People for the American Way have posted a recent radio interview with former U.S. Senator and all-star culture warrior Rick Santorum.
During the discussion, Santorum said that Christians have allowed their faith to be removed from the public square and need to start fighting back, arguing that removing the Bible from public school classrooms is not neutrality but rather the promotion of the secular worldview. He suggested that conservative Christians should respond by “calling secularism a religion because if we did, then we could ban that too.”
Claiming that the absence of religion is itself a religion, Santorum said that Christians must reassert themselves and insist that Christianity “should be taught in the schools” instead of worrying about offending people.
Leaving aside the massive constitutional ignorance Santorum (once again) displays, I’m intrigued. How do you ban the absence of something?
Earth to Santorum: “secular” means “not religious.” It doesn’t mean “anti-religious.” An experiment in science class is secular; the study of the periodical table of elements is secular. English grammar is secular. History–even when it includes study of the influence of religious beliefs and movements–is secular.
Stuff that isn’t religious is secular. It’s a descriptive term, not an ideology.
The removal of religious doctrine from the public sector (government)(which is not at all the same thing as its removal from the public square, where religious expression is protected by the Free Exercise Clause) is simply a recognition that in a free society, the government doesn’t get to impose or endorse a set of preferred religious beliefs. The transmittal of religious doctrine is the prerogative of families and religious institutions.
There are a lot of culture warriors who really do understand the First Amendment, but choose to pander to the sizable number of Americans who don’t. I don’t think Santorum is one of those. I think he’s a true believer.
And not a very good thinker.
In fact, his diagnosis of secularism reminds me a lot of his diagnosis of Terri Schavo. He sees things that aren’t there.
Is this baseless notion of Santorum’s, that the absence of religion is a religion, part of the Intelligent Design Amendment he authored? What has happend to almost the entire Republican party the past few years is proof of “Love of money is the root of all evil.” They have become the money-changers who have not yet been driven out of the Temple (government) and base their empty, obtuse foundations on their version of the Bible. As a Catholic, Santorum has been raised from childhood to believe that his religon IS religion and should be a legal part of American government and taught in all schools…contrary to the Constitution and Amendments. I used to have a friend, a gay Catholic Republican, who would argue with me regarding the basis of homosexuality. My argument was that it is the way he is “wired”, medical researchers discovered long ago there is a difference in one gene between homosexuality and heterosexuality. His ongoing argument was (as a Catholic and found in his Bible) that is it a sin and he is going to hell. We had decided not not to discuss politics due to our obvious differences but he suddenly went on a Republican rant. After several back-and-forth E-mails in which he accused me of believing in and supporting political issues I had no knowledge of and repeatedly denied, he decided our friendship needed a “hiatus”. This is when his Republicanism took control; that was eight years ago and we are still in “hiatus” status. This man is a college graduate and retired from a position in a northern college administration. People with this mindset are not stupid in the common meaning of the word but cannot be reached by arguing logic or rationality and providing proof; their religious (and probably political) brainwashing began too early in life to convince them otherwise.
Santorum’s “diagnosis” of the Terri Schiavo case, along with Jeb Bush’s intrusion as governor of Florida, only prolonged the deep loss and grief of her family who understandingly fought accepting the inevitable death of their daughter. The autopsy after all those years proved what her doctors diagnosed, not what Santorum and Bush decided they had the right to interfere in. “The absence of religion is a religion” can be equated to the lack of intelligent thinking is intelligent thinking.
This blog today brought to mind my thoughts throughout yesterday while waiting for President Obama’s speech last night regarding our involvement in the ISIL situation; I realized I am much more afraid of GOP takeover of this country and denying us more of our civil and human rights than I fear outside or home-grown terrorist attacks.
Thanks Prof K. This is a perfect example of the damage done by stupid people with holy books.
Secular – is one of those words that you can either be “Spot-On” in definition or completely 180 degrees off.
I can only surmise, that he must have thought that “Secular” specifically pertained to, a specific sect of religion.
Another example of an individuals inability to connect with the education system when it really mattered.
Follow up …
I wonder if he was looking for the word “Sectarian” if so, Mr. Santorum, no cigar today.
