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

[RGCheek]

Governments do love to encroach, don’t they?

The promise of a voucher system would that it would eliminate double taxation where parents pay privately, and their taxes go to public. It would open up poor people to use the tax dollars allotted for their children to opt into an option of their choice.

It also opens government up to encroach though, because the way that government gains power is through claiming the tax dollars as their own, and influencing the recipients of that money to do what they deem is in their political interests.

Yes, that is the problem for sure, and it dooms poor people especially to schools not of their choosing but of the choosing of big brother who knows what they need better than they do.

Some voucher proponents claim that they can ‘firewall’ the government out of said encroachment, but I highly doubt that that can work.

 

[RGCheek]

Good Ole Rick…always good for a laugh and precious little else. Guess that’s why he is the ex-senator from Pennsylvania. What he has to say is relevant only to the narrow slice that agrees with him. Actually, he is probably more helpful to the opposition.

Lol, marginalize a competitive Presidential candidate without so much as a single actual specific assertion.

I find that somehow very encouraging.

As to Santorums position on the issues here (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Santorum#Political_positions) I am in agreement with him on almost every one of them.

Which do you think only good for a laugh?

 

[CaptFun]

Lol, marginalize a competitive Presidential candidate without so much as a single actual specific assertion.

I find that somehow very encouraging.

As to Santorums position on the issues here (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Santorum#Political_positions) I am in agreement with him on almost every one of them.

Which do you think only good for a laugh?

Thanks for that link. Wikipedia gets criticized sometimes (and the cryptic entry that Rick was pro-choice until 1990 … with no supporting documentation … I found dubious) - but that page is still a treasure trove not only of showing what Santorum’s positions are … but also that he HAS positions on serious matters that voters can see for themselves. So many candidates seem to hide everything they really stand for in favor of creating a facade of acceptablility that will facilitate their election.

Agree with him or not, Santorum reveals his vision. I consider that leadership – and also that much vaunted transparency that many politicians give lip service to but rarely exhibit.

Today Santorum is urging people to call on their Senators to support passage of HR 7 the “No Taxpayer Funding For Abortion Act” that passed in the House (and that Santorum thinks would pass in the Senate with bipartisan support if majority leader Harry Reid can be moved to allow a floor vote). He is doing something other than just talk. Whether he succeeds in that or not. Other candidates and the current President (it seems to me) prefer endless talk and rhetoric, leading from behind confused:?) and checking the polls.

Per relevance to this thread …schoolrooms aren’t the only culture war battle ground.

The secular state mandate that taxpayers should pay for something that most of them don’t support (Santorum quoted an estimate of 60% of Americans opposing tax funded abortions) - and that directly contradicts the tenets of their religious faith … is another example of the intrusion of an official state secularism encroaching upon religious freedom (and compulsory compliance upon even people of no particular faith that deem this issue as a violation of their moral conscience ).

 

[CaptFun]

Suing Schools on Behalf of a Mandated Secularist Orthodoxy (Religious Intolerance)

Here’s the kind of thing that spurred Santorum’s comments in my opinion. Multiplied by hundreds of other similar lawsuits - against schools (and private schools, and hospitals and libraries and city councils and a lot of other service organizations whose funds get diverted to these predatory litigious shakedown artists and legal bullies).

americanhumanist.org/HNN/details/2013-12-why-i-sued-fayette-high-school-a-student-speaks-out < for “balance” I’ll publish the humanist link on this lawsuit against the Fayette School District, which lionizes the plaintiff(s) and demonizes the teacher, principal, and religious clubs at the school.

The plaintiff group backing (or really taking over for) the dissident student says its a “non-profit organization” - yet asks the court FIVE times for AWARDS ($).

The much repeated “establishment clause” of the First Amendment is duly invoked (establishment is precisely ONE word in the concise amendment … which is really a guarantee of freedom of Speech and Religion to the People of the US … not excluding teachers) by the plaintiffs (sue-ers, pun intended).

