Perhaps nothing is more important to American politics than a well-reasoned debate. Unfortunately, far too many people are ill-informed to make such discussions possible.
An excellent example of this comes from the responses to an article I wrote examining the concerns of conservative Christians over Tennessee schools’ teaching the five pillars of Islam. While there were a number of topics that readers could have discussed, by far the most outrage centered on my statements regarding the separation of church and state. Comments included "Clearly, someone hasn't read the Constitution, because there is no such thing as "separation of church and state" in the US Constitution.", "Where exactly in the U.S. Constitution does it address "separation of church and state"?", and "Simply put, nowhere in the First Amendment does the phrase "separation of church and state" exist."
It seems that to some people, if the words don't explicitly appear in the constitution then the idea they refer to isn't constitutionally guaranteed. Viewing it in these simplistic terms is meant to dismiss the entire argument; as if every decision based on the separation of church and state is somehow invalid because the term separation of church and state doesn't appear in the constitution.
Of course the problems with this assertion are many. First and most basic is the fact that the Supreme Court is the ultimate interpreter of federal constitutional law. This means that while the term "separation of Church and State" may never appear in the constitution itself, the Court ruling in the case of Everson v. Board of Education stated "the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.'"
A quarter century later, the case of Lemon v. Kurtzman further defined this separation when it established the Lemon Test to determine if a law violates the establishment clause of the First Amendment. Every ruling since has confirmed that, in the view of the highest court in the land the Constitution created a separation of church and state.
Having said that, the separation of church and state is hardly the first unwritten concept that is protected by the constitution. In the 1973 case of Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court established a women's constitutional right to have an abortion despite the word abortion never appearing in the constitution. In the 2015 case of Obergefell v. Hodges the Supreme Court established that laws against same sex marriage were unconstitutional despite the word marriage never appearing in the constitution. In the 1963 case of Gideon v. Wainwright the Supreme Court established that the constitution guarantees the right to an attorney despite the words public defender never appearing in the constitution. In the 2010 case of McDonald v. Chicago the Supreme Court established that the second amendment right to bear arms included the right to bear arms for self-defense despite the words self-defense never appearing in the constitution.
It should also be noted that of the 112 Supreme Court Justices, none of them has been an atheist. In fact 92% of them were Christian. What rationale would these justices have for making laws that would create a legal prejudice towards their system of beliefs, especially if the separation of Church and State is a misinterpretation?
The reality is that the constitution was never meant to be a stagnant document that was rigidly adherent to the words on the page. As Thomas Jefferson said "The constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist, and shape into any form they please." Over the past 200 years the Supreme Court has shaped the constitution to contain a clear separation of church and state that protects every religion equally. If only those who argue against this separation could see how they benefit from it instead of inappropriately interpreting it as an attack on Christianity.
Monday, September 21, 2015
Tuesday, September 15, 2015
Fox News explains the dangers of Christianity in public schools
Liberals have spent a lot of time over the past few decades trying to explain to Conservative Christians the importance of the separation of church and state. Unfortunately, either from obstinance or ignorance, many Christians believe that not only should this constitutionally mandated separation not exist but that it is an attack on Christianity.
Luckily Fox News contributor, Todd Starnes, who has become the de facto standard bearer of Christian oppression with countless articles documenting the purported atrocities, recently published a piece that unwittingly acts as the quintessential argument for keeping Christianity out of public schools.
At issue is an assignment given to seventh grade students at Spring Hill Middle School in Maury County, Tennessee that involved writing out the five pillars of Islam. Despite the fact that this was part of a "World History and Geography: The Middle Ages to the Exploration of the Americas" covering the "Islamic World, 400 A.D/C.E. – 1500s" with the purpose of having "Students analyze the geographic, political, economic, social, and religious structures of the civilizations", some parents believe this is a blatant attempt to indoctrinate their children and convert them to Islam.
The biggest complaint from parents seems to be that the first pillar of Islam, known as “Shahada”, which states "There is no god but God (and) Muhammad is the messenger of God." runs counter to their Christian beliefs. Having said that, this is a history course and the five pillars is as much a part of the history of Islam as the Ten Commandments is a part of the history of Christianity. Forcing students to write or remember religious doctrine that is in opposition to their beliefs is either acceptable or it isn't. The fact that we are a majority Christian country is immaterial to the students’ First Amendment rights.
Of course the situation is hardly unique to Islam. Students across the country learn a lot of history that doesn't line up with their religious beliefs. When children learn about Greek Mythology are the being indoctrinated? When kids are taught about the history of slavery it's not meant as an endorsement. The events leading up to WWII are clearly something every child should understand, but learning about Nazi's is never confused for approval of their actions.