In practice, however, most people who describe themselves as “secular” are, in fact, against religion. At least that’s how it’s become over the last decade. So while I don’t agree that Rick Santorum’s Christianity should be taught as the only and exclusive truth, I do know entirely where he’s coming from.
Even I weren’t religious, I would still share some of Santorum’s concern about religion being driven out of schools altogether. While I don’t think that any specific religion should be “taught” in schools (unless you’re talking about parochial schools, then parents and students have the right to set up their own curricula), what I do think is that when you strip schools bare of any discussion of religion, you end up with…. bad religion.
I strive to avoid being labeled a liberal OR a conservative, those are dead phrases for me right now. But when it comes to making sure that kids do not learn anything about religion in schools, this is a place where I think liberals are way, way off the mark. I think that, in some ways, the liberal spurning of religion is one reason (among many others) why we have so many ignorant forms of Christianity in this country. (And let’s be honest, when liberals talk about keeping “religion” out of schools, they’re really only talking about Christianity, in 99% of cases. Santorum knows this and has the honesty to call a spade a spade. Why don’t liberals just say it. “We’re against Christianity in schools.”)
Religious instruction in schools can certainly be doctrinaire. I would never deny that. But in my experience, people who actually know more about religious history tend to be the types that you WANT. It’s the folks who actually have never studied the Bible as literature, know next to nothing about theology, and really don’t know much at all about religion in general except what their pastor tells them, that can be truly frightening. Then again, my experience is mostly with the Catholic Church, which I don’t think most secularists understand has all but endorsed evolution, and has a long history of supporting art, literature, and science. (Galileo, sure… but remember that Galileo was a devout Catholic who wanted to keep the Church from embarrassing itself when churchmen supported the incorrect views of *other* scientists and philosophers. There are ignorant groups within the Catholic Church, can’t deny that. But let’s not forget that Genetics and the Big Bang Theory were pioneered by Catholic priests.)
I’m absolutely in favor of religion being part of a discussion in schools. It’s when you remove it that you get debased forms of religion. What public schools have right now is a system where studying Calculus is considered more important than World Religions. Seriously, how many people will ever use Calculus in their lives? Because religion is completely avoided in most of our schools out of fear of indoctrination or stepping on toes, you get secularists whose understanding and views on religion are completely bigoted and skewed, and you get religionists who are just downright stupid, who can’t integrate their religion with the rest of their education.
There’s definitely a lot of dumbed-down religion out there. But I think part of it has to do with religion being driven out of the American public education system. I could be wrong on this, but I see the epidemic of bad religion as directly influenced by the attempt to keep religion and education separate.
As for secularism being a religion, up to a point I agree with Santorum. Secularism does function as a kind of religion. Secularists are as sensitive about their values being crossed as a lot of religious people tend to be when their beliefs are marginalized and even mocked. Religious fundamentalism and radical secularism share a lot of the same turf.
Rabbi Jonathan Sacks says that we’ve left the Age of Conversation and entered the Age of Identity. I think liberals should own up to some of the responsibility for this frightening shift, just I call on today’s narrow-minded conservatives to do the same. Again, the Lugar/Mourdock thing is a scary glimpse into the future.
Seeing that their are more Christian denominations than you can count, teaching Christianity in any kind of public forum is inviting a fight. Christians do not agree within their own community much less outside it. Very bad idea, Rick.
I have only FOUR words…Separation of church and state!
Good grief. If you want to teach your child religion, send them to a church sponsored school. How hard is that? Even Indiana allows vouchers to send your child to a religion based school these days. Freedom FROM religion is what started this country.
What I want to know if how Santorum (I cringe typing his name) got a law degree? What did he graduate with? A 2.0? Why even consider this chump for discussion?
The whole world is messed up because of religions and the only one I want to hear about are the peaceful ones. I don’t care what sky fairy you pray too, but as soon as you want to kill off anybody that doesn’t follow your beliefs, then you’ve crossed the line with humanity for me. If you want to indoctrinate your children to believe your sky fairy, so be it. Just stop with the Christians are the best human folks on the planet.
We need to stop putting religious terrorists in the same camp as humans. They are not. They are terrorists no matter what sky fairy they pray to.
@AgingLittleGirl: The world is messed up because there is no economic justice in places where there’s religious strife.
