they want to erase religion from the public square completely? Because this has been my impression. Most non-religious people simply don’t like religion and want nothing to have with it and in a number of countries now they have the power to get their own way. I think it is as simple as that.

Yes, you are correct and I think here is a man who shares much of your concern. His name is Francis Cardinal George, O.M.I. and in his recent words you can find much along the lines that are being shared here. It seems that Rick Santorum isn’t the only one who has noticed the making of a new religion of secularism, whether the atheists variety or the humanistic variety, it is still secularism and one of it’s specific intentions is to remove all religions from the public sphere in the interest of peace.

Here are the Cardinal’s words and he isn’t afraid to call secularism a religion, for that is what it is to many. I recommend the reading of this particular column and if I am correct it would be wise to keep you eyes on his words over the next few weeks. I bolded one of the bottom lines in his words. Please read the rest at the link I provided.

"In recent years, society has brought social and legislative approval to all types of sexual relationships that used to be considered “sinful.” Since the biblical vision of what it means to be human tells us that not every friendship or love can be expressed in sexual relations, the church’s teaching on these issues is now evidence of intolerance for what the civil law upholds and even imposes. What was once a request to live and let live has now become a demand for approval. The “ruling class,” those who shape public opinion in politics, in education, in communications, in entertainment, is using the civil law to impose its own form of morality on everyone. We are told that, even in marriage itself, there is no difference between men and women, although nature and our very bodies clearly evidence that men and women are not interchangeable at will in forming a family. Nevertheless, those who do not conform to the official religion, we are warned, place their citizenship in danger."

catholicnewworld.com/cnwonline/2014/0907/cardinal.aspx

Glenda

 

[glendab]

Hello Meltzerboy.

Glenda, please re-read what I said, which was that many of the lawsuits against religious practices in public schools are frivolous. Maybe I didn’t state this clearly. At the same time, however, some behavior may be too much for other students who do not share the same beliefs. That’s why it’s not clear-cut in all cases; but, in general, I support people’s rights to practice their religion in the public square, including school. I do not support public schools that wish to instill religious beliefs in students.

I agree there are many lawsuits that are frivolous, one in particular that actually got heard and adjudicated upon was the prison fare of peas and carrots! A total waste of taxpayers money. But to me any lawsuit over religion in our country isn’t frivolous. We’ve taken too much for granted and look where it has gotten us.

As for openly instilling a state approved religion, the schools will never actually do that in the open, but the point is religious tenets can and are instilled without actually naming a particular religion. I think Mr. Santorum’s words are very wise in this regard, whether a joke or not. Secularism is a religion to some who buy into it. That is his point. If we admit it is a religion, we can use their own agenda to undo their advance of this supposed non-religion religion. It brings to the fore the actual religious veracity of those who see it as their job to keep Judeo-Christian culture suppressed in the public schools and every increasingly use the political arena’s latest declarations to adjust curricula and discipline in the schools and inflict it upon the millions of children they hold hostage. Example: the contraception mentality and the access children now have to all forms of contraception and even abortion through their schools.

Glenda

 

[Contra_Mundum_1]

for that is what it is to many.

Glenda

Thank you for the link.

I very much agree with the underlined above from your comment. Although secularism is not a religion in itself, but for many people it is very much like a religion. (I know some fanatical secularists and I find them quite unpleasant people.)

This talk about ideological neutrality is such nonsense. There cannot be a vacuum in meaning: someone’s values are being taught as the norm. Now they are taking over, and are doing it quite mercilessly. There is nothing neutral in their beliefs.

As for erasing religion in the name of peace, that is laughable. We just have to look at a few 20th century regimes that tried to do the same to see how that turned out.

 

[RGCheek]

Yes, at times it does and at other times it does not.

Eh, most of the time it does not, but it is in this case. Case law has become so convoluted the Freedom of Expression clause is disregarded in favor of the Pseudo-Establishment Clause that is alien to anything the Founding Fathers, the authors, would have recognized.

 

[manualman]

I have an example for those who insist that secular education doesn’t cheapen or reduce the quality of education for Christian kids.

