Skip to comments.Salvadoran Catholic Church asks President Funes to veto Bible reading in schools (Translated)
Posted on 07/11/2010 12:05:34 PM PDT by ConservativeMind
click here to read article
You’re welcome. I sympathize with the government of El Salvador. Crime and violence, especially gangs, are a serious problem in El Salvador, and of course among Salvadorans in the US as well. However, having students read, perhaps, the Sermon on the Mount - with no discussion, no examples, no effort to apply the words to the problem of violence in their society - seems likely to be of little effect. Maybe they’d learn a new vocabulary word.
It’s almost magical thinking ... *just* listening to a few words from the Bible is expected to address a serious societal issue.
I agree. There is no such thing as “values free” or “religion free” education. The default position now, pretending to be neutral, is aggressive atheism with subsequent hedonism, marxism, etc - all based on atheism.
I’m not opposed to government schools in the sense of very local community government - town, or sections of town. Blocks. But no fedgov or entire state controlled schools, no no no.
Not all Protestant churches have caved on these matters. Not by a long shot. To say “educate yourself” on that shows ignorance, or a desire to do away with the truth.
“Because it opens the door for mandatory reading of the Koran too. “
It could; but also, it could be the best weapon against Al Qaeda we’ve seen in a long time.
What one officially teaches is one things; what they effectually convey is another. As long a church does not actually Biblically discipline (1Cor. 4:21; 5:9-13; Rm. 16:17; 2Thes. 3:6,14,15; 1Tim. 1:20; 6:5; 2Jn. 1:10) those who promote immorality, from Kerry to Pelosi to the commoners in the pews, but treat them as members, then it effectively is a liberal church, as that is what predominates wherever it reigns for long, in contrast to its evangelical adversaries, even in their present condition. .Differences Between Denominations
Evangelicals versus Catholics, from various formal studies, spanning 1992 to 2009 (see sources here).
“State imposition of any religious practice is unsuitable. “
Firstly, the American public schools had Bible reading for decades, many decades. My pastor grew up in a Maine public school where the Bible was read every day, and they all stood and recited the Lord’s Prayer.
Secondly, the state imposes religious practice every day. Everything they teach has a religious component in one way or another. The ABSENCE of Scripture is in itself a state imposition of religious teaching. It teaches that we can all get along without the Bible just fine; that it has no impact on anything we learn; and that we are the final arbiters of truth, right and wrong.
So, the school will always impose religion. The question is, which religion?
Even the Unitarian (a religion that effectively denied Christ and the Divine authority of the Bible, but, unlike its later form, at that time overall upheld general Biblical morality) Father of the Common School, Horace Mann (May 4, 1796 August 02, 1859), who became Massachusetts Secretary of Education in 1837, not only understood the impossibility of separating education from religious moral beliefs, but held that it was lawful to teach the truths of the general Christian faith, asserting that the laws of Massachusetts required the teaching of the basic moral doctrines of Christianity. Mann, who supported prohibition of alcohol and intemperance, slavery and lotteries, (http://www.famousamericans.net/horacemann) dreaded intellectual eminence when separated from virtue, that education, if taught without moral responsibilities, would produce more evil than it inherited. (William Jeynes, American educational history: school, society, and the common good, p. 149, 150)
Mann evidenced that he rightly understood that the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment did not prohibit officially favoring the general, common Christian faith and its morality, but that it forbade official sanction of one particular sect by distinctively favoring its doctrinal distinctions, stating that it may not be easy theoretically, to draw the line between those views of religious truth and of Christian faith which is common to all, and may, therefore, with propriety be inculcated in schools, and those which, being peculiar to individual sects, are therefore by law excluded; still it is believed that no practical difficulty occurs in the conduct of our schools in this regard. (Stephen V. Monsma, J. Christopher Soper, The Challenge of Pluralism: Church and State in Five Democracies, The Unites States, cp. 2, p. 21) To critics who were alarmed at the concept of secular schools, he assured that his system “inculcates all Christian morals; it founds its morals on the basis of religion; it welcomes the religion of the Bible...,” but he did exhort that Bible reading be without comment to discourage sectarian bickering. (Mann, Twelfth Annual Report for 1848 of the Secretary of the Board of Education of Massachusetts. Reprinted in Blau 183-84.
