Pushing Atheism in the Name of Tolerance: The Myth of the Religion-Neutral Classroom
by Brian Melton | View comments |
Print This Post
Most Americans presume that public schools strive to provide a neutral arena in which multiple religions can be exercised equally.
My readers may already be aware of the blatant example of religious discrimination in a Wisconsin public school that Fox News recently brought to the nation’s attention. Student “A. P.” drew a rather innocuous landscape for a school project. In it, he placed a cross and a reference to John 3:16. The teacher heard students talking about it and demanded that A. P. remove the “offensive” material, stating that when A. P. had signed a required document prohibiting “any violence, blood, sexual connotations or religious beliefs” in class artwork that he had “signed away his constitutional rights.” A. P. tore up the paper and was thrown out of the class. An assistant principal later twice confirmed that A. P.’s “religious expression infringed on other students' rights.”
There are a few small but important issues to mention before moving on to something more significant: This situation is an illustration of the substantial mythology surrounding the idea of the religion-neutral classroom, and the practical results of those misguided beliefs. Far from ensuring religious equality, the modern educational paradigm in fact promotes a secular humanistic atheism or agnosticism.
First, it is amazing that lawyers can somehow find all sorts of “constitutional” rights for things like prison inmates being guaranteed the “right” to sue over crumbled cookies, but somehow this same class of people can’t identify this student’s right to basic religious expression. I would think the line “Congress shall make no law . . .” would be pretty clear. Since this is a public school and receives money and direction from the federal government, it is in clear violation of the First Amendment. A selective reading of the Constitution can apparently work wonders: The same amendment once designed to protect religion from the federal government is now being used by that same government to persecute religion.
Second, it is equally shocking to see this teacher’s particular classification of off-limits topics. “Religious beliefs” are lumped in with “violence, blood,” and “sexual connotations.” Murder, rape, torture, various forms of pornography, and John 3:16 — I fear I do not see the necessary connection. The fact that many of the world’s greatest artistic expressions have come from religious origins seems completely lost on this instructor. What I do see is a clear indication that in this classroom students are told that even basic religious beliefs are on the same level as serious societal abnormalities and outright crimes. This sums up all too well what a whole generation of students is being taught to believe about religion in general and Christianity in particular. Perhaps, in light of this, it is a good thing that apparently so many of them are failing to learn much from these “schools.”
Of more significance, though, is the light this situation sheds on the modern myth of the religion-neutral classroom. Most Americans presume that public schools strive to provide a neutral arena in which multiple religions can be exercised equally. Hence, Christians can maintain their own beliefs alongside others and in fact can use the school systems as a form of societal outreach. Unfortunately, this is a serious misconception.
The key point is that in practice the schools — based on the secular humanist lead of men like John Dewey and his intellectual spawn — strive not to be inclusive, but rather exclusive. This is primarily because they exhibit an overwhelming fear that someone might be offended. The only practical way to insure that no student could ever be upset by a religious idea is to ban such things entirely, as the teacher here did. Ironically, the public school system thereby shows its “devotion” to religious diversity by (in theory) discriminating equally against them all. (In practice, however, it often seems that Christianity is the only “offensive” religion in America.) No serious religious expression is welcome (though a few cultural platitudes are allowed), which sends the message that such beliefs are somehow wrong, and are something that, if spoken about at all, should be limited to embarrassed whispers behind closed doors. Belief in a higher power is, at best, optional. At worst it should be forcibly excluded and placed on the same level as “violence” and “blood.”
In place of religion, secular humanism posits a handy substitute conveniently classified as “non-religious”: evolutionary scientism. They preach this non-religious religion with a vehemence that borders on the fanatical. By “scientism” I do not mean the legitimate pursuit of truth through solid scientific method; I mean the blind-faith sort of radical materialism idolized by secularists. This kind of “science” is in fact a complete worldview that does not allow its basic premises to undergo serious examination. The only other “religions” that this worldview can tolerate are of a milquetoast sort that are permitted to give adherents all sorts of warm fuzzies, but must not be allowed to comment on any issues that really matter or make a claim at being Truth. The practical result is that students are actively discouraged from significant independent religious thought, but are supplied with a blind-faith pseudo-religion cloaked in the hollowed name “science.”
