Secular School System?

An education system is guided by the teachers and education officials that run it. In turn, these people are largely guided by the principles that underpin and founded the system. It is a circular loop which also includes the students it teaches who are inculturated into the next generation of educators.

In the 20th century there was a fairly sharp break in the culture of the people who became the educators. In turn they sought to reshape the foundations and underpinnings of western education in their own image which meant a secularisation of western education. Their students too were enculturated in this new secular culture and in turn taught to propagate a secular view of education and the world.

Western education systems gradually moved away from their Christian principles to one of a purported independence from Christianity. Such a move was sometimes in sharp opposition to Christianity and in part under the excuse of a newly defined secular moralities such as ‘equality’ (without God) and ‘universalism’ (without God). These secular moralities asserted that the Christian culture of western civilisation was no different from any other religious tradition and  it sought to distance the success of western education from all religion in general and of course Christianity in particular.

The education of last century was apologetic towards Marxist views and it produced a populace with negative views towards organized religion in general and Christianity in particular. This is what it was designed to do and this is what it accomplished.

In what is left of Christian education today, largely the Catholic system, it is important that it be a comprehensive education which does not leaves our students ignorant of the Christian underpinnings of Western civilisation. If it fails to counter the existing secular push, students will depart school and be prey to any bad philosophy which uses as its rallying call a campaign against the Church.

If, as is often suggested, we teach what is (arguably) common to us, then we are in danger of teaching a restricted atheist worldview where there is not even the discussion of God in a serious way let alone the continuation of publicly supported Christian culture. If Christianity is decided to not be taught because it is ‘not common to all’ then what we are asking for is an impoverishment of education. Many students who leave our schools will not (and do not) have the foggiest idea of where ‘their’ science/culture/medicine/education/state welfare came from. They will continue to say and believe silly things like :

  • 1) The Bible says the Universe was made in 6 days by God but science has shown us the Big Bang Theory.                                                                                                                     They will say this and not know that the Big Bang Theory comes from the teaching of Belgian Catholic priest Georges Lemaitre. 
  • 2) The Bible says the Earth is 6000 years old but science has shown us it is billions of years old.

    They will say this and not know that the scientific field of palaeontology and geography with the different layers of Earth containing different historical strata and fossil information came from the mind of the Catholic Bishop Nicholas Steno.

     

  • 3) The Bible tells us the world runs on fairy tales but science has shown us it runs on natural mathematical scientific law.
    They will say this and not know that the idea of mathematical law as the base of physical reality came from the mind of the Anglican Theologiam Isaac Newton who wrote in his preface to Principia Mathematica that he hoped the idea of the physical world run by scientific law would help thinking people to see there was a God.
  • 4) Christianity gives us useless prayer and close minded thought whilst science gives us the scientific method and proof and experimentation.
    They will say this and not know that the scientific method was first codified by an English monk and was used by priests and bishops from the 12 century onwards including Father Roger Bacon and Bishop Grosseteste who are credited with developing experimental science.
  • 5) Christianity tells us we are all created by the individual choice of God but science tells us that we are the product of our genes.
    They will say this and not know that the Father of Genetics is the Austrian monk Gregor Mendal and the first three laws of genetics are named after him.

     

  • 6) Christianity does not investigate nature because it takes things on blind faith whereas science has taught us the secrets of the atom.
    They will say this and not know that the Father of Physical Theory and the first mathematical description of the atom was from the Catholic priest Roger Boscovich who theorized in the 1740’s that matter was made up of dimensionless points in fields of attraction and at very close distances, repulsion. He theorized about the different arrangement of these points and how they would cause the different properties of matter.

     

  • 7) Christianity says that God created man but science has told us that we come from primates and share a common ancestor with other life.
    They will say this and not know that Charles Darwin was a Theologian and a regular Christian when pursuing his science before becoming an agnostic in later life.

     

  • 8) Christianity believes in useless prayers to cure sickness whereas science has given us antibiotics to kill microbiotic germs.
    They will say this and not know that the founder of microbiology was the Christian apologist Louis Pasteur from whose Christian thinking theorized and then proved micro organisms.

    I could go on and talk about Boyle, Albert the Great and more but I think I’ve made the point. If Christianity is seen as something that needs to be removed from schooling then we are receiving an impoverished education. An impoverished education that today has created a plethora of people who have absolutely no idea of the Christian underpinnings of not just culture, health and education but science as well. To be ignorant of Christianity is to be ignorant of our western (and now human) history and what works. We’ve made the silly mistake of being influenced in the past from Marxist leaning universities. Let’s recover from the ignorance that has caused. Let’s not make it worse by falling again for silly arguments on why Christianity needs to be marginalised under invented moralities of ‘equality and universalism’ (without God.