Case: AHA (American Humanist Association) vs. Fayette, Mo. School District

Note below how in contrast to self government and freedom, this advocacy group looks to restrict (completely!) Freedom of Religion and Speech at once. ALL the while hanging their whole “Constitutional” argument on the word “establishment” when poor Mrs. Pope and her prayers are shown (even by the plaintiff) to lack the power of compulsion. Neither she, nor the Principal, nor the School, nor the district is establishing a “state religion” of any kind.

But Freedom of Religion means freedom for evangelical ones (LIKE Catholicism actually) too.

Hiding from Government persecution due to one’s religion … as in say, what the Church of England’s state Church had done to some of the Colonists forebears … is what the Constitution sought to avoid. Of course there since have been officially atheist states that have hounded belief from the public square … and intruding even into the private lives of their subjects. A mandatory secularism is the aggressive force challenging Religious Freedom today. See below.

americanhumanist.org/system/storage/2/25/b/4771/Fayette.High.School.2013.11.20_Complaint_as-filed.pdf

From pages 11, 12 of the suit:

RELIEF SOUGHT

**98. The Plaintiffs request that this Court grant the following relief:
**
i. a declaratory judgment that the Defendants’ affiliation with and sponsorship, promotion, and endorsement of these Classroom Prayer Sessions, and its excessive entanglement with the Christian Group, violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and is a violation of the Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights under 42
U.S.C. § 1983;

ii. a declaratory judgment that the Defendants’ policy of permitting teachers to participate in prayer sessions involving students and to participate in the activities of, rather than merely supervise, student religious clubs, such as the Christian Group, violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and is a violation of the Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983;

iii. an injunction enjoining the Defendants, their successors and any person in active concert with the Defendants from knowingly, intentionally, or negligently allowing School District teachers or other employees to (i) pray or participate in prayers in any way with students during school hours, (ii) promote, sponsor or affiliate the School with the Classroom Prayer Sessions or other religious activities in School District schools; or (iii) make special announcements for religious student groups;

iv. An award to the Plaintiffs of damages from the School District;

v. **An award **to the Plaintiffs of punitive damages from Rapert in his individual
capacity for his knowing or reckless disregard of the Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights;

vi** An award **to the Plaintiffs of punitive damages from Pope in her individual capacity
for her knowing or reckless disregard of the Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights;

vii. An award to the Plaintiffs of their reasonable costs, disbursements and attorneys’
fees as allowed by law from the Defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988; and

viii. An award of such other and further relief as the court shall deem just.

*** - Hey Look! They’re going after “Freedom of Assembly” too? ***

 

[CaptFun]

http://yalepress.yale.edu/yupbooks/images/full13/9780300186116.jpg

Secular Humanism’s initiators* called it a religion.***** This capsulizes some history beginning in the aftermath of World War I … emphasizing Secular Humanism’s own core statements from the 1930s … and describing itself as a “Fourth Major Religion”.

Santorum’s comment is not an original idea. Unless one emphasizes the banning of it (as seems to be being done in the case of other religions in the classroom)

youtube.com/watch?v=qyN24IuQDOw < 4 minutes, 15 seconds

“Here are all the elements for a religious faith that shall not be confined to sect, class or race. Such a faith has always been (name removed by moderator)licitly the common faith of mankind. – John Dewey, Signatory of Humanist Manifesto I and “father of Modern American Education”* from his book “A Common Faith” (still published today by Yale University) - and … it is labelled as a Religious Studies book. *

 

[Elizium23]

Thanks for that link. Wikipedia gets criticized sometimes (and the cryptic entry that Rick was pro-choice until 1990 … with no supporting documentation … I found dubious) -

I am not sure what you are talking about, because there are three citations next to that statement, so there is no lack of supporting documentation for it. The first one I checked is a direct interview in Santorum’s own words saying he was pro-choice.

 

[CaptFun]

I am not sure what you are talking about, because there are three citations next to that statement, so there is no lack of supporting documentation for it. The first one I checked is a direct interview in Santorum’s own words saying he was pro-choice.