In this country, Religion helped bring you all the values you enjoy the most.
Separation of church and state was not set up to be “free from religion.” It was set up to be free from the Church of England and keep religion flourishing in the public sphere. Basic historical fact. Earliest champion of church/state separation in America was Roger Williams, the Baptist founder of Rhode Island.
Let’s consider 3 areas of human endeavor. Science, government and Faith.
Sciences is based on one of the two common processes invented by humanity for their extreme reliability. The scientific method. It requires scientists to first state a plausible possibility that describes the natural universe. Then design experiments that will gather data that either expressly supports that possibility, or not. Based on the outcome of that effort other scientists jump into the fray, and when the smoke clears we can state with certainty whether the stated hypothesis is factual or not.
Government begins with politics, the most opinion saturated field of endeavor that there is, but ends in law, as black and white a product as is humanly possible. We then employ the second most reliable process that we can conceive of, the jury trial system, to determine if in individual cases, the law has been explicitly followed or not.
Faith is our endeavor to take a position on things that are important to life but unknowable with certainty because of lack of evidence.
So in America Rick S, and all if us, are free to express our faith wherever and however we choose. On the streets, in restaurants and in media, no limitations. We’re also free to disagree with our law, our Constitution, with all of the vehemence that we can muster.
However, the government, under that Constitution, is not allowed to take any position on specific Faiths or faiths, including or maybe especially, in schools. But they are required to teach what is evidence based, like law and science.
Rick is within his rights regardless of those who disagree. Until, as an officer of government, he attempts to deny our Constitution without the step/of changing it first.
To me religion is the spirituality one experiences on his own as he attempts to connect with and understand his own origin and his place in nature and the universe. A discussion of religious history, without a denominational overlay, would be appropriate in school, but that’s not what Santorum is rallying his troops to demand. It is clear that he wants his spirituality to be the one that everyone has to experience, thus killing its religious aspect and ignoring its history. He’s just another Jehovah’s Witness knocking on your front door while you’re eating dinner.
Ah Stephen; you are an intelligent young man but with age comes wisdom – different from intelligence. Many members of GOP are intelligent but unwise. The 1st Amendment states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;…” This does NOT specify free from the Church of England nor does it require religion to flourish but allows it to do so. It protects our choices to practice religion as we deem it to be our truth and clearly states we will not be prohited from this practice. It translates to being our personal decision to accept or deny religion but does not force us to have a religion. My personal religion is a mixture of what I have learned through many years of living and the study of a number of protestant denominations, reading about the Catholic religion and speaking with friends of that denomination…and being Catholic is a denomination. It is not a preordained primary religion we should all be following nor is Christianity required in any of it’s many forms. Sadly, I know little of Jewish or Muslim faiths but am willing to learn. Five old Catholic men on SCOTUS passed the law allowing Hobby Lobby and other businesses to deny women specific forms of birth control using their personal religious beliefs. While SCOTUS is not part of Congress, they have the final say to establish laws that rule all of us, they are ignoring the 1st Amendment. Sadly, the current House is in a religious frenzy and ignoring our civil and human rights and forcing us to live under their chosen religious dogma. They are also ignoring the 1st Amendment and others; being bought and paid for by the 1% – to which many of them belong.
@daleb: ” A discussion of religious history, without a denominational overlay, would be appropriate in school, but that’s not what Santorum is rallying his troops to demand.”
Where does he say otherwise? I’m not saying I’m a big Santorum fan. I’d just like to see the quote where he says that schools should be Christianity-only zones.
It seems to me like the secularists who want to keep schools in a ziplock bag air-sealed away from any contact from religion are the ones being quite openly exclusive, and boasting about it. Not Santorum.
Frankly, I think liberals, for all their talk about democracy, are terrified of the realities lurking there.
__
@pete: “The scientific method. It requires scientists to first state a plausible possibility that describes the natural universe. Then design experiments that will gather data that either expressly supports that possibility, or not.”
That could totally be part of the origins of religion. Statements about possibility. If religion had its origins in shamanism, as I think it probably did, it was almost definitely based on experiments in different states of consciousness. Which, technically, are experiences. What they mean is where “religion” proper steps in.
