Challenges to Basic Assumptions Revisited

All I know about secular humanism and the Zinn Education Project, I’ve read in blogs.  Thus, not knowing much about the content of ZEP or other works/statements/anything made by Howard Zinn, I have no opinion as to the accuracy of the blogs.  If you’re interested, then I would suggest researching more into it.  My interest in this topic was sparked by a Twitter conversation I had between a few intelligent people, spurred by Ben Shapiro’s blog entitled, “Religious Fanaticism and Illegal Indoctrination of Your Children.”  It mentioned the Establishment Clause and the Lemon test, so obviously, I was instantly drawn in by the promise of discussing Constitutional law.

Shapiro argued that ZEP violated the Establishment Clause by failing the second prong of the Lemon test (“it does not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion”).  Also, in a broader argument, use of Zinn’s “educational” materials is part of the religion of secular humanism and such use is government establishment of that religion.

Now, there is some disagreement to whether Secular Humanism is a religion for Establishment Clause purposes.  As Shapiro noted, Kalka v. Hawk held this as such, jumping on the fact that the Supreme Court’s footnote in Torcaso v. Watkins was dicta.  Peloza v. Capistrano Unified School District (1994) pretty much towed that line, as well.  In rejecting a teacher’s claim that evolutionism was a religious belief, the court said that the broader secular humanism was not a religion.  Other court cases dealing with this notion of secular humanism in the classroom rarely state the secular humanism is a religion; rather, they just assume for argument sake that it is, before going into the Lemon/Establishment Clause test.

Grove v. Mead School District and Smith v. Board of Commissioners of Mobile both deal with the school curriculum; the lawsuits were brought by parents of students, claiming that the reading material was advancing the beliefs of secular humanism.  Both cases held against the argument.  From my cursory reading about the cases, the holdings seem to be based on the notion that it did not have the effect of advancing secular humanism (prong 2).

Rather, the message conveyed is one of a governmental attempt to instill in Alabama public school children such values as independent thought, tolerance of diverse views, self-respect, maturity, self-reliance and logical decision-making. This is an entirely appropriate secular effect. … It is true that the textbooks contain ideas that are consistent with secular humanism; the textbooks also contain ideas consistent with theistic religion. However, as discussed above, mere consistency with religious tenets is insufficient to constitute unconstitutional advancement of religion. Smith v. Commissioners

Here is why I think an Establishment Clause challenge to secular humanism in school curriculum will always lose: the Lemon test misses the point of the Establishment Clause.  Think about it – the Lemon test asks in two prongs whether it is “secular” (in purpose and effect); secular humanism “espouses reason, ethics, and justice, and specifically rejects supernatural and religious dogma as the basis of morality and decision-making” (yeah, yeah, I’m quoting Wiki there; sue me).  Sound familiar?  Hint, it’s in bold and above.

The “effect” of secular humanism will always be deemed secular because assumptions accepted to be true: reason is scientific, science is not religion, and what is not religious is secular.  And this is why I think the Lemon test fails.  It shouldn’t be about what is religion and what is not religion.  It shouldn’t be about what is secular and what is not.  It’s about whether these students are being indoctrinated.

That is the fear, isn’t it?  You don’t want government to establish a religion because it says that one way of thinking is the only acceptable way of thinking.  If government establishes a religion, then the government can use its police power to enforce it.  If you think differently, if you don’t get indoctrinated with what the government establishes, you’re at risk.  You lose your liberty.

So, we ran away from already-established religions in government, in schools, in order to make sure that no one felt like they were being forced into “group-think”.  And somewhere along the line, it was decided that there was a certain way to be a good student, a good citizen, and a good person and religion had nothing to do with it.  Thus, if schools encourages this type of being “good”, then it’s not religious.

There is a phrase repeated often: “Teachers shouldn’t teach students what to think, only how.”  What happens when the line between what and how is blurred?  What happens if you’re taught a certain way to think that will result in the outcome they want you to come to?  Isn’t that just as dangerous?