Considered second to Mann in his schooling endeavor was Henry Barnard, who was raised in a deeply religious family, and who saw his involvement in education as part of the providence of God. Like the majority of Americans, he believed that democracy and education went together in the cause of truththe cause of justice the cause of liberty the cause of patriotism the cause of religion. (Jeynes, p. 154)
By 1890, schools nationwide saw 95 percent of children between the ages of five and thirteen enrolled for at least a few months out of the year, though less than 5 percent of adolescents went to high school, and even fewer entered college. In addition, while there existed thousands of local schools, nearly one thousand colleges and universities (or varying quality), and scores of normal schools which trained teachers, a nationwide educational system had yet to be realized by the end of the 1800’s. Education was largely locally managed, as the federal bureau of education, while collecting information about the condition of education, possessed no control over local schools. Education agencies on the state level were small, and its few employees had little or no power over local school districts. School systems in large cities could also function with little oversight, such as in Baltimore, where the public schools in 1890 employed only two superintendents for the entire district of 1,200 teachers. Despite this, public schools across America were notably similar, with children learning both the basics of reading, writing, and arithmetic, and the basics of good behavior the latter being enforced when necessary by corporal punishment. Schools were important community institutions, and reflected the values of of parents and churches, such as honesty, industry, patriot-ism, responsibility, respect for adults, and courtesy. Memorization, recitation, chants and rhymes were often used in teaching subjects, while solving mathematical problems in one’s head was promoted. This inculcation of basic education and self-discipline was purposed to promote good moral citizenry, people who would be honestly employed, and make wise and informed choices, and overall progress in an individualistic, competitive and democratic society, and who would contribute to the vitality of their community and country. (Diane Ravitch, Left Back A Century of Failed School Reforms Simon & Schuster)
As regards higher education, the overwhelming majority of the first private colleges of this country were founded as Christian institutions to teach the Gospel. (http://www.faithofourfathers.org/essays/ivyleague.html, How Christians Started the Ivy League) Harvard, Yale and Princeton are three examples. All three were established to teach young men to be pastors. The founders of Harvard College, established in 1636, professed that, “All knowledge without Christ was vain.” After requiring literacy in Latin, the second requirement in Harvard Lawes of 1642 was that “Every one shall consider the main end of his life and studies to know God and Jesus Christ which is eternal life. (Joh. 17:3) The overall religious nature of colleges and universities continued at least until the Civil War. Even State colleges had significant religious (most always Christian) components, such as mandatory religion courses and attendance at chapel services, while large numbers of their faculties had formal religious training. (Ringenberg, 1984; Marsden and Longfield, 1962; Ronald W. Fagan and Raymond G. DeVries, The practice of sociology at Christian liberal arts colleges and universities; The American Sociologist, June, 1994)
It is perceived by some that outlawing formal religion results in replacing it with a functional ideological equivalent. Secularity as a condition of a non-ecclesiastical state may be distinguished with secularism as an ideology, with key Supreme court decisions being used to infer state favor toward the nonreligious, resulting in a "religion-free education" which "indoctrinates" the young into viewing secularism as the only frame of reference.
Paul G. Kussrow and Loren Vannest ask, Is a religiously neutral public school education an oxymoron?, and see notable Supreme court Establishment Clause decisions (such as Engel v. Vatale, l962) as in essence creating "a legal fiction--a myth of religious neutrality." They argue that "Philosophy and religion blur when dealing with these basics, such as truth, while pointing to the ultimate questions and answers in life," and that, "Any discussion of a secular-religious distinction is self-refuting. For someone's values are always being advocated even in so called "neutral" settings."
Removing formal God (and morality) based religion from the public schools is seen to have the effect of supplanting it with Secular Humanism. This in turn promotes pantheism, the worship of nature with its evolutionary hypothesis, and the rejection of moral absolutes (especially those of the Bible), resulting in a dangerous ever-morphing morality and decline of beneficial traditional morality.
