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.

The wall of separation divides both ways

In his blog post entitled Uncle Sam's Faith, Samuel Rodriguez, president of the Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference, discusses the symbiotic relationship between the government and religious organizations and how both work independently towards similar goals of service. He writes in response to the question as to whether or not the Obama Administration should be able to approve who churches and religious organizations hire.

Rodriguez holds that the government should have no say over who religious organizations hire to manage funds granted to them. He ascribes this policy to the same merit as the federal approval of sermons for a religious service. Some suggest that approval of hires is necessary to insure that federal money does not promote a particular religious belief over another, or at all. However, these organizations receive funding in order to act effectively where the government often cannot--work enabling "community empowerment and renewal."

In the context of both secular and non-secular entities, there remains an obligation to serve the community and to help those in need. Though there is a wall between church and state, both entities seek to provide aid. I found Rodriguez's reference to the relief response to victims of Hurricane Katrina to be an excellent example of an incident where religion stepped in and went further to help people than the government ever could. In such a case, religious organizations and the government worked within the same sphere to provide relief to those afflicted.

Rodriguez says that religious organization should be held to the same standards as the government when it comes to providing services and aid to the community. While the federal government should give grants to all religious organizations seeking to provide aid regardless of who they hire, the organizations receiving these grants should also provide services that benefit the entire community, instead of particular types of people. He defines a difference between personal belief and the mission of outreach, saying that though religious organizations may vary in beliefs, they all should maintain the same goal of promoting goodwill and service to all individuals in their communities.

Because there is so much concern for keeping church and state separate, those who could ultimately benefit the most from this type of aid fall through the divide. I believe that though separation of church and state is necessary, cooperation between secular and non-secular entities can be proactive towards promoting a commonly supported good. Between church and state, there is concern that one party is being secular, while the other is simultaneously worried about being religious--a hardening of the division that limits the potential capabilities of both entities. Especially with the current economic climate, all organizations providing aid should work together to address a problem that is greater than any dogma--religious or political.

The Classic Church/State Debate: Faith-Based Initiative Style

The nonprofit organizations that make up the faith-based initiative took in 10.6 billion dollars during the Bush administration. An article in the Washington Post, Faith-Based Office To Expand Its Reach, records Obama’s plan for the growth of the faith based offices. The change will include allowing for the faith based group’s input in policy decisions, a power not given to them in the Bush administration. The focus of this group has shifted into interfaith relations, strengthening the family, and reducing the number of abortions while pushing civil rights issues to “later times”. There seems to be a broad issue that arises with an expanded faith based office; the line between church and state.

The article states that currently faith-based groups can receive funding to hire members of their own faith but the Obama administration says that these issues will be reviewed on a case by case basis as problems arise. These groups are part of the faith-based team collected together in order to help social welfare programs funded by the government. One the one hand, someone might claim that by allowing this discrimination in hiring that is connected to the government is unconstitutional based on laws against discrimination in the workplace. Also, to allow it would be blurring the line between church and state. But I think that if the government is going to bring faith-based organizations into the government, then the leaders of these religious groups should be allowed to hire those who hold the same beliefs as themselves. To require a religious organization to hire people of different faiths would be an insult to the beliefs held by the organization and the people it represents. For organizations that hold such strong principles such as religious ones, asking them to overlook what they see to be fundamental truths and requirements is offensive to what they believe. By this forced hiring you are trying to take the religion out of religious groups and therefore out of the government which cannot be done; you cannot deny that religious organizations are religious and therefore it is obvious that religion is undeniably intermingled with the government for as long of this faith-based initiative is in effect. The claim by the religious is that the government is not able to tell people they cannot share their faith with others (claiming freedom of expression and religion) and that sharing their religious teachings could help the organizations reduce poverty and the number addicted to drugs.

