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

[CaptFun]

There is a problem with saying that religion is banned from the class room. It is not.

I work in the public schools and I have to observe limits on what I can say on religion, but there are very few limits on the students.

If the students want to preach, they have broad rights to do so, unless it is disrupting the class. If a secularist student is disrupting the class he can be stopped in exactly the way a religious student can be.

Many of the teachers are very religious at the elementary and high school level and will frequently not be hostile to the religious student. At the college level this is a different matter.

We are free to train our students to effectively defend the faith in their class rooms, we simply fail to do so.

I work in public schools too. And in quite a good district. And my experience is pretty similar to yours.

But the court cases continue to be initiated nationwide - and the banning is almost always a case of secularism using the law to curb “religion” or indeed even vague references to anything approaching it.

So IMO there’s a salient point in Santorum’s satire. Whether the “turn the other cheek” people would ever really go on ***“offense” ***shouldn’t (and doesn’t) mar my momentary enjoyment of this unlikely scenario.

< ***- I am rife with self-congratulation in this I fear. ***

 

[CaptFun]

Colorado School District Sued by Secular “Humanist” Group
To Censor Info on Charitable Public Service Event For Kids - Due to a Church’s Outside Participation In It

huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/23/colorado-school-district-christianity-lawsuit_n_6036286.html

"Promoting?"

How about -*** allowing freedom*** of speech, press (the flyer), and religion (no child was forced to go … the literature re: an off-campus activity was allowed to be distributed).

But the secularists are suing. Intimidating. Looking to take big $ in penalties (IMO) that should go to teaching children instead of padding the pockets of opportunistic litigants.

Another example of an attempt to force secularism INTO the classroom per censorship (with THEM in charge of it of course or … lawsuit!).

NO God = A theological position. Mandating NO God or any mention of Him = Mandating a theological position. < Rather than the pretended neutrality that is claimed.

THIS was not about some captive audience being harangued against its will by school installed evangelists. It was an invitation (to all and any desiring to) to participate in helping some people in Guatamala. The Christian Group stated its evangelical mission openly. The Sixth Grade Class stated its educational reasons for participating (Social Studies). Seperate IMO. Not mandated like some ham-handed HHS ruling that threatens to have repercussions if not followed.

What IF the school district actually made such arguments as the defendant? For example:

"We must not take an official theological position, secular or otherwise, that impinges upon the freedoms of speech, press, and religion guaranteed citizens in the First Amendment.

The information allowed

was positive per informing our students of a local current event, an educational possibility and instructional per teaching our students communications skills such as spelling, composition, layout, art placement, maps, use of fonts, cultural awareness and diversity, first hand study of current events in a foreign country, and philosophy (neither mandated nor restricted to the narrow secular humanist model proposed by AHA).

Our decision was thoughtful and pro-education per our mission, which is neither overtly religious unto favoring any single denomination or creed nor hostile to the belief in God held by some of our students, their families and the taxpayers who fund us."

This is not precisely “banning secularism from the classroom” … but I do hope the School District fights back on this assault against them - by an intolerant (IMO) group legally trying to impose its will on the less legally savvy and opportunistic … for fun and profit.

But to be*** open-minded about it … perhaps AHA is purely idealistic. No self-serving quests for fame, fortune imposing ITS values on others. JUST*** protecting all of America’s children from things like … hearing about … or participating in … things like:

Operation Christmas Child: a Christian gift package program that sends impoverished children presents …

OTOHand maybe the District’s spokespersons’ words at the END of the Huffington Post article (which first recounted EVERY AHA justification for its legal attack in its most partisan language) … is a BETTER message to open one’s mind to:

When asked for comment on the controversy, Douglas County School District spokeswoman Paula Hans replied in a statement,

“Douglas County School District supports student-driven community and fundraising efforts to aid those in need. We applaud our students for being leaders and giving back to others, and will vigorously defend their right to continue to do so. We are also proud of our employees who, on their own time and with donated resources, selflessly serve those who are less fortunate.”

Rootin’ for a counter-suit on this. And I don’t even like lawsuits.