In support of this understanding, declarations by humanists such as John J. Dunphy, are often invoked:
I am convinced that the battle for humankind's future must be waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers who correctly perceive their role as the proselytizers of a new faith...These teachers must embody the same selfless dedication as the most rabid fundamentalist preachers, for they will be ministers of another sort, utilizing a classroom instead of a pulpit to convey humanist values in whatever subject they teach,...The classroom must and will become an arena of conflict between the old and the newthe rotting corpse of Christianity, together with all its adjacent evils and misery, and the new faith of humanism...
Kussrow and Vannest argue that "since atheism is a religion under the establishment clause, (Malnak v. Yogi, l977), given the above facts, secular humanism must be considered a religion for the purposes of the First Amendment (Gove v. Mead School District, l985)", noting that "the American Humanist Association even has a religious tax exemption status approved by the Federal government." In United States v. Kauten (2d Cir. 1943), conscientious objector status was granted to Mathias Kauten, not due to his belief in God, but on the basis of his religious conscience.
Other evidence indicates that U.S. courts have moved from a generally substantive definition of religion, in which the religion affirms a transcendent deity, to a functional definition of religion, which Secular Humanism has been defined by some courts to be. In the Torcaso v. Watkins case in 1961, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of a Maryland notary public who was disqualified from office because he would not declare a belief in God. The Court argued that theistic religions could not be favored by the Court over non-theistic religions.
In the light of such, James Davison Hunter argues that,
To be legally consistent the courts will either have to articulate a constitutional double standard or apply the functional definition of religion to the no establishment clause just as they have to the free exercise [clause]. The latter would mean that secularistic faiths and ideologies would be rigorously prohibited from receiving even indirect support from the state, which needless to say would have enormous implications for public education.
RE: “And in the bigger picture, the insinuation of government into ever more areas of life that should be the private preserve of individuals, families, congregations and communities is something that all conservatives should oppose.”
Yet the evidence of this thread is that many of the posters on this thread will welcome that as long as it offers them an opportunity to poke the Catholic Church in the eye. It really outs their actual agenda. Shows you how shallow they hold conservative values. Liberals at heart.
Some of us get notes and smiles from those who are leaving....guess it works both ways.
RE: Differences Between Denominations
Well that basically says this source has no credibility. The Catholic Church is not a denomination, it is a church. Protestants have denominations, upon denominations, upon denominations,upon denominations, upon denominations, upon denominations, upon denominations....
**there own thing** Where is there own thing?
**Their sins they keep hidden.**
Huh? That’s what Confession is for — so they don’t remain hidden.
And lastly, the Catholic Church IS inclusive! One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic.
You know better than to say “it works both ways.”
Catholics who are baptized Catholics will Alwyas be Catholics, even if they choose to be inactive. They are always welcome back.
Many share their stories about coming back at this site: http://www.chnetwork.org/
Most have — unless you are more specific — I judge that most have.
Quoting from a non-Catholic, anti-Catholic site, I see.
The last people I would want teaching my children about the bible is any public education system.
The fact that state imposition of religious practice is common does not make it acceptable. Education should be private.
Sorry—used an html symbol...
From the book “Ellery’s Protest”, the kid who protested Bible-reading in American public schools-—Abington vs. Schempp (1963):
“The Catholic position in 1958 was rather strange. Many people are surprised to learn that Bible-reading in the schools was controversial 160 years ago. In 1844 there were riots in Philadelphia over the practice; men were killed, churches were burned—over Bible-reading. This was much mixed up with anti-immigrant feelings, the newer immigrants being mostly Irish and Italian Catholics, and they objected to the Protestant practice of individual Bible-reading in the schools. In fact this issue became the primary motivation for the Catholic church to start the institution of Parochial schools. By 1956, however, the Churchs position had shifted—their objection was to secularism, to secular humanism, and their goal was to make secularism the enemy.”