@Stephen, Post-1 …
I am totally astounded by your statements in paragraph 5, about schools teaching calculus etc, you use the word “integrate” which is a Calculus function (integration)
In July of 1969, I had just completed the second year of my Mechanical Engineering apprenticeship (a four year program of industrial experience combined with co-oping at engineering college) and was glued to the TV watching as the Apollo-11 mission landed Humans on the Moon. I marveled at the Engineering excellence of NASA personnel and the achievement they had just made. With Apollo-13, I marveled again, when flight director “Gene Kranz” whose efforts, safely returned the astronauts to earth. Many NASA personnel were Purdue Engineering Grad’s and Calculus was a big part of the curriculum.
Currently in the United States, many engineering professionals are from other parts of the world (non US Citizens etc). I constantly hear complaints of how foreigners are taking US workers jobs. Lets get the fundamentals of education back in perspective. Lets give the children of this nation (irrespective of their origin) an education that will prepare them to get into the future workforce. It’s quite clear that they cannot compete with the rest of the world. I’m inclined to believe that it’s not a failure in the children’s capacity to learn, but a failure of the system to fully prepare them for the industrialized world.
BTW, I cannot see any connection between ones Faith and the concept of separation of church and state. The wisdom of the First Amendment with regards to government, to me is obvious whether one is the Pope, Muslim, Jew, Protestant, or atheist.
Steve. Rightly or wrongly I consider history to be a science because it’s based on facts as research is able to ascertain them.
So I agree with you, the study in school of history (of religions), anthropology (the study of culture), or the impact of both on civilization is highly appropriate. Essential even.
@JoAnn: we agree more than you realize. I can’t help that much of the GOP out there today are intellectual numb-nuts. But I don’t think you’re being true to your own principles.
I think that keeping religion entirely away from schools is deliberately and openly exclusionary, and runs counter to the very reason why church and state were originally kept apart (i.e., NOT just to allow freedom of choice, but to provoke and have a fuller discussion of religious issues, away from the strictures of the Anglican state church, which supported a government status quo.)
About Hobby Lobby: again, hypocrisy from the Left. If the Left believe that a man like Henry David Thoreau was entirely within his rights not to pay a tax in order to support the Mexican War (something I, too, would like to not pay, since I’ve never supported our wars in Iraq), then why should a business be forced to subsidize a woman killing her child? Killing is killing. If someone doesn’t want to bankroll that…. whether it’s a war or an abortion, I totally get where they’re coming from, and frankly support the SCOTUS decision.
stephen:
Claiming that the absence of religion is itself a religion, Santorum said that Christians must reassert themselves and insist that Christianity “should be taught in the schools” instead of worrying about offending people.
@Red George: I’m not clear how anyone in this country ever benefited from Apollo 13 other than it being a boost to our nationalist pride.
But I’m certainly not saying that Calculus should not be taught in schools. For cryin’ out loud.
World religion should absolutely be taught as a subject in schools, because as much as the atheist community wants to believe otherwise, religion is not going away. Europe might be less religious than ever, but religion is far from dead in the rest of the world. Why American students should be ignorant of religion and have to rely on pastors and talk-radio show hosts to get their knowledge of religion, just in order to appease some over-sensitive liberals’ views on separation of church and state, I quite honestly fail to understand. I think that view is actually extremely dangerous to our country.
If leaving calculus out of curricula keeps our kids unprepared for the industrialized world, well…. leaving exposure to religion out keeps them ignorant of a very basic element of human existence and history. It’s a politicized cheapening of education, as much as anything Santorum might be about.
@daleb: it depends on what Santorum means by “taught.” If he’s asking for teachers to tell kids in schools that Noah fit two of every T-rex, two of every stegosaurus, and two of every obscure species of Amazonian insect onto the Ark, quite literally, like the insane Fundamentalists, then in all honesty, I don’t support him. But I’m not clear that’s what he’s arguing for. Santorum is a Catholic, and we read much of the Bible metaphorically.
I wish he’d be clearer about what he means when he saying “Christianity should be taught in schools.” That could mean a lot of things.
Frankly, I just think that segregating religion and the rest of your education has as many potential flaws as it has benefits.
The specifics of a religion can be taught in many, many places legally. Home, church, media, almost anywhere but public schools. Our Constitution was designed that way in order to allow religious freedom for all religions.