One of the observed problems of secularism is that it tries to be equal to all religions. If Christianity is better in some way (such as with the birth of Western science) it is deemed to be tolerant and plural to represent other religions as just as good or to downplay Christianity. This leads to the fabrication and impoverishment of education that i referred to earlier.

Our education system blurred the lines between treating all religions the same, then thinking all religions are the same and finally making all religions the same. The clear starting point was Marxist ideology, with its goal to propagate itself through the education system. Clearly it has caused an impoverishment of education through the suppression of truth and inquiry which opposes the manufactured moralities of secular humanist thought such as Marxism .

There have been many attempts to manufacture moralities which have the desired affect of marginalising Christianity within society. One such attempt has been to appeal to our ‘common humanity’ and portray religions as all the same which cause division. If only we would see religions as simple cultural traditions all founded on fables then we will accept secular humanist philosophy and with it the Marxist ideology. Such a universalist appeal is very enticing. Everyone wants to be at peace with his neighbour and yet as this universalist approach has developed in the west, it’s people have become less and less at peace with their neighbour.

Having successfully pushed Christianity out of state schools, the next step was to push Christianity out of Christian schools. This may sound ridiculous but many pretend ‘Catholic’ educators have entered Catholic universities to do exactly this. They have targeted the teaching profession and the Theology faculty. I myself found this situation when i returned to education and attended a Catholic university.

In the subject of Religious Education we were asked to consider the (manufactured) morality of teaching only Christianity to our students. Such Christian teaching was portrayed as not serving the broader interests of our students and risking their separation from ‘normal’ school children. In reality the push to remove Christ from Christian education was to remove the role of the local bishop and place the Religion subject firmly in the hands of pretend ‘Catholics’ who had largely taken over the Religious Education and Theology faculties.

This universalist argument proceeded from the first year of university to the last. Of course there were many objections. Students objecting found it more difficult to pass subjects. Many more students simply accepted what they were told and kept ther heads down wanting to get through university and receive their degree. Some students (approximately 5%) became secular ‘true believers’ and were radicalised into becoming the pretend Catholics of the next generation. These were the ones who were targeted by the university to become the next generation of activists.They believed they were doing Catholicism a favour by dropping Christ, criticising the church and ‘bringing it into the modern era.

In my Theology training the ‘universalist’ agenda followed the following path over my years there :

So firstly with Catholics and Protestants the importance of the Pope was ridiculed and downplayed. Let’s be together and end the division.

With Christians and Muslims, the idea that Jesus is God was ridiculed and downplayed. Let’s be together and end the division.

With Christians and Atheists the idea there is a God was ridiculed and downplayed. Let’s be together and end the division.

In the end we got Atheism taught as the default.

Some links from education writers who have talked about the change in western education :

 

Secularism is supposed to mean that there is not a state religion. It ends up asking for all religions to be treated the same and as this is unworkable it heavily pushes for religion to be left out altogether as a practical solution.

This is largely what committed atheists want. So in practice in western countries a secular approach lays the rules for dismissing religion. Hence in America there is no money given to religious schools and there is no prayer allowed in state schools. It is easier for the state simply to remove any vestige of religion from its funding and operations rather than trying the impossibility of treating all religions the same within the curriculum.

The secular idea of defining morality in terms of ‘equality’ just happens to produce the effect of removing all religion from education and leaving the secular ideology unchallenged as the guiding principles children are enculturated with.

There has been a subtle but powerful shift from a secular state being neutral towards religion, to it being non-religious. This has been pushed very strongly by the non-religious themselves who have seen the state as the vehicle to promulgate their own ideology. Their efforts to insure a concentration and expansion of state power means that such a non-religious ideology can influence/lead/rule over the population in a greater and greater sphere of common life.

There is the question of whether it is healthy for a state to run education at all if it is going to benefit one small ideology and get all others offside and eventually try to eliminate them. Government should make rules to regulate education but i don’t believe it should run it. The practice in many western countries is to use the state to run education and then to have the ridiculous idea that to be neutral the state should not allow any religion in schools.

Under this worldview Christianity in law has no more right that Stonehenge Warlocks and so both are given the same treatment under secularism. Courts will not rule any other way given the atheist definitions of secularism that have been supported in western courtrooms. It does practically throw Christianity out of the education system.

It is quite understandable that people are concerned and angry in the west that a minority (dressed in secularist clothing) dictate to the majority.

