Should the Secretary of Education apologize for his remark about Christian values?

Great Debates
1

Roderick Paige, US Secretary of Education, made a comment

Congressman Jerrold Nadler criticized the comment:

However, Bill Bennett defended the comment and attacked its attackers

[ul][]Was there anything objectionable in Paige’s comment?[]Should he apologize (or even resign) on account of it?[] Or, should he be praised for them? []Is there too much animosity toward God in schools?[]Is this really a non-issue?[]Do the “crusading secularists” deserve criticism or praise for making a fuss over the comment?[/ul]

2

I’m stunned, december. That’s an excellent OP, presented in an unbiased fashion. Well done.

I’ll try and come back and actually debate when I get a chance, but once again, good OP.

3

Likewise, I’m extraordinarily gratified by the OP and its tone. Thank you, december; well done.

My answers:

[ol][li]Was there anything objectionable in Paige’s comment?[/li]
To me, as a Christian and a liberal, the only thing objectionable in it is a “sin of omission” – he failed to clarify that he was speaking of private schools and universities (as I presume he was).

In fact, I concur in the quotes I’ve seen about “animosity” towards God in public schools – they’re required to be 100% neutral towards religious beliefs, not to bar the door to them. The free exercise clause and the establishment clause walk hand in hand – a child is free to hold whatever faith he and his family choose, and no compulsion or coercion whatsoever by the public schools either for or against that faith is acceptable.

[li]Should he apologize (or even resign) on account of it?[/li]
Absolutely not. The most he need do is clarify

[li]**Or, should he be praised for them? **[/li]
That may be going a bit too far. I’d love to see the full remarks, with the context in which he said what he said. While I’m disgusted with the “all media are slanted to the liberal side” innuendo I’ve seen, the fact of the matter is that it’s extremely easy to take a remark made by a Bushite out of context and make a production number out of it, and some allegedly unbiased journalists will do just this, belying the reality of their bias.

[li]Is there too much animosity toward God in schools?[/li]
Constitutionally, no. In practice, yes. If you’ll forgive the hyperbole, there seems to be a requirement in the school administrator training syllabus that one renounce the concept of liberty under law; it is a very rare school administrator who sincerely believes that he is educating people with Constitutionally-guaranteed freedoms in how to exercise and preserve those freedoms. Instead, he seems to have taken Orwell at face value: “Everything not mandatory is forbidden.”

That especially applies to God. If, to take a real case from last year, a middle school child is required to write an essay on someone he or she considers a hero, and a devout Baptist girl picks Jesus, her essay should be accepted and graded on how well she writes a proof of why Jesus should be considered her hero. OTOH, a respect for YEC religious beliefs should not interfere with the teaching of what science has concluded is the probable origin and growth of the Universe and of life in its diversity as we know it today. Science does, after all, deal with the natural world, and arrives at its conclusions on the presumption of no outside interference.

[li]Is this really a non-issue?[/li]
IMHO, yes.

[li]Do the “crusading secularists” deserve criticism or praise for making a fuss over the comment?[/li]
Both. If I read Paige right, he’s praising the idea of a private school in which Christian values are taught – he and I might have quite different opinions on what those “Christian values” are, as anyone who’s read my posts on religion can attest! :wink: This ain’t an issue – I approve wholeheartedly. (Of course, Paige and I might differ on our opinion of a Wiccan private school where the Rede is the basis of the moral values taught. :slight_smile:

There is, however, a creeping tendency to polarize that is deplorable, and that needs to be brought out. The “Pledge of Allegiance debate” of a while ago illustrates one side of that picture – the apparent opinions of some schools that students are required to figuratively put their belief in God in their lockers when they arrive at school, and He is not to be mentioned by anyone in any context, however non-coercive, on the school premises, as illustrated by a number of cases where the ACLU and the religious right were fighting on the same side, amply illustrates the other.[/ol]

4

I guess he’s free to say he wants his own child in a Christian school. The unsettling thing is that he said “a child.” This being America, neither the Secretary of Education or anyone else in the government has any right to impose Christian values on children through the public school system. And after spending 13 years in public schools, I can say that I saw absolutely no “animosity toward God” displayed.

5

Putting aside for the moment the reactions to the comment:

It seems the man was asked for his opinion, not the stance of his office. He responded honestly. Congressman Nadler did not make that distinction.

6

I agree with spooje. The man’s a deacon in a Baptist church; it is stunningly non-newsworthy that he would prefer a school or university that reflected his values.

Criticism should be levelled, if needed, at the policies of his office. Should these reflect a bias towards Christian schools over other schools, that is worthy of criticism. If, on the other hand, he keeps his personal opinions out of the duties of his office, there is no problem. I don’t know enough about the man to know whether he deserves criticism in the wider context, but for this specific incident alone, I’m saying no.

7

Granted that the Secretary was expressing his personal, non-official opinions. What’s disturbing, however, is the political tone-deafness of the man.