The reality is that studying about other cultures and religions gives children a greater appreciation for what makes people different. Portraying such an education as brainwashing is embarrassingly phobic and closed minded.
Being forced to conform to someone else's religious norms has been an issue in public schools for a long time. While Christians have been more than happy to conflate the separation of church and state with oppression when Christian symbols are removed, this is one of the few times these same Christians have had to endure something even remotely close to what many non-Christians have experienced for decades.
For example, one parent complained that Christianity wasn't being given equal time stating “[The teacher] said they would not be covering it because Christianity is not in the school standards.” The truth is, the Tennessee Department of Education course outline lists 9 different bullet points that discuss some aspect of Islam and 8 that include Christianity. Not only is Christianity in the state standards but it is covered at length in a number of different areas of the curriculum.
Beyond that it should be mentioned that the Tennessee state standards for 6th grade has zero references to Islam but devotes a section to describing "the origins and central features of Christianity" which include "the belief in Jesus as the Messiah and God’s Son, the concept of resurrection, the concept of salvation, belief in the Old and New Testaments," and "the lives, teachings and contributions of Jesus and Paul". Not only is Christianity given more than its fair share of time in Tennessee's public education system, but students are required to acknowledge that Jesus is the son of God.
While trusting the word of a couple irate parents to argue that Christianity is under attack is obviously an embarrassing mistake by Starnes, it is hardly the worst part of his article. No, that distinction lies with his assertion that the cases of a public schools removing a photo of Jesus Christ and disallowing Christian hymns to be played by the school band are equivalent to learning about the history of Islam.
It's possible that Starnes isn't unaware that forcing students to learn about different cultures and religions is legal while forcing students to endure religious symbols or traditions that fall outside of the curriculum isn't. But it's far more likely that he wants to conflate the two so he can again claim persecution. Because if Starnes was being honest he would admit that many of the concerns from these Christian parents regarding the inclusion of Islamic tenants in public education are inconsequential compared to what many non-Christians have been fighting for years.
The fact that Starnes and many of his devotees are completely oblivious to the hypocrisy of demanding the inclusion of non-educational Christian images and rituals while simultaneously being outraged at the slightest presence of Islam tells you all you need to know about how honest they are about protecting religious freedom.
Luckily Fox News contributor, Todd Starnes, who has become the de facto standard bearer of Christian oppression with countless articles documenting the purported atrocities, recently published a piece that unwittingly acts as the quintessential argument for keeping Christianity out of public schools.
At issue is an assignment given to seventh grade students at Spring Hill Middle School in Maury County, Tennessee that involved writing out the five pillars of Islam. Despite the fact that this was part of a "World History and Geography: The Middle Ages to the Exploration of the Americas" covering the "Islamic World, 400 A.D/C.E. – 1500s" with the purpose of having "Students analyze the geographic, political, economic, social, and religious structures of the civilizations", some parents believe this is a blatant attempt to indoctrinate their children and convert them to Islam.
The biggest complaint from parents seems to be that the first pillar of Islam, known as “Shahada”, which states "There is no god but God (and) Muhammad is the messenger of God." runs counter to their Christian beliefs. Having said that, this is a history course and the five pillars is as much a part of the history of Islam as the Ten Commandments is a part of the history of Christianity. Forcing students to write or remember religious doctrine that is in opposition to their beliefs is either acceptable or it isn't. The fact that we are a majority Christian country is immaterial to the students’ First Amendment rights.
Of course the situation is hardly unique to Islam. Students across the country learn a lot of history that doesn't line up with their religious beliefs. When children learn about Greek Mythology are the being indoctrinated? When kids are taught about the history of slavery it's not meant as an endorsement. The events leading up to WWII are clearly something every child should understand, but learning about Nazi's is never confused for approval of their actions.
The reality is that studying about other cultures and religions gives children a greater appreciation for what makes people different. Portraying such an education as brainwashing is embarrassingly phobic and closed minded.
Being forced to conform to someone else's religious norms has been an issue in public schools for a long time. While Christians have been more than happy to conflate the separation of church and state with oppression when Christian symbols are removed, this is one of the few times these same Christians have had to endure something even remotely close to what many non-Christians have experienced for decades.
For example, one parent complained that Christianity wasn't being given equal time stating “[The teacher] said they would not be covering it because Christianity is not in the school standards.” The truth is, the Tennessee Department of Education course outline lists 9 different bullet points that discuss some aspect of Islam and 8 that include Christianity. Not only is Christianity in the state standards but it is covered at length in a number of different areas of the curriculum.