To support a situation where the Catholic Church in the west is treated exactly the same way as Stonehenge Warlocks is ridiculous. Hence the myths of the 20th century in our universities to attack Christianity and level out all religions.

To the secularist, all religions are human constructs that can be tinkered with. No religion can be afforded a degree of credibility over any other religion at any stage. Hence we have secular skewed education systems that treat Christian thought as exclusive, narrow minded and intolerant. Christianity must be ridiculed and other religions promoted to achieve an artificial equality. Only the secularist that treats all religions the same is seen to be modern, pluralistic and tolerant. Of course because all religions cannot be equally true. So if religions are all equal they must ultimately be false and only human cultural creations. Again, this is the Marxist ideological position.

A legal system based on the secularist mindset likewise has no choice but to see all Christian truth claims as intolerant and wrong – hence the minority secularist mindset in law does not create a level playing field. Children are taught to think that any truth claim by religion (especially Christianity) is not only unfounded and juvenile, but dangerous to society.

It creates a playing field where their ‘non religion’ must legally dominate.

People have the right to live in safe houses and fly in safe airplanes. The Government neither has a monolpoly on building houses nor a monopoly on running airlines. Neither should they have a monopoly on schools.

If people want non-religion in schools then they should gain non religious support and build their own schools just like the Christians have.

A parallel would be like claiming, in Ireland that all sports need to be treated the same. So Gaelic Football has to be treated the same as Australian football. No matter that vastly more people in Ireland play and want to watch Gaelic football and vice versa in Australia. Too bad! The state should (according to the equality secular morality) represent each  in schools and on Government TV equally. Public decisions for funding are forced to ‘treat’ Gaelic football and Australian Rules the same. This would be ridiculous.

Of course it’s not just Australian rules. Fox hunting and sumo wrestling and downhill skiing must also be represented and funded equally. We can’t forget the minority amongst us that play ice hockey. They have rights too! If we are going to use public money to fund a Hurling stadium, well it just won’t be fair unless we build a publicly funded ice hockey stadium as well. We have to build a cock fighting stadium as well, i nearly forget them. How intolerant of me!

Such a mindset would see government withdraw from funding sports the same way as many have done in funding Christian education.

 

I have detailed the same push in education where all religions have to be treated equally. If the curriculum says something nice about Christianity and Science (the topic that i’ve highlighted) it also has to look around and find something nice to say about the Hindus, Shiite and Sunni Muslims and yes the Stonehenge Warlocks. If one particular religion seems to be getting too much curriculum coverage – maybe because of the inconvenient truth that a large section of the students are of that religion; or that it actually has contributed largely to a particular field then the secular mindset will either be to attack that religion to portray a more “balanced (but inaccurate) view” or it will look to take that learning out of the curriculum (again inaccurate) to obey a warped sense of equality. Either way this ‘being fair to religion’ secular morality means misrepresenting and attacking religion and eventually looking to remove it from public consideration by using public money.

This is the secular Marxist process wrapped up in pseudo fairness and equality. It is a minority dictating to the majority, wrapping it up in pseudo equality and believing anyone who disagrees is intolerant.

The sporting analogy is quite valid although some will say they are offended by Christianity in the public space. This is getting closer to the truth but it does not carry weight. We can decide to be offended by whatever we wish. If we enshrine being offended as a way of taking out that in law that which we object to, then we start to build up a cultural mindset of demonstrating we are offended at anything we don’t like. That is not how a social democracy works.

Those that could then could convince government that they are offended the most, will get their way. That seems like a very corosive attitude to promote in inter community communication.

In a social democracy if people want to play tiddly-winks then that is their right. But they don’t have the right to be funded by the state to the same degree that football is publicly funded. They have the right to be offended by football but they can’t use their offence as a way to get rid of public funding for football.

The only thing more silly than this demand is the person who is against all sport but who wants to take up the case for the tiddly-winkers and declare how much better society would be if we treated tiddly-winks and football the same. Then they wouldn’t be so personally offended!

That’s not how a social democracy works. If people want to play tiddly-winks and there are enough of them in a geographic location; if it is good for society and there is enough ongoing community support for tiddly-wink funding, then they can petition the government to spend their own tax money on tiddly-winks.

This is social democracy working from the bottom-up, not a dictatorship from the top-down. The tiddly winkers cannot stop the public funding for the much larger football population who do have an ongoing support base and who do a lot of good for society and who pay a substantially larger portion of taxes.