It apparently never occurred to him that his remarks might be considered controversial. Did he not understand that, as the Secretary of Education, any remarks he makes about what should or should not happen in schools would immediately be taken as an expression of official policy? Does he think that he can express a personal opinion that all schools should teach, say, creation science, but still maintain an official position that they should teach evolution? Someone in his position should know better.

Yet he seems to have assumed that all right-thinking Americans would instantly agree with him. After all, how could anyone be opposed to Christian values?

It’s this thoughtless assumption that Christianity is, and should be, the guiding force for the U.S., that drives the non-Christians among us to distraction. The concept is so simple, yet political figures just don’t get it: the government has no religion. It is neither Christian, nor Jewish, nor Muslim, nor atheist. It has no official position. Why is this so difficult?

8

If I were the Secretary’s media minder, I would strongly advise him to answer only questions relating to official policy. To do otherwise is to invite speculation involving the influence of personal opinions on the business of government.

That being said, his personal opinion sounds pretty inoffensive and obviously honest. To call it “bigoted” is absurd. But he was unwise to give his personal opinion.

9

Regarding the comment above, I see nothing offensive in such. To me, it appeared that it would have been his personal preference to have a child in a school with Christian values, not that he was insisting that all schools must base themselves upon such values.

I was much more disturbed by other comments made by Secretary Paige in the interview, a transcript of which can be found here.

I would think it would be the duty of an administrator in a position which affects the lives of children in schools across the United States, including many who do not adhere to any religious belief at all, to learn why some may desire to separate religion and God from education.

(For additional reference, the original Baptist Press story is located here, and an additional Baptist Press editorial on the controversy regarding the Secretary of Education’s comments is here.)

10

We have a problem when we criticize our politicians for being honest with us. Particularly when we have generally come to the conclusion that it is acceptable for him to have these opinions.

It is even more odd when one considers that, as Secretary of Education, he is going to make decisions in which issues of religion are going to come into play. Isn’t it best for us to know his opinions if we are to assess the decisions he makes in his position?

Sua

11

Suppose he had praised the value system taught by Satanism (or perhaps hard-core, Hirohito-really-was-a-living-god Shinto) instead. How would you answer that question?

Personally, if he was speaking as a private individual, then I’d answer no. If he was speaking as the Secretary, then I’d say yes.

God should be treated by the schools the same as any other superstition. I’m skeptical that a school can have too much animosity toward superstition.

12

Sua: “We have a problem when we criticize our politicians for being honest with us.”

Possibly, though we have a bigger problem when we have government officials with a serious religious agenda that is in conflict with the pluralistic foundations of our society.

Polycarp knows that I owe him an answer in another thread in which he suggested that the underpinnings of US democracy are better described as humanistic rather than secular. Polycarp prefers the term humanist because he (rightly) notes that the term humanism incorporates what Judaeo-Christian religious philosophy has added to the Western tradition in the wake of the middle ages. The rest of that tradition derives from classical ideas (from ancient Greece and Rome), including the civic and secular ideals from the Renaissance through the Enlightenment. Bill Bennet knows this too but is too much of a reactionary to say anything on the subject of education that might actually pull people together.

To wit, the notion of good citizenship does not reduce down to Christian values; and to suggest otherwise–as a Secretary of Education no less–is abrasive and entire unncessary. Stressing humanism allows individual citizens to emphasize whatever aspect of the Western tradition is most meaningful to them, religious or secular: and that could also include the Western emphasis on tolerance and diversity which has lead to serious opennness towards multiculturalism and non-Western ideas.

Paige’s critics were not issuing an attack on religion; Paige himself had issued an attack on pluralism and tolerance. Those principles have been the crucial key to our success as a democracy for more than 200 years.
Nice OP december.

13

Interesting. Some folks are arguing that we shouldn’t be upset with Paige because, after all, he’s just expressing his personal opinion, not Government policy. You seem to be suggesting that we need to be aware of Paige’s personal opinions, because we believe that he will be unable to make policy decisions without being heavily influenced by those personal beliefs (and I’m inclined to agree - it’s a rare person who can split his thinking that way).

If you’re correct, then Paige needs to resign immediately.

14

These comments seem to be expressing somewhat similar POVs. I disagree with them. I support Paige’s comments because I consider his beliefs to be reasonable and positive.

I don’t believe in Christianity, but I admire many its values. It’s not a coincidence that Martin Luther King was a Christian minister and that Christians in England and the US led the battle against slavery, IMHO. It’s not a coincidence that the US, which gave democracy to the world, was founded by Christians.

Furthermore, any system of moral beliefs must begin with unproved axioms or assumptions. For that reason, I think Paige’s critics are indeed attacking religion. Their values are not very different from Christian values, and they also have no valid underlying basis. Try this exercise, Mandelstam: Explain why bigotry is wrong. I maintain that to do so, you will need to start with some assumption or basis that cannot be proved.

