How judges rip up faith

By Jen Shroder

The LAW [1] guarantees the right of every person to freely choose his own course in religious teaching, free of any compulsion from the state [public schools]. Therefore, HOW is the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals allowing such practices as requiring students to pretend they are witches and sorcerers, create poetic chants [5], pretend they "become Muslim," memorize and recite prayers of worship to Allah [6], fast for Ramadan and strive to reach Mecca in games?

The Courts have developed a "test" which can be used to allow practices of religion if practices are found to have a "secular purpose." [2] So let's look at this "secular purpose."

Secular purpose: California's unrevised State Standards [3] assert:

"The skills involved in critical thinking enable students to question the validity and meaning of what they read, hear, think, and believe. Critical thinking requires a questioning mind and a skeptical withholding of assent about the truth of a statement until it can be critically evaluated. While such skills are developed through everyday living as well as by schooling, the history — social science classroom is an especially appropriate setting for developing such skills."

The "history-social science classroom" includes to a great extent, religion. Under these "critical thinking" guidelines, to teach religion as secular, or "neutral" — without belief or disbelief, cannot be taught with "critical thinking" for it denies it's own definition of "secular" if applied to religious beliefs. Secular "critical thinking" directs an impressionable child to judge based on secular reasoning. Secular reasoning is devoid of faith, it is atheistic by nature impeded by "critical thinking" when approaching religion. Justice demands religion cannot be measured by man's objective (atheist) reasoning as it is a matter of faith. Therefore, objective secular standards cannot be the guide to "teach" religious beliefs without prejudice, to do so completely destroys a child's right to religious freedom.

The Courts have followed this tactic and have ruled "practicing religion" is to be determined by a "reasonable observer." Reasonable by whose standards? A secular humanist's? This line of thinking is in direct opposition of the right of every person to freely choose his own course [1], not the Court's idea of a secular "reasonable observer" or a trumped up humanist civil rights "denomination" parading around as religious, currently a successful ploy of humanists. [4]

"History-Social Science Framework for California Public Schools:" (pg 24)

"This framework proposes that critical thinking skills be included at every grade level. Students should learn to detect bias in print and visual media; to recognize illogical thinking; to guard against propaganda; to avoid stereotyping of group members; to reach conclusions based on solid evidence; and to think critically, creatively, and rationally. These skills are to be taught within the context of a curriculum that offers numerous opportunities to explore examples of sound reasoning and examples of the opposite.

The "sound reasoning" as determined by public school officials favoring secular humanism, proved to denigrate Christianity! The Framework states:

• "To detect bias in print"
  
  The Houghton Mifflin textbook [7] is loaded with previously undetected bias. Obviously public school is incapable of discernment.
  
  
• "To recognize illogical thinking"
  
  As determined by who? Teachers insist Islam cannot be taught without induction practices, yet teach American history stripped of it's Christian foundation? Public school can't recognize its own "illogical thinking."
  
  
• "To reach conclusions based on solid evidence"
  
  This is the opener to attack faith. (We walk by faith not by sight).
  
  
• "To guard against propaganda"
  
  Houghton Mifflin's textbooks should be used in courses as examples of propaganda, not history.
  
  
• "To think critically, creatively, and rationally."
  
  Our children already do that. Children are able to make up their own minds if you give them FACTS and not public school programming. "Critical thinking" only gives teachers and textbooks the opportunity to lead them in whatever direction their ideology and secular philosophy dictates.
  
  

Christians walk by faith not by sight. To place all of the above under "secular" (devoid of faith) reasoning is a blatant assault on religion through an atheist lens.

Parents are now forced to teach their children to apply these "critical thinking" skills to anything that teachers "teach" them. Teachers have regretfully lost respect as students are on guard not to accept much of what they teach, putting children in the middle of a battle where everyone loses.

The word "teach" means to sway a child to conform to a teacher's way of thinking, therefore teachers need to be limited to FACTS. The entity of "public school" revoltingly has deemed itself to be a god, equipped to program our children how to think.

This "wolf in critical thinking" has been ravaging our children for years. The outcry over the editing of our Pledge of Allegiance proved some of us still remember what our nation was founded on, but if we continue to teach our children untruths and "critical thinking," what made this country great will be gone. As the atheist in our local paper stated about omission of God from the pledge,

"America isn't ready for it yet. We tried too much too quickly."

Atheists working against America and what she stands for have been slowly and methodically dismantling our precious heritage and openly admit their agenda. Will we continue to allow others to "get us ready for it?"

NOTES:

1. Abington v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203
   
   
2. Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602. "Secular purpose" is one of three points in a "test."
   
   
3. Calif. State Standards 2002 before revision http://www.blessedcause.org/CriticalWolf.htm
   
   
4. Clinton's 35 "religious" groups scrutinized http://www.blessedcause.org/proof/Clinton's%2035%20religious%20groups.htm
   
   
5. Brown v. Woodland School Dist., 27 F.3d 1373;
   
   
6. Eklund v. Byron School Dist., large PDF at http://www.blessedcause.org/protest/Islam%20Ruling%2012-05-03.pdf
   
   
7. Houghton Mifflin Textbook Exposed http://www.blessedcause.org/proof/Hard%20Proof%20Index.htm
   
   

© Jen Shroder