OR a judge to decide that AHA’s Secularism IS a religious position - and they must muster a modicum of tolerance if they cannot embrace the diversity of their neighbors. Case dismissed.

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR_VGGY2P__3cyjv_pRldUvG5ol8P9Rv7Npfv0LAIFJs5w56Z6u0pvjrS_w

"You’re OUT!

 

[livingwordunity]

Secularism’s religion is scientism.

 

[biggybig]

I only read the title

LOL, I agree!

 

[Cider]

It basically is.

 

[Mulligan2]

Somebody ELSE can make this its own thread if they wish …

I post it here because if fits with the kind of secularism that is promoted in public, tax supported schools – even as every vague reference to anything suggesting God gets fought against and scrutinized as if something terrible is happening.

***Report: Chicago schools teaching ‘safe’ anal sex to 5th graders

---

eagnews.org/report-chicago-schools-teaching-safe-anal-sex-to-5th-graders/

And to think … THIS in the very “community the President organized”.

Surely Rahm Emmanuel didn’t know about this. I mean if whole music and art programs … and even schools can be shut down in Chicago … over the cries of parents, students (and more important, Teachers Union members); well the kids need SOME sort of electives. This brings in a bit of biology, physical education, cultural awareness, health, and supporting third world rubber exporting countries. Why do anything else?

We should tell these people to …

… hmm, no :nope: … that’s what they’re telling the kids to do.

A classic example of what should be banned from the classrooms of tax supported schools. Targeting 5th graders. Absolutely disgusting. Call this anti-religion religion what it is. GET it banned. Prosecute these people for contributing to the delinquency of minors or whatever will stick.

Sorry fellow posters. Story deserved to be told. But I can’t stand to see it on our CAF list of news stories on into perpetuity per my promotion of it (despite its importance per the warnings). If someone else posts it, and the mods allow it, I will probably post on the subject more specifically though I think.

Can we please have a thread about Santorum without any mention of anal sex?

 

[CaptFun]

Can we please have a thread about Santorum without any mention of anal sex?

From here on (from me) yes.

The reference does show what is now NOT “banned from classrooms” in some places (while prayer interdiction seems in some places to be on the rise). The extreme nature of the story is not my fault. I’m against what is happening there more than I am troubled by the way I feel when hearing of it. THAT has got to go IMO. But I’m done for now.

For my penance (and to acquiesce to your respectful request) here is a recent quote Santorum made at a school (though not a classroom). And not addressing secularism - but ideas from his book "Blue Collar Conservatism" and how to serve those people who don’t feel represented by the major parties these days:

irishrover.net/?p=5720 < coverage of his speech at Notre Dame 9/28/2014

In addition to advocating for marriage and the family, Santorum focused on representing Americans typically ignored by Republicans and misrepresented by Democrats.

“Imagine if we actually included people who don’t think anybody cares about them. Well that’s the focal point of this book,” he noted. “And the amazing thing about this is it’s not a liberal [or] conservative issue. The policies and the ideas that we put forward actually do something that I think is really important in this country. I think people are tired of division.”

It’s also a better article than the other. Subject matter not being the least reason.

 

[CaptFun]

illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2014/11/rick-santorum-with-northwestern-students.html

Santorum spoke at Northwestern U. (Evanston, Illinois, JUST outside of Chicago), Wednesday November 19.

His main topic was “America’s Defense”. Santorum served eight years on the Senate Armed Services Committee.

After outlining his five “lesson” conclusions, the former Senator took questions on many other topics - which are included in the article.

The “five lessons” he mentioned were:

Democratic Capitalism as a World Model?

“Peace Through Strength”

Understand the Threat and Define it

Plan to be successful … and …

If America doesn’t lead, who else will?

Among the questions the audience asked invoved:

The treatment of Hamas as a legitimate government?

Are you considering a run for president in 2016? < (Yes, he’s considering)

Will your pro-life position be held against you?

Is Climate Change a Threat to National Security? And…

What must Republicans do to win in 2016?

Santorum was sponsored by the Northwestern University College Republicans, not the University itself.