Apparently I was taking in other facts much more deeply and missed that. I’m surprised I hadn’t heard that before … or that it hasn’t been harped upon so much by Santorum’s critics (as for example so much was made of Mitt Romney’s pro-life conversion). Maybe it’s because the change came before Santorum took office, so his voting record has always been pro-life?

Abortion

Santorum considered himself pro-choice on abortion but changed to a pro-life position in 1990 when he ran for Congress.[200][201][202] < Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Santorum

note – footnotes 200 and 201 briefly recap the Santorum statement you reference - 202 includes it but goes further and has the most details (below).

• Former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum wasn’t always an ardent foe of abortion. “I was basically pro-choice until I ran for Congress,” Santorum said in a 1995 interview dug up by the Huffington Post. In a 1990 issue statement for his first campaign, he argued for exceptions for rape, incest and the mother’s health, arguing that “a sensitivity to the genuine concerns of both sides is needed.” Pennsylvania lawmakers of the time don’t remember him as pro-life. < **Washington Post 2/21/2012 **

washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/report-rick-santorum-supported-abortion-rights-in-past/2012/02/21/gIQAHb2vRR_blog.html

The Post blurb, while recalling Santorum’s own words “basically pro-choice until I ran for congress …” almost softens his admission in reporting he “wasn’t always an ardent foe of abortion.” Then duly reports he was once a “pro-life with exceptions” candidate (the exceptions being in the case(s) of rape, incest and the mother’s health). But now (we may deduce, even the Washington Post assesses) he is ardent.

Unless I’ve missed even more, Santorum no longer supports abortions in the cases of rape or incest. Unborn children cannot rape nor have incestuous sex at their age - and those crimes do not normally merit capital punishment - let alone without a trial < (my words, not Santorum’s in this sentence)..

Back to the Secular/Schools Controversy

Regarding schools, school districts and the reach of secularism in this matter - in many states, girls under 18 can sometimes be taken directly to abortion clinics from school without any parental notification in many places (including my state California).

This automatic and secretive collusion with groups like Planned Parenthood, for “a procedure” that directly violates the religious views of many families (and possibly the girl herself) would seem to be a more egregious intrusion of the State into the Church realm - than the theoretical threats of Churches somehow establishing a state religion by saying prayers out loud at times on school grounds or at school functions. In my opinion.

theunchoice.com/articles/schoolbusabortion.htm < Coerced abortions w/school cooperation?

At any rate my comment was not meant as a critique of you :nope:- my “dubious” (doubtful) assessment was based upon what I’d seen before (and it seems I just learned something new here). :blushing: Maybe I missed the “supporting documentation” as the citations or footnotes were pretty small and I was reading rapidly.

Anyway, thanks again for the info Elizeum23. There’s a lot of interesting biographical material in that Wikipedia entry.

 

[abucs]

When a constitutional right that was originally supposed to protect religion is overwhelmingly cited in courtrooms by groups who wish to destroy religion, then something has gone very wrong with the modern interpretation of that constitutional right.

 

[glendab]

Hello Abucs.

When a constitutional right that was originally supposed to protect religion is overwhelmingly cited in courtrooms by groups who wish to destroy religion, then something has gone very wrong with the modern interpretation of that constitutional right.

Amen! You are very right. What bothers me is that no one is frightened by this predicament and those few who do show concern and are trying to wake folks up to this shift are seen as almost fanatics. But history being replayed for us will tell us where it will go and when it will end and what the outcome will be. I think Cardinal George’s off-hand predictory comments about the state of affairs in America may actually prove to be accurate.

Glenda

 

[abucs]

Hello Abucs.

Amen! You are very right. What bothers me is that no one is frightened by this predicament and those few who do show concern and are trying to wake folks up to this shift are seen as almost fanatics. But history being replayed for us will tell us where it will go and when it will end and what the outcome will be. I think Cardinal George’s off-hand predictory comments about the state of affairs in America may actually prove to be accurate.

Glenda

You do wonder where it is all going.

 

[RGCheek]

When a constitutional right that was originally supposed to protect religion is overwhelmingly cited in courtrooms by groups who wish to destroy religion, then something has gone very wrong with the modern interpretation of that constitutional right.