& – – – // – – –

When researching into this, the obvious hurdle for showing secular humanism as a violation of the Establishment Clause is that it is secular by its very nature.  And because the basic tenets of secular humanism align so closely to the approved goals of teaching, it would be hard to distinguish one from the other.

But what if it wasn’t secular humanism?  What if it was another way of seeing things?  I am reminded about the many courses I took in college, but the best example would be feminist theory.  What if feminist theory was taught as a way of thinking?  Not just about feminism, but actually thinking like a post-modern/structuralist feminist.  [Assuming such way of thinking can be thought.]  How many people would go crazy over that?

What if teachers taught children to think like Communists?  Don’t think that could happen – look at North Korea.  I once saw a news special about children finally being able to read “The Diary of Anne Frank.”  The summary given by the children was crouched in Communist terms.  Race & religion had nothing to do with what happened; the proletariat was being exterminated by the bourgeoisie.  How do you like that kind of re-writing of history?

& – – – // – – –

Makes one wonder about their own education, really.

Edited to add: During my second year of law school, I got into a discussion of religion versus science in my First Amendment survey course.  The reason why I titled this post as “Challenges to Basic Assumptions Revisited” is due to my other post about my experience in these discussions.


Posted

in

by

Tags:

Comments

10 responses to “Challenges to Basic Assumptions Revisited”

  1. Connie Sample Avatar
    Connie Sample

    two thoughts:
    I.
    2 books everyone should read:
    1. The God That Failed
    2. The Holocaust and the American Future
    II.
    Discussing hcr and possibility of govt approving care according to some govt matrix, I mentioned that it would usher in an era of non-compassion (forcing children/relatives/ friends not to have the priviledge of seeing loved one through end of life) & what that ultimate “throw away society” would do to the fabric of our country. A lawyer responded, “when there is an agenda, that consideration is way down the list – or, never considered.” Sad – when “secular humanism” disguises itself in sematics and robs people of a higher purpose or, in case of N Korea & Anne Frank, distorts reality to “fit” man made purposes.

    1. tabin Avatar

      Thank you for the comment & the books suggestion.

  2. Kaoru Negisa Avatar
    Kaoru Negisa

    First of all, I’d like to say that while I disagree, this is an intelligent and well composed article and I wish I could see more attempts like this at enlightened debate.

    That being said, I disagree highly that not allowing religion to be taught in classrooms is a religion in and of itself. Religion is predicated on the assumption of faith, the belief in something without evidence to support it. Claiming that the insistence that we teach our children not only conclusions that have come from the accumulation of evidence, but that they should be skeptical of unsupported statements is a religion is simply an attempt to reframe the argument to find hypocrisy where there isn’t any.

    Don’t get me wrong, I personally have no problem with a child praying in school of his or her own volition during his or her lunch break, between classes, during study hall, etc. What I have a problem with is when they are praying when they should be learning. What I also have a problem with is when teachers and administrators start leading mandatory prayers in public schools, be they Christian, Jewish, Islamic, Hindi, Zoroastrian, etc. Teachers are authority figures and role models, and public schools are not the places for those teachers to be using the great power we give them to convince students to follow a specific faith.

    The difference between a teacher leading a prayer in school and a teacher teaching evolution is that there are mountains of evidence that support evolutionary theory. This is not a faith or a religion, it’s a process of observation and description. I don’t need faith to know the sky is blue, I can look up and see it. When a teacher states that salvation can only be found through Jesus Christ, while they may believe that in their hearts and I have a great respect for their faith, they have no objective, observable facts with which to back that claim up. This is by design, or faith is meaningless.

    So, yes, schools teach children, by and large, to search out objective fact when formulating an opinion. This is how the process of discovery works. It doesn’t prevent them from having a spiritual life, but the world works in a verifiable, consistent pattern most of the time, and if we are to prepare these students to function in the world, it’s important that we teach them how to recognize and predict that pattern.