Many people believe that, if *something* is a good thing - Bible-reading, for example, or libraries - then it is appropriate for government to mandate the activity or compel its funding by the citizens. I do not agree. Even if I agree about the positive value of the *something*, I generally believe it should be conducted and funded voluntarily.
It is on this principle, I believe, that the line is drawn between “social conservatives” and “economic conservatives,” so called. A type of “social conservative,” just as a type of “social liberal,” believes that government should compel and/or fund what he believes is beneficial. The ... “other conservative,” perhaps, such as myself, believes that free citizens should pursue their own goods, in most cases, with their own resources.
An attempt is made to draw the line so that legal abortion is “economically conservative.” However, prohibiting abortion does not cost money, particularly, and it can easily (if not inarguably) be shown to benefit the economy. In addition, it is much more a function of government to prevent harm to individuals and to society than it is to compel “good.”
# 70 % of all Catholics in the age group 18 to 44 believe the Roman Catholic Eucharist is a "symbolic reminder" of Jesus [it is, of His death], indicating they do not believe it is Jesus actual body and blood [as Rome erroneously teaches]. New York Times/CBS News poll, Apr. 21-23, 1994, subsample of 446 Catholics, MOE ± 5%
That's enough to put into doubt the objectiveness of any information to be found on that page.
Those riots "over Bible-reading" were instigated by the anti-Catholic nativists who were afraid that Irish immigrants were going to help the Pope take over the country:
On Friday, May 3, 1844, the American Nativist Party, (aka American Republican Party), set up a platform in the almost one hundred percent Irish Third Ward of Kensington, a Philadelphia suburb. Speakers delivered tirades against the Irish, the Pope, the Catholic Church, and the immigrants. The theme was that "a set of citizens, German and Irish, wanted to get the Constitution of the U. S. into their own hands and sell it to a foreign power. " The crowd jeered and began to tear down the platform. The Nativists retreated temporarily.
Philadelphia was a hotbed of nativism for years. The American Nativist Party allied itself with the American Protestant Association in propagating a conspiracy theory: the Pope was planning to take over America. The Irish were considered the most dangerous immigrants since they had demonstrated loyalty to the Pope through centuries of persecution and might rise on a signal from Rome for either a bloody conquest or a political takeover at the ballot box.
the Nativist press called on all good Americans to defend themselves against the "the bloody hand of the Pope."
Yes, that’s kind of what I was aiming to convey. I did get a little turned around in my categorizing, between media descriptions - or self-descriptions of people I don’t think are truly conservative (Mike Huckabee) - and what I really think is Conservatism.
I would add, and I expect you agree, that free citizens should also personally, or with voluntary contributions, bear the consequences of decisions that turn out poorly.
Please. “No credibility” is what pertains to your attempted dismissal. Change the word if you will to “faith groups,” yet the sources are many and the stats are overall consistent and credible, even if you do not like them.
How ironic to think that there are probably many non-Catholics cheering this development who wouldn't allow their children in American government schools.
And if they're going to start reading the Bible, I think they ought to start with something like, say... Wisdom, or Maccabbees.
Governments don’t like the Maccabbees ;-).
OK, Maccabbees first, then Wisdom.
This is a poor but typical attempt to blithely dismiss evidence you do not like. As said above, the sources are many and the stats are overall consistent, and are sometimes quoted by Catholic outlets, and or come from some. If you dispute it, go find comparable stats that show the opposite.
This is part of a larger work . See the whole of it here: http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/RevealingStatistics.html
Words in brackets [ ] are generally recognized to denote editorial additions not in the original, which sources are carefully and very evidently provided, which is what your contention should be with as far as accuracy is concerned. But unless you are given to believing there are powerful conspiracies controlling everything, it is best to acknowledge the evidence and work from there.
No, sorry, that just won't work. Your source site is not objective, not at all. The bracketed text inserted by your source merely illustrates that fact. I went to the source home page as well. Whether or not the statistics are correct is not my focus, my focus is the objectiveness of the source providing the statistics.
I don’t know why you keep misrepresenting things, but you do.
