|
You are, of course, right in theory, but I think that practical experience undercuts the theory. That is the point that liberals, like me, make all of the time. More importantly, practical experience teaches, I think, that if public schools were to teach what you would have them teach, that those students who belong to religious traditions that, historically, were not involved in abolitionism or the civil rights movement, will invariably be made to feel less American, feel more like outsiders. It is not wrong to be concerned about stigma and exclusion, as some members of the Court have noted over the years.
People like Jonathan D. Sarna, R. Laurence Moore, and others have demonstrated that there are “counter narratives,” the stories of members of minority religions becoming Americans. We need to “teach” those stories too. But I hear no groundswell urging that public schools teach the story of the Americanization (for want of a better term) of Catholics, Jews, Eastern Orthodox, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Animists, Pagans, Native Americans, and others, and how these groups all too often had to contend with a majoritarian religion that was disinclined to let them in on their own terms. I hear no hue and cry that we “teach” about the positive contributions to American history and society that members of minority religions have made. The only complaints about not enough “teaching” about religion in the common schools seem to come largely from members of the same religion – over and over again, like a broken record, and what they really want to do is to have the public schools celebrate their religion.
With regard to the Bible, here we run into a buzz saw. If we take evangelical Protestantism at its word, to read the Bible is to worship God. The Bible functions, for evangelicals, much like a sacrament functions for Catholics. Bible-as-literature courses clearly are problematic because I seriously doubt that in American school rooms, the “worship” dimension of Bible reading can be eliminated or kept out. This has constitutional implications. I don’t see the same problem with scripture from other religions. But I could be wrong on this point since I do not know much about non-Christian religions. Again, I don’t hear a hue and cry to teach the Koran or the holy works of Buddhism or Hinduism.
I believe, and I suspect a fair number of liberals believe, that the asymmetry that I have described has constitutional implications. I don’t think that we are wrong. We may disagree with you, but that does not make us wrong.
-----Original Message-----
They are wrong be about it being unconstitutional to teach religion because the Supreme Court-including its most liberal and separationist justices –have said so repeatedly beginning no later than Schempp. It is also impossible to teach many subjects well without an understanding of religion-i.e. current events and history. The failure of history texts to grapple with religion in the 70’s and 80’s –documented inter alia by an important study conducted by People for the American Way or Americans United-I have forgotten which for the moment-- led to widespread disenchantment with public education in some elements of the population. The silence was interpreted –not always incorrectly-as a conclusion that religion was not very important as a social force or that it is always socially retrogressive. Cutting out evangelical Christianity from the abolitionist movement or ignoring the Christian roots of Martin Luther King’ s leadership role in the civil rights struggle says something about a texts’ view of the importance of religion. Much the same can be said for Bible as literature courses or comparative religion courses. These can surely be taught reasonably objectively if one tries and they cover a subject matter that is culturally important. Such courses cannot be Sunday school classes in public school garb, but it is not hard to meet that standard. It is unfortunate that Mr. Williams course of conduct suggests otherwise and that he finds defenders but the fundamental point remains true. Marc Stern
From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Newsom Michael
Could you explain why liberals are wrong?
-----Original Message-----
. Liberals are sometimes suspicious of efforts to teach about religion in the public schools. They are wrong to think that such teaching is unconstitutional or unwise.:
|
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