****This disclaimer preceded the introduction of Rick Santorum: “The thoughts expressed by Rick Santorum are not to be viewed as representing the views of Northwestern. Nevertheless, a visitor is entitled to speak without interruption, as Northwestern honors the sanctity of free speech and upholds the value of civility.” ***

Both were honored by the students. Following Santorum’s remarks, many students gathered around him to get a chance for further interaction.

I wonder if UCLA will issue a similar disclaimer when Hillary Clinton speaks there (for a reported $300,000).

 

[anthony022071]

Oh, I think Rick Santorum is serious. In most things, he talks the talk AND walks the walk. But this, in my view, is unfortunate. Particularly in multicultural populations, whose G-d and moral values should be introduced into the public school setting: the G-d of Catholicism, of Protestantism, of Judaism, of Islam, of Hinduism, of Buddhism, of Paganism? That is the major issue according to my way of thinking. And what about those children brought up in an atheist household: why should they be taught about G-d (in the form of intelligent design), Whom they and their families do not believe in or worship? Let the public school educate children in the basics and the arts, as well as good citizenship, and leave religious instruction to the parents, the Church, and parochial schools.

The God and the moral teachings of the Catholic Church are true. The God of the Church is also the God of the Jews and protestants. What is true about God ought to be taught or at least acknowledged in schools. There is no moral need for schools to take a position of neutrality or to treat all religions as if they are equal in truth or value,because they are not. And error has no rights.

 

[Nelka]

 

[CaptFun]

theblaze.com/stories/2012/06/25/today-marks-the-50th-anniversary-of-the-prayer-ban-in-public-schools-heres-the-history/

It may not have been "where it*** all*** began "… but this incident (the SUPREME COURT overturning a lower court decision about a benign (IMO) prayer) that was approved by the New York State Board of Regents, sheds some light upon how part of the controversy re: “school prayer” began.

http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/prayer.jpg

The landmark decision, which continues to lay at the center of the nation’s debate over the separation of church and state, forever changed the way that faith and religion are handled in classrooms.

The ongoing contention started when Steven Engel, a Jewish New Yorker, came together with other parents in 1958 to sue New York State over state-endorsed prayer that was being recited in schools. The Supreme Court inevitably sided with Engel and the decision was issued on June 25, 1962 — a day that lives in infamy in the minds of many religious individuals and free-speech advocates.

The invocation in question was one that had been approved by the New York State Board of Regents. The prayer, which read,

“Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee,
and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our Country,”

was relatively benign in nature. Still, the parents were adamant that*** it shouldn’t be uttered*** in the public sphere.

Engel, who was joined by his wife and seven other parents, claimed that the prayer violated their religious beliefs and practices. Requiring that children utter it, they argued, violated their First Amendment rights, as the government, in their view, was establishing and promoting religion.

The group lost the initial case, as state courts found that the prayer was constitutional so long as it was voluntary (which it was). But, on an appeal, it was the Supreme Court that decided that government-endorsed prayer in schools is, indeed, unconstitutional. Encyclopedia Brittanica has more about the high court’s ruling:

I rather understand the lower courts’ decision rather than the Supreme’s here.

The prayer for instance doesn’t single out the name of Jesus in its invocation. And it did not quote scripture (even “Old Testament” scripture) directly either. Yet most of the references: God being Almighty, people acknowledging their need of Him, and begging His blessings upon themselves … are all sentiments concurrent with prayers from the Hebrew scriptures … as is honoring one’s parents … so … was it the reference to “our teachers” and “our Country” that was the (initial) problem?

While it is played as an attempted “establishment” of religion - just which religion is being established - and which religion(s) singled out by the state for exclusion through this voluntary prayer – is never stated. The ultimate ruling is a secular one. It’s a “Thou Shalt Not …” mandated by the Court … and it was JUST the beginning of a secular campaign that continues to this day.

No? Some folks’ religion teaches in opposition to some aspects of the THEORY of Evolution … yet it is mandated in some places. AND “the controversy” is not even taught – that is to say the state in such cases “the other side” though possibly taxpayers who support their “public schools” don’t get a turn at bat … or even a disclaimer re: Darwin’s Theory.