The truth is this: the government is contributing money that eventually leads to the advancement of religion. The only question is, is it acceptable? I think that the good done by the faith based nonprofits through the faith-based initiative outweighs the potential harm regarding the separation of church and state. The court case, Zelman v Simmons-Harris, upholds my stance. The court allowed for the giving of school vouchers to students in poor performing schools to attend private religious schools. That decision was made because the law itself was meant to help the children receive a better education, a secular purpose even though government money was eventually going to the instruction of religious principles. The faith-based initiative program is meant to help the poor and underprivileged in society even though it also leads to religious instruction. It is completing its secular purpose and should therefore be allowed to stay.

If there are people who do not want the government paying for the exclusive hiring of these organizations or the advancement effects of the monetary support, making them hire people of diverse believes is not the answer. If it is an issue, the only real solution would be to not have these faith-based offices at all. Either let them stay as they are, keeping the principles they have intact, or eliminate them, there is no halfway option.

Obama claims that his decision to expand the offices will not “blur” the line between church and state, and it obvious that even the very existence of the organization has done that.

"Programs over principles" might just be the change we need

Jonathan Turley, Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and contributor to USA Today, has a bone to pick with our new president. In his op-ed "Faith-based, Part II," Turley voices his displeasure with two of Obama's choices: One, the decision to have Rick Warren preach at his inauguration; two, Obama's choice to expand the faith-based government initiatives that were begun by the Bush administration, renaming Bush's "Office of Faith-Based and Community Inititaives" as the "White House Council for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships," and expanding it from one office to twelve. Through these examples, he intends to prove that Obama, while advocating for change, has more in common with his predecessor than his supporters may have thought.

Using Rick Warren to link Obama to Bush may seem like an odd method, and indeed, the connection is tenuous at best. Turley claims that Warren is a man "who actively seeks to shape society" along the lines of his controversial religious views; this, plus Obama's connection with Reverend Wright, raises Turley's concerns that our president, like Bush, "seems to gravitate toward ministers who see little dividing the pulpit from politics." He also suggests that Warren's endorsement of Obama "may lay a foundation for a mutually beneficial alliance" between his administration and religious conservatives, and that although Obama wishes to include all viewpoints, viewpoints like Warren's are not "worthy of incorporation." On this point, I must disagree. Obama's position of inclusion would be much harder to swallow if he only included people or groups that he (or Turley) personally agree with. And although I disagree with Warren's view of homosexuality, it's not as though by having him pray that Obama is going to base his policies on Warren's opinion. A person can be open to others' opinions without endorsing them themself.

Next, in his main argument, Turley complains that Obama's choice to expand faith-based initiatives instead of abolishing them further diminishes the idea of separation of church and state. He defines Obama's mentality this way:

It is a simple matter of priorities: Obama just seems to be more interested in programs than principles. He views change in more concrete terms: helping families, creating jobs and expanding the social safety net. Worthy objectives to be sure, but what about restoring the core principles that define our government?

"Restoring the core principles that define our government" sounds very lofty and important, but Turley's statement begs the question: what's so bad about the "programs" Obama endorses? Principles are all well and good, but they don't feed a family. Now, I'm not saying that as US citizens living in this era of "change" we should abandon the principles that our founding fathers laid out. However, I AM saying that Obama's attempt to make a concrete, tangible improvement in people's lives is something that should not be brushed away by questions of intangible principle. We can talk about separation of church and state all day long, but while we do, people are suffering. Historically, ministries and charities, usually religiously affiliated, have been the driving force behind attempts to alleviate that suffering. And if Obama realistically wants to bring about the change he has promised, then why not enlist their support?

The Faith-Based Initiative: Obama Edition

Before Barack Obama was declared the next United States President in November, many Americans had been wondering about the future of a program that my classmates and I briefly discussed this Thursday: President Bush’s Faith-Based Initiative. To the relief of some and the disdain of others, it appears from a speech delivered in early July that Obama will keep the Faith-Based Initiative intact after a few modifications. Namely, federal money will be used only on secular programs and Obama will eliminate proselytizing and religious discrimination against hired officials. Columnist James Carroll of the Boston Globe analyzed the motives and potential ramifications of Obama’s position in his article, “Secular Rule Benefits the Faithful, too.”