@Pete: Yes. But then what you get is something analogous to what we get on social media these days. The explosion of “communications” technology in the “global” world has, effectively, narrowed our minds. You don’t typically follow anybody on Twitter or Facebook that you don’t already see eye-to-eye with. You don’t typically follow news sources that don’t support your view. Hell, ISIS uses social media to publicize beheadings. How is this “open public forum” called the internet actually all that beneficial?
Same with restricting religious discussion to churches, homes, private media, and schools. You get a narrowing of views. Thanks to so-called “liberalism,” which in this case I think is being a little cowardly.
This could well be why Catholic schools in Indianapolis outrank most of IPS schools, if I’m correct on that. Though I’d have to do some fact-checking there. I wasn’t educated around here.
The choice to me is between freedom of religion or allowing government to assume the responsibility of churches and proselytizing for specific religions. Being a freedom nut it’s easy to guess my view.
My view could change if the world declared Faith in only one religion. What do you think the chances are?
Stephen; large companies – such as Hobby Lobby – are required by law to provide health care insurance options for their employees. They do NOT run health care insurance companies any more than they run the manufacturerers of their thousands of products. Women are not required to use birth control, or to get an abortion, if provided by their health care insurance coverage. You consider it killing; those who need these products consider them one of many health care options – these decisions are personal and medical considerations, not religious, legal or political. Is Hobby Lobby aware of the fact that these same health care insurance programs do provide viagra and erectile dysfunction supplies to men? Are they aware that, simply due to the law of averages, these products are used by some homosexual men who do not perform sexually to procreate? They are also against homosexuality but are aiding and abetting the physical ability to continue their sex lives with insurance covered assistance. Just sayin’
@JoAnn: first off, I’m not one of these people who think that outlawing abortion overnight would be a great thing. I think that would cause more problems than it would solve. So we’re on the same page there.
But obviously a lot of women are NOT getting abortions as a health care consideration. Of the women I know personally who have terminated a pregnancy, none of them were making a health care decision. It was purely economic and social. They either couldn’t afford to have the kid, or they’d be ostracized by their family, or their husband was threatening and pressuring them. I understand their situation, but if we’re going to keep abortion legal, then there should be alternatives to forcing a company to pay for abortions in cases where it’s clearly not a health care issue.
I understand it’s all tricky ground. I do have a problem with where you say that personal and medical considerations should somehow be completely divorced from religion, ethics, and law. I just don’t think that holds up for a second. Are you saying that what the individual does is somehow exempt from ethics? I can’t think of many other examples where that would fly, when other lives are involved.
You write that “these decisions are personal and medical considerations, not religious, legal or political.” Well, we just disagree. They are absolutely all of those things.
Do you think that religion, ethics, and law should be left out of the picture when talking about animal rights? Why should they be left out of the picture when we’re talking about human rights and human life?
“Religion, ethics, and law”. Which of these things is not like the others?
Pete, you’re either being rhetorical and sarcastic, or have a narrow view of religion. Clarify your question, por favor….
Looking at some stuff today from Bill Hudnut, Indianapolis’ best mayor ever. (Presbyterian minister, graduate of Union Theological Seminary). I wonder what his thoughts about keeping religion out of the public arena are.
The Supreme Court agrees that public schools can teach about religion as history, literature, art, music, geography, and more. Indeed, the Court has argued that one’s education is incomplete without an understanding of how religion has influenced our world.
During Jimmy Carter’s administration, Indiana won a federal grant to teach teachers how to teach ABOUT religion in constitutional fashion. The professors also mentored these teachers throughout the school year and answered their questions when students tested the limits of their teachers’ constitutional and theological scholarship. The funding was not renewed after Pres. Carter left office.
A Carmel high school teacher who taught about world religions reported that his students had included Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, and atheists, and he doesn’t think they ever knew which religion he was. There was a waiting list to take his class. Parents urged him to teach a night course so they could take it too.
Unfortunately, most of those teachers have now retired. I tried repeatedly to get the Indiana legislature to re-authorize and fund the program. Funding was always a problem (public schools are losing rather than gaining electives); some legislators had no tolerance for students’ exposure to any religion but Christianity; and still others sought to attach language requiring the teaching of their version of creationism, the 10 Commandments (there are 100+ versions of the latter), etc. It always resulted in avoidance of the legislation altogether – sometimes thankfully so.