Beyond that it should be mentioned that the Tennessee state standards for 6th grade has zero references to Islam but devotes a section to describing "the origins and central features of Christianity" which include "the belief in Jesus as the Messiah and God’s Son, the concept of resurrection, the concept of salvation, belief in the Old and New Testaments," and "the lives, teachings and contributions of Jesus and Paul". Not only is Christianity given more than its fair share of time in Tennessee's public education system, but students are required to acknowledge that Jesus is the son of God.
While trusting the word of a couple irate parents to argue that Christianity is under attack is obviously an embarrassing mistake by Starnes, it is hardly the worst part of his article. No, that distinction lies with his assertion that the cases of a public schools removing a photo of Jesus Christ and disallowing Christian hymns to be played by the school band are equivalent to learning about the history of Islam.
It's possible that Starnes isn't unaware that forcing students to learn about different cultures and religions is legal while forcing students to endure religious symbols or traditions that fall outside of the curriculum isn't. But it's far more likely that he wants to conflate the two so he can again claim persecution. Because if Starnes was being honest he would admit that many of the concerns from these Christian parents regarding the inclusion of Islamic tenants in public education are inconsequential compared to what many non-Christians have been fighting for years.
The fact that Starnes and many of his devotees are completely oblivious to the hypocrisy of demanding the inclusion of non-educational Christian images and rituals while simultaneously being outraged at the slightest presence of Islam tells you all you need to know about how honest they are about protecting religious freedom.
Tuesday, September 8, 2015
Conservatives don't understand Black Lives Matter
The conservative media seems to have a distorted understanding of what the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement stands for. Despite having a clearly defined list of goals, talking heads like Bill O'Reilly are attempting to blame BLM for the recent police officer deaths.
While the vile "fry em like bacon" chants from one BLM group do nothing to help the situation, the reality is that there is no evidence linking BLM to these shootings. Beyond that, the data shows that police officer deaths are down this year while ambush killings, like the one in Texas, existed long before BLM - having accounted for 8 deaths in 2014, 4 deaths in 2013 and 19 deaths in 2011.
Oddly the conservative media were not nearly as eager to saddle the entire Tea Party movement with the shooting deaths of two Las Vegas police officers that saw the assailants drape the bodies with the Gadsden "Don't tread on me" flag used by some Tea Party groups.
It should also be noted that the conservative media defended those who took up arms against federal and local law enforcement in the Cliven Bundy standoff just two years ago. If support for these individuals was based on the belief that the second amendment is meant to "deter a tyrannical government" then these same conservatives should be out in droves backing BLM, since African Americans experience systemic inequality in the U.S. justice system that sees them punished more often, for longer terms, and with harsher sentences.
Of course O'Reilly is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to misrepresenting the BLM movement. Others, like the president of the Law Enforcement Legal Defense Fund, Ron Hosko,, believe that BLM "too often drift into the rhetoric of ignorance and hate" while somehow managing to use the same article to blame the broader spike in violent crimes across the country on "the anti-cop themes from such protesters (BLM), liberal politicians and the mainstream media". Apparently drifting into the rhetoric of ignorance isn't exclusive to the BLM movement.
Hosko also suggests that police reform is "much needed", yet instead of discussing any of the solutions offered by BLM or proposing his own ideas, he resorts to the uniformed meme of black-on-black crime in an attempt to discredit the BLM movement. Data show that socioeconomic status, not race, is the greatest predictor of murder rates. But even if black-on-black crime were anything more than a conservative media myth, the suggestion that a group created in response to the shooting deaths of unarmed African Americans by police officers is somehow fraudulent because some white law enforcement official doesn't understand the organization’s stated goals is astoundingly ignorant.
This would be like castigating the "Pro-Life" movement for only advocating for the "lives" of the unborn when their name implies they care about all life. The BLM and "Pro-Life" movements are both single issue entities. Insisting that your interpretation of their name defines their mission is idiotic. There are legitimate reasons to oppose the goals of BLM, but unfortunately the conservative media has concentrated nearly all of their efforts on vilifying BLM rather than participating in solving the real and persistent problems they are discussing.
There are also those like Chicago Tribune columnist, John Kass, who believes "our hashtag mentality oversimplifies most everything" then manages to oversimplify the BLM movement by stating "all lives matter. All of them. And that means police lives matter too".
The problem is, this suggests that those who support BLM somehow think black lives matter more than the lives of everyone else. This isn't the case. They've looked at data that show blacks are disproportionately killed by law enforcement and are asking the police departments or politicians to do something to change this fact.
Of course part of the issue with something like "Police Lives Matter" is the reality that being a cop is a job that one can chose to do. If a police officer feels the job is too dangerous they are free to quit. That option doesn't exist for African Americans. They are subject to a different set of rules simply because of who they are.