Of course, I am painting with a broad brush by necessity and do not think that all schools fall directly into this category, or that even those that do are necessarily filled with raving secular humanists. Still, the idea of the religion-neutral classroom dominates much of modern education theory and is an almost universally enforced standard. It can often result in schools becoming the intellectual enforcement arm of practical atheism or else perhaps a sort of mushy agnostic relativism.
The schools claim to do all of this, of course, in the name of “tolerance.” This is clearly false, whatever the intent. If the instructor and school here had really sought to teach understanding between cultures, religious themes would be welcome and the more diverse the merrier. The students in A. P.’s class who objected to his Christianity, would have been called aside and told to respect his personal beliefs just as he should respect theirs. It is telling, however, that it was A. P. who was punished and given a zero.
This is a state of affairs thinking American parents should mull over when considering their children’s education. We need to look deeper and really analyze not only educational rhetoric, but also the practical reality.
bmelton@liberty.edu
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0826217397/102-0313136-3504156?ie=UTF8&tag=intellectualc-20�
Read more articles by Brian Melton
What few people seem to recognize is that ‘tolerance’ is nothing more than “a measure of a permissible deviation from a norm.”
Before we can apply ‘tolerance’, we first need to establish a norm – which means establishing what principles or values we have. Once that is done, we can set about determining whether any deviation from those principles should be tolerated, and if so, to what extent before the norm is itself destroyed.
Tolerance, which is a measure from a norm, cannot be used to establish a norm.
But remarkably, those who claim the credentials to educate children do precisely that – they use the measure to create the norm.
Joseph BH McMillan http://www.freedomvrights.com
Comment by Joseph BH McMillan | April 5, 2008
Joseph BH McMillan:
“What few people seem to recognize is that ‘tolerance’ is nothing more than ‘a measure of a permissible deviation from a norm.’”
Good observation. What few people seem to recognize are any basic ideas at all. They assume all norms are arbitrary and are therefore open to challenge without any research into their reasons for being. [Since they are arbitrary, no research is necessary.]
I know some people think Lawrence Auster is a racist; but even in the outside chance he is, he does offer some unique and amazing insights into today’s liberal thought, including the modern liberal idea of making tolerance the defining value of our society, and that once liberal tolerance rather than traditional morality becomes our guiding principle, we must ultimately tolerate the presence of evil itself, which is exactly what happened in A.P.’s case – tolerance for other students’ sensitivity [a non-right] trumped his right to religious expression.
“The problem described here points to its own solution, which is to abandon the modern liberal ideology that identifies morality with powerlessness, and return to traditional moral standards. Unlike today’s cultural Leninism that defines men’s moral worth as the inverse of their perceived degree of power or of their attachment to established ways of life, traditional morality judges the intrinsic moral qualities of men’s actions, and so is capable of seeing and stopping real evil when it appears. By contrast, a people that defines the good as tolerance must inevitably end up tolerating evil, even the evil of terrorist killers. Indeed, such a people must ultimately lose the authority to enforce any standards at all, since standards can be enforced only by a society’s dominant culture, and a dominant culture, as a dominant culture, is by [liberal] definition "unequal" and "exclusive" and thus [according to liberals] illegitimate. …
“If, therefore, we truly desire to live in a society that can effectively resist evil, we must do two things: (1) define [perhaps re-define] the good not as tolerance but as behavior in accordance with the moral law; and (2) affirm [perhaps re-affirm] the legitimacy – and thus the moral authority – of our particular nation and its historically dominant culture. …
“Such a re-traditionalized society will not be absolutely tolerant and non-discriminatory by modern liberal standards. It will, however, be able to assure a civilized order where real evil – such as the evil that now runs free on our campuses – will not be tolerated.”
Comment by sedonaman | April 7, 2008
A good article with two excellent comments. But one point was not touched upon.
If we can remove God from the equation of life what do we have? We have a void and nature abhors a void. Something will have to replace God, something tangible. And just what do you suppose that will be? GOVERNMENT!
