April 10, 2003


Ed. Chief Defends Pro-Christian Remarks (BEN FELLER, April 10, 2003, AP)
Education Secretary Rod Paige's attempt to clarify his views about religion in schools may not satisfy those pushing him to recant his comments and apologize.

In a story run by a religious news service, Paige was quoted as showing a preference for schools that appreciate "the values of the Christian community." He told reporters his expression of personal faith has no bearing on his role as the nation's education chief. [...]

"I respect his personal faith. But he tied it to a generalized belief and a preference of Christian values in schools," said Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. "If he meant to say 'character' or 'traditional values,' then that's what he should have said the first time."

Democrats in Congress showed signs they do not plan to let the issue drop. [...]

"The reason that Christian schools and Christian universities are growing is a result of a strong value system," Paige was quoted as saying. "In a religious environment the value system is set. That's not the case in a public school, where there are so many different kids with different kinds of values."

Boy, you just can't wait for Democrats to explain why they oppose religious values in schools, which are extremely popular with voters. Posted by Orrin Judd at April 10, 2003 8:57 PM

And the hole gets deeper...I almost can't wait for 2004!

Posted by: Bartman at April 10, 2003 9:46 PM

To be precise, their own religious values are

extremely popular with voters. Other people's

religious values, not so much.

Or are you going to put your daughters in


Posted by: Harry Eagar at April 11, 2003 3:04 AM

Only if we move to France or Germany.

Posted by: oj at April 11, 2003 8:34 AM

Why the hostility? Natural law,the common law tradition and classical liberalism all have their roots in the judeo-christian view of man. If individual human beings have a dignity that deserves respect it is only due to the belief that they are created by God.

The founders certainly did not oppose religious values in schools, in fact many could not see education having much lasting value without a religious foundation.The assumptions of the founders regarding the nature of man and his relationship with God and the state in a virtuous republic have less and less in common with the assumptions of the "leaders" of today. The gulf between the two seems to widen as the power of the central state grows. I wonder why?

Posted by: Tom C., Stamford, Ct. at April 11, 2003 9:24 AM


Libertarians/atheists believe such things can spring full-blown from their own heads.

Posted by: oj at April 11, 2003 11:30 AM

It was about a century ago that H.L. Mencken observed that hardly anybody any more wanted to debate the doctrine of infant damnation. Religious values are not so enduring nor so obviously good as some people would

like to think.

Posted by: Harry Eagar at April 11, 2003 3:15 PM

40 million dead, thanks to secular "values", has rendered the issue of their damnation rather secondary, eh?

Posted by: oj at April 11, 2003 3:39 PM


I am a big fan of Mencken. A bigger fan of Burke, Washington and Madison. The bolshevik revolution and its progeny does confirm one old saying,"...without God all is permitted".

Posted by: Tom C., Stamford, Ct. at April 11, 2003 4:12 PM

Orrin likes to count the dead. I am not an atrocity monger. Once you murder one person, you're a murderer.

That aside, what religious values are we teaching? I vote to teach the children not to eat lobster, a value of one of the world's great religions. That would leave more lobsters for me, a non-subscriber.

Posted by: Harry Eagar at April 11, 2003 10:33 PM

First they came for the lobsters...

Posted by: oj at April 11, 2003 11:25 PM