  3. kj Avatar

    Dude, we’ve said it before & I’ll say it again. Private bloody school. Or, failing tha dollaz for such an undertaking, be aware of what your kids are learning. Discuss their feelings about it, what the logical outcome of such a lesson may be. And raise unholy hell if it reeks of indoctrination.

    Did you know that in Washoe County school district, they are not allowed to celebrate or acknowledge ANY holidays? Who the hell are we offending?! Nevada is (usually) a red state. Whatevs. So glad I’m leaving.

    1. Kaoru Negisa Avatar
      Kaoru Negisa

      KJ,

      I agree with the principle of what you’re saying, in that if there are certain things you specifically want your child to learn, that’s what private school is for. The government shouldn’t be promoting any one faith over another with public money, but your private money is your business.

      Also, I agree that parents should be talking with their kids about what they are learning, but not in an effort to sniff out indoctrination and see if teachers are teaching something you might not agree with only to have an excuse to complain about it. How about talk to your kids because you like them and it’s good parenting? I mentioned above that teachers are authority figures and role models. So are parents. If a teacher is teaching something you don’t personally believe in, the answer isn’t to call the school and cause problems. The answer is to present your side of the controversy to your child and help them reach a conclusion. Look things up with them. Find facts. Teach them critical thinking. Teachers are not there to be parental surrogates, mouthing the beliefs of every parent of every child in their class. Due to how horrendously underfunded education is in this country, there are schools with 40 to 50 child classes, and there is no possible way that any teacher can mimic the beliefs of every child’s parents in just one class, let alone five to six in a day. Secondly, parenting is your job, not a teacher’s.

      So, rather than immediately jumping to the “raise unholy hell” stage, talk with your kids, be active in their education, and fill in the blanks for them. This is not to say that you shouldn’t be angry if your son or daughter is failed in a class for not believing Faulkner was the greatest American writer ever to live, and if that’s the case go after them, but if they’re failed because they refused to read Faulkner or do the work for fear of being presented with new ideas, then maybe it’s time to let them be exposed to those ideas and give them yours, then let them decide.

      I don’t know a thing about Washow County, but if that’s the case, then yes, that’s kinda dumb on the face of it. School districts often make dumb choices to avoid law suits. I remember we weren’t allowed to do anything but walk around the track in gym class during high school because if anyone got hurt playing a game the school might get sued. So is this idea extreme? Yes, it is. It would be equally extreme to celebrate Christmas and Easter but not celebrate Rosh Hashanah? It would indeed.

      1. tabin Avatar

        I think the issue that some have with secular humanism in public schools is not that religion is taken out of education, but that secular values of morality are being taught and expected to be adopted.

        For example, tolerance of others is taught to children; we are all expected to accept other people’s views. I agree that it is valuable. But what if a child comes from a strong Christian background that teaches homosexuality as sinful and states so. Should that child be punished at school because of his beliefs? The answer should be no, but it happens.

        I am not saying that tolerance is not an important moral character trait, but I also know that I can’t force others to be tolerant. But essentially, punishing a student for his beliefs that don’t align with this view is indoctrination, in a way.

        Does this make sense?

        1. Kaoru Negisa Avatar
          Kaoru Negisa

          I can see what you’re saying, but what do you mean by “punish”? If you mean that a student who beats up another student for being gay because his faith says it’s a sin gets suspended or expelled, then I support that. If you mean that a student who doesn’t talk to another student because he believes the other student is gay is given a detention, then no, I can’t get behind that.

          You can’t force others to be tolerant, but you can force them to maintain certain standards of behavior. That’s part of living in a society of any sort. It’s part of the social contract that I give up my right to harass you or assault you, even if we disagree, because you’ve done the same and that’s the price of being part of a civilization.