Communists and their fellow travelers see the human race as the pinacle in the universe. All things possible are possible only because man alone has the ability to do it. There is no higher authority in their spectrum.
Now of course humans can't run around helter-skelter without some guiding authority to provide direction. And since man is the top of the universal heap that guiding authority must be man made and man controlled. The only thing that fits that is Government.
So what we altimately have is Government replacing God.
Without belaboring this let me conclude by saying the when Government replaces God we have an Orwellian world.
Comment by NHGrouch | April 7, 2008
NH:
What you say is true, and that's why all collectivist movements try to drive God out of society. They are, in effect, creating the vaccuum.
Comment by sedonaman | April 8, 2008
The case described in the article is regrettable and, indeed, wrong. Quite a few school administrators have been spooked by the litigation over school prayer and try (overzealously) to avoid the entire subject. The result is overbroad strictures like the above that actually do go unconstitutionally far in the other direction.
Of course, that's not to say that the article is entirely correct - I'm not familiar with any cases of "evolutionary scientism" (at least, as defined by the author) actually being taught in public schools. Dinesh D'Souza wrote an article about this a few days ago and wasn't able to substantiate it with any relevant quotes or examples. It's true, though, that the author states directly that he's "painting with a broad brush", so perhaps we can forgive it as dramatic license.
As to the comments… well, we've argued about morality without god(s) before.
Comment by Raymond Ingles | April 8, 2008
Mr. Ingles:
I agree in part with what you say.
It is true that some school administrators fear lawsuits. But the key word here is some. What about the rest?
One could also look at some of these judicial decisions and find the reasoning behind them absurd and illogical and not comporting with the Constitution. But going to court is no cheap trick and so many decisions are not appealed. One can also wonder where they get these judges who seem determined to write their own law. Perhaps the left bench?
Zipping along, there are people who are moral and may be an atheist. I'm sure you may even find a sociopath who is moral. But what does that prove? The question is how many, or what percentage, of these people are moral? I believe the answer is relatively few for the former and very few for the latter. What can be affirmatively said is that morals do not originate from government.
I believe it can be safely said that a Godless society ultimately spirals into open wholesale immorality and unravels as it feeds on the seeds of its own destruction.
Comment by NHGrouch | April 8, 2008
NH Grouch - The murder rate in England in the 1300s was 24 per 100,000. Today it's around 0.6 per 100,000. That's a reduction of 4,000%, and not many people argue that England is more religious now than in the 14th century. I'm not convinced that "a Godless society ultimately spirals into open wholesale immorality and unravels".
The new site colors don't highlight hyperlinks at all anymore, but if you click on the last word of my comment #5 ("before") you can see the discussion we had on this very site last year about this.
Comment by Raymond Ingles | April 8, 2008
Mr. Ingles, NHGrouch:
Consider what the school has done. The constitution says, “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, nor restricting the free exercise thereof.” In this case, the student, A.P., has turned the school into “Congress”, and the “law” he force it to “make” and the “religion” he force it to “establish” is his drawing with a cross on it. Talk about the theatre of the absurd.
All this could be avoided if school administrators spent only half as much time learning about court cases that cover the “establishment” clause as they do about diversity, multiculturalism, affirmative action, and all rest of the liberal mumbo-jumbo.
For example, the school in question might have learned about ACLU v. Mercer Co., KY, (a “Ten Commandments” case) that would seem to apply here. The Sixth Circuit ruled, “Under the endorsement test, the government violates the Establishment Clause when it acts in a manner that a reasonable person would view as an endorsement of religion. This is an objective standard, similar to the judicially-created ‘reasonable person’ standard of tort law: Accordingly, we do not ask whether there is any person who could find an endorsement of religion, whether some people may be offended by the display, or whether some reasonable person might think the government endorses religion. Rather, the inquiry here is whether the reasonable person would conclude that Mercer County’s display has the effect of endorsing religion.” (emphasis added).
Notice the legal test in Mercer is NOT whether any person, or persons, is/are “offended”, but whether the reasonable person would look at the item in question (in this case, A.P.’s assignment) and see government endorsement of religion. Clearly, a reasonable person would not, any more than he would if little Mohammed drew a crescent moon on his.
