The school dismisses the mathematical equations and scientific theory behind EE as being too absolutist and merely obsolete engineering nepotism. Instead, the sEEcularists force students to invent their own engineering principles and ideas, rejecting all that has come before.

That analogy fundamentally misrepresents the concept of secularism. A better analogy is if there were three or four rival concepts of electrical engineering. Each makes unprovable claims about the nature of electricity, and many of the claims contradict each other. In this scenario, a secularist approach would be this: "Let's take all the unprovable claims off the table since there can never be any agreement. Instead, let's have a single discussion that's limited to only what all of us can prove about electricity."

More people act out of an agenda than we would ever guess. At some point, every one of us does. I did not know about backgrounds for the works Paruda, Jack London, Cubism, and Pop Art, though by reading "Call of the Wild" one can figure it out easily enough. Interesting! In a free society the free expression of such ideas is legitimate. Nancy Pearcey has it dead on. When teachers teach on these subjects at length, honesty demands the teacher explain what the writer or artist was really trying to accomplish with his own view of things. Didn't we all get that when we read "The Scarlet Letter" in H.S. American Lit? Why not with Jack London? Great stuff, Nancy Pearcy!

Secular, imagine I am learning electrical engineering to build a space shuttle, yet the school I attend is secular in regards to engineering (a sEEcular school).

The school dismisses the mathematical equations and scientific theory behind EE as being too absolutist and merely obsolete engineering nepotism. Instead, the sEEcularists force students to invent their own engineering principles and ideas, rejecting all that has come before.

Would the astronauts riding my space shuttle want me to be a sEEcularist, or would they also want me to learn from established engineering knowledge? How about you, the taxpayer, funding my forthcoming multi-billion dollar project? Are you a sEEcularist?

The ones who believe that "People of Whole world can be divided into two categories", and the others who do not believe that "People of Whole world can be divided into two categories". That is the Perceyite world, perhaps.

Heh. I wasn't talking just about the fallacy of dividing people, but also the fallacy of dividing anything. I sometimes say that the only absolute we know in life is that life itself is finite.

Secularist should not be given an opportunity to put their agenda to the forefront to indoctrinate school children

Imagine the horror - students might actually treat classmates from other religions with respect and dignity.

Secularist should not be given an opportunity to put their agenda to the forefront to indoctrinate school children than should homophobic Mormons, pervert priest hiding Catholics or hateful Fred Phelps evangelists.

"Teacher, leave those kids alone"

She apparently believes that any ideas that contradict part of her worldview are part of one worldview completely opposite to hers, as if one is either a Perceyite or an anti-Perceyite.
_____________________________________________

Carstonio, have you never heard that people can be divided into two and only two categories? The ones who believe that "People of Whole world can be divided into two categories", and the others who do not believe that "People of Whole world can be divided into two categories". That is the Perceyite world, perhaps.

Pearcey inadvertently illustrates the problem with absolutism. She talks about secularism and materialism as though they were the same thing. She apparently believes that any ideas that contradict part of her worldview are part of one worldview completely opposite to hers, as if one is either a Perceyite or an anti-Perceyite.

There is no such thing as a "secular" worlview, really, because secularism is neutrality among various religions and not hostility to all religions. It doesn't reject religious teachings, it merely takes them off the table so that questions don't become mired in sectarian disputes.

Ms. Pearcey, this article is venting of your prejudices and gripes against secularism. You carry over your opinions straight from the title of your book "Saving Leonardo: A Call to Resist the Secular Assault on Mind, Morals, and Meaning". yet you talk about keeping an open mind. What is it really that you want? There isn't any institution of secularism, as you have of Christianity, Islam, etc, etc. I suppose there are Christian World view, just as Islamic world view, Hindu World View, etc, etc. Where in these people holding these world views have an agenda indeed. The agenda is to contrive the circumstances such that the rest of the people share their world view without question, too. That is not what I call being open minded at all. In that respect the secular world view is very different. In that the secular world view is not a set of dogmas to which all the secularists nominally or otherwise subscribe to. On the contrary, our world view is evolving continuously and is more and more inclusive and universal than any of the religious world views. So how can you call secular world view as an assault on mind, morals. I certainly don't know what is the context of "Meaning". It is the religious world views that are unconscionable assaults on the human mind. As to morality they are indeed devoid of much morality. What goes for morality in the religious world views is mostly in-group nepotism. Secularism on the other hand opens up the mind to question everything and not to accept any of the fairy tales, just because they were being handed down for ages. As to the morality of the secular world view goes, it is if anything continuously strives to deduce morality based on the circumstance, while remaining steadfast to the core principles, which themselves are to be left open to scrutiny.

The few illustartions of so called secular experiments which you speak of are more anti-religious experiments. but hardly secular experiments. Or some of them misguided application of science and math findings to social interactions. See there is no moral lessons to be learnt from Math and science or from nature. They are just what they are neither good nor bad. The morals are a purely human or perhaps mammalian species, processes designed to coexist beyond the simple dictates of nature - the natural forces of Physics, Chemistry, Biology, and rules of Mathematics. it is the religions that have debauched the process by codifying various rule sets for a specific group's survival. So if you really subscribe to your protestations about open mind, you ought to take a more open view of secularism itself, which is the very epitomy of open mindedness.