Agreed, but there is considerable institutional inertia in our legal system that will support the secularization of our government and society.

This is something the oligarchy wants badly and actual historical facts are merely an inconvenience to be remedied with advertising, talk shows, corporate sponsored chairs at universities and bought politicians.

 

[CaptFun]

News for the information deprived: … I mean

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

These days, the population control propaganda is becoming more blatant than ever. Recently,** Father John Hollowell**

was walking down the halls of an Indiana high school when he came across the following banner hanging above some lockers…

The following is how Hollowell described his reaction when he first spotted this banner…

(Hollowell): At first when I walked past the sign I thought to myself – “Oh, cool, they’re starting to catch on that our population levels are at a critical phase and that we’re heading for a demographic winter because no one is having kids anymore; they’re trying to get the word out that our population growth is trending towards a crisis….”

Then I literally had a sick feeling in my stomach when I realized I had the sign completely wrong.

The math “project” hanging in the hallway reads – “Zero Population Growth…It’s Up To You – No More Than Two”

My jaw hit the floor. Margaret Sanger and Planned Parenthood’s “Theology” on full display in our public schools.

federalobserver.com/2013/10/22/the-population-control-agenda-is-being-relentlessly-pushed-in-american-public-schools/

emphases above within quote are mine.

And of course there’s THIS evidence that state subsidized anti-Catholicism is being foisted upon captive audiences at taxpayer expense … including Catholic (and many other religious groups which oppose abortion) taxpayers.

In this story a Catholic Public School teacher has been banned from the classroom while a group which opposes Catholic belief was forced into his classroom against his will and allowed to proselytize. His opposition to it (and some of his offduty, offcampus, on his own time volunteer efforts led to his dismissal … which is the basis for his lawsuit.
lifesitenews.com/news/teacher-fired-for-protesting-planned-parenthood-files-390k-lawsuit

catholicsentinel.org/main.asp?SectionID=2&SubSectionID=35&ArticleID=26638

 

[glendab]

Hello CaptFun.

News for the information deprived: … I mean

http://www.federalobserver.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Zero-Population-Growth-460x345.jpg

emphases above within quote are mine.

And of course there’s THIS evidence that state subsidized anti-Catholicism is being foisted upon captive audiences at taxpayer expense … including Catholic (and many other religious groups which oppose abortion) taxpayers.

In this story a Catholic Public School teacher has been banned from the classroom while a group which opposes Catholic belief was forced into his classroom against his will and allowed to proselytize. His opposition to it (and some of his offduty, offcampus, on his own time volunteer efforts led to his dismissal … which is the basis for his lawsuit.
lifesitenews.com/news/teacher-fired-for-protesting-planned-parenthood-files-390k-lawsuit

catholicsentinel.org/main.asp?SectionID=2&SubSectionID=35&ArticleID=26638

The first time I shared the zero population growth agenda with a Catholic, I was sadly disappointed. She said she was pro-life but had no clue about the above agenda. When I pointed out to her that the “model” in the White house for quite a few Presidencies has been a zero-population growth sum of just two children per couple, thusly only replacing each, husband and wife, she said it was only a coincidence. Then I asked her how many persons she knew who had more than two children or even more than five. Her brow wrinkled and she changed the subject. I was disappointed at how un-informed she was. But considering it is a frightening thing to realize that our beloved government here in America allowed a population control agenda to not only be implemented but promoted. Most folks without even realizing it have done just that - supported and planned their own families to support a zero-sum population control agenda as if it will “save the planet” to use contraception. They bought it hook, line, and sinker and the reality is that it could also cost them their eternity as well.

How many folks think that having only two children is the right thing to do? Too many, that’s how many. Proof the sheep got fed to the wolves.

Glenda

 

[Darryl1958]

2.1 kids was pretty much proselytized from the science rooms of the public school I attended, much like MMGW is proselytized now.

