Freedom From Religion in Public Education
Whose rights take priority?
Do public-school students have the right to be free from religious coercion in the classroom?
Do christian teachers have the right to share their religious beliefs in their classrooms?
Depends on who you ask.
“There has been a great deal of discussion in recent years regarding the taboos against Christian activity on the part of teachers in public school classrooms. It is now considered unacceptable for Christian teachers to publicly appeal to our God or to discuss our faith to our captive audiences of schoolchildren.” (Abounding Joy, 2005)
“As a student, you have the right to fully participate in your public education free from school-sponsored religious pressure or indoctrination. No public-school employee, including teachers and coaches, may coerce or attempt to coerce students into believing in a religion, participating in prayer, or performing any other religious activity.” Freedom From Religion Foundation
In the last couple of blogs, we’ve been critiquing a christian blogger called Abounding Joy. The first half of AJ’s blog is spent vilifying secular humanism. Even though much of what he writes completely misrepresents what secular humanists actually believe, it doesn’t stop there. It soon becomes all too obvious that Abounding Joy has an agenda that goes much deeper than just bashing secular humanism.
Abounding Joy: It is now considered unacceptable for Christian teachers to publicly appeal to our God or to discuss our faith to our captive audiences of schoolchildren.
Yes, he really said that. As a retired schoolteacher, I am already uncomfortable with where this discourse is headed. So, I took a deeper dive into Abounding Joy and discovered that its author, a guy named Steve, was at some point, a public-school teacher. Mr. Steve claims that those villainous secular humanists have threatened his right (and his freedom) to share his religious beliefs with his “captive audiences of schoolchildren”.
Mr. Steve: But it is of critical and paramount importance that we realize the simple (and obvious) fact that Christian theism is not the only religion or belief system found in the United States. In particular, there is one other very powerful and widespread belief system (i.e. religion) in the United States called Secular Humanism.
Ah, there it is, secular humanism is a religion, and not only that, a very powerful one, which is competing for the souls of his students. Now we’re getting to the meat of his blog. By painting secular humanism as a competing religion, he has named the enemy and now he can convince his readers that christianity is under attack. According to him a secret battle is being waged for the souls of christian youth and his particular battlefield, as a christian soldier, is the public-school classroom. Those demonic secularists are keeping christian teachers from sharing their faith with their (captive audience) students. Action on the part of christians is being called for. Oh my!
Mr. Steve: Currently, the primary problem is that Christian students and teachers are frequently being expected to pretend that they are secular humanists while at school. Our goal should be for both teachers and students to have freedom to express (or not express) their beliefs…“
I’ve never heard of anyone actually pretending to be a secular humanist, but I guess it’s possible. However, I have heard of nonreligious students, pretending that they are religious in order to avoid being singled out and bullied while at school or in classrooms with teachers like Mr. Steve. This situation should definitely be avoided.
According to Steve’s website, he tells us that he earned an undergraduate degree in science: specifically, physics, math, and psychology. He followed his undergraduate science degree with a Master of Divinity in Christian Education and Theology. He also tells us that he taught math, physics, and ACT Prep in a public-school setting for 29 years. Let’s see what Steve says he would like to teach his captive audience in his math and physics classroom, but can’t, due to the prominence of secular humanism.
Mr. Steve: “How can we achieve a more equitable state of affairs? In a word, “freedom.” Our goal is an atmosphere and environment of freedom to express beliefs, for students… and teachers. You might wonder how such freedom could work out practically in a classroom.”
Actually, I was wondering how this might work out in Steve’s physics, math, and ACT prep classes. Let’s see what he thinks is appropriate for him to be able to teach in his public-school classroom.
He writes, “Now consider the situation in our public schools.
- It’s ok for a teacher to talk about the supremacy of man, but not the supremacy of God.
- It’s ok for a teacher to teach evolution without a Creator, but not Creation.
- It’s ok for a teacher to quote and be an advocate for the teachings of great men, but not those of the Bible.
- It’s ok to tell students that they must determine their moral values for themselves, but not ok to tell them that they should consider establishing their moral values on the basis of the Bible.
- It’s ok to tell students that their goals should be to achieve academic success or financial success in this life. It is not ok to tell them of the importance of thinking in terms of eternal life.
- It’s ok to tell students that they must feel good about themselves, but not ok to tell them that they must repent of sin.
- Either one communicates that God exists, or one doesn’t.”
We’ll take a look at each of these statements to see if there is any legitimacy to Mr. Steve’s claim that his religious freedoms are being violated. What first comes to mind is just how any of the above statements apply to the subjects of math, physics, and ACT prep.
Mr. Steve: It’s ok for a teacher to talk about the supremacy of man, but not the supremacy of God.
Actually, neither is appropriate in a public-school setting. In my 25 years as a classroom teacher, with the hundreds of hours spent in faculty meetings and teacher in-services never once did anyone require us to talk about the supremacy of man. Talking about the supremacy of God was strictly taboo, as it should be.