Carroll advocates Obama’s plans for the initiative on the basis that the added secularization Obama brings to the program promotes a more symbiotic relationship between religious groups and their target audiences. But the most interesting point Carroll makes lies in the political implications that this path of action has for Obama and America as a whole. Carroll hopes that Obama’s unique and highly tolerant perspective will bring more depth to the religious issues that impact our nation today by giving minority groups, such as “those religious believers for whom the secularity of liberal democracy is a value,” a voice.

I think Carroll’s positive outlook on this new policy is merited. The main reason I support Carroll’s analysis can be reasoned using James Morone’s concept of ‘us and them’ in his article “Hellfire Nation” (also covered in class this week). The diversity of the United States reinforces the need for a social identity – an ‘us’ – in Americans, but “defining us also designates them… generous visions of inclusion face off against hard prejudices” (Morone 8). These ‘hard prejudices’ are what have kept American beliefs about the role of religion in politics so polarized; or at least those beliefs that are normally vocalized. By taking a middle ground, Obama lends courage to more moderate individuals: nonreligious people who are not opposed to government funding working through organizations (simply because they have a religious branding), and those mentioned previously who are religious but happen to promote secularization. With the ideas of those previously afraid of promoting a “lose-lose” position added to the political arena, advocates with more extreme views on the issue will be forced to abandon the shallow ad-hominem attacks that plague most of today’s debates in favor of more substantial arguments.

There is still more waiting to do before we can watch how this plays out. Will a compromise truly be able to satisfy individuals who have worked tirelessly for their vision of America? Probably not, but maybe it will dilute their voices in the matter. A nation equated to having the ‘soul of a church,’ but founded on the concepts of secularization and personal freedom will face perpetual values conflicts - all most of us hope for is an environment to debate these conflicts in a mature and progressive way.

Marriage for Logistical Purposes

The controversy over the legalization of gay marriage is not new in this country, but has been receiving a lot of press lately because of California’s Proposition 8, which will ban gay marriage in the state if passed on November 4th. Gay marriage is currently legal based on a California Supreme Court ruling earlier this year. The religious right and Jerry Falwell’s Moral Majority have been fighting against gay marriage for decades and primarily use the Bible to support their campaign. Some Christians view homosexuality and homosexual relationships as sins, and these people believe that if gay marriage is legalized, this country will fall into a state of moral decline. The desire to maintain the sanctity of marriage and promote “family values” also motivates the fight against gay marriage. These ideas cropped up in the 1970s and continue to influence the culture today. While these views can be extreme, many Americans hold beliefs similar to these, which is why gay marriage is currently legal in only a few states.
Rick Jacobs highlights a couple of very important but often-neglected areas of the debate in his article “Do Mormons deserve equal protection under the law?” He describes his lifelong struggles with his sexual orientation in the context of the Jewish religion and the final acceptance that “some people’s religions tell me I am not welcome. It’s okay. That’s their choice.”
Jacobs desire to keep gay marriage legal in California comes not from a religious standpoint, but a legal one. He explicitly states, “If I do (get married), it’ll be for business reasons.” He does not want to get married in any of the churches that oppose gay marriage; he just wants his partnership to have the same protection under the law as a heterosexual couple. Because of complications like property ownership and health care, marriage is not simply a religious institution; the state has to get involved as well. I doubt this debate would exist if marriage was contained to just one entity – church or state. Unfortunately, that is not currently an option.
This leaves us with huge unresolved questions. What happens when religious rights also have legal implications? How can we more fully separate church and state, specifically in terms of gay marriage, while keeping all parties involved relatively satisfied? Jacobs is arguing that his rights be protected under the law just like the rights of religious groups are protected under the first amendment. Throughout history, the government has tended to side with the most vocal majority. November 4th will be an important day to let Californians decide and to see where a least a section of America stands on this issue.

What it is about religion that makes it impossible to limit its influence in government?

