BlessedCause.org

would hotly dispute, having been believing refugees fleeing religious tyranny themselves). As Armstrong expressed her excitement about pluralism she said, "We can never look at our own religions the same way again." ―NYC Union Theological Seminary

For Armstrong to lead the pluralist charge is a direct assault on religious freedom.

Also on this textbook page is written, "Write a persuasive speech in order to convince someone that Confucianism can be considered a religion. Write a dialogue between two people in which each explains the workings of one of the major religions to the other."

What possible conclusion would a pluralist hope for when asking children to explain religions they have barely skimmed? As pluralist philosophy professors have already explained, children will come to the conclusion that they are told, that all religions are equal leading them to the conclusion that there is no one truth. They will become frustrated as they CANNOT POSSIBLY explain a religion they don’t understand and will come to the predetermined assumption that there is no God. They will accept what Karen Armstrong was applauded for stating: that man created religion.

The US Supreme Court has ruled that "to pass constitutional muster," challenged state action must have a primary effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion, and must not foster excessive state entanglement with religion. Lemon, 403 U.S. at 612-13, 91 S. Ct. at 2111-12.

A burden upon religion is defined in EEOC cases. EEOC explains an employer may also be liable where the training program is explicitly based upon religious beliefs and in this case, pluralist or religious philosophy beliefs. Under Title VII an employer is obligated to maintain a working environment free of coercion or intimidation based on religion. Requiring teachers or students to demonstrate knowledge and understanding of "ethics, philosophy and the role of religion in human experiences" as per pluralism, for a degree or credentials violates Title VII. In this situation, an educational institution discriminates not only against potential teachers and students whose individual religious beliefs conflict with the training program but also against potential teachers and students who choose not to have religious beliefs. EEOC Notice N-915.022, C.D. No. 72-0528, CCH EEOC Decisions (1973); 6316 State of Minnesota v. Sports and Health Club, 392 N.W.2d 320, 41 EPD 36.617 (1986) Young v. Southwestern Savings and Loan Association, 509 F.2d 140, 9 EPD 9995 (5th Cir. 1975) n. 16.

Teaching credentials, degrees and good grades are rewards just as benefits, compensation and jobs in the following cases:

Here, [an] employee was put to a choice between fidelity to religious belief or cessation of work" "Neutral objective standards must be met to qualify for compensation." Thomas v. Review Bd. Ind. Empl. Sec. Div., 450 U.S. 707 (1981)

"Where the state conditions receipt of an important benefit upon conduct proscribed by a religious faith, or where it denies such a benefit because of conduct mandated by religious belief, thereby putting substantial pressure on an adherent to modify his behavior and to violate his beliefs, a burden upon religion exists. While the compulsion may be indirect, the infringement upon free exercise is nonetheless substantial. Thomas v. Review Bd. Ind. Empl. Sec. Div., 450 U.S. 707 (1981).

How much more offensive it is put substantial pressure on children to violate their beliefs, led by a "teacher," from whom the child is instructed to learn from. Public schools must also be an "environment free of coercion or intimidation based on religion."

Implementing "innovative techniques" admittedly coercing relinquishment of religious beliefs, applying "critical thinking" demanding objective proof (when Christians walk by faith not by sight), analyzing religious beliefs through a humanist pluralist lens are a philosophist’s dream-come-true and are NOT neutral objective standards. Indeed, if every shred of belief in God is to be stripped from public education, then every shred of otology, the challenges and criticisms of said beliefs, must be eradicated as well. Otherwise , we are not "free of any compulsion from the state." Abington v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 By compelling adherence to modification of behavior and violation of beliefs is a governmental intrusion of religious liberty. Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing TP., 330 U.S. 1 (1947)

The First Amendment specifically protects religious freedom and are echoed in numerous rulings. In Justice Black’s opinion favoring "separation of church and state" he wrote:

"The people [of Virginia], as elsewhere, reached the conviction that individual religious liberty could be achieved best under a government which was stripped of all power to tax, to support, or otherwise to assist any or all religions, or to interfere with the beliefs of any religious individual or group." Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing TP., 330 U.S. 1 (1947)

"...that no person, either believer or non-believer, should be taxed to support a religious institution of any kind; that the best interest of a society required that the minds of men always be wholly free; and that cruel persecutions were the inevitable result of government-established religions." Id.

Justice Black quoted the preamble to the 'Virginia Bill for Religious Liberty' by Jefferson:

"Almighty God hath created the mind free; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments, or burthens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the Holy author of our religion who being Lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either...; that to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical; that even the forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own persuasion, is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the particular pastor, whose morals he would make his pattern..." And the statute itself enacted "That no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested or burthened, in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or beliefs." Id.

"This Court has previously recognized that the provisions of the First Amendment, in the drafting and adoption of which Madison and Jefferson played such leading roles, had the same objective and were intended to provide the same protection against governmental intrusion on religious liberty as the Virginia statute." Id.

The law guarantees the right of every person to "freely choose his own course in religious teaching, free of any compulsion from the state." Abington v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203

When our founding fathers wrote the Constitution, clearly they meant to protect religious freedom, not to be separated from actual faith. They did not write that all religions should be treated as myths, lumped into one and treated with disparagement. The assaults on religious freedom are attempted through comparing all religions, identifying them as equal, and then expecting children to attempt to "imagine" and play act being of different faiths. Children are then asked to defend the tenets of that faith and when they cannot, are led to the conclusion that there is no one truth. As Julian Willard put it, (quoted in the Stanford University Encyclopedia of Philosophy), when Christians "become aware of diversity and cannot demonstrate that their perspective is superior to that of their competitors, they not only lose the right to hold the exclusivistic belief in question justifiably, they have an epistemic obligation to "set about abandoning" the religious practices based on this exclusivistic belief." –Julian Willard as quoted in Religious Philosophy, Pluralism.

Pluralism is in clear-cut violation of the intention of our founding fathers: "Almighty God hath created the mind free; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments, or burthens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness." –Thomas Jefferson in the preamble to the 'Virginia Bill for Religious Liberty' quoted by Justice Black in Everson v. State Board of Education, supra

If there is any semblance left of following the Constitution, then pluralism in public education MUST CEASE.

It will be argued that such a broad elimination of objectionable material will "leave public education in shreds" and impede state interest.

But the Court has expressed it’s deep conviction that the separation of church and state must prevail:

Such conviction cannot be applied unfairly. Justice must be for all. Justice is not served when extreme impositions and strict adherence of the law is demanded to strip all faith from the government yet not protect it, not apply the same standards to one pluralist religion and belief bent on destroying all other religious beliefs.

David Silver, Associate Professor at the Universities of Delaware and Pennsylvania, also published, Religious Experience and the Facts of Religious Pluralism in which he writes:

Not only has Silver conveyed that Christian "exclusivism" (of which the Bible supports) beliefs are impossible, but has begun the dubious expression, "rationally impossible" thus hinting to call into question the rational cohesiveness of Christians professing real faith. Considering the current politically charged conclusions admitted in DSM-IV and the APA, this dangerous direction is a clear and present threat heralding the destruction of our government, as the US Supreme Court justices "have staked the very existence of our country." McCollum v. Board of Education

The court further ruled, "To borrow the ultimate concern test from the free exercise context and use it with present establishment clause doctrines would be to invite attack on all programs that further the ultimate concerns of individuals or entangle the government with such concerns." Grove v. Mead School District, supra.

To apply the same standards, the same tests, is not "to borrow" but to apply fairly. The same Constitutional rights must be afforded FOR ALL.