No, you cannot get the politico-religious indoctrination that is the overt mission of the “Catholoc Studies” education this school offers at your local CC; give the current Supreme Court a few more terms and if you live in a predominantly Catholic state, that may change, but historically the Establishment Clause jurisprudence would prevent it.
Since almost all of the early, 'good' Universities including the entire Ivy League (and of course the much older European schools) literally started as 'Seminaries' to train the Priesthood, and expanded from there, and the very notion of 'University' education in the US and around the world is based on this framework of higher learning, with integrated spiritual aspects, I think the material reality of the situation is a bit more nuanced.
Yes, there are issues of Separation of Church and State, yes, the current SCOTUS is a scary in terms of their willingness to bend the constitution ...
... but it's also given that our colleges are by some measures a grift, that communitarian values may not be directly taught as many would like, that far-left ideologues dominate the social and political language, and that many people would like their colleges to at least have some kind of Religious Affiliation though maybe not outright 'Religious School'.
This school seems to be really heavy on the 'Catholicism', but I can see something like it where there aren't any 'religious studies' directly, but rather with some affiliation, as resonating quite a lot with people.
> Many people would like their colleges to at least have some kind of Religious Affiliation though maybe not outright 'Religious School'.
Public universities still have chaplains of various faiths/creeds. There's no problem with that (for now). There is also no issue with student-run clubs affiliated with a given religion, and they're likely still eligible to receive the same type of funding any other club is. The issue is if there is _only_ one faith/creed represented/forced at a public school (and even then, some public university sports teams historically get away with only having a chaplain of one faith [1]).
Yes, it's a complex issue at publicly funded schools.
And frankly, in the US, there is an 'Evangelical' aspect which is weirdly different from more mainstream religions i.e. Jews and Catholics probably have more in common than Evangelicals and Catholics - at least culturally. Anglicans and most Protestants go on the Jewish/Catholic side. Even Islam.
A Chapel, a Chaplain, maybe a few religious courses, some influence by the clergy with the school itself, some stricter rules for dorms (i.e. not co-ed etc..) that kind of stuff is one thing ...
... but when everything is 'Gospel Music Only' in the band, 'J for Jesus Cheers', and 'Jesus Revival Rally' before the big game, '4pm Prayer Time', etc. etc.. - it's kind of a another dimension of religiosity entirely. Those kids would be exposed to more integrated religiosity than many of the students at seminary-origin Universities of times past. Oxford Students from hundreds of years ago would think all of that a bit nutty.
I suggest there might be a distinction between: 'Goes to Church on Sunday' and 'Everything is Jesus, Hooray!' kinds of affiliations.
The later, impossible for public schools, the former, possibly.
> I suggest there might be a distinction between: 'Goes to Church on Sunday' and 'Everything is Jesus, Hooray!' kinds of affiliations.
Yes, some affiliations treat the religion as kind of embarrassing or don’t actually demand anything of their adherents that would be even mildly embarrassing with atheist/agnostic friends. Think Reform Judaism/Unitarian Universalism/ Episcopalianism. Others believe their religion means something.
> The later, impossible for public schools, the former, possibly.
This is actually exactly how the previous dispensation of no religion in public life, judicially started in the US. The Protestants wanted to be able to discriminate against Catholics like you want to be able to discriminate against religions that believe something in tension with the power of the state.
“When you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men … but when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your father who is unseen.” Matthew 6:5-8
“Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s foes will be those of his own household.” Matthew 10:34-36
I think you may be confusing finding one's religion to be meaningful with some kind of need to broadcast it. I feel every instant of my life to be infused by my faith, yet because it is personal and does require me to testify outwardly about it, it doesn't usually make me want to discuss it with others. You don't get to judge whether it means something to me or not...
If your religion means something to you but no one can tell by any visible sign it is indistinguishable from having no faith. If you every instant of your life is infused by your faith how does it show? Faith can be meaningful to a person without placing any demands on them. Reform Judaism allows people to maintain a connection with their ethnic heritage while having no content disturbing to a good Democrat. UU gives people who grew up with religion something to do once a week that bears some resemblance to it. Faith can be real while having no effect. Western Therapeutic Buddhism is not the only kind of religion that is all about providing something to the adherent.