Pew Research Center conducted a survey this summer to collect statistics on the voting public’s opinion of the relationship between Church and State http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/21/religion.politics/index.html?iref=newssearch. The survey reports that more Americans prefer Jefferson’s strict separation than have in the last ten years. Interestingly, this increase was more apparent among Republican voters than Democratic voters and for conservative voters in the survey, political decisions regarding social issues, such as gay marriage, warrant this separation more strongly than less “important social issues.”

The article makes a key point that “it seems that the more important social issues are to conservatives, the more likely they were to say that religion and politics should not mix…Among people who said gay marriage was a very important issue, the number saying houses of worship should keep out of politics doubled.” This fact is reminiscent of George D. Armstrong’s pro-slavery argument. His argument maintained that the separation of Church and State with regards to this social issue was imperative and that the decision to emancipate the slaves was solely that of the State. However, although the conservatives and Armstrong purport to advocate for the separation of Church and State, religion still appears to be at the base of American politics. Armstrong cites scripture to justify his pro-slavery argument and according to Greg Smith, “ ‘voting intentions among white evangelicals have not changed at all’ …Sen. John McCain, ‘has a huge lead even among younger evangelicals” just as President Bush had in his election year.

The survey results suggest that American voters in the current election understand the importance of isolating government from religious influence, yet “still feel a president should have strong religious beliefs.” This view is consistent with Jefferson’s vision for the young United States. Just as Jefferson, despite his adamant rejection of joint Church and State, acknowledged the importance of religion in the history of America and the in making of “honest men” (Meacham pg. 75), so too do current American voters return to religion as a key factor in their voting decisions. The Constitution clearly describes the principle of separate Church and State to be at the core of American government, while at the same time the Declaration of Independence includes the, “Creator,” and “Nature’s God” in its text. Similarly, while the survey’s statistics report a majority that believes in the separation of Church and State, the presidential candidates are constantly critiqued on their religious beliefs and backgrounds and even asked to debate in churches. The survey illuminates a discrepancy between the ideals of voting Americans and the reality of how they vote. The survey indicates that most voters advocate the separation of Church and State, yet the reality is that voters continue to allow religion to influence their vote. The predictable presence of religion in U.S. politics begs the question: What it is about religion that makes it impossible to limit its influence in government?

Head of State, Not of Church

In an opinion piece posted on the “About Faith” forum, a group managed by Newsweek and the Washington Post, Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, an influential seminary in the Southern Baptist Convention, defends the position that it is not hypocritical to believe that “a woman could lead a nation, and not a congregation”. This question was raised by the fact that the Southern Baptist Convention asserts:

"A wife is to submit herself graciously to the servant leadership of her husband even as the church willingly submits to the headship of Christ. She, being in the image of God as is her husband and thus equal to him, has the God-given responsibility to respect her husband and to serve as his helper in managing the household and nurturing the next generation".

Additionally, the SBC asserts that only “qualified men” are called to serve as church pastors: “This conviction was not invented by Southern Baptists. It was, and now remains, the honest conviction held by most Christians around the world, and for good reason.”

Which begs the question: if SBC members believe that it is not a woman’s place to lead a church or to be head of a household, why then would they support a woman in a bid for the (Vice) Presidency? Is an exception being made for Gov. Sarah Palin because her politics are in line with theirs, or could they wholeheartedly endorse any woman’s decision to run for office?

Mohler defends the SBC statements on wifely submission, and on women’s inability to serve as church leaders, by stating that they are drawn from the Bible and are widely accepted among Christians. Because the Bible gives explicit teachings on the issues of women’s roles in the home and church, evangelicals support these positions. However, according to Mohler:

“Our confession of faith does not speak to the appropriateness of women serving in political office. The reason for this is simple -- the New Testament does not speak to this question in any direct sense.”

This line of reasoning seems to make sense within the framework of the SBC assertions, but I don’t believe that it is strong enough to hold up against outside arguments. There are too many logical gaps and questions which remain unaddressed for Mohler’s statement to be accepted at face value. For example, if Palin were to become the President, and thus the head of the nation, under the SBC guidelines, wouldn’t she be ultimately accountable to her husband, and under his leadership? Isn’t the office of President a post with moral and ethical dimensions, similar to a pastor, on a much larger scale?

