Education is a religious exercise

By Ed Iverson

Education is a religious exercise. It cannot be otherwise. It is never a question about religion in the classroom, yes or no? It is always a question about which religion will inform the classroom.

The government endorses an eclectic brand of secularist humanism. For example, they are very firm about the origin of mankind. Whether they know it or not, they thus subscribe to a religious understanding of who man is and what his purpose is. Examples like this can be multiplied. It would be hard to think of a curriculum standard not informed to some degree by multiculturalism. There is no culture so depraved, no civilization so inhuman that it cannot be compared favorably with other cultures. All cultures are to be equally esteemed (unless it be the one that has descended from Western Christendom.) Kids learn about sex acts, sexual behavior and sexual preference from a curriculum informed by a religious dogmatism that would rival Islamic jihadists. Such instruction cannot be said to be religiously neutral.

The laws that govern our government schools are informed by considerations of what is right and what is wrong. In earlier times (before the abolition of the "M" word), matters of right and wrong were referred to as "morality." We have laws regarding gender equity because educational leaders believe this is the "right" thing to do. Public schools go to great lengths to avoid racial segregation. That is good. The point is, if racial segregation of the schools is "wrong," then it is an issue that has been settled by morality. Students caught sexually harassing other students are disciplined for doing something "wrong." More morality.

Every rule finds its justification in some system of morality. All morality is religious. Atheist philosophers argue that there can be a morality that is based on community consensus. However, this doesn't free morality from religion. It merely grounds morality in a different kind of religion. True, it is not the Christian religion. Nor is it the Muslim nor the Jewish nor the Buddhist religion. Call it the humanist religion. Sir Julian Huxley was not reluctant to do so as he signed The Humanist Manifesto in 1933. Unfortunately, this humanism descends into statism, a more menacing variant of secular religion.

A separation of school and state will signal the inception of real education reform. For those readers who are interested, there is a national organization called the Alliance for the Separation of School & State. Their excellent material can be referenced at http://www.schoolandstate.org/home.htm.

Several weeks ago I wrote an article observing that the Idaho Science Teachers Association had banned all alternatives to evolutionary Darwinism from the government school science curriculum. In response, one Darwinist commented that he would be delighted to see creationism and intelligent design taught in the public schools. He proposed a curriculum that would expose the foolishness of ID and creationism. He would teach this in a unit that also discredited "astrology, palmistry, ghosts, out-of-body-experiences, and other foolishness where students need skills to sift fact from fiction."

If there could be a better argument for the separation of school and state, I could not have devised it. My reader is perfectly justified in teaching a unit denying that God created the world in six regular days. I applaud him for desiring to teach his children in accordance with his religion. But he is not content with that. He proposes to takes my tax money and use it to convince my kids that the Christian worldview that I so carefully inculcated in them is nothing more than silly superstition.

Multiply that example by a hundred and you have the case for the separation of school and state. Humanist kids should understand the humanist manifesto and be able to push the ideas therein into all the corners. Who should pay for that instruction? Not I! Why should I be forced to pay for that when I believe humanism is destructive?