And really, this is all that Christians are asking for – to be given the same accommodation that atheists, agnostics, Satan-worshipers, witches, heretics, counter-culturalists, Muslims, etc. are accorded, and not be singled out for unique persecution based on some pretense of the First Amendment.
Not only that, but they might also learn that once the government opens a “public forum” to members of one group, the government has to open it to members of other groups as well on a content neutral basis. Any restrictions on speech in a government forum must be viewpoint neutral and reasonable in light of the purpose served by the forum. So, for example, if little Mohammed would not bear any adverse consequences (such as a grade of zero) for drawing a crescent moon on his class assignment, then they can’t punish A.P. when he draws a cross on his.
Forcing students to sign away their constitutional rights and agreeing with the restrictions on expressing religious beliefs in class artwork probably is an unreasonable restriction on free speech, especially when you consider the courts are considering such weighty issues as First Amendment protection for NAMBLA’s literature instructing adult men on how to kidnap, rape, and murder young boys without being caught.
Which brings me to the following observation about a pattern seemingly at work in the educational establishment that reveals several items in their true agenda. There are organizations successfully fighting unconstitutional speech codes on public campuses across the nation. One would think that when one code is found unconstitutional, similar ones would fall like dominoes, or at least be modified to be compliant. But no. Each one has to be fought in court on its own, sorta like having to dismantle The Great Pyramid one block at a time. So the first thing on their agenda is self-righteousness manifested by defiance of the law. That they do not take the trouble to become better informed tells me second on their agenda is they are not interested in ceasing their persecution of Christians.
It is a bad day in "Black Rock" when you consider that Christians have fought and died for 2,000 years to obtain religious freedom for themselves and succeeded in getting it only for the aforementioned atheists, agnostics, Satan-worshipers, witches, heretics, counter-culturalists, Muslims, etc., while obtaining only more persecution for themselves.
Comment by sedonaman | April 8, 2008
Sedonaman - I agreed that the teacher and administrators were wrong in this case. I don't think the pattern is a widespread as you or the author seem to imply, but it certainly merits attention. On the other hand, cases of school-led prayer do turn up, and merit equal attention.
(BTW, do you have a link to the NAMBLA case you referenced? I'm curious to read the details.)
Comment by Raymond Ingles | April 8, 2008
Mr. Ingles:
This is probably one of the best sites that describes the NAMBLA/ACLU case.
http://www.nationalreview.com/murdock/murdock200402270920.asp
There are plenty of cases of Christian persecution in our school systems, both K-12 and colleges. Most of it seems to center around Christian teachings about human sexuality. A favorite tactic of a university is to deny funding for campus Christian clubs because they “discriminate” against non-Christians for membership and office-holding.
Such policies have given birth to a virtual cottage industry of legal defense organizations that combat these policies. Page down to “Allies” under http://www.alliancedefensefund.org/issues/ReligiousFreedom/UniversityLife.aspx.
I’m glad you brought up the issue of prayer in public schools: “Decide for yourself if religion is being established by the government via their school. According to the [Thomas More] Law Center, ‘for three weeks, impressionable 12-year-old students were, among other things, placed into Islamic city groups; took Islamic names; wore identification tags that displayed their new Islamic name and the star and crescent moon; handed materials that instructed them to Remember Allah always so that you may prosper; completed the Islamic Five Pillars of Faith, including fasting; and memorized and recited the Bismillah or In the name of … [Allah], the Merciful, the Compassionate, which students also wrote on banners hung on the classroom walls. Students also played jihad games during the course, which was part of the school's world history and geography program.
“…In December 2003, the San Francisco court determined the school district had not violated the Constitution. In her 22-page ruling, U.S. District Judge Phyllis Hamilton determined Excelsior was not indoctrinating students about Islam when it required them to adopt Muslim names and pray to Allah, but rather was just teaching them about the Muslim religion.” (Emphasis added.)