 

[RGCheek]

The first time I shared the zero population growth agenda with a Catholic, I was sadly disappointed. She said she was pro-life but had no clue about the above agenda. When I pointed out to her that the “model” in the White house for quite a few Presidencies has been a zero-population growth sum of just two children per couple, thusly only replacing each, husband and wife, she said it was only a coincidence. Then I asked her how many persons she knew who had more than two children or even more than five. Her brow wrinkled and she changed the subject. I was disappointed at how un-informed she was. But considering it is a frightening thing to realize that our beloved government here in America allowed a population control agenda to not only be implemented but promoted. Most folks without even realizing it have done just that - supported and planned their own families to support a zero-sum population control agenda as if it will “save the planet” to use contraception. They bought it hook, line, and sinker and the reality is that it could also cost them their eternity as well.

How many folks think that having only two children is the right thing to do? Too many, that’s how many. Proof the sheep got fed to the wolves.

Glenda

We have two kids but it wasn’t because we didn’t try to have more. Children are a blessing from God.

I am often surprised at the number of people who think they are conservative and yet they have completely adopted the secular cultural values promoted in our media. It especially distresses me when I talk to Catholics who sound like they could have been raised by Episcopalian secularists.

What we are is more defined by what we believe and hold as values, not by what word we choose to identify ourselves by.

 

[CaptFun]

Hello CaptFun.

The first time I shared the zero population growth agenda with a Catholic, I was sadly disappointed. She said she was pro-life but had no clue about the above agenda. When I pointed out to her that the “model” in the White house for quite a few Presidencies has been a zero-population growth sum of just two children per couple, thusly only replacing each, husband and wife, she said it was only a coincidence. Then I asked her how many persons she knew who had more than two children or even more than five. Her brow wrinkled and she changed the subject. I was disappointed at how un-informed she was. But considering it is a frightening thing to realize that our beloved government here in America allowed a population control agenda to not only be implemented but promoted. Most folks without even realizing it have done just that - supported and planned their own families to support a zero-sum population control agenda as if it will “save the planet” to use contraception. They bought it hook, line, and sinker and the reality is that it could also cost them their eternity as well.

How many folks think that having only two children is the right thing to do? Too many, that’s how many. Proof the sheep got fed to the wolves.

Glenda

Hi Glenda, thanks for the personal story. I have two on “ZPG” myself.

***ZPG - A place to meet, the “right kind of woman” ***(aka the wrong kind)

1. As a freshman at my local Junior College Zero Population Growth (ZPG) was an active club with full voting rights on the Interclub council and the student newspaper was more or less obliged to run their “PSAs” - meeting times, etc. Another male Catholic High School grad from my class quickly joined the group - and became QUITE committed to this. He was rather open about his motives … to hook up with some chicks (or at least one) who’d be disposed to _______ without getting pregnant and causing him problems. Not sure how that worked out for him … but it seemed to me to be his racket.

**Upon Further Examination … **
This “Value” … is NOT one that really IS one

1. I witnessed the following “ZPG oddity”. Without the ZPG organization being involved - its teachings got parroted with a zeal the Catholic Church would love to see in ITS followers.

I was in the kitchen of a Catholic woman who’d had 8 children - her daughter and son in law came forth with the news (it was like an ashamed admission actually! ) that “they” were pregnant with their THIRD child!

At which point the son-in-law chirped the gospel of ZPG and how he believed it was irresponsible for people to have more than two children (I can’t now remember if “the planet” was invoked or the Chinese Communist policy cited with reverence ) while his wife, the hostess’ pregnant daughter, hung her head “in shame”.

The irony of this was thick in that …THAT daughter was number THREE in her family … AND so was her husband, the son in law. That is to say, by their own value applied a bit earlier, their own parents were stupid to have had THEM. BUT, give them credit, they HAD the child. Versus, well, you know. :nunchuk:

THAT third child, a son, was their ***best behaved child ***… following the “designer son and daughter” who were by comparison rebellious to scandalous (troubles with police, etc.).

Back to two … was not a happy ending

“Be careful what you wish for …” has been the prelude to many a horror story. And it was here too. At age 18 their OLDEST son contracted cancer. At age 20 he lost a leg in an effort to save his life and allow chemo to give him a second chance. At 22 he died.