> If your religion means something to you but no one can tell by any visible sign it is indistinguishable from having no faith.
By you, not by me
> If you every instant of your life is infused by your faith how does it show?
It shows somewhat because I take actions that are in accordance with my faith, but there's no big "tell", it's not particularly easy to distinguish from generally trying to be a good person.
Why does faith have to cause embarrassment or discomfort in front of others, or even be shown to others, in order to "matter"? That might apply to evangelist faith or faiths placing emphasis on proselytism, but does not apply to every faith.
> Since almost all of the early, 'good' Universities including the entire Ivy League (and of course the much older European schools) literally started as 'Seminaries' to train the Priesthood, and expanded from there, and the very notion of 'University' education in the US and around the world is based on this framework of higher learning, with integrated spiritual aspects, I think the material reality of the situation is a bit more nuanced.
I’m not sure why you think the fact that “good” private universities originated as (and still operate) seminaries has any bearing on what is legal for public institutions like Community Colleges under the US Constitution and the jurisprudence applying the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment.
It's relevant because the legal constructs we derive are not as absolutist as we would imagine and, that our society, particularly our education, was never entirely secular even long after such clauses were established, and large swaths of people have no understanding of that history, or the degree to which 'The Church' etc. fundamentally underpin these institutions.
Christmas/Easter holidays, 'In God We Trust' on every dollar bill, 'National Prayer Breakfast', Army Chaplains, modern/recent US Presidents (aka Jimmy Carter) teaching Sunday School in the White House etc.. 'Separation of Church and State' is almost an academic construct in a nation or culture in which faith (or even just religion) plays a major roles in people's lives.
Specifically with respect to education, I think many people think of 'University' as a fundamentally secular institution, when really it's not.
Frankly, the general orientation of 'Let's not have a religious state, and our institutions should not be religious' is a really good idea, however, it turns into a hairy mess at the margins.
In Ontario, Canada, about 40% of the 'Public Schools' (aka fully publicly funded) are actually Catholic. They are 'open to anyone' and it's not 'Jesus Songs All Day' kind of thing, rather, they have 'Christmas Concert' where they are allowed to sing Christmas Carols, whereas the regular Public Schools have 'Seasonal Concerts' with 'Wintertime Songs' as an example of some of the 'notable differences', by that I mean, the 'Catholic Schools' are not hugely religiously infused.
I bring this up because it's one of the oddest and most paradoxical arrangements in modern secular governance with respect to education. It's only controversial in the academic sense, i.e. something for people to argue about, in practice, it's the most 'normal' thing one could imagine. If one were to suggest this arrangement for a US state, all hell would break loose. Pun intended. Of course, the US is a different place than Canada. (FYI I'm not Catholic).
I'm Catholic myself. It is not anti-Catholic to point out that the fairly overt point of the sole major offered, and the institution itself, is indoctrination and political mobilization of a particular approach to inserting religion into government, nor is it anti-Catholic to point out that this would be prohibited in a public institution the way that the First and Fourteenth Amendments have been applied since late in the first half of the 20th Century.
> Would you say this about an institution affiliated with any other religion?
Yes, if it overtly sought the same thing but for a different religion.
Any educational institution will inculcate its students with a way of thinking with regard to politics, and with regard to everything else, for that matter. Apparently you happen to have been indoctrinated into the prevailing ideology of political Liberalism, which holds that Church and State should have no public interaction whatsoever. It's naive to think you can get through an educational institution without receiving something like this - the question is whether what you've learned is true. There's nothing unusual about a Catholic institution teaching that Catholicism is true - why else would it profess to be Catholic?
> Any educational institution will inculcate its students with a way of thinking with regard to politics
Probably, but generally not one consistent way as the central goal of the degree program.
> Apparently you happen to have been indoctrinated into the prevailing ideology of political Liberalism, which holds that Church and State should have no public interaction whatsoever.
To the extent that may be true or false, it has no bearing on the descriptive statements about the upthread claim that the equivalent of what this college provides is available from local community colleges in the US, which is not a (positive or negative) normative claim about the desirability of the program offered.
> There's nothing unusual about a Catholic institution teaching that Catholicism is true
The central focus of this institution’s program is objectively unusual among Catholic higher education institutions in the US, though it may be less unusual for the civic orientation part of it to be an included focus in other institutions.
But, in any case whether it is unusual for Catholic institutions is as immaterial as whether or not it is desirable, this subthread is about the claim that the same is available from public community colleges in the US, which is not only very much not the case, but would actually be prohibited by the interpretation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments that has been consistently applied since the 1940s.
Some Tradcaths are Catholic in the narrow sense (that is, in Communion with Church headed by the Bishop of Rome), others (e.g., sedevacantists) are schismatics.
> historically the Establishment Clause jurisprudence would prevent it
The USA isn’t France. It’s freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. The US Federal government is forbidden to establish a religion but the states are free to do so.
> It’s freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.
At the federal level, it's been both since the beginning; freedom of religion under the free exercise clause, and freedom from religion under the establishment clause, both of the First Amendment. Just like the rest of the First Amendment, and much (but not all) of the rest of the Bill of Rights, that's been held to be incorporated against the states under the 14th Amendment.
> New Hampshire had a state church until 1877.
Very shortly after the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 and before the Court had heard and ruled on the cases in which it found the First Amendment rights to be fundamental rights inherent in the concept of ordered liberty incorporated against the states by the 14th Amendment. The states are not free to impose a state church any more than they are to ban all religious expression, for the same Constitutional reason, and they are no more free to do either under the 14th Amendment than the federal government is to given the First.
I don't think the student who who attend a trade school like this would care in the slightest that it isn't accredited. Taking them at their word that they teach five trades, offer employment at a local construction company, and set students up with an apprenticeship, these students could care less about accreditation or a degree. They'll finish with several years of experience in a trade.
> I don't think the student who who attend a trade school like this would care in the slightest that it isn't accredited.
They will if they want to claim tax credits, take out a loan to pay for the education, gain discounts on insurance, continue their education later, and so on.
But if a student doesn’t care about the degree what is the point of going to that school? Would it be cheaper and faster to go to a normal trade school that just teaches trades?
True it takes time, as student outcomes and testimonials are part of the accreditation process. But that doesn’t change the calculus for new students. It’s kind of a catch-22, but necessarily so.
One wonders if the accreditation agencies are neutral, or if they're going to say "well, you're not a real school, so we're not going to accredit you."
Can’t speak for the east coast, but the west coast accreditation organization (I forget the name) has a fairly clear set of standards for accreditation that boil down to:
1. Facilities required for accreditation (library, labs, offices, etc)
2. Degree programs and learning objectives (e.g. Bachelors of Computer Science and a list of competencies said degree asserts)
3. Processes and procedures, particularly around course management and curriculum. A big part of this is mapping out your listed degree requirements to classes that either provide those competencies or provide building blocks required for those competencies. E.g. Calc -> Lambda Calc -> Category Theory to provide a lot of fundamental math skills for a proposed CS curriculum.
I saw a university accrediting its new engineering department during a tour. It is a bunch of bueracracy and standards as opposed to something adhoc and fiefdom style. In that case the first few waves of graduates were conditionally accredited as graduates were required to accredit. Standards here seemed to be aligned in interests - they want to preserve reputations more than gatekeep. Given the sheer university volume gatekeeping is a dubious approach anyway.
> accreditation agencies are neutral, or if they're going to say "well, you're not a real school, so we're not going to accredit you."
Saying "you're not a real school, so we're not going to accredit you" is literally the sole job of an accreditation agency. Well, that and figuring out how to define a "real school".
This is the kind of premium that practicing Catholic parents may be willing to pay to extend a sanitized, pro-church environment for their children, beyond the Catholic primary schools where these children have gone to before. (And which might have well cost more...)