It’s too bad agreement could not be reached. It’s difficult to understand the global economy, different cultural backgrounds here and abroad, and current events if one has no comprehension of various religions. For those who feared exposure to other religions, I ‘testified’ that learning about other religions is rather like learning a foreign language. I understood and appreciated my own religion better upon learning about others’. Some were won over, but unfortunately, not enough.
Actually, I think it’s an interesting exercise to ponder the similaries and differences. To me they are all rules to live by. Ethics the most abstract and least specific in terms of the consequences of living that way. Just thoughts really of how life should be lived.
Laws are extremely black and white with prescribed consequences.
Religion (all?) introduces externalities both as source and consequences.
All I suppose have a common goal. To describe behavior that brings about the greater good. Ethics voluntarily or with emphasis on intrinsic reward, law with tangible and immediate enforcement, and religion with rewards and consequences beyond the here and now.
I think that the rational behind separation of church and state is primarily that there is not religion but are religions. Many different concepts of right and wrong and consequences and reasons for living that way. Given that, people should be free to chose the one or none best suited to their specific mindset.
What do others think?
@Stephen: You are wrong about schools not being allowed to teach about world religions, history of religion, etc. As long as such courses are evenhanded and not designed to promote one denomination or religion as “truth”, this is perfectly allowable and in fact happens in many schools. What is not allowed (in public schools) is the teaching of a religion belief as fact, or a teacher leading the class in sectarian prayer. Kids can pray, kids can form Bible study groups, kids can discuss their religious beliefs in free time in non-disruptive ways.
As a self-avowed “secular liberal” I strongly endorse the idea of including a study of world religions in a history or social studies program. Being exposed to the wide range of cultural beliefs and divergent practices is a good thing for everyone. I think you would actually find more opposition to this idea, not among liberals, but among the righteous religious who do not want their youths to hear about other “gods” or other beliefs that are inconsistent with their own.
As far as your statement that “secularism can function like a religion”: sorry, you’re just wrong about that, or you are using your own made up definitions of “secularism” and “religion”.
@Stephen: “This could well be why Catholic schools in Indianapolis outrank most of IPS schools, if I’m correct on that. ”
Great way to argue there – making an assertion that you can’t bother to check for factuality first.
Here’s the real reason: Catholic schools and other “choice” schools get to educate the children who come from families that care about education, who take the time and effort to know their options and put personal effort into supporting their children’s needs.
IPS (and other public schools) have many children from such families as well; but they also get to educate the kids who come from families where the adults don’t value education, don’t support the kids’ educational needs, make no special effort to help their children to succeed. They get the foster kids and the kids who move around often, and the kids from families where basic survival needs are the only priority. Which group of kids do you think is more likely to measure up academically?
@Mary: my senior English teacher at an Indiana public high school back in the ’90s invited a priest, minister, rabbi, and African American Muslim to our class to hold a panel discussion and take questions from students. It was the most wildly successful event I ever remember from high school, and my classmates were thrilled about it, because it was the first time I remember religion getting any attention. That was almost 20 years ago. I don’t know how kids are today. Before 9/11 at least, when people weren’t so testy about religion, I remember that the kids I grew up with were really interested in the questions that religion asks. Even the ones (like me at the time) who were skeptics. I think that’s perfectly normal. Those questions have every right to be asked.
When it comes to secular liberals accepting religion in the “marketplace of ideas” in education, I think you have a point. But most secular liberals I know are open to examining religion in depth and being open-minded up until it comes to Christianity, then they buy the religious stereotypes lock-stock-and-barrel. (Bob Dylan has a song about this on “Slow Train Coming”. Similar disappointed reaction among Bob Dylan’s fans when he briefly became a gospel singer in the ’80s.)
I’m not usually an apologist for Santorum, but I think that he’s right to bring up this point, about how Christianity in particular seems to be shoved aside in public education. I stick to my belief that keeping an open discussion of Christianity largely out of schools does not lead to the kind of Christianity that secular liberals want. Though I agree with you entirely that many Christians don’t want a truly open discussion of their religion.