“When your own article post shows thats not the case at all, you then add that teachers will answer questions - and that will mean interpretation. Uh, yeah, right. Do you realize 90 percent of those teachers will be Catholics?? I dont even care if they give the CATHOLIC version on thatjust get the actual BIBLE read in the darn classes and lets see what happens.”
False. Nothing in the article showed that I was wrong in the least. All the articles shows is that the law does not foster interpretation. I am saying it will happen anyway. Also, I doubt that 90% of the teachers are FAITHFUL Catholics. I don’t care if they call themselves Catholics. You seem desperate.
“Man, how can you be against 9 out of 10 teachers giving the CATHOLIC version of how to interpret that stuff?”
What on earth mankes you think that that will happen? First of all you were insisting just a minute ago that no interpretation was going to take place. Now you’re insisting - without a shred of evidence - that it will be ONLY Catholic interpretation 9 out of 10 times. I have no reason at all to believe that interpretation will NOT take place and no reason at all to believe it will be only Catholic interpretation when it does.
“So, you are the anti-Catholic here, not me, it would appear.”
No, I am just the one armed with reality. You are armed with fantasies.
Well then you will live in a very sterile world. You cannot believe Fox News or CNN or the AP on anything, as both have definite ideologies. While i certainly believe in comparing sources, when you have consistent statistics over a number of years from a multiplicity of sources, as is the case here, and nothing of substance in opposition, from polling data to answers from regular church attendees, then you must assume a vast evangelical power over all such media, even though it is demonstrable that they are very anti-evangelical Christian.
In addition, you have my word that i did not fabricate stats or sources, but am more careful then many in providing such. And in length, i think you will find me to be one of the more objective of your adversaries.
“I’m thinking you’re just worried that more people will find out that the real church is not the Catholic religion...”
No, but I freely admit that I believe Catholics might be mislead by Protestants or Jehovah’s Witness or Mormon or secularist teachers. I believe it is better for children in such a society to be catechized by their churches than their state. Don’t you?
I did not say the numbers were fabricated, by the way. As a Catholic, I know how dismal some of them are.
Is it your web page?
Web site and page, yes, by the grace of God, for whatever is good.
How many of the "shocked" anti-Catholics would be equally shocked of the government instructed that a Catholic teacher in the US read and explain the bible to their children.
RE: Change the word if you will to faith groups,
The Catholic Church is not a “faith group”. Faith groups, denominations or whatever you want to call them are what you get when the smoke of Satan causes blinded men and women to abandon Christ’s Church in favor of theology based on the whims of men.
You can keep your satanic faith groups. I’ll stick with Christ’s Church.
We read Maccabbees at home about every other year ... politics, religion, espionage, blood and gore ... what’s not to love?
Ohhh no... someone might actually be saved ...we just can not have that
The Bible speaks for itself ... so you ban teachers from teaching their preferred doctrine and stick to just what it says
`That was when kids really learned to read..
I will say again...catholics leave the church as much as those who enter...it works both ways...now the catholic church might think once a catholic always a catholic....the Mormons say the same thing as do other faiths...that does not make it so. It does work both ways and you should know better than to say it doesn’t.
Better to say one is Christian...believes in Christ and follows Him.
Ya sorta like say a few words over a cracker and it becomes the "body of Christ"
"So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God."Romans 10:17
Call it what you will, the evidence remains the same. As for your claims for Rome, by what means are we to know that Rome is the one true church?
They don't all go to confession and you know this...I know this...and yes they remain hidden from the church and from those of the church....they do the deeds outside and away from the church. And there are plenty out there to see them thru.
I was going to state you misunderstood my speaking of inclusiveness...but you and I both know that it's fruitless to continue this conversation...there are some catholics I respect as individuals regardless of their affiliation to the church...so better this ends here. We just do not see eye to eye in matters of the faith.
RE: As for your claims for Rome, by what means are we to know that Rome is the one true church?
I read AND UNDERSTAND the Bible, and am not subject to the whimsical wishes of fallen men who have established their own self-centered traditions.
RE: the evidence remains the same
And you have no evidence but from an anti-Catholic rant site, the spawn of Satan no doubt.