I went to public high school and studied a few works of Shakespeare in AP English, (Early 1990’s) including Hamlet and Romeo and Juliet (Midsummer’s isn’t relevant to my example). At the time, I found both tragedies boring. It wasn’t until I discussed them with a friend who had attended a catholic college and actually studied the full import of these stories that I realized why Shakespeare is so timeless. His tragedies all illustrate the reality of Original Sin and the way it affects mankind leaving us with many remnants of our original goodness, but afflicting us with tragic flaws that will destroy us without the saving power of Grace. Whether he was catholic or not (there appears to be some debate), Shakespeare clearly wrote from the POV of one who saw the human condition that way and illustrated it in his work. The fact that serious literature readers STILL find his work compelling across the centuries and massive cultural divide speaks to the universality of this human condition.

Now, honestly, how many of you public school kids had this discussion about Shakespeare in class? None, I bet unless you went to school before the ACLU had them all culturally cleansed of religious content. It’s absurd to assert that it is an imposition of religion to explore the possible intentions of Shakespeare in his story lines and characterizations, but here we are, right? None of you discussed that aspect of his work in class, did you? Secularism deprived you of significant content of what should have been your education.

 

[Contra_Mundum_1]

It’s absurd to assert that it is an imposition of religion to explore the possible intentions of Shakespeare in his story lines and characterizations, but here we are, right? None of you discussed that aspect of his work in class, did you? Secularism deprived you of significant content of what should have been your education.

I would also like to add something along these lines.

When I was a postgrad student in politics I taught tutorials on political philosophy for 2nd year students. Many of the covered thinkers’ ideas were rooted in Christian theology, but this was not mentioned at all. For me it made no sense to talk about the need for a strong government because of the assumption of the inherent flaws in human beings, without discussing the very idea that humans are flawed. But that is how we had to cover it. I could have introduced the subject myself in order to give the students a better understanding, but was intimidated to do that because of the secularist spirit in the academia that prefers to not mention God.

 

[glendab]

Hello Signit.

My impression is that that’s not the law.

Students in public schools do have the right to say their own Christian prayers or read the Christian Bible on their own time, or form a Catholic club/Rosary club/pro-life club which is student-directed.

They just can’t have the school or school officials sponsoring religion.

We’ve posted before about the Equal Access Act for public secondary schools; if they let one student-led group into the school, they have to allow them all, even a religious group.

It may not be the law, but it is how the law was interpreted and used to suppress the religious liberties of the students at my elementary school when I was growing up. It still goes on every day, in every state wherever folks see the indicators that they can get away with it. And here is a fact: it is against the law to drive faster then the speed limit, but how many folks do you actually see driving the limit? Do you? Point is the laws say one thing, but that doesn’t mean people live that way. It is against the Constitutional rights of every Religious in this country of ours to force them to pay for their employee’s contraceptive needs or worse, provide them with the money and/or coverage they need to have an abortion or get sterilized but guess who is forcing them to do exactly that until they get those regulations thrown out via a few lawsuits that prove their Constitutional rights are greater than any regulatory agency’s governing ability? Well. Law and practice are two separate things otherwise we’d be linving in the happy state of Utopia, wouldn’t we?

Glenda

 

[CaptFun]

I would also like to add something along these lines.

When I was a postgrad student in politics I taught tutorials on political philosophy for 2nd year students. Many of the covered thinkers’ ideas were rooted in Christian theology, but this was not mentioned at all. For me it made no sense to talk about the need for a strong government because of the assumption of the inherent flaws in human beings, without discussing the very idea that humans are flawed. But that is how we had to cover it. I could have introduced the subject myself in order to give the students a better understanding, but was intimidated to do that because of the secularist spirit in the academia that prefers to not mention God.

I can see your dilemma as a postgrad student teaching tutorials. If you HAD exercised your personal freedom and DID “introduce the subject” or merely include it at ALL – it might have gone as a mark against you by someone who could stand in the way of your further progress as an educator.

While teaching in public schools, I do render unto Caesar a bit, though always trying to model Christianity without making speeches to a captive audience, etc. And if asked what I believe, I either deflect or answer directly and move on (depending upon the spirit of the question and of the classroom in general).