Meanwhile I wonder if many problems might have been solved or lessened by a moment of common non-denominational prayer between the student-citizens and the invocation of blessings.

Yeah. THIS is what “we’ve got to stop” at schools? Made sense to somebody.
That old “establishment clause” is the canard that gets trotted out with the invocation “unconstitutional”! That same section (BIGGER than the “clause” it includes) rather more directly spoke about Congress (the law making body of the US) “shall make no law” regarding the “establishment of religion” or the “free excercise thereof”.

The courts, meant to interpret the laws, not make them, likewise should feel constrained in the “making of (such) laws” – and this one seems to make a secular one that (IMO) restricts the “free exercise thereof” of all the children who voluntarily did it.

OH you’re not supposed to say so. And that, informally, has been established.

And suppose the problem of the parents was not their religion but perhaps their lack of any. Or possibly their non-allegiance to America (as some such folks HAVE been known to exist).

I like that little prayer. It is not explicitly nor even implicitly Catholic or Christian. The fruits of it would seem to point toward peace and harmony between the students, teachers and school as common neighbors. I wouldn’t demand anyone say it. Nor even the pledge of allegiance for that matter - which remains in most schools to this day.

 

[CaptFun]

My last post was historical background on these controversies.

This one is a current case:

wnd.com/2014/11/christian-beliefs-put-student-in-danger-of-expulsion/

CHRISTIAN BELIEFS PUT STUDENT IN DANGER OF EXPULSION

Your thoughts?

 

[estesbob]

My last post was historical background on these controversies.

This one is a current case:

wnd.com/2014/11/christian-beliefs-put-student-in-danger-of-expulsion/

CHRISTIAN BELIEFS PUT STUDENT IN DANGER OF EXPULSION

Your thoughts?

I would like to know the tracts he is handing out . For instance would it be appropriate to hand out the Chick Tract “The Death cookie” in school?

 

[CaptFun]

I would like to know the tracts he is handing out . For instance would it be appropriate to hand out the Chick Tract “The Death cookie” in school?

To that … no. That is a direct attack upon someone’s belief. And, as a teacher, I’ll admit that a student: out of conviction, playfulness, or creative mischief might disrupt a classroom with spontaneous off-topic (name removed by moderator)ut that deviates from the class goals and create controversies. Even if I agreed with such sentiments, I’d gently discourage the departure from the agenda during class time as not right. And return to the classwork duties of the day myself.

I’d do the same for an undue attention to baseball (for instance) too if “our teacher/student job” was to use the time for Advanced Placement Statistics. So my ruling would not be anti-religion at all … but just an appropriate return to mutual duties.

That said, two girls were looking over their Bible (well marked) and discussing it just prior to class beginning (in my mind … on their own time). I think some teachers somewhere might have made an issue of them even bringing the Bible into class. That would go way too far and be, in my mind, not valid.

Like you, I would like to see some more particulars in the case.

Yet I do also wonder if this kid has been singled out as part of a policy (that in this case might even be as stringent as “zero tolerance” since expulsion is being considered?).

As my post just previous demonstrates, some people want their own agendas to hold sway in public schools. They act as plaintiffs while posing as the oppressed. But sometimes their goals are not just a cessation of what they oppose … but an enaction of a policy of censorship regarding any things of faith. In opposition to what I’d call the “free exercise” clause of the Constitution*.

• *- Others say over and over that same section is the **“establishment clause” ***- and the interpretation of “establishment” seems to go infinitely farther than England establishing an official “Church of England” to which its citizens had to belong to or suffer degrees of persecution. < THAT is what I think the founding fathers were referencing … as recently separated from being English Colonials as they were.

 

[CaptFun]

Boy Suspended from School For Reading Bible During Recess

thenewsnerd.com/local/boy-suspended-school-reading-bible-recess/

The beat (down) goes on? This story is from a site called News Nerd … but it seems legit per the serious writing - and the story is not at all implausible.

PLAINVIEW, TX – A 13-year-old boy was suspended from school after he was caught reading the Bible during recess. Plainview Middle School says Joshua Patterson violated school policy by reading the Bible in school.