But perhaps the bigger problem with the "Police Lives Matter" is how differently the murder of a cop is handled than other murders. Photos of the crime scenes for the recent police homicides in Texas and Chicago show a considerable response from law enforcement that include federal involvement in a massive manhunt. While murders of police officers are typically some of the most difficult to solve, given their random nature, this sort of commitment to finding the killer also makes them some of the most likely murders to be solved.
From the outside this sort of over-sized response makes it look like perhaps to those tasked with protecting and serving, "Police Lives Matter" a little bit more than all other lives. Imagine if law enforcement dedicated the same time and resources to capturing every murderer. Imagine if the shooting of an unarmed black man ended with a trial instead of the typical quid pro quo failure to indict. Imagine if skin color played no part in how you were treated by cops.
Black Lives Matter is far from a perfect organization, but contrary to what the conservative media would have you believe, the only special treatment BLM is asking for is to not be treated special.
While the vile "fry em like bacon" chants from one BLM group do nothing to help the situation, the reality is that there is no evidence linking BLM to these shootings. Beyond that, the data shows that police officer deaths are down this year while ambush killings, like the one in Texas, existed long before BLM - having accounted for 8 deaths in 2014, 4 deaths in 2013 and 19 deaths in 2011.
Oddly the conservative media were not nearly as eager to saddle the entire Tea Party movement with the shooting deaths of two Las Vegas police officers that saw the assailants drape the bodies with the Gadsden "Don't tread on me" flag used by some Tea Party groups.
It should also be noted that the conservative media defended those who took up arms against federal and local law enforcement in the Cliven Bundy standoff just two years ago. If support for these individuals was based on the belief that the second amendment is meant to "deter a tyrannical government" then these same conservatives should be out in droves backing BLM, since African Americans experience systemic inequality in the U.S. justice system that sees them punished more often, for longer terms, and with harsher sentences.
Of course O'Reilly is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to misrepresenting the BLM movement. Others, like the president of the Law Enforcement Legal Defense Fund, Ron Hosko,, believe that BLM "too often drift into the rhetoric of ignorance and hate" while somehow managing to use the same article to blame the broader spike in violent crimes across the country on "the anti-cop themes from such protesters (BLM), liberal politicians and the mainstream media". Apparently drifting into the rhetoric of ignorance isn't exclusive to the BLM movement.
Hosko also suggests that police reform is "much needed", yet instead of discussing any of the solutions offered by BLM or proposing his own ideas, he resorts to the uniformed meme of black-on-black crime in an attempt to discredit the BLM movement. Data show that socioeconomic status, not race, is the greatest predictor of murder rates. But even if black-on-black crime were anything more than a conservative media myth, the suggestion that a group created in response to the shooting deaths of unarmed African Americans by police officers is somehow fraudulent because some white law enforcement official doesn't understand the organization’s stated goals is astoundingly ignorant.
This would be like castigating the "Pro-Life" movement for only advocating for the "lives" of the unborn when their name implies they care about all life. The BLM and "Pro-Life" movements are both single issue entities. Insisting that your interpretation of their name defines their mission is idiotic. There are legitimate reasons to oppose the goals of BLM, but unfortunately the conservative media has concentrated nearly all of their efforts on vilifying BLM rather than participating in solving the real and persistent problems they are discussing.
There are also those like Chicago Tribune columnist, John Kass, who believes "our hashtag mentality oversimplifies most everything" then manages to oversimplify the BLM movement by stating "all lives matter. All of them. And that means police lives matter too".
The problem is, this suggests that those who support BLM somehow think black lives matter more than the lives of everyone else. This isn't the case. They've looked at data that show blacks are disproportionately killed by law enforcement and are asking the police departments or politicians to do something to change this fact.
Of course part of the issue with something like "Police Lives Matter" is the reality that being a cop is a job that one can chose to do. If a police officer feels the job is too dangerous they are free to quit. That option doesn't exist for African Americans. They are subject to a different set of rules simply because of who they are.
But perhaps the bigger problem with the "Police Lives Matter" is how differently the murder of a cop is handled than other murders. Photos of the crime scenes for the recent police homicides in Texas and Chicago show a considerable response from law enforcement that include federal involvement in a massive manhunt. While murders of police officers are typically some of the most difficult to solve, given their random nature, this sort of commitment to finding the killer also makes them some of the most likely murders to be solved.
From the outside this sort of over-sized response makes it look like perhaps to those tasked with protecting and serving, "Police Lives Matter" a little bit more than all other lives. Imagine if law enforcement dedicated the same time and resources to capturing every murderer. Imagine if the shooting of an unarmed black man ended with a trial instead of the typical quid pro quo failure to indict. Imagine if skin color played no part in how you were treated by cops.
Black Lives Matter is far from a perfect organization, but contrary to what the conservative media would have you believe, the only special treatment BLM is asking for is to not be treated special.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