The problem of that “secularist spirit” that “prefers not to mention God” (even* just MENTION?*) is examined well in Ben Stein’s recent movie

“Expelled - No Intelligence Allowed”.

youtube.com/watch?v=c63awtAyHdU < full movie

Santorum is referring to the pressures that are being applied to people of faith in this creative (somewhat humorous) statement. Pope Benedict (especially) often remarked about the encroachments of an official secularism that brooks no tolerance toward people of faith living their faith publicly.

nbcnews.com/id/39207225/ns/world_news-europe/t/pope-warns-aggressive-secularism-uk/#.VBb_lChOTzI

And we have seen the loony lawsuits that rather boldly champion the removal of any and all references to God in the public square (a presumption of a secularist orthodoxy as a de facto “state NON-religion mandate”) to be enforced everywhere.



Don’t Ask. Don’t Tell. Education stops here!

 

[signit]

First, thanks for the reply.

It may not be the law, but it is how the law was interpreted and used to suppress the religious liberties of the students at my elementary school when I was growing up. It still goes on every day, in every state wherever folks see the indicators that they can get away with it. And here is a fact: it is against the law to drive faster then the speed limit, but how many folks do you actually see driving the limit? Do you? Point is the laws say one thing, but that doesn’t mean people live that way. It is against the Constitutional rights of every Religious in this country of ours to force them to pay for their employee’s contraceptive needs or worse, provide them with the money and/or coverage they need to have an abortion or get sterilized but guess who is forcing them to do exactly that until they get those regulations thrown out via a few lawsuits that prove their Constitutional rights are greater than any regulatory agency’s governing ability? Well. Law and practice are two separate things otherwise we’d be linving in the happy state of Utopia, wouldn’t we?

Glenda

Ah. You are talking more about the freedom to express one’s religion.
I agree that one should be free to express one’s religion, for sure.
I don’t know all the specifics of the incidents you mention above…I’m going to look them up and read them.
I do recall that in one or two of the incidents, tho, the problem was more that the children were causing a disturbance in lunchrooms and libraries and among fellow students. In that sense, those few stories I read about was more that the students were attempting to evangelize or stage a sort of protest, for lack of better word…and doing so in a provocative way.

I’m going to check it out. I would be very surprised if a student would be chastised for saying a quiet prayer before they ate lunch or wearing a discreet cross around their neck.

Obviously, the Catholic and non-Catholic agree, Catholics and others should have at least some freedom of religious expression in the public schools.

As a Catholic going through public school none of us seemed to have a problem with that. One really devout Catholic girl used to sit quietly and read her Bible. And when we were teenagers there was the Jehovah’s Witness kid trying to get us to come to his church’s meetings.

I’m suggesting, like the other poster, that there might have been some element of harassment or disruption. Also, on the banning of the T-shirts, there may have been a more general ban on all T-shirts (e.g., a rule that all boys were collared shirts) or a ban on any kind of slogans.

If the situation was as strict about the exercise of religion as you describe, that would have been an opportunity for parents to protest.

 

[RGCheek]

I would also like to add something along these lines.

When I was a postgrad student in politics I taught tutorials on political philosophy for 2nd year students. Many of the covered thinkers’ ideas were rooted in Christian theology, but this was not mentioned at all. For me it made no sense to talk about the need for a strong government because of the assumption of the inherent flaws in human beings, without discussing the very idea that humans are flawed. But that is how we had to cover it. I could have introduced the subject myself in order to give the students a better understanding, but was intimidated to do that because of the secularist spirit in the academia that prefers to not mention God.

There is a similarity to the establishment of the USA which is heavily steeped in religion. Most of the colonies set up were enclaves of one religious minority fleeing the dominance of the Anglican church in one way or another and so religious freedom of expression is a very basic right in the view of our people even today.

And yet not only is this not taught, but some even have the ignorance to claim that this country was not founded by men guided by certain truths of the Christian faith. Our common law is taken almost directly from ecclesiastical law in medieval England and most today do not even realize it.

Secular education that does not intentionally endorse religion I agree with, but to bleach all religion from every subject applicable or not is a disservice and abuse of our children.