Texas Governor Rick Perry is supporting cheerleaders at a middle school in Beaumont who want to lead cheers with Bible verses. According to the Houston Chronicle, the cheerleaders post banners with verses and Christian phrases during sporting events. One such verse is “if God is for us, who can be against us?” I wonder if the team has lost any games this year.
A complaint has been lodged in court by the Freedom from Religion Foundation. Yesterday, a judge handed down a temporary injunction allowing the girls to continue displaying their Bible banners.
Perry is a Republican and it is generally true that Republican leaders have favored mixing religion in schools. At least that is often true of current Republican leaders. However, it was not always so.
Researching the GOP through the Reconstruction era, I was surprised to see the GOP on record against sectarian aims in public education. For instance, in the presidential campaign of 1876, President Grant said in a speech in Iowa
Encourage free schools and resolve that not one dollar of money appropriated to their support no matter how raised, shall be appropriated to the support of any sectarian schools.*
The Republican platforms were quite clear in this regard through this period. Here is the 1876 platform statement on public education:
7. The public school system of the several states is the bulwark of the American republic; and, with a view to its security and permanence, we recommend an amendment to the constitution of the United States, forbidding the application of any public funds or property for the benefit of any school or institution under sectarian control.
Then again in 1880:
3. The work of popular education is one left to the care of the several States, but it is the duty of the National Government to aid that work to the extent of its constitutional power. The intelligence of the Nation is but the aggregate of the intelligence in the several States, and the destiny of the Nation must be guided, not by the genius of any one State, but by the aggregate genius of all.
4. The Constitution wisely forbids Congress to make any law respecting the establishment of religion, but it is idle to hope that the Nation can be protected against the influence of secret sectarianism while each State is exposed to its domination. We, therefore, recommend that the Constitution be so amended as to lay the same prohibition upon the Legislature of each State, and to forbid the appropriation of public funds to the support of sectarian schools.
And then in 1892, the platform became quite specific about not mixing church and state in education (or anywhere else for that matter):
The ultimate reliance of free popular government is the intelligence of the people, and the maintenance of freedom among men. We therefore declare anew our devotion to liberty of thought and conscience, of speech and press, and approve all agencies and instrumentalities which contribute to the education of the children of the land, but while insisting upon the fullest measure of religious liberty, we are opposed to any union of Church and State.
Now GOP culture warriors go to court to allow sectarianism in the schools. I think the GOP had it right the first time around.
*Charles Calhoun. Conceiving a new republic: The republican party and the southern question, 1869-1900. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas, 2006, p. 84.
I don’t see the problem. Why shouldn’t the tax money of catholic (or protestant) parents go to catholic (or protestant) schools? The government isn’t the donor of that money, it only administers money which doesn’t belong to it.
Being an anabaptist, I’m all for separate Christian settlements.The Republican platform of 1876 would forbid such a settlement to fund its own Christian school – it seemingly wouldn’t like such settlements at all.
I don’t see the problem. Why shouldn’t the tax money of catholic (or protestant) parents go to catholic (or protestant) schools? The government isn’t the donor of that money, it only administers money which doesn’t belong to it.
Being an anabaptist, I’m all for separate Christian settlements.The Republican platform of 1876 would forbid such a settlement to fund its own Christian school – it seemingly wouldn’t like such settlements at all.
Son and brother of Lutheran Pastors here. Yes, there is a generational difference. Dad, along with his separation of church and state ideals, would not allow voting machines in the church in case someone did not want to step foot on the property and just not vote. My brother looks at voting machines in the church as a chance to ‘undercover’ evangelize or at least be welcoming. Dad fought to keep prayer out of our public schools in the 1950’s and 1960’s because he didn’t want someone else’s religion encroaching on his children. And it simply is not the state’s job. My brother thinks it is almost blasphemy not to have someone say a prayer over the loud speaker before a high school football game.
My late father was and my brother is Republican.
Son and brother of Lutheran Pastors here. Yes, there is a generational difference. Dad, along with his separation of church and state ideals, would not allow voting machines in the church in case someone did not want to step foot on the property and just not vote. My brother looks at voting machines in the church as a chance to ‘undercover’ evangelize or at least be welcoming. Dad fought to keep prayer out of our public schools in the 1950’s and 1960’s because he didn’t want someone else’s religion encroaching on his children. And it simply is not the state’s job. My brother thinks it is almost blasphemy not to have someone say a prayer over the loud speaker before a high school football game.
My late father was and my brother is Republican.
So hypothetically… as the cheerleaders and not officially represent the school.. it would be ok to have a banner “AVE SATANAS! PRAISE SATAN, AND WIN THE GAME”
So hypothetically… as the cheerleaders and not officially represent the school.. it would be ok to have a banner “AVE SATANAS! PRAISE SATAN, AND WIN THE GAME”
I am a product of Catholic parochial schools from the 60s in Indiana. During that time there began to be some serious problems funding those schools resulting in some consolidation. But would anyone – Democrat or Republican – consider any state aid to such a school then? No.
It has only been with the ‘evangelical flight’ of recent years from public education that the thought of aiding parochial schools has come to be in vogue among Republicans. Frankly, I have come to feel that such a change of opinion on the matter represents a hypocritical indifference towards Roman Catholics.
The problem is that the irreligious can be just as preachy, dogmatic and intolerant as anyone else. Intimidation of those with a minority view is not restricted to the religious. What are we trying to accomplish? If I’m an atheist who takes a stand on a moral issue on Objectivist grounds, my promotion of that idea is fine, but the same conclusion with a religious motive is problematic in a public school setting? We need to be able to consider secular or religious expressions on their merits. Telling any free person that they cannot post signs that say “if God is for us, who can be against us?” (properly applied or not… I’d vote for “not” in this case) seems tyrannical on its face.
If I recall correctly, sectarian meant Roman Catholic. So a non-sectarian schools were the protestant ones that promoted the civil religion. World Magazine discussed the issue some time ago: http://www.worldmag.com/2002/08/breaking_through_blaine_s_roadblock
Although the underlying irony remains: the conservative evangelical/protestant Republicans, as part of their day’s culture wars, wrote policies and took positions that have since come back to bite them.
I am a product of Catholic parochial schools from the 60s in Indiana. During that time there began to be some serious problems funding those schools resulting in some consolidation. But would anyone – Democrat or Republican – consider any state aid to such a school then? No.
It has only been with the ‘evangelical flight’ of recent years from public education that the thought of aiding parochial schools has come to be in vogue among Republicans. Frankly, I have come to feel that such a change of opinion on the matter represents a hypocritical indifference towards Roman Catholics.
The problem is that the irreligious can be just as preachy, dogmatic and intolerant as anyone else. Intimidation of those with a minority view is not restricted to the religious. What are we trying to accomplish? If I’m an atheist who takes a stand on a moral issue on Objectivist grounds, my promotion of that idea is fine, but the same conclusion with a religious motive is problematic in a public school setting? We need to be able to consider secular or religious expressions on their merits. Telling any free person that they cannot post signs that say “if God is for us, who can be against us?” (properly applied or not… I’d vote for “not” in this case) seems tyrannical on its face.
If I recall correctly, sectarian meant Roman Catholic. So a non-sectarian schools were the protestant ones that promoted the civil religion. World Magazine discussed the issue some time ago: http://www.worldmag.com/2002/08/breaking_through_blaine_s_roadblock
Although the underlying irony remains: the conservative evangelical/protestant Republicans, as part of their day’s culture wars, wrote policies and took positions that have since come back to bite them.