          The thing is that everyone has a right to an education in this country, and not only can’t the state deny you that right, they should actively protect it. If a student has to fear for their life or is being harassed and that is hindering their ability to learn, then it is absolutely the responsibility of the school to prevent that from happening. One of the ways they do this is to encourage tolerance of everyone’s opinion, even if you ultimately disagree. Keep in mind that part of the purpose of attending school is to prepare students to go out into a world where they will encounter numerous people, many of whom will not be very much like them at all, and they can isolate themselves among like minded people, go on a rampage when they meet somebody they disagree with, or learn to deal with the fact that not everyone believes the same thing and sometimes the best thing is to keep your mouth shut. This is not to say that they *can’t* speak their minds, just that occasionally, they *shouldn’t*. For example, my uncle is currently dying in a hospital bed. He’s very conservative, I tend to be very liberal. Just because I can go in there and mix it up with him over health care reform, doesn’t mean I should do that.

          That last paragraph (mine) misses the point a little, so I’m going to bring it back. Yes, forcing somebody to believe in tolerance is indoctrination. Forcing somebody to act tolerant, even if they don’t believe it, is part of being in a society and no different than law enforcement that robs us of several of the freedoms we would enjoy in a pure state of nature, such as the freedom to take things that aren’t ours, ingest certain substances, and yes, harass people we don’t agree with.

          1. tabin Avatar

            I agree that if a student is assaulted for this beliefs or lifestyle – no matter what those beliefs or lifestyle is – then punishment is acceptable. Infringing on the bodily integrity of another is always a no-no for me. And your example of a kid getting detention because he didn’t want to talk to the gay kid is what I was trying to convey, yes. Of course, I don’t think these examples show the gray area of enforcing tolerance.

            One case that comes to my mind is of a high school student wearing a home-made shirt to school that said “BE ASHAMED, OUR SCHOOL EMBRACED WHAT GOD HAS CONDEMNED” and “HOMOSEXUALITY IS SHAMEFUL.” This was in protest of the Day of Silence “demonstration” at the school the day before. The school told the student not to wear the shirt again because it “invaded the rights (to be secure and let alone) of others” & the student was asked to remove it because it could increase student tension. [You could say this was a pre-emptive strike against a physical altercation. Both sides of this lawsuit said that there was no physical fights, just “tense verbal confrontations”.]

            Obviously, this case is complicated because students don’t have full rights when they attend school (though they do retain some) and school has the power to stop “disruptions”. There’s also a school policy that states “hate behavior” is any act that can cause emotional suffering through harassment, racial/bigoted epitaphs, etc.

            So, essentially, what I am asking is should this student be allowed to wear the t-shirt? I would say yes because it was in protest to the Day of Silence (which encouraged supporters to wear tape on their mouths for the entire day, a day that is in support of the LGBT community) and because it didn’t lead to any physical altercation between the student and others at the school. The student wasn’t actively harassing gay students, he wasn’t starting the verbal confrontations (others approached him), and he didn’t make any threats to do anything.

            Like you said, schools prepare kids for the real world. I think by not allowing this t-shirt, the school is doing an injustice to the kids because it creates a vacuum, kids aren’t being taught how to truly be faced with a viewpoint and figuring out why it’s wrong for themselves. The school is doing that for them. I understand the plight of gay students and there are instances where they do fear for their safety, but in this context of protest spurred by a demonstration of others, I believe there was no real threat. I disagree with the message the student had on his shirt, but I rather have him wear it and show his intolerance openly than having it being hidden away.

            More about this case (Harper v. Poway Unified) http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/analysis.aspx?id=17253 ; http://legacy.signonsandiego.com/news/northcounty/20060420-1304-ca-bannedt-shirt.html

      2. tabin Avatar

        Thank you, btw, for the comments.

        1. Kaoru Negisa Avatar
          Kaoru Negisa

          Thank you for expressing your opinion in a thoughtful and rational manner.