The Truth in Education Act
In its purest sense, public education is supposed to:
· Survey the expansive nooks and crannies of knowledge unknown
· Explore both objective and subjective realities for additional context and learning
· Be an exciting adventure to challenge and inspire the recesses of developing minds
· Expose students to a wide and panoramic view of history
· Ground them in the basics of common human decency, kindness, and respect for others
Grounding students in the fundamentals of reading, writing, and arithmetic are obviously crucial components of a quality education. As part of the learning process in years past, there was a traditional agreement (or unwritten contract) between student, parent, and teacher, that those being taught in public schools would exhibit an acceptable degree of obedience and respect for the rules of the individual classroom settings. Likewise, there was also an understanding that teachers would instruct their students in a way that is void of personal ideology and/or religious dogmatism. In other words, we should be exposing students to a wide variety of ideologies and religious viewpoints for educational purposes.
We should not, however, be indoctrinating them or slanting the course material with the teacher’s personal beliefs. Variety broadens the students’ experience. Is that what we have going on in the majority of public-school classrooms and universities today? Do teachers and professors take neutral ideological and religious positions when teaching? The answer is clearly, “No”!
The Secular Humanist Religion - Public Schools and Universities
Parents who do not think that their children are being exposed to, and even indoctrinated with, religious propaganda and tenets are being duped. Secular Humanism has been ruled a religion by the Supreme Court of the United States of America under the free exercise clause. Outcries of religious indoctrination abound when a Christian prayer is said, yet many forms of the Secular Humanist doctrine are being espoused and pushed by teachers and professors in the public school and university classrooms. Much of the philosophy of the Secular Humanist Manifestos I, II, and III are being taught by those teachers who have “anti-God” worldview perspectives. This specific religious worldview and its subsequent ideologies are being taught without question and without restraint in public school classrooms and universities across our state!
The phrase “Secular Humanism” became prominent after it was used in the United States Supreme Court case Torcaso v. Watkins. In the 1961 decision, Justice Hugo Black commented in a footnote, “Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism, and others.”
So Secular Humanism is emphatically and undeniably a religion “for free exercise purposes”. Any claim that the “clear weight of the case law” is against the proposition that Secular Humanism is a religion is a misleading claim. Secular Humanism is a religion “for free exercise clause purposes”.
Secular Humanism is not a religion for “Establishment Clause purposes”. When Christians attempt to get the religion of Secular Humanism out of the government schools, however, (based on the same emotional frame of mind which atheists had when they went to court against God in schools) then pro-secularist courts speak out of the other side of their mouths and say that Secular Humanism is NOT a religion “for establishment clause purposes.” This is slimy, deceitful legalism at its worst.
This dichotomy explains why so many are confused about whether Secular Humanism is a religion. Informally, here is the rule: When Secular Humanists want the benefits of religion, Secular Humanism is a religion. When Secular Humanists are challenged for propagating their religion in public schools, it is not a religion. If that sounds insane, it is; but all insane people are still rational. This insanity is cloaked in the rational-sounding rhetoric of Constitutional Law. Remember: Secular Humanism is a religion “for free exercise clause purposes”, and it is not a religion “for establishment clause purposes”.
Do you remember when phrases like, “honesty is the best policy”, “full transparency”, and “open book accounting” actually meant something in public classrooms? In other words, there were no hidden agendas or ulterior motives in America’s public classrooms. Years ago, the course titles and corresponding syllabi would accurately describe in detail what the course content was all about.
That is no longer the case across the board in our classroom settings. Thus, we have consumer fraud in our course content. We have fraudulent activity going on in our primary, elementary, middle school, high school, and university settings. We have pure and unadulterated ideology and religious dogma being spewed in the form of Secular Humanism while public schools and universities often mischaracterize and misrepresent course content and the associated titles. I have firsthand experience with this fraudulent behavior and what I believe to be unlawful behavior at a public university. This fraud needs to be stopped.
In conclusion, we must hold our public-school teachers, school districts, and universities accountable for instructing our students with a broad range of perspectives, not limited to the specific ideological inclinations of the teachers and professors in the classroom. Pushing one ideological or religious viewpoint over another should not be tolerated in our public education system. If we truly believe in a well-rounded public education that is free from indoctrination, we must have “Right to Know” legislation that protects the beliefs of students, but provides full accountability for the teachers and professors that would choose indoctrination over merely teaching our children.
A balanced approach to teaching a full spectrum of perspectives should be the law of the land. Rooting out ideological slants and perspectives, while normalizing a rich public educational experience for students, should be the driving force and underlying motive to the proposed legislation listed above.