Separation of Church and State: and Education and State?
Posted: Sun Jan 25, 2009 5:23 am
To many the separation of church and state and the separation of education and state might sound like entirely different issues. I suggest they are in fact very closely related issues. I have been a teacher for 8 years. Based on what I have observed there is a very 'religious' theology that is almost uniformly taught in the public schools, in I might add a very intolerant way. The theology is called secular humanism and it denies the traditional religious structure of any society, especially Christianity.
Secular humanism has all the characteristics of a religion and it is taught in a non negotiable manner in our public schools along with elements of socialist thought. Now agree or not agree with these perverse philosophies that is a freedom, but to impose them in the context of our public education system is even perhaps more dangerous than uniting traditional church and state, something else I am not in favor of.
I am surprised at how far the secular humanists have been able to go in imposing their ideology within the context of our public system. I propose it goes against the same reasons why we separate church and state and that the secular humanist philosophy when imposed on government money is indeed dangerous, not to mention a violation of the rights of those who disagree. Where is the left when it comes to concern for this violation. They seem to selectively choose what they are concerned about.
Posted: Sat Jan 31, 2009 8:09 pm
What you may have guessed by now, is that most of us here have already
separated education and state.
I'm not sure why it would surprise you though, that secular humanism has
made such great strides to fill the void that was left when the church
abandoned public education.
Posted: Tue Feb 03, 2009 1:55 pm
The scientific establishment is so fanatically devoted to their pet theory (macroevolution), that they've stopped listening to any evidence to the contrary, and are doing their best to destroy the careers of anyone who won't toe the party line. And their "science" is so ridiculous as to be almost comical - they actually believe that the first life formed on top of crystals, or was seeded on Earth by aliens (who conveniently evolved somewhere else in the unverse where we can't investigate), or something equally asinine. Watch the movie Expelled, it's an entertaining (and in places, a bit scary) showcase of what's going on.
I'm personally a rational thinker, I like to see all sides of an issue so I can arrive at a logical conclusion, rather than being told what I should believe. If fossilized trees can be found standing upright through many layers of rock, then those layers of rock were laid down very quickly. If human footprints can be found superimposed on dinosaur footprints, then dinosaurs were alive at the same time as humans. There are many, many items like this that indicate a young earth and counterindicate the viability of evolutionary theory, so why should I belive the latter? And if you don't have evolutionary theory, humanism doesn't have a foundation.
EDIT: From a legal standpoint, humanism / evolution should be considered a religion, and there is nothing prohibiting states from mandating their own official religions. Only the federal government is prohibited:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
So if the voters in a state decide they want humanism, there's nothing stopping them from getting it. However, mandating humanism without involving the voters should be against the rules, and individual states should be allowed to make their own decisions, not the federal gov't. Certainly, if the voters decide they want equal time for Intelligent Design, federal judges shouldn't be allowed to strike it down.
The original intent, after all, was to prevent a repeat of the Church of England, not to remove all religion from the schools. From the Northwest Ordinance, which a number of states signed when they joined:
Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.
Posted: Wed Feb 11, 2009 1:04 am
This actually shouldn't even be an issue. The phrase "sepoeration of church and state" is never even said. What is said is that the government cannot make any laws in respect of the establishment of religion or the free exercise of it.
Unfortunately, this is exactly what our government has been allowed to do. A few people interpreted what was written to fit their lifestyle and beliefs. Now they are forcing the rest of us to conform to them.
Worse yet they primarily target the Christian religions.
Public school children are required to learn a lot of things that a Christian parent may not want their kids to learn, but they don't have a choice. Now ask a parent who isn't Christian to have their children learn something that they disagree with. You want to see intolerance!?!
Not all Christians can afford private schools or are lucky enough to have homeschooling as an option.