Can an Atheist Pray in Greece?

The US Supreme Court has agreed to hear a new public-prayer case.  At issue here is whether a town worked hard enough to include religious diversity in its public prayers.

The town of Greece, New York, outside of Rochester, has been accused of favoring Christianity in its pre-meeting prayers.  The Second Court of Appeals ruled in Galloway v. Town of Greece that the town meeting prayers had favored Christianity over other religions.

According to USA Today, the Arizona-based group Alliance Defending Freedom appealed to the US Supreme Court on behalf of the town.

SCOTUS decided in 1983’s Marsh v. Chambers that legislative meetings can be opened with a prayer, as long as that prayer does not favor one religion, denomination, or sect over another.   The Second Court of Appeals explicitly noted that this case does not challenge that precedent.  “We do not hold,” the court wrote, “that the town may not open its public meetings with a prayer or invocation.  Such legislative prayers, as Marsh holds and as we have repeatedly noted, do not violate the Establishment Clause.”

What is at issue here is whether or not Greece worked hard enough to include religious and non-religious diversity in its opening prayers. The original suit, brought by Americans United for Separation of Church and State, charged that the overwhelming majority of the prayers represented Christianity.

The court granted that the town had the intention to represent a proper diversity of religious beliefs, but in practice, most of the prayers implied that Christianity was the town’s religion.  As the court described, a permissible public-prayer policy must be

inclusive of multiple beliefs and makes clear, in public word and gesture, that the prayers offered are presented by a randomly chosen group of volunteers, who do not express an official town religion, and do not purport to speak on behalf of all the town’s residents or to compel their assent to a particular belief….

In other words, it is not enough for a town to allow a diversity of religion in public prayer.  According to the Second Court of Appeals, in any case, public meetings must work harder to dispel the perceptions of a “reasonable objective observer under the totality of the circumstances” that the town tips one way or another.

Will SCOTUS agree?  Or will they rule that it is enough merely to welcome a diversity of belief?

Jesus Rocks the Vote

Voting in the mayoral race in North Miami? Jesus wants you to vote for candidate Anna Pierre, according to Pierre.

 

Source: ABC News

Jesus has endorsed her, Pierre claimed. The registered nurse and creole pop singer insisted that Jesus gave her three signs of his endorsement. According to an ABC News story, this mayoral race in the city of 60,000 has included voodoo and violence.

“Whether or not you believe in Jesus or not,” Pierre promised, “once I’m elected mayor, I’m gonna be the mayor for everybody.”

Phyllis Schlafly Blasts the Common Core

Don’t do it, Phyllis Schlafly warned states recently. Don’t fall for the hoopla about the new Common Core State Standards.

Schlafly is often best remembered for her successful campaign to block the Equal Rights Amendment in the 1970s. But as historian Don Critchlow has argued, Schlafly’s career was about much more than just the ERA.  An examination of Schlafly’s activism can tell us much more about the changing face of “conservatism” in the twentieth century.

Image Source: Christian Post

Image Source: Christian Post

Now Schlafly has joined the chorus of conservative anti-CCSS voices.  As we’ve noted earlier here at ILYBYGTH, conservatives join many progressives in lambasting the new unified state standards, but usually for different reasons.

Writing in the pages of the Christian Post, Schlafly offers conservative parents and voters solidly conservative reasons to get up off the couch and take an interest in their local schools’ new curricular guidelines.  “Common Core,” Schlafly warns, “means federal control of school curriculum, i.e., control by Obama administration left-wing bureaucrats.”

The standards will not improve students’ academic performance, Schlafly argues. Nor will they achieve their trumpeted goal of making all students “college ready.”  Rather, these new standards represent only the latest left-wing drive to transform the United States into a “totalitarian government.” In Schlafly’s words,

Common Core means government agencies will gather and store all sorts of private information on every schoolchild into a longitudinal database from birth through all levels of schooling, plus giving government the right to share and exchange this nosy information with other government and private agencies, thus negating the federal law that now prohibits that.

Everything about the standards is “encrusted with lies,” Schlafly insists. The suggested content itself predictably indoctrinates students toward leftist ideas and policies. As conservatives have warned for decades, the suggested readings even veer into the “pornographic.”

So what is a conservative to do? According to Phyllis Schlafly, the new Common Core State Standards represent only the latest effort by leftist federal bureaucrats to seize control of children’s minds. Any red-blooded American must shudder at the implications.

Update: Cheerleaders Can Love Jesus

Tim Tebow can love Jesus.  But can cheerleaders at a public high school?  A Texas judge ruled this week that they can.

This story has been circulating for several months.  As we’ve reported here on ILYBYGTH, in September the Kountze Independent School District banned high school cheerleaders from displaying Bible-based banners at football games.  Prompted by the Wisconsin-based Freedom from Religion Foundation, the school district worried that such displays violated the Constitution.

Source: KNUE

Source: KNUE

Parents fought back.  They argued that the cheer squad was a student organization, not funded by public dollars.  As such, the students’ religious speech was protected by the Constitution.

Earlier this week, according to a local TV station, District Judge Steve Jones ruled that the cheerleaders should be allowed to continue with their religious messages. 

End of story?  Not quite.  The school district has promised to change its policies, which might give it the right to ban such banners again. 

 

In the News: Scott Retiring

The National Center for Science Education has announced the retirement of Executive Director Eugenie Scott.

Scott has long been one of the most prominent voices against creationism and intelligent design.  Her books and public appearances consistently articulated a bold anti-creationism without, IMHO, attacking religion itself or religious people.  In the angry world of creation/evolution controversy, that has been a significant accomplishment.

We will be watching carefully to see who NCSE picks to replace her.   If you’re interested in the job, check out the job posting.

Does Science Hate God?

If God loves science and scientists love God, why do we keep hearing that they hate each other?

It’s the $64,000 question Daniel Silliman asked yesterday on his terrific blog.*  As Silliman points out, the “warfare thesis” between religion and science just doesn’t hold water.

Yet films such as The Unbelievers attract enormous attention and support.  In that upcoming documentary, leading science pundits Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss apparently insist that true science must crush false religion.

Silliman could have extended the point on the other side, as well.  Plenty of religious leaders have encouraged the legend of warfare between true religion and “science falsely so-called.”  Young-earth creation leader Ken Ham, for instance, insists on the importance of this “struggle over the question of authