World Religions Class In Modesto Public Schools Raises Eyebrows

VOA News journalist Lonny Shavelson wrote an article today entitled "California School District Gains from World Religions Class". The article states that Modesto, CA is the only school district in the entire country that requires its students to take (and pass) a world religions class. The students learn from a textbook that teaches the beliefs of Muslims, Christians, Jews, Confucianists, Hindus, Buddhists, and so on and so forth. The teacher that teaches the class, Yvonne Taylor, likes to tell her students that it's okay to talk about prayer, but not for her to lead them in it. The students read from a textbook selected by the school board that gives equal face time for each of the religions--the book actually does contain equal page lengths for each religion.

Of course this article brings about the old issue of teaching religion v. teaching about religion. Is it safe to safe to say that teaching religion gives the students a more direct moral compass? That because these students are being taught the ten commandments or the Lord's prayer that they somehow become better people? No. It most certainly isn't safe to say it. There may be studies suggesting that kids become "better" people by being religious, but those studies could certainly be flawed. But is it safe to say that learning about religion gives children a better moral compass? That answer is yes.

Think of all the hate and fear in the world today. Fear of Muslims. Fear of Christians. Fear of things we don't understand as a people. Isn't it the duty of the country to promote a general understanding of its citizens? Sure it is. The United States is the greatest country on earth because it's so ethnically diverse. All these people blend together to promote one common American identity. But what makes us different is also what makes the country so unique. So a class that promotes a general understanding of each religion should, at the very least, be at the core of every school curriculum. Not because the state wishes to make its people religious, but instead to promote an acceptance of beliefs that are different from our own.

As long as the students aren't required to pray or read from the bible every day, I fail to see how there could be any problem associated with this program. The school board even got together with all the different religious groups to make sure they were giving each group a fair and balanced portrayal. This is religion in schools done right, in so much that it isn't religion in schools, it's culture in school. Religion doesn't make good people. An education that promotes acceptance and understanding, however, is the best litmus test for a better society.

Religion, Rhetoric, and the Negotiating Table?

In brief, my research paper investigates how the United States’ historical founding has made Americans receptive to religious rhetoric and messages communicated by their political leaders. By acknowledging the inextricable link among God, religious liberty and freedom and understanding the religious language in which this connection is made, we can begin to comprehend how America’s religious roots continue to shape United States’ foreign policy.

In this article, Cooper highlights how the Bush administrations’ effort to “propound an intellectual and moral doctrine that eschew[s] talking to foes” has backfired and has led to 11th hour negotiations and concessions made by the United States earlier this year. Despite this “openness” to talk with nations considered part of Bush’s ‘axis of evil’, there is still a sense of reluctance and unwillingness to negotiate.

The question at stake is why did the Bush administration adopt a “no talk” policy for foe nations in the first place? What “moral doctrine” prohibited such talks with enemy nations? Although the answers to these questions are complex, we can begin to understand this strategy by exploring the philosophy behind the approach.

Bush’s rhetoric in public addresses (and conferences) gives insight as to what that philosophy might be. In his 2002 State of the Union Address, Bush used the term “axis of evil” to describe foreign nations that were “arming to threaten the peace of the world” and that were active sponsors of “hatred”. By demonizing enemy nations, Bush effectively portrayed these nations as sponsors of evil and terror. In doing so, he drew a distinct contrast between us and them. We were the deliverers of freedom, and they were the purveyors of evil. This sense of mission was evidenced by one of the delegates in the Israeli-Palestinian summit in 2003 who claimed that Bush declared he was on a “mission from God” when he decided to invade Afghanistan and Iraq.

Yesterday, our class discussed the possibility of using religion as a means to justify our political actions abroad, for example, the establishment of allies like Israel. If religion can be used to promote pro-Israel sentiments, can a “religious” philosophy like that constructed by Bush be used to “create” enemies? Although there is legitimacy behind why nations like North Korea and Iran are considered U.S foes, does this “religious philosophy”, and in turn, its rhetoric affect how the U.S sees other nations? And by the same token, does this philosophy and rhetoric affect how other nations perceive us? If so, do you think this has affected our foreign policy, particularly at the negotiating table?

In the NYT article, Abbas Milani, an Iran expert at Stanford University, questioned the approach that the Bush administration was using. “I don’t understand what they are
doing”? He was particularly struck by the Condoleezza Rice’s “provocative acts and words” when she described the situation with Iran earlier this year: “if Iran did not respond in the next two weeks to an offer of incentives, the United States and other major powers would go back to the United Nations Security Council for additional sanctions against Tehran”.

According to Milani, her actions and words could offset any chance that Iran’s leaders would suspend their uranium enrichment programs. Experts and insiders have also noticed the incongruity of the administration's approach. They've described this approach of open talks and strong rhetoric as “erratic” and “schizophrenic”.

This "erratic" approach and reluctance was best articulated by Ms. Perino, the White House Press Secretary, when she was asked if North Korea and Iran were still part of Bush’s ‘axis of evil’ if the United States was in negotiations with them. She responded:

''I think that until they give up their nuclear weapons programs completely and verifiably, I think that we would keep them in the same category,'' Ms. Perino said.

Can the Bush administration’s sense of reluctance and unwillingness to negotiate be explained by the moral and religious paradigm constructed by Bush after the attacks on 9/11? And has this paradigm affected U.S foreign policy approach to recalcitrant nations?

Shifting Left?

Over the past twenty years or so the Republican party has been able to count on winning a large percentage of the Catholic vote because of their stance on the abortion issue. Conventional wisdom has held that, because of John McCain’s pro-life stance, this Catholic support would continue into the upcoming election, but this may not be the entirely true.
In an October fourth article in the New York Times, David D. Kirkpatrick reports that many liberal Catholics are fighting back against the official church policy that voting for a pro-choice candidate is sinful. The main argument of the conservative Catholics is that “Being ‘right’ on taxes, education, health care, immigration and the economy fails to make up for the error of disregarding the value of a human life.” This argument, put forth by Bishop Joseph Martino of Scranton Pennsylvania has been the standard policy of Catholics for years, but recently it has come under fire by organizations of liberal Catholics such as Catholics United and Catholics in Alliance. Kirkpatrick mentions that these organizations emphasize a “Broader spectrum of social justice.” The article goes on to provide statistics on the number of Catholics registered to vote, and claims that this movement among Liberal Catholics to push back against the church-wide policy of voting exclusively pro-life has the potential to effect the results in several swing states.
I think that this article is interesting because it shows a shift in the voting patterns of a significant portion of Americans. The article mentions that nearly a quarter of registered voters are Catholic, so a swing from right to left among even a few of these Catholics is very significant. It also is important to note the reason for the shift. Many Catholics are sick of voting against their principles and interests because of one “Non-negotiable issue.” The focus of the liberal Catholic groups on social justice shows a concern for a broader spectrum of issues that has been missing from the Catholic Church for years. Another very significant factor is the historical one. For years now, ultra-religious groups of all denominations have had well-deserved reputations for being very conservative institutions. The fact that many Catholics are now considering issues other than abortion may be signaling an end to at least the Catholic Church’s total support of conservative candidates.
I think that this should be viewed as a good thing no matter which candidate you support. The fact that at least some religious institutions are asking their constituents to look at a wide range of issues rather than pressuring them, sometimes with the threat of eternal damnation, to vote based on one issue, is a positive step forward for the relationship between politics and religion in America. I believe that Jefferson and Madison would have wanted voters to consider their religious beliefs when voting, but would have been appalled by churches labeling candidates unelectable based upon their views on one moral issue.

To Pray, or Not to Pray—That is the Question…

…whether ‘tis nobler in the mind to suffer the prayers and petitions of religiously inclined superiors, or to file lawsuit against this sea of troubles, and by opposing end them.
--Hamlet (sort of)

Three years after the Air Force Academy adopted new regulations to discourage public prayer at official events, other military academies are fielding complaints that their schools attempt to force religion onto students. Neela Banerjee reports for the New York Times that at the Naval Academy “nine midshipmen recently asked the American Civil Liberties Union to petition the school to abolish daily prayer at weekday lunch, where attendance is mandatory.” Several cadets from West Point have registered complaints about the former head of the academy, Maj. Gen. Robert L. Caslen, who invoked God and the Bible in his speeches to the cadets. The history of this conflict explains why the issue of religious activity in schools has become an aggressive, full-scale assault on both sides.

The landmark 1962 Supreme Court case which struck down prayer in public schools opened the door for legal action against public religious practices in other institutions. In his book With God On Our Side, William Martin details the rise of the religious right in American politics and notes that critics of the Supreme Court’s decision viewed it “as a declaration of war against Christianity, a conviction that has not diminished over time.” Conservative shock and anger at liberals for questioning established religious practices is evidenced by the reaction of Col. John J. Cook III, head chaplain at West Point. When questioned about West Point’s practice of praying before meals, he argues “this is something we have done in the military for centuries.” Noting that the military academies are schools where many students hold devout religious beliefs, he continues “It is not done to make people religious.” Non-religious students, however, still view it as oppressive. Martin notes that despite a 1982 attempt to pass a Constitutional Amendment to protect “individual or group prayer” in schools, over the years liberal lawsuits against public prayers and other religious activities have gradually transformed the public arena into a more religiously-neutral zone.

As courts continue to ban public religious practices based on petitions from a small group of people, conservatives have become irate over the court’s willingness to deny the majority’s opinion in order to acquiesce to the demands of a minority. A majority of students at the military academies do not object to mealtime prayer and Banerjee reports that West Point students surveyed at random reported they did not feel religion was forced upon them. Non-religious students counter that maintaining religious activities show favoritism to those with religious beliefs and therefore should not be permitted in public institutions. Based on historical precedent, it is likely mealtime prayer will be prohibited if the ACLU’S petition to the Naval Academy turns into a lawsuit. This conflict centers on two questions: is any form of public religious activity, even if it does not endorse a particular religion, discriminatory because it excludes those who do not hold any religious beliefs? Should the religious requests of a minority group supersede the religious requests of a majority, so as to ensure that the minority does not feel oppressed by the beliefs of the majority? It is unfortunate that any compromise appears to be unlikely, as each side will accept only the complete legal adoption of their viewpoint.