Now, c’mon. “What would happen if students were [required] to adopt Christian names and pray to the Lord Jesus Christ? Would that practice be seen as mere teaching about Christianity or would it be seen as indoctrination and therefore a violation of the Constitution? It is a sad day when the truth comes out. Not only is Christianity being marginalized in this country (a prelude to ban), but the Constitution really means nothing. It is simply used, when convenient, to bash Christians.” http://www.callingfortruth.org/cft/content/view/17/9
However, snopes.com http://www.snopes.com/religion/islam.asp has another perspective that appears less emotional. I say “appears” because the editors of the site dismiss the requirement to pray to Allah as insignificant. To both Christians and Jews this act of worship is no trivial matter – it is a violation of the First Commandment. One could understand why: I know some Christians who don’t realize that prayer is an act of worship; how could one expect our secular society to know it?
Snopes goes on. “Assist Ministries is addressing the wrong issue: This controversy shouldn't be about Islam vs. Christianity or "our religion" vs. "their religion," but rather about the appropriateness of any religious teachings in public schools.”
If this is true, snopes should wonder, as I do, where the ACLU is. Too busy defending NAMBLA, perhaps?
A Christian is also tempted to wonder if a student would get a zero for the assignment if he refused to participate in such activities based on religious grounds. I bet he would. Any takers?
Comment by sedonaman | April 9, 2008
[…] pointnine 7:39 pm Check out The Myth of the Religion-Neutral Classroom. Interesting […]
Pingback by Is “Religion-Neutral” Possible? « .9 Repeating Decimal | April 9, 2008
Sedonaman - different ACLU chapters do different things. With respect to Islam in schools, I was as upset by that incident as you, but you might be as heartened as I was by this report: http://badidea.wordpress.com/2008/04/10/why-where-is-the-aclu-often-ends-in-intellectual-tragedy/
The presentation of the NAMBLA and BSA issues in the article you linked is slanted a bit. I have to agree with him that the manual he describes is over the line between advocacy and 'aiding & abetting'. On the other hand, that manual doesn't seem to have been relevant to the kidnapping at the heart of the legal case - that appears to be a manual for doing unspeakable acts clandestinely.
And if NAMBLA members truly "distribute child pornography and trade live children", then prosecuting them for publications ought to be far lower on the list of priorities. I'm not aware of any ACLU chapter defending anyone charged with that.
Obviously I find NAMBLA repellent in word and deed, even when their deeds are legal. (I have four children, and however cliched it may sound, I literally cannot imagine how horrifying it'd be if one of them suffered what poor Jeffrey Curley did.) But I can understand the thought processes that would lead someone to want to protect even them from being prosecuted for their words, even when in this case I have to agree that it's wrong.
The actions of the other ACLU chapter, with respect to the Boy Scouts, are of quite a different nature. The Scouts are definitely a religious organization (more so now than ever). I have a certain amount of experience here - I've never been a religious adherent, and I made Eagle Scout… but that was a couple decades ago when things weren't quite as polarized as now. My eldest son wanted to join the Scouts, and I've supported him in that, just as I'll be there for his first Communion on Sunday. Mention of God has ramped up dramatically from when I was a scout.
I like a lot of what the Scouts do. But that doesn't mean I think the BSA is entitled to sweetheart deals from the government, and that doesn't mean I agree with all their policies.
Comment by Raymond Ingles | April 11, 2008
Raymond Ingles:
“On the other hand, that [NAMBLA] manual doesn't seem to have been relevant to the kidnapping at the heart of the legal case - that appears to be a manual for doing unspeakable acts clandestinely.”
I disagree. I’m not an attorney, but I think a very good case can be made that NAMBLA’s sales of such manuals is a conspiracy to commit a crime: “You want to commit a crime? Come. For $X, we’ll teach you how.” Obviously, the more successful the manuals are at enabling child molesters / murderers to succeed, the more manuals they will sell and therefore profit more from the crimes.
“What the evidence in the [conspiracy] case must show beyond a reasonable doubt is:
First: That two or more persons, in some way or manner, came to a mutual understanding to try to accomplish a common and unlawful plan, as charged in the indictment;
Second: That the person willfully became a member of such conspiracy;
Third: That one of the conspirators during the existence of the conspiracy knowingly committed at least one of the methods (or 'overt acts') described in the indictment; and
Fourth: That such 'overt act' was knowingly committed at or about the time alleged in an effort to carry out or accomplish some object of the conspiracy.” http://www.rense.com/general9/cons.htm
In addition, “Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241 - Conspiracy Against Rights, … makes it unlawful for two or more persons to conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person of any state, territory, or district in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him/her by the Constitution or the laws of the United States, (or because of his/her having exercised the same).” http://miami.fbi.gov/statutes/title_18/section241.htm
That the murdered boy was deprived of his right to life and liberty shouldn’t even be a question.
“The Scouts are definitely a religious organization…”
I guess that all depends on your definition of “religious organization.” The Catholic Church is a “religious organization.” Is the Boy Scouts like the Catholic Church? I know its creed mentions God, but does the organization’s literature describe God’s nature or what you have to believe about God? Is the mission of the Scouts a religious one, or a civic one? Most Mafiosos believe in God, but we would hardly call the Mafia a religious organization.
“I like a lot of what the Scouts do. But that doesn't mean I think the BSA is entitled to sweetheart deals from the government."
And you are free to think that, but it is not the determining factor in whether the Scouts get “sweetheart deals” from the government. The Scouts should be accorded the same deals as any other non-profit organization. To say that one group can have them but not the Scouts is discrimination based on message content.
Comment by sedonaman | April 11, 2008
Sedonaman - perhaps you misunderstood my point. Of course I wasn't saying that the boy wasn't "deprived of his right to life and liberty". The article is unclear, and I have far less than zero interest in going to the NAMBLA site, but it sounds like the 'manual' in question offers 'advice' on securing the confidence of parents and the victim for longer-term abuse, not for kidnapping. This still of course strikes me as being (well) on the illegal side of the line, but it's not clear that it was related to the kidnapping of Jeffrey Curley itself.
As to the Scouts, an organization that requires its members to be religious can't be anything but a religious organization. There are even (relatively minimal) doctrinal requirements - polytheists need not apply to be Scouts, from what I can determine. (I'm also not sure the Mafioso analogy is correct - first, how do you know that 'most' believe in God, and second, is that a requirement for membership?)
Comment by Raymond Ingles | April 11, 2008
Raymond Ingles:
"As to the Scouts, an organization that requires its members to be religious can't be anything but a religious organization."
From this statement we could conclude the Catholic Church "can't be anything but" a social service organization because it requires its members to perform social service work such as, "feed the hungry", "clothe the naked”, and “care for the sick.”
Comment by sedonaman | April 11, 2008
Sedonaman - You're right, my words could be misinterpreted that way. So I'll rephrase: An organization that requires its members to be religious must, ipso facto, be a religious organization.
I was using "can't be anything but" in the sense of "can't not be". But you're right, that phrasing is just unclear enough that someone might mistake my intent.
As in your example, the Catholic Church is a social service organization, but not only that. The Scouts likewise are a religious organization, though not only a religious organization.
Comment by Raymond Ingles | April 14, 2008
Raymond Ingles - I suppose that it depends on individual Scout Troops, just like any other group. My son's troop fully follows the guidelines that Scouts must have a belief in "God", which then goes on to say that "which God" does not matter. In his troop, there ARE polytheists, along with Christians, atheists, and those of the Jewish faith. There has been no issues, to date, of problems with the different beliefs, and the prayers that are used are inclusive to all.
I am an active member of The American Legion, whose motto is, "For God and Country." The membership requirements are only that you served honorably in the US military during a declared war - no one asks if you believe in God. Every meeting opens with an invocation and ends with a benediction - both of which are to be as inclusive to all beliefs as possible. Yet, I would not, for a moment, classify The American Legion as a religious organization, even in part. It is a service organization that encourages it's members to participate and express their individual beliefs.
A sample invocation, "As we come together this night, we ask You to help us remember that we work for a common purpose. Let us deliberate with open minds and open hearts, for the good of the Legion. To You we pray. Amen."
My point is, to classify a group as a religious organization implies that all members must be of ONE religion. So, the Catholic Church can be both a service organization and a religious one. Yet the Boy Scouts do not share a single religion - it is open to all.
Comment by Rev.Jeanene | April 16, 2008