If people want non-religion as a school ethos they can either mount a secularist coup as they did last century and dictate from the top-down (which ultimately failed) or they can work within a social democracy from the bottom-up and get together to form an ongoing viable non-religious community who can demonstrate doing a lot of good for society and who would like their own schools in the geographic locations where those non-religious communities have numbers to justify it.

To dictate all schools must mandatorily follow the non religion program without even trying to demonstrate viable ongoing communities is the equivalent of a legal secular coup, an attack on social democracy and an insult to the much larger group of fellow citizens who have continually demonstrated ongoing viable communities across the whole country.

If religion is important to the populace at large, then the state should not remove itself from religion. The state is an elected group of people for the purpose of overseeing important things.

The drive to expand the power of the state and make it non-religious, is obviously coming from non religious people who want religion out of the public sphere for their own reasons.

There have been lots of people who have wanted to do away with existing religion and build a new united society – Mohammed was one. Stalin was another, so was Hitler and so was Mao.

Now again as i have said, there have been thousands of university professors who taking their inspiration from Marx have made it their life’s mission to do this in western Europe. As i have claimed in the pursuit of this idea, a fall in the quality of education by teaching mis-truths was deemed an acceptable price if it got people rejecting Christianity and supporting a non Christian outlook. It has worked in some respect in moving peoples allegiance away from Christianity but it has not been helpful to society. It has caused more fragmentation. It failed utterly in the East where it was the base ideology of society and needs to be drastically revisited everywhere as being a viable concept for any future society.

If secularist individuals want a compulsory integrated education then they are are overiding the wishes of a large section of the electorate for their own ideological reasons. This alone is not good in a social democracy.  When the product of this exact type of project has been tried in the past, it was very bad for society.

There is the danger of a state being used to suppress the importance of religion in serving the needs of the population in favour of Marxist social engineering. Christian truth is derided, Christian success in creating civilisation is suppressed and the failures of Christianity are highlighted and exaggerated as is the criticism of any Church hierarchy.

Christian history and truth stands in the way of social reformers building their own idea of what society should be about. To have the tools to try this non-Christian reformation, they must sweep away ideas of existing structures which have successfully built society.

Just like Mohammed did with the Christian, Jewish and pagan tribes of the Arabian Peninsula or Hitler did with his new state based Aryan Reich, or Stalin did with his workers paradise etc etc.

We should be eternally vigilant of Marxist reforms of western society in the name of modern ‘equality’. As Karl Marx himself once warned, “men indeed make their own future, but they do not make it as they would wish.”

Not just is the old Marxist secular views of education dangerous, but having only one system of education is not ideal. From an education perspective, one legally enforced school system with no competition would be a narrow minded system that would not be as healthy as a 3 or 4 school systems where we can look to implement the best practise.

Globally, Catholic Schools are less of a drain on the public purse that Government schools. As usual, Governments are very inefficient, slow moving and unimaginative.

In America where it is illegal to publicly fund education run by religious groups (talk about human rights violations) various states have looked to introduce voucher systems where low ability students can opt out of the state system (which isn’t working for them) and choose an independent private (usually religious) school. The hardline secularists are even in the courts trying to stop this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_voucher
http://www.angelfire.com/hi2/hawaiiansovereignty/publicprivatespecialbasic.html

In Australia the government funds both state run schools and private schools (mostly Catholic). The private system actually saves the government a lot of money and in economical challenging times,  this is saving billions of dollars a year and is obviously be a good thing.

Even though in Australia parents attending private schools contribute tuition fees (hence the saving) about 1 in 3 people still choose to send their children to these non-government schools rather than the ‘free’ state school.

But even in this case where parents exercise their own right of choice and actually save the tax payer money, the secularists are unhappy and want it stopped for their own narrow sectarian political idelogical reasons.

http://www.theage.com.au/national/education/private-schools-saving-taxpayers-money-nab-20110626-1glt2.html

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/bias-rules-in-attack-on-schools-20110228-1bbn8.html

http://blogs.news.com.au/moneystuff/index.php/news/comments/public_versus_private_schools

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/class-warriors-prepare-to-ambush-private-schools/story-e6frg6zo-1225994520017

http://www.baysidechurch.com.au/content/view/509/243/

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/45888.html

Now that the bad results of a mandated ‘no religious need apply’ state system are apparent, i think it is largely fear from secularists on difference and diversity that is driving their politics. They genuinely seem upset and scared that there are happy communities out there who are different to them and get on with life, not interested in the slightest with the secularists 20th century forced and failed socialist vision of society.

The government has a duty to fund visions other than the failed 20th century secular one.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: