Beyond the Pledge of Allegiance:
Hostility to Religious Expression in the Public Square

Back to Index

How Judges and Teachers Rip Up Faith

The Courts have developed a "test" which can be used to allow practices of religion if practices are found to have a "secular purpose."1 So let's look at this "secular purpose."

Secular purpose: Californiaís unrevised State Standards 2 apply "critical thinking" when studying history which focuses on religion:
 

"The skills involved in critical thinking enable students to question the validity and meaning of what they read, hear, think, and believe. Critical thinking requires a questioning mind and a skeptical withholding of assent about the truth of a statement until it can be critically evaluated. While such skills are developed through everyday living as well as by schooling, the historyĖsocial science classroom is an especially appropriate setting for developing such skills."

The "history-social science classroom" includes to a great extent, religion. Under these "critical thinking" guidelines, to teach religion as secular, or "neutral" Ė without belief or disbelief, cannot be taught with "critical thinking" for it denies itís own definition of "secular" if applied to religious beliefs. Secular "critical thinking" directs an impressionable child to judge based on secular reasoning, devoid of faith. It is atheistic by nature impeded by "critical thinking" when approaching religion. Justice demands religion cannot be measured by manís objective (atheist) reasoning as it is a matter of faith. Therefore, objective secular standards cannot be the guide to "teach" religious beliefs without prejudice, to do so completely destroys a childís right to religious freedom.

The Courts have followed this tactic and have ruled "practicing religion" is to be determined by a "reasonable observer." Reasonable by whose standards? A secular humanist's? This line of thinking is in direct opposition of the right of every person to freely choose his own course 3, not the Court's idea of a secular "reasonable observer" or a trumped up humanist civil rights "denomination" parading around as religious, currently a successful ploy of humanists. 4

"History-Social Science Framework for California Public Schools:" (pg 24)

"This framework proposes that critical thinking skills be included at every grade level. Students should learn to detect bias in print and visual media; to recognize illogical thinking; to guard against propaganda; to avoid stereotyping of group members; to reach conclusions based on solid evidence; and to think critically, creatively, and rationally. These skills are to be taught within the context of a curriculum that offers numerous opportunities to explore examples of sound reasoning and examples of the opposite.

As the enclosed analysis of the Houghton Mifflin 5 textbooks will show, the "sound reasoning" as determined by textbook authors favors secular humanism, proving to denigrate Christianity. The Framework states:

bullet"To detect bias in print"

The Houghton Mifflin textbooks are loaded with previously undetected bias. Obviously public school is incapable of discernment.

bullet"To recognize illogical thinking"

As determined by who? Teachers insist children must learn fabricated samples of unknown religions yet teach American history stripped of its Christian foundation. Public school canít recognize its own "illogical thinking."

bullet"To reach conclusions based on solid evidence"

This is the opener to attack faith. (We walk by faith not by sight).

bullet"To guard against propaganda"

Houghton Mifflinís textbooks should be used in courses as examples of propaganda, not history.

bullet"To think critically, creatively, and rationally."

Our children already do that. Children are able to make up their own minds if you give them FACTS and not public school programming. "Critical thinking" only gives teachers and textbooks the opportunity to lead them in whatever direction their ideology and secular philosophy dictates.

From "History-Social Science Framework for California Public Schools 2002"

"Students should understand the intense religious passions that have produced fanaticism and war as well as the political arrangements developed (such as separation of church and state) that allow different religious groups to live amicably in a pluralistic society." (pg 23)

These state standards admit RIGHT THERE that the goal is to water down the faith of children. We can believe, just do not believe passionately.

"Intense religious passions that have produced fanaticism and war."

What about the intense religious passion that has prompted so many to love and acts of compassion? Overwhelmingly the largest charities and free service organizations world-wide stem from passionate religion and faith. But public education sees passionate religion as something to be abolished and is taking steps to do so. It was the passionate religion of our forefathers that shaped the foundation of this nation. To diffuse the passion of religion is not the purpose of public schools, in fact it is illegal. In addition, different religions were already living amicably in a pluralistic society without the help of separation of church and state as postured above.

"Students need to understand why a democracy needs citizens who value give-and-take on issues, who do not feel it necessary to go to war over every idea, and who seek the middle ground on which consensus and cooperation can flourish." (pg 39)

There IS a right and wrong, and when something is very wrong, people should become passionate about it. The above sentence is not about peace, itís about dumbing down America. Teaching us to be non-responsive and apathetic. What if Patrick Henry or our forefathers were conditioned this way? What if America sought the middle ground with Hitler? There is such a demand in society to deny right and wrong and to put everything in the gray, but this will not achieve peace, we will become like sheep ready for the slaughter.

Christians walk by faith not by sight. To place all of the above under "secular" (devoid of faith) reasoning is a blatant assault on religion through an atheist lens.

Critical thinking may be appropriate in other applications, but definitely NOT religion. Teachers could not possibly grasp in full different religious beliefs and are not qualified to determine the validity for our children. Parents have the right to share faith with their children without public schools atheist philosophies taking advantage of unprotected innocent young minds and imposing "secular" ideologies.

Example: Karen Anderson is applauded for the following statement in Houghton Mifflinís "Modern World History," a high school textbook (pg 627):

"Human beings are spiritual animals...Men and women started to worship gods as soon as they became recognizably human; they created religions at the same time they created works of art."

To teach children of faith that religion was created by man is a total violation of religious freedom! We do not send our children to school to be taught their religion is made up.

Parents are now forced to teach their children to apply these "critical thinking" skills to anything that teachers "teach" them. Teachers have regretfully lost respect as students are on guard not to accept much of what they teach, putting children in the middle of a battle where everyone loses.

In Across the Centuries, Christianity is the ONLY faith named as persecutors on page 316 in a highlighted block about religious persecution. In the Crusades section, children are asked how others felt when Christians called them infidels. In A Message of Ancient Days, the Christian section is actually titled, "Christians and the Fall of Rome" in which they directly attribute the fall to Christians.

The word "teach" means to sway a child to conform to a teacher's way of thinking, therefore teachers need to be limited to FACTS. The entity of "public school" revoltingly has deemed itself to be a god, equipped to program our children how to think.

Secular critical thinking is indeed "especially appropriate" if you are an atheist eager to apply skepticism of religion to young impressionable minds. Would an atheist hope to "critically evaluate" religion with children? Oh you bet.

A far better application of "critical thinking" would be in the classroom of science. Why not teach children to question the truth about scientific theories? In the case of evolution, the "rational thinking" would be most appropriate. Scrutiny of Darwinís theory could prove invaluable. "To reach conclusions of solid evidence" would be a welcome reality check.

This "wolf in critical thinking" has been ravaging our children for years. The outcry over the editing of our Pledge of Allegiance proved some of us still remember what our nation was founded on, but if we continue to teach our children untruths and "critical thinking," what made this country great will be gone. As the atheist in our local paper stated about omission of God from the pledge,

"America isnít ready for it yet. We tried too much too quickly."

Atheists working against America and what she stands for have been slowly and methodically dismantling our precious heritage and openly admit their agenda. Will we continue to allow others to "get us ready for it?"

  1. Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602. "Secular purpose" is one of three points in a "test."
  2. Calif. State Standards 2002 before revision
  3. Abington v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203
  4. Clinton's 35 "religious" groups scrutinized
    http://www.blessedcause.org/proof/Clinton's%2035%20religious%20groups.htm
  5. Houghton Mifflin Textbook Exposed
    http://www.blessedcause.org/proof/Hard%20Proof%20Index.htm

Index    Page:| 1 | 2 | 3 |  4 |

Back to Blessed Cause