The field of education has always been prone to fads. A new teaching strategy would come along, and faculty meetings would be dominated by the new method for the entire school year (and usually forgotten by the next). Administrators would drop into our classrooms to make sure the new fad method was being used in the classroom. Never in my 25 years did an administrator drop into my classroom to see if I was talking about the supremacy of man. But I can guarantee that if they heard I was talking about the supremacy of God, an administrator would have visited my classroom “tout de suite”. So, why is this an issue for Steve and how would he work this topic into his math or physics curriculum?
Mr. Steve: It’s ok for a teacher to teach evolution without a Creator, but not Creation.
Is evolution even taught in a physics, math, or SAT prep class? I wasn’t sure, so I asked the AI gods and this was the response.
SERI: Evolution is not typically taught in a physics class; it is primarily a topic covered in biology classes as it deals with the changes in living organisms over time, which falls under the realm of life sciences, not physics which focuses on the fundamental laws of matter and energy.
So, while discussing the laws of matter and energy, perhaps Steve felt the need to teach creationism as well? I worked with many good science teachers who considered themselves christians and even they would have found such behavior inappropriate. By the way, The National Academy of Sciences strongly disagrees with Mr. Steve’s stance that creationism should be taught in public schools. We’ll get into that in the next blog.
Mr. Steve: It’s ok for a teacher to quote and be an advocate for the teachings of great men, but not those of the Bible.
Yes, he is correct on this one, but I don’t think he believes it to be a good thing. Without question, there are great men (and women) whose lives and writings can teach us (and our students) a great deal about math and also about physics. Once again, I just don’t see why Steve feels the need to talk about great men of the bible in his math or physics classroom.
Mr. Steve: It’s ok to tell students that they must determine their moral values for themselves, but not ok to tell them that they should consider establishing their moral values on the basis of the Bible.
As someone who spent 25 years in the classroom, I can say with confidence that lecturing students about moral values was always considered tricky territory and was never once discussed in any faculty meeting. The only possible exception was to say, “Don’t do it!” Having that kind of discussion with students in a public-school classroom just wasn’t done. It’s not the job of schoolteachers to discuss moral values with students, unless of course it’s a parochial school. But to work this discussion into a public-school physics or math class is a real stretch.
Of course, we want our students of be good people, who treat others with respect and kindness. But a public-school teacher who uses his or her classroom to lecture students about establishing their moral values based on the bible is a violation and would never be appropriate.
Mr. Steve: It’s ok to tell students that their goals should be to achieve academic success or financial success in this life. It is not ok to tell them of the importance of thinking in terms of eternal life.
As teachers we often times do our best to promote academic success and tell students that financial success in life correlates to the level of education achieved. Research shows that college graduates normally earn more than someone with only a high school diploma. Someone with a graduate degree usually earns more than just having an undergraduate degree. There’s nothing inappropriate about having this discussion with students. But, to lecture students about eternal life is just wrong. It was never discussed at any faculty meeting I attended, and it would be a very inappropriate to broach the subject in classroom full of students who have no other choice than to be there.
Mr. Steve: It’s ok to tell students that they must feel good about themselves, but not ok to tell them that they must repent of sin.
Once again, as teachers, we were very sensitive to how our students felt about themselves. Teen suicide was and still is a huge concern for educators all over the country and thus warrants time spent in teacher in-services. However, telling students that they must repent from sin was never one of the strategies we discussed to combat teen depression and suicide. Especially if the student’s depression was caused by being picked on (by christians) because he or she is gay. It’s dangerous to tell a gay student that their depression would go away if they would just repent of their sin and stopped being gay. Anyone who thinks that is the correct solution, shouldn’t even consider becoming a teacher.
Mr. Steve: Either one communicates that God exists, or one doesn’t.
Notice that he’s not saying that “either one communicates that God exists, or one communicates that God doesn’t exist.” By the way, neither would be appropriate in a public-school classroom. What I think he’s saying is that, in a classroom, a christian teacher has two choices. Either they communicate their believe in God or they choose to remain quiet on the subject. I would suggest that in a public-school setting the wisest choice would be to remain quiet about your personal religious beliefs. There’s nothing to stop a teacher who is a christian from sharing their faith outside the school boundaries. We’ll get more into this topic in the next blog.
Conclusion
Abounding Joy: Our country was established primarily for freedom. In public education we have moved dangerously close to establishing a state religion (based on) secular humanism. And in doing so, we have begun the process of denying freedoms to those whose belief systems are contrary to that of the secular humanists. This is an intolerable situation.
Is it just christians who are being denied freedoms? Do we really have “liberty and justice for all”? I wonder what Steve would think about allowing Muslims to share their belief systems in public schools. Aren’t their beliefs also contrary to secular humanism? Would he support Islam being taught in public schools or would he call it an “intolerable situation”? I have to wonder if Steve believes in religious freedom for everyone or whether it’s reserved just for evangelicals.
Coming next:
Steve seems to be inflicted with PCC, Persecuted Christian Complex. Christianity has been in power for millennium. However, things have changed and christians no longer have the power to simply burn someone at the stake for heresy. Oh, how the tables have turned! How will they cope?
From Where I Stand
Dale Crum