The Liberated Learner — Column by Suzanne Kearney
Nothing in the First Amendment… converts the public schools into religion-free zones, or requires students, teachers, or other school officials to leave their private religious expression behind at the schoolhouse door.
U.S. Department of Education, May 2023
Idaho Family Policy Center has recently made headlines with its hotly contested petition to “Bring the Bible back to school!” As expected, this campaign has been met with considerable pushback. Secularists, of course, cite the first amendment and so-called “separation of church and state,” saying schools should be a place of “neutrality.” Some Christians eagerly support the movement, while others claim that progressive teachers will corrupt students’ understanding of the word of God. Both sides fear that introducing the Bible into the classroom could create a slippery slope of pluralism (“Will we be teaching the Koran also? The Bhagavad Gita? Will the Church of Satan want a seat at the table?”).
Of course, the IFPC proposal does not seek to establish mandatory Bible reading in schools, but only to protect students’ and teachers’ right to read. According to IFPC President Blaine Conzatti, “participation in the Bible reading would be optional, with an opt-out option available for teachers and students.”
This begs the question: does “neutrality” in education mean that students be exposed to a wide variety of religious beliefs, or none at all? Rather than rehashing the tiresome banter that we usually hear on this topic, let’s dig a little deeper. An appropriate response to this issue requires a thoughtful return to foundational principles. What is the definition of “religion”? What is the purpose of education? What is best for children and society as a whole?
Some argue for a “secular” learning environment because it is “neutral,” but I posit that this is not the case. In a prior column, I outlined the history of the Secular Humanist movement and its religious roots. Consider further: if the Webster’s definition of “religion” is “a belief in and worship of God or gods,” and man worships himself as his own god by exalting human reason over faith, then self-worship is his religion. Likewise, if man worships “science” as his god; or sexuality, or identity, or success, or any other object of devotion, it can be argued that nearly anything can be called a “religion.” In fact, the Summit Worldviews Dictionary defines “religion” this way: “any specific system of belief, worship, or conduct that prescribes certain responses to the existence (or non-existence) of God.”
What am I getting at here? I am saying that all people worship something; therefore, “religion” is already in schools. Even the lack of belief in “god” is a form of worship (the act of attributing worth); it is placing one’s faith in the human mind’s ability to understand the nature of God (or lack thereof). In other words, there is no such thing as a “neutral” approach to education. To teach from a “secular” perspective by eliminating God from the curriculum is the functional equivalent of imposing the religion of atheism on the classroom.
Once we understand that all people are worshipers, then we can also conclude that when an object of worship is eliminated, it creates a vacuum which must be filled. When the Bible was removed from schools in the early 1960s, a host of “gods” rushed in to take its place: Darwinism, progressivism, pragmatism, self-actualization theory, and critical theory to name a few. With no universally accepted higher authority to establish ethical principles, a decline in the morality of society followed. In the present day, to remedy the effects of the removal of Biblical principles, the “religion” of Social Emotional Learning (SEL) has been ordained.
SEL touts itself as “the process through which all young people and adults acquire and apply the knowledge, skills, and attitudes to develop healthy identities, manage emotions and achieve personal and collective goals, feel and show empathy for others, establish and maintain supportive relationships, and make responsible and caring decisions.” In other words, SEL is a “politically correct” substitute for the Bible. In fact, the Sources of Strength curriculum used in Coeur d’Alene schools directly addresses “spirituality” and presents all religions as equal in value while promoting new-agey terms like “mindfulness” and “connection.” In short, SEL is teaching our children values, an area which has historically been within the jurisdiction of religion.
In closing, to each side let me present a final thought. To the Christian who is against having the Bible in schools, may I present the words of Paul: “But what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice” (Philippians 1:18, NIV). “…faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word about Christ” (Romans 10:17, NIV). “…so is my word that goes out from my mouth: It will not return to me empty, but will accomplish what I desire and achieve the purpose for which I sent it” (Isaiah 55:11, NIV). If you are a skeptical Christian, I encourage you to let the Word of God speak for itself regardless of the motive of the one presenting it. Give children the opportunity to hear. Paul says that to hear from a corrupted messenger is better than to not hear at all. God has promised that His word is effective and powerful.
To the atheist in opposition, I present another Scripture: “For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God.” (Acts 5:38-39, NIV). You may fight the campaign to put the Bible back in school, and you may win. But this is only one battle. Time will tell whether you fight against man or against God. My hope is that you will see the truth of the spiritual war we are in before it is too late.