Now that outspoken couple was back to their ever-so-much more responsible total of 2 children. Yet - they were far from happy about it. The planet did not seem much better for their loss (and in any case they were QUITE well off financially so “affording” 3 children was not an issue really) - especially considering how well their own parents had raised 7 and 8 children with comparatively MUCH less.

In these cases the secularist gospel was preached at the college level. Today it (or aspects of IT) is being infused and mandated into curriculums in high schools, junior highs, and higher grade schools. Which makes Santorum’s observation of (and opposition to) that one I’m glad he’s bringing forward in the public arena.

 

[CaptFun]

2.1 kids was pretty much proselytized from the science rooms of the public school I attended, much like MMGW is proselytized now.

2.1 … so it would seem if a couple had two already and one on the way past the .1 point … ? - at 2.11 *what * must be DONE?! :sad_yes: mmm-hmm.
http://cool-smileys.com//wp-content...cool-smileys.com/images/107.gif&w=35px&h=35px Don’t think of it as killing a child. Think of it as reducing a fraction to its lowest common denominator, 0. :newidea:

 

[Darryl1958]

2.1 … so it would seem if a couple had two already and one on the way past the .1 point … ? - at 2.11 *what * must be DONE?! :sad_yes: mmm-hmm.
http://cool-smileys.com//wp-content...cool-smileys.com/images/107.gif&w=35px&h=35px Don’t think of it as killing a child. Think of it as reducing a fraction to its lowest common denominator, 0. :newidea:

I guess they don’t teach that figure any more now that the birth rate in the industrial world has fallen below even 2 children per couple.

2.1 is the replacement rate where a population remains stable. I guess the 0.1 has to be factored in to account for deaths of people before they are of reproduction age.
Before there was a global warming crisis, there was a population explosion crisis. Im fact, they are all part of the same message, that people are a liability to both society, and to the life of the planet itself.

 

[Scottgun]

Late to the party, and this was probably already said, but meh:

Our culture, government, media, education system, etc is almost entirely under the dominion of these three falsehoods:

1. Moral truths are relative
2. The ends justify the means
3. Pleasure (especially sexual pleasure) is the greatest good and suffering (of which sexual restraint is considered suffering) the greatest evil

All of these are 100% incompatible with the Catholic faith. It IS a neo-pagan religion. It’s not very formal, and you will probably never hear put in a creed, but that is the point! What makes this so pernicious is that it disguises itself as secular and neutral, but it isn’t. Because of that, it is a veritable factory of damnation that has a free hand to destroy all voices of contradiction.

 

[CaptFun]

Late to the party, and this was probably already said, but meh:

Our culture, government, media, education system, etc is almost entirely under the dominion of these three falsehoods:

1. Moral truths are relative
2. The ends justify the means
3. Pleasure (especially sexual pleasure) is the greatest good and suffering (of which sexual restraint is considered suffering) the greatest evil

All of these are 100% incompatible with the Catholic faith. It IS a neo-pagan religion. It’s not very formal, and you will probably never hear put in a creed, but that is the point! What makes this so pernicious is that it disguises itself as secular and neutral, but it isn’t. Because of that, it is a veritable factory of damnation that has a free hand to destroy all voices of contradiction.

Pull up a chair. You’re not tardy. Your’re welcome, you well spoken astute fellow.

I don’t have much to add to your post, but quoting it in its entirety again is my tribute.

As nature hates a vacuum the secular left has invented PC morality - which does not dilute its “truth” with relativity. Especially in regard to God and the things of faith. Those things should be confined to a closet (hence banned from the classroom and public places) - notwithstanding that the Christian faith is naturally evangelical and MEANT to be shared.

Some formal brands of secularism were quite totalitarian and promoted an official atheism
as its state orthodoxy (e.g. the Soviet Union, its satellites, Communist Chine and Cuba).

What you describe is indeed incompatible with the Catholic faith, and so people who come after the Catholic Church as an enemy are often also adherents to the three points you listed above. In my opinion.