@Mary re: Catholic schools. I’m not originally from Indianapolis, feel free to give me your perspective on this. But I initially understood that when white flight took a lot of the resources, money, and population out to the suburbs, Catholic schools kept up most of their schools in the city, educating a lot of African Americans who didn’t really have a lot of money and who knew they weren’t going to get a terribly great education at public schools even after desegregation.
I suspect there’s all kinds of reasons why Catholic schools are way outperforming Indianapolis public schools. I don’t have children, but I’d love to know more about this. I would definitely like to know more about the role of curricula there. Maybe the approved state curricula is just downright boring to kids? I know I was bored stiff in a public school, and I came from a family that very much valued education.
I went to a private college for a few classes that was run by baptists and every class started with a prayer.
I HATED IT.
I am an atheist (former born-again Christian) and do not want any religions shoved down my throat (anymore) which is what you don’t seem to understand Stephen.
And I’m a freaking PROUD liberal and you’ve come to this blog to dismiss liberalism and that just pissed me off.
IT’S FREEDOM FROM RELIGION OKAY. We don’t want to learn about your stinking beliefs in the public classroom no matter your intentions. You protest too much.
You can be good without god.
Many different faiths all passionately held. If we ever changed the Constitution to allow a church/state relationship which faith would it be?
That reaction says a lot. Most of the really angry atheists come out of Baptist/Fundamentalist backgrounds. Something about discovering that not every last dot, iota, and comma in the Bible is literally true seems to really shake people up and they go from one extreme to another.
I’m a former atheist who was raised by a non-religious father and an ex-Baptist mother. So there. I didn’t come on here to attack liberals and atheists. Anyone who argues that atheists can’t be good people is out of their mind. You seem to have stereotyped me because I pointed out some of the bigotry in liberalism right now. It’s very open. Very exclusionary.
If you don’t want to be exposed to “my stinking beliefs” and religious belief I general, I guarantee you most teenagers in American high schools do. Religion asks questions that are extremely relevant to teenagers’ lives. Do a poll. Where religion classes are offered in public schools, they’re jammed. Kids are very curious about these issues, and they have every right to be.
If your religious upbringing wasn’t so great, well, that’s your experience, not everybody else’s.
@Stephen: you need to be much more specific with examples of “how Christianity in particular seems to be shoved aside in public education.”
I think the truth is quite the opposite: Christianity, being the culturally dominant religion, is the only one which has adherents who are brazen enough to push the limits into pure indoctrination. A football coach who requires all participants to pray together, a science teacher who chooses to inject creationist ideas into class studies, a principal who endorses an explicitly sectarian message at graduation ceremonies. These things happen all the time, and virtually always by someone who identifies as Christian. And once in a while, a secular-minded (or other religious follower) student or family pushes back, and that makes the “news” and you see it as “Christianity in particular being shoved aside”. In fact, it is Christianity in particular that most often needs to be shown its proper place.
at 5:38 PM, Stephen says “I don’t know how kids are today. ”
at 8:05 PM, Stephen says “I guarantee you most teenagers in American high schools….”
at 10:44 AM, Stephen is worried about ” religion being driven out of schools altogether. ”
at 8:05 PM, Stephen says “Where religion classes are offered in public schools, they’re jammed. ”
Stephen, meet Stephen. Have a nice debate.
IT’S FREEDOM FROM RELIGION OKAY.
My history doesn’t matter.
Thanks Mary.
@Aging: Try China. After decades of force-fed secularism and party-line atheism…. Christianity is growing faster there than almost anywhere else in the world.
@Mary: maybe the answer is to make high schools more like colleges. Hire a faculty of teachers with a variety of viewpoints and give them tenure to keep intrusive parents of whatever political stripe from domineering.
I never claimed that religious discussion has been completely removed from public schools. I said (and agree with Nancy Papas above) that where it’s offered to students as an option, kids find it a compelling topic. It’s certainly thought-provoking, more so than most of the tame drivel discussed in my high school, for fear of stepping on toes.
China? So what? Weak humans need religion. I don’t need it or want it. I gave myself permission not to believe and have never felt more free. Name me one religion that hasn’t had some disgusting scandal involved with it. I bet you can’t do it.