15

The people need to be aware of Paige’s personal opinions so we can pass judgement on whether his policy decisions are being unduly influenced. Notice: “unduly”, not “at all”. Even a strict secularist will make policy decisions influenced by his personal philosophies and ideologies, and adherence to Christianity should be no worse than adherence to Objectivism, or to Socialism – the criterion should be where do you draw the line, and it should be the same for all. Not every supporter of a humanistic education and strict SOCAS, believes someone with a preference for Christian values “will be unable” to make reasonable policy decisions.

16

I’m not suggesting that at all. People are plenty capable of putting aside their personal opinions in order to do fulfill their obligations. In a simple and common example, defense attorneys who believe their client is guilty still zealously defend their client to their utmost ability.

I don’t know if Paige is capable of setting aside his personal opinions and faithfully fulfill the duties of his position. It is good to know his personal opinions so that, if he in unable to do so, observers can be on guard and raise the alarm.

Sua

17

What exactly are “Christian values”. The prohibition against murder and theft exisited long before Christianity in a number of societies with no Judeo Christian tradition. Respect for elders is more strongly followed in the Confucian tradition.

18

And Deists. And atheists. Not just Christians, december my lad; that particular myth has been thoroughly debunked, I think.

Which is sort of my point. To call positive values such as respect for elders and … well, not killing people, “Christian” values puts the emphasis on the wrong place for me. It puts the emphasis on the religion when the emphasis should be one the values themselves. Even mentioning the religion distracts from the issue, and implies that Christianity has a monopoly on these positive values. It simply does not have that monopoly, and I for one feel that it espouses a number of negative things as well… but that’s me.

So, while I’m glad Paige was being honest, his comments (as Secretary of Ed) were mildly inappropriate. He needn’t apologize for them or certainly not resign because of them, but for me it raises a red flag to watch for bias towards Christian schools in his future policy-making.

19

december:
“These comments seem to be expressing somewhat similar POVs.”

:confused: Are you suddenly on some kind of mind-dulling medication? :wink:

I don’t mean this as an insult to js_africanus, but only as a response to an incomprehensible assertion. Read my post again and–if you like–explain to me what part of it is confusing to you. Coz that’s the only reason I can think of for your being so far afield.

“I don’t believe in Christianity, but I admire many its values.”

So do I. And almost any humanist would say the same. But it does not follow that the Secretary of Education in a pluralist country should be breeding divisiveness and intolerance by stating a preference for Christian schools. Mind you, though, Paige’s comment, which seems to have been made off the cuff, is not, to my mind, as bad as Bennet’s justification for it.

“It’s not a coincidence that Martin Luther King was a Christian minister and that Christians in England and the US led the battle against slavery, IMHO.”

No, but then it’s not a coincidence that John Stuart Mill, one of the most ethical men who ever lived was an avowed atheist; that Rousseau, another atheist, was a crucial democratic theorist; that Ghandi, whose principles King followed, was a great non-Christian humanitarian; that Aristotle and Plato, two “pagans,” are among the most important philosophers in the democratic tradition.

“It’s not a coincidence that the US, which gave democracy to the world, was founded by Christians.”

The US did not give “democracy to the world.” Good god, december, why don’t you read a book on this subject before you post such poppycock? Have you ever heard of Athens? Do you know about the Magna Carta? the English Civil War? the Glorious Revolution? The small republics in the age of Machievelli? John Locke? Voltaire? Rousseau? Kant?

On top of all that the founding fathers were hardly Christians first and foremost. They were prodcuts of the Enlightenment and, in religion, they tended to be deists.

There is a pretty good textbook called Western Political Thought: From Socrates to the Age of Aristotle. A much more sophisticated and powerful but more challenging alternative would be Sources of the Self, by Charles Taylor–which I recommend to anyone interested in philosophy.

"Furthermore, any system of moral beliefs must begin with unproved axioms or assumptions. For that reason, I think Paige’s critics are indeed attacking religion. "

I’m not sure what critics you mean, but this statement is incomprehensible to me. In any case, it’s simple enough to object to Paige without any reference to unproved axioms and systems of moral belief. Religious intolerance is inconsistent with US democracy. The founding fathers wanted it that way–and American institutions have developed in concurrence with their framework. This is a historical argument and has nothing to do with transcendental principles.

“Try this exercise, Mandelstam: Explain why bigotry is wrong. I maintain that to do so, you will need to start with some assumption or basis that cannot be proved.”

Well december, although you may not realize it, you’re on your way to moral relativism here: on a direct line to Nietzsche or, heaven forfend, postmodernism. Although I actually value these post-humanist philosophical strands as much as I do the humanist variety, the subject is irrelevant to Paige’s remark and its context.

20

I would like to note that, apparently, the original quote did not reference Christian Values, but rather

Now, Christianity, on the balance, does provide more of an underpinning of the values I would like people to have than many other philosophies and religions.

But this quote implies that Christians have better morals, on the balance, than non-Christians. Thats a different argument altogether.

I’m not about to selectively bash the X-ian community. But to say that they are any better on average, behavior-wise than the rest of the community is laughable.