School officials say the student was warned several times that he could not practice religion during school hours, but refused to comply. A letter was sent home to the child’s parents warning them that Joshua could be suspended or even expelled if he continued this behavior.

Patterson’s parents, who are devout Christians, told their son to continue reading his Bible because it was his Constitutional right. Megan and Daniel Patterson say they intend to file a lawsuit against Plainview Middle School.

“We are going to fight this with all of our might,” said the child’s father Daniel Patterson. “How can a school tell a student that something as simple as reading his Bible is wrong? We teach our children about the miraculous wonders of God, and Joshua has taken a special interest in religion. His dream is to one day be a preacher. This school has violated the rights of our child, and we will ensure this never happens to another student.”

The school refused to elaborate on why they chose to suspend Joshua, other than saying his actions were directly against school policy.

Reading at recess … FINALLY someone DID something about it!

I thought the parents made some good points. I would have liked to have more details on the many warnings … WHAT they were, where given, by whom under what circumstances.



Is secularism anywhere interdicted like this in a school?

 

[CaptFun]

lubbockonline.com/interact/blog-post/natalie-gross/2014-07-21/school-district-says-story-plainview-boy-suspended#.VH3YUihOTzI

Mea culpa on last post, #192 (perhaps). I did make a disclaimer on it as it came from the site NewsNerd which didn’t sound so professional. AND I’m presuming that THIS version of the story is true … which is presuming again I suppose.

But there have been and will be other stories of secular bullying in our schools.

There can be overstep by religious zealots that try to turn schools into Sunday (though Friday) Schools. The initial story still allowed me to weigh in on what would be too great an intrusion upon religious liberty.

 

[CaptFun]

washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/12/03/santorum-campaigns-for-absent-cassidy-slamming-obama/

Cassidy Remains in DC to Vote in Congress
Santorum campaigns for absent Cassidy, slamming Obama

SHREVEPORT, La. – Supporters of Rep. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) eagerly filed into a Baptist church here to see the front-running Senate candidate campaign with Rick Santorum Wednesday evening.

But they had to make do with just Santorum, who they welcomed warmly.

Cassidy’s campaign announced shortly before the event that he would be absent due to votes in the House.

Santorum, the former presidential candidate, spent much of his speech lambasting President Obama and closely associating Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) with the president’s record.

“The only thing that will deter this president … is you,” he told the audience.

Santorum excoriated Obama for taking executive action to stop the deportations of millions of undocumented immigrants.

He praised Cassidy and told the audience they have a chance to send “not just a warning shot, but a torpedo into the side of the destroyer” by electing him to the Senate to replace Landrieu in the runoff.

Cassidy’s wife, Laura Cassidy, spoke on her husband’s behalf, telling attendees: “We need your prayers and we need your vote.”

She warned that the “Obama-Landrieu turnout machine” will be activated in Saturday’s vote.

Laura Cassidy also led the crowd to repeat an oft-used taking point – that Landrieu has voted with Obama “97 percent” of the time.

This vote is today (December 6 as I write this). Cassidy is favored per the polls, but Landrieu had more votes in the prelim election as the GOP vote was split. The difference in the Senate would be 53 - 47 if Landrieu retains her seat … 54 - 46 with a Cassidy win*.

There are two Independent Senators, but these have caucused with the Democrats til now. So those numbers might really be 53 - 45 - 2 or 54 - 44 - 2. A vote of 60 or more could even override a Presidential veto of bills passed by Congresss (in the Senate).

Santorum continues to campaign nationally for conservative candidates and seems to be building upon his national organization. He speaks like a national candidate and has promised to announce his final decision re: running in June 2015.

 

[CaptFun]

ourmidland.com/news/santorum-speaks-on-religious-freedom/article_8cce2e28-58c0-58dc-a07e-83e42c7c43ea.html

Santorum speaks on religious freedom
Friday, December 5, 2014, 2:00 pm

“We are the only country in the history of the world that has a government based on the premise that rights come from God and not the government. That is the struggle right now. There is a fundamental struggle going on and it all centers on whether the government is there to give you rights or the government is there to protect the rights you already have,” Santorum said.

An eloquent summary of what has changed. Emphases within the quote are mine.