@Aging: funny, I had exactly the opposite experience. Never felt more free since my narrow college-days atheist views changed.
I’ll leave the blame-game to you. Per usual, it’s the atheists who do most of the moralizing and nasty, intrusive finger-pointing. Considering that a TON of atheists used to be people who really went off the religious deep-end, it’s not surprising to me the modern atheist movement acts like Southern Baptism is disguise. Constantly trying to legislate everyone based on minority views. Constantly pointing their fingers in other people’s faces and telling them what’s wrong with their life. I see that plenty.
Kudos for leaving the Baptists. Now leave the Baptists.
Disgusting scandals come with being human. Visit the officially godless states of Albania, Cuba, and North Korea and let me know what utopian wonders you find over there.
“Why, all the Saints and Sages who discuss’d
Of the Two Worlds so wisely – they are thrust
Like foolish Prophets forth; their words to scorn
Are scatter’d, and their Mouths are stopt with
Dust.
Myself when young did eagerly frequent
Doctor and Saint, and heard great argument
About it and About: but evermore
Came out by the same door where in I went.”
Love it, Earl!
I’m not a member of any atheist group so I really have no clue what others think and don’t care. I was force fed religion because that’s what they did in the 60s when I was school age. Thankfully, I grew up and stopped believing in sky fairies about a decade ago. Maybe when you grow up, you’ll see for yourself that life is short. You don’t have to spend eternity worshiping something that probably doesn’t exist. I don’t believe in heaven or hell and THAT was a huge relief. By the way, my spouse is a Christian, reads the new testament every morning and he doesn’t seem to mind that I have free will. Neither should you or anybody else. Why so hostile against those like me?
I would love to see God removed from our printed money and politics.
Because the amount of hostility and stereotyping lobbed at Christians is just epic these days and you’re obviously not ashamed to be a top contributor. How “liberal” of you.
AgingLittleGirl at 10:53 AM: “Weak humans need religion.” If that’s not downright bigotry and stereotyping, I don’t know what it is.
MLK, RFK, Gandhi, Mandela, Obama, Dorothy Day, Maya Angelou, Bach, Tolstoy, Dostoyevsky, Jimmy Carter, the Dalai Lama, hell JACK KEROUAC…. all religious, all “weak humans” there, for sure. All empowered by their belief to do what they did. But you seem to want to stick all Christians in one tiny box of prejudice with Santorum. Little Girl, indeed.
Here in the Midwest, people are so delicate, it’s considered rude to get into debates on politics and religion. When I lived back East, it was different, people called each other out on their bull all the time. Your statement that only “weak people need religion” is just outright hateful prejudice. Again, how liberal of you.
A great piece, but missing, I think, is that to Santorum and other fundamentalists, “secular” (often with “humanism”) tagged on, IS a religion, a kind of Antichristianity that they blame for all sorts of problems. That it has a different meaning to most of the rest of the world is irrelevant.
And, hey, a lab experiment rooted in the abomination that is the theory of evolution is the darkest form of secularism there is.
“If I know your sect I can predict your argument.” (Emerson) Therefore should you come to me as a serial killer or a Foot Washer, I know who you are. Does it not concern you that I know you better than you know yourself?
You seem to think my hostility is toward Christians when it’s directly pointed at you. How liberal of me? To speak my opinion about how religions continue to start wars for non-believers of theirs? Really?
Whatever.
The original topic was how dumb Rick Santorum is, specifically regarding his assertion that secularism is religion. Stephen has taken over the conversation with his repeated (ad nauseum) insistence that liberals and atheists have caused so many of the problems in today’s society by demanding that schools follow the US Constitution. Nancy Papas has by far the best comment here on that matter.
I am proud to be a liberal and to have arrived at a logical decision to be an atheist at around age 9. I was lucky to have had some excellent high school teachers at a school which was careful not to allow Christian indoctrination due to the presence of a large number of non Christian students. It is not possible for a good teacher to not teach the influence of religion on early American writers, nor the fact that the great cathedrals of Europe were built by people who believed their work was for the glory of God. I could go on and on with such examples, but the point is that liberals and atheists like myself do NOT believe that such teaching should be prohibited. I have no idea how you have come to such a conclusion.