Secretary of Christian Education

[Tanager]

Good to know we have idealogues throughout the Executive branch, not just in the DoD.


http://www.cnn.com/2003/EDUCATION/04....ap/index.html

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The nation's public education leader has drawn fire for expressing a preference for schools that appreciate "the values of the Christian community."

"The reason that Christian schools and Christian universities are growing is a result of a strong value system," Education Secretary Rod Paige said in a story run by the Baptist Press, the news service of the Southern Baptist Convention.

"In a religious environment the value system is set. That's not the case in a public school, where there are so many different kids with different kinds of values," he said.

The Education Department had no immediate comment.

Paige became President Bush's education chief in 2001. He oversees a public school system that serves roughly 47 million students.

"He seems to have forgotten that he's not the secretary of Christian education, but rather the education leader for all children," said Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

Lynn said Paige's comments demean students who don't belong to Christian denominations. He said Paige should apologize for his comments or resign.

"All things equal, I would prefer to have a child in a school that has a strong appreciation for the values of the Christian community, where a child is taught to have a strong faith," Paige said in the interview with Union University, a Baptist-affiliated school in Tennessee. "Where a child is taught that, there is a source of strength greater than themselves."

To critics, Paige said, he would offer "my prayers."

This year, for the first time, schools risk losing federal money if they don't they provide teachers and students the chance to express constitutionally protected prayer.

"Public schools should not be hostile to the religious rights of their students and their families," Paige said in issuing guidelines to schools in February. "At the same time, school officials may not compel students to participate in prayer or other activities."

[Monte Smith]

Oh Christ, it's flagrant Wahabism in our schools! No free thinker is safe from the iron fist of the religious police.

[clinthopson]

Fundamentalists of any stripe are a danger to civilization.

[Tom Storer]

Monte, when it comes to religious intolerance, give 'em an inch and they'll take a mile. It would behoove you not to make light of this sorry spectacle.

(I love telling people what would behoove them.)

[Monte Smith]

And I love getting told to behoove, TS. And I should behoove. And I do behoove. Believe me, I behoove like a MF.

It's just I think that the United States is a pretty robust liberal democracy. I love that it is--I wanna keep it that way. It behooves me to support the USA's tradition of liberal economics, liberal social policy, liberal politics.

So I can happily report that you'd have to be one of these paranoid, embittered and illiberal leftists to believe that America is in any danger of a fundamentalist takeover. Indeed, a court has even declared the phrase "under God" unconstitutional in our (totally optional) Pledge of Allegiance.

I'm more worried that the Muslims will take control of France than I am that an ordinary, milquetoast expression of Christian faith will ever be passed by without comment by American leftists.

[BFrank]

Originally posted by clinthopson
Fundamentalists of any stripe are a danger to civilization.

Exactamundo, clint.

Here's part of a recently article from the NY Times. I wish I had saved the whole thing, but I'm not about to pay $3 to retrieve it from the "archives".
+++
Foreign Desk | March 26, 2003, Wednesday
LETTER FROM THE AMERICAS; In God We Trust . . . Canadians Aren't So Sure

By Clifford Krauss (NYT)
ABSTRACT - in god we trust...canadians aren't so sure
**Letter From the Americas column on divergence between Canadians and Americans on matters religious; photos; Pew Research poll finds only thirty percent of Canadians say religion is very important to them, compared with 59 percent of Americans, and statistics would be even more skewed if not for growing numbers of devout Muslims, Sikh and Hindu immigrants in Canada; Canadian prime ministers rarely if ever speak in religious terms, whereas religious rhetoric has played important role in sanctifying American political action since war for independence (M) The French Canadian writer Yann Martel has acknowledged that he rearranged chapters in the Canadian edition of his new novel, ''Life of Pi,'' because he feared that Canadians would be offended by its religious content.

''America is a very religious, almost puritanical country,'' he told Publishers Weekly last year. ''In Canada, secularism is triumphant, and to talk noncynically, nonironically about religion is strange.''
+++
There was mention about how no one in Canadian government would EVER say "God Bless Canada" and Pierre Trudeau was out of office before anyone knew he was a devout Catholic.

I'm actually disturbed by all the extreme religious overtones in most of the Bush administration's policies. Religious extremism almost always leads to conflict that nobody wins.

[Salvador Dali Lama]

liberal democracy, man thats funny. the US is neither liberal nor a democracy. its never been a democracy, was never meant to be a democracy, never will be a democracy, and hasnt been liberal since about 20 years after the revolution. This is a republic. always has been. The word "democracy" was never used in public in reference to this country until about 100 years after that whole "framing of the constitution" business. And liberal, shit, whats liberal about it? sweeden is liberal. denmark is liberal. America, that only what, how many years ago decided that women-folk WERE fit to serve in the military? Yeah, not so liberal. Liberal if you're a Joe Prude Victorian ol goddamn "singing and dancing should be illegal again" type. You have a few loud talkers who are suposedly liberal, but does anyone here REALLY believe Daschle wants to help anyone but himself?

I call him Dass-hole. It makes me feel very clever.

but in response to the actual topic, all i have to say is a resounding "goddamnit." I guess we'll see how powerful the religous right really is in a few years. Smells like Ronny in here.

[Tom Storer]

Originally posted by Monte Smith
I think that the United States is a pretty robust liberal democracy. I love that it is--I wanna keep it that way.

Then you should deplore it when the Education Secretary insults all the non-Christians, no?

So I can happily report that you'd have to be one of these paranoid, embittered and illiberal leftists to believe that America is in any danger of a fundamentalist takeover.

I doubt anyone thinks America is in danger of a fundamentalist takeover. So we should let the Education Secretary start talking like Christianity is the national religion without squawking? Come on, Monte--you only squawk when liberals aren't manly enough. You never squawk when conservatives shit on your principles!

I'm more worried that the Muslims will take control of France than I am that an ordinary, milquetoast expression of Christian faith will ever be passed by without comment by American leftists.

The French, unlike the Americans, squawk about everything. They won't even let Muslim girls wear head scarves in school. So I wouldn't worry on that score.

[Tanager]

Personally speaking, I find the Secretary's statements appalling. Of course, they're hardly surprising, considering the overt prejudices shown towards "faith-based" initiatives in schooling, charities, etc., by this Administration. And yes, I think "faith-based" is code for "Fundamentalist Protestant Christian."

I am not afraid of a fundamentalist takeover happening in teh future - I think it's already underway.

[jesus marion joseph]

Salvador: I think "liberal" in the context that Monte referred to meant that we have representative form of government as opposed to a king or dictator, etc., not necessarily a country that supports left-leaning social policies.

[Salvador Dali Lama]

But we don't have that either. There may be a fringe group .001% of the population that actually feels represented by the government.... but I don't, and no one else I know does. Even a lot of conservatives don't feel the current administration represents them.

I see what you're saying though. Idealy, yes, liberal. but not in practice. If that were true, there wouldnt be a two party oligarchy.