Rick Santorum: Let’s call secularism a religion so it can be banned from the classroom

[Warren Stupidity]

Former Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum railed against the exclusion of conservative Christianity from education in an interview with American Family Association radio host Bryan Fischer on Tuesday, Right Wing Watch reported.

“I think we should start calling secularism a religion,” Santorum told a grinning Fischer. “Because if we did, then we could ban that, too, because that’s what they’ve done: they’ve hidden behind the fact that the absence of religion is not a religion of itself.”

The former Pennsylvania senator, who partnered with Fischer’s organization in the making of his newest “docudrama,” argued that secularism has “moral teachers” that should classify it as a religion.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/09/09/rick-santorum-lets-call-secularism-a-religion-so-it-can-be-banned-from-the-classroom/

Gee golly I've heard Ricky's argument spouted right here in this forum.

[DetlefK]

1. Ok, who has the heart to tell him that "secular" is a political attribute, not a religious one?

[djean111]

2. "Gee golly I've heard Ricky's argument spouted right here in this forum. "

Me too. The twisty attempts to declare atheism a religion would be laughable, until I read something like this.
Anyway, what exactly does banning "secularism" from a classroom mean? Inflicting Christianity on every kid in the classroom, is what Santorum really is after.

[rug]

18. Where?

[djean111]

20. There have been attempts to cast atheism as a religion.

Saying that a group of people who all (dis)believe the same thing and hang out in groups - that's a religion.
Has always seemed odd to me. No, I don't think anything like what Frothy is spouting was actually meant, here, but trying to make atheism into something that can be classified as a cohesive group pops up now and again.

[okasha]

21. Secularism and atheism

are not the same thing. You don't have to be an atheist to believe that T. Jefferson's "wall of separation" should be high and impregnable.

[djean111]

22. I know they are not the same thing. I do not think Santorum does.

[okasha]

23. Good.

That's not clear from your post, though, because you seem to be responding to rug's question re: post #2.

[Turbineguy]

3. Well that fits perfectly.

Children should not learn anything in school. Learning something would keep them from voting for people like him when they are adults.

[LiberalAndProud]

4. Why yes, Rick! It is a fact that the absence of religion is not a religion.

parapraxis

[underpants]

5. Wow that's deeeep (p)Rick

Deeply stupid

[Brettongarcia]

6. They like to say that "Freedom of Religion" is not "freedom FROM religion."

As if analogously, "Freedom of Speech" meant that you can say anything you want; but you are never allowed to stop talking.

[AtheistCrusader]

7. WISH GRANTED.

We don't teach Secular Humanism or other equivalent setups in Schools either.
Derp.

[trotsky]

8. Dayum, that is a bit unnerving.

Having seen, as you say, the exact same argument advanced right here on DU.

Thankfully most who did that eventually got banned for homophobia.

[rug]

19. Gee golly, where have you seen "the exact same argument advanced right here on DU"?

[Iggo]

9. Yep, there we go, hiding behind facts again.

You busted us, Frothy.

[edhopper]

10. Santorum is right

there should be no influence of religion in the classroom, even secularism.
Now Ricky doesn't understand that what he thinks is secularism is really atheism, and secularism is mere the removal of all religious influence. So he is actually calling for secularism in the classroom.
So he should accept the removal of any religious discussion in the classroom (except in a sociological context)
Let's all make sure that religion stays out of the classroom, this would include Christianity and what Ricky thinks is secularism.

[Warren Stupidity]

13. The Santorum uses exactly this phrase:

they’ve hidden behind the fact that the absence of religion is not a religion of itself

to advance the notion that not teaching religion is teaching the "no religion" religion. This argument, perhaps not using the same words, has been made here concerning atheists lack of belief.

[edhopper]

14. Well

then he has good company in his ignorance.

[mr blur]

24. Indeed, and on a 'Progressive' forum, too. (nt)

[Goblinmonger]

15. But it's a catch-22.

If secularism is the absence of religion, then banning the absence of religion in schools along with religion would mean that we can't teach anything. So then they can say "See, we have to allow both." But it all hinges on secularism being a religion which is utter bullocks. He loses at that point and needs to be addressed at that point rather than giving credence to that argument.

Or I'm misunderstanding what you are saying. That's possible, too.

[edhopper]

16. I was trying to point out

What a dolt he is, ironically.

[mr blur]

11. Obviously there is no minimum IQ requirement to be a presidential candidate.

[edhopper]

12. There is no minimum IQ

to be President.

[img][/img]

[rug]

17. Gee golly I don't believe you.

Gee golly I've heard Ricky's argument spouted right here in this forum.

Post the link.