Additionally, drawing such a distinct line between the role of women in church and in politics seems a bit crass given the religious right’s fervent interest in policy and the national moral agenda; they rally voters around hot-button moral issues with religious implications (and thus are attempting to violate church/state separation). It is opportunistic to embrace Palin because she can (a) further their agenda, and (b) put a compassionate face on a movement which is frequently viewed as patriarchal and in favor of strict gender roles. If there is a public showing of support for Palin, it makes the right seem progressive and stereotype-shattering for embracing a woman in power.

While Mohler’s arguments for supporting a female candidate for the White House are logical within his framework, I do not believe that the support for Palin is motivated by any larger purpose or great desire to see a woman in office. It still seems very hypocritical to deny so much power to women in other aspects of their lives, and then to make a public show of rallying around one particular female candidate who can help to further their interests.

Muslim Obama, revisited

James pointed out two weeks ago that there have been attacks on Sen. Obama, and I'd like to examine an article that provides a bit more perspective on this issue.

Firstly, I agree with the point that James and Nicholas Kristof (from his article) already made: whether Obama is a Muslim or a Christian really should not matter. However, I think the above article from the Miami Herald reveals some more interesting issues.

Much of the garbage being spouted about Obama and his Muslim beliefs have been from hearsay and emails, which, once started, are hard to stop. However, as recently as last week, the attacks were still flowing, even from figures in full public view:

Here's what Dennis Baxley, a former state legislator from Ocala and the executive director of the Christian Coalition of Florida, one of the most prominent groups on the religious right, said during an interview with the Miami Herald about Obama's outreach to the Christian community:

"He's pretty scary to us,'' he said. "I think his Muslim roots and training -- while they try to minimize it -- it's there."

Mr. Baxley's word choice is particularly interesting. Does he, then, believe that Sen. McCain has "Christian roots and training" -- or is "training" something that only Muslim terrorists get? Baxley goes on and attempts to associate Obama with the "active movement by radical Muslims to occupy us," then talks about Europe:

I think you can tell from his appeal and how a lot of the media emphasized how loved he is in other places. I'm very concerned that our own American values rooted in Christian principles be protected.... I just want someone who will take those responsibilities of preserving American values and American culture and not try to make us citizens of the world.

This quote from Baxley makes his problem with Obama very clear: he is afraid of America's pure, Christian values becoming corrupted by this foreign influence. What could be worse than a president that could destroy American values and culture from the top down?

It seems that not much has changed in the way of American fears of foreign influence. A major part of Morone's argument in Hellfire Nation is that much of American history has been influenced by the desire to keep the purity of white Americans away from the dark, corrupt foreigners and blacks. For example, some prohibitionists characterized foreigners as drunkards and argued that Americans should not allow them to ruin the superior morality of Americans. Baxley is doing much of the same: subtly hinting at Muslims being terrorists, implying that Obama values foreigners over Americans, and stating that Obama is an unwise choice for the leader of Christian America.

However, at the same time, much has changed. The fact that Baxley was willing to go on the record with such distortions of the truth (if not outright lies) shows that he felt a significant portion of his audience would be influenced by what he said and may not vote for Obama due to his "Muslim roots." Has religion always been this important for political office? Thomas Jefferson was barely Christian, if at all; the most apt description of his religious beliefs would be Deism. James Madison's religious views differed very little from Jefferson's. Could they have been elected president in today's political climate? It is difficult for me to imagine this nation electing anyone who is not Christian to the office of the president.

It seems religion is becoming more and more important in the presidential election, which is quite contrary to the goals of the Founding Fathers. Even Kennedy's 1960 speech to Houston ministers, rejecting religion as a major election issue (in front of ministers, no less!) and instead pointing to more worldly issues, is unimaginable (at least to me) in this year's election. Rick Warren's audience would have booed Kennedy off the stage had he been giving his speech at Saddleback.

Jefferson and Madison would probably be quite disappointed to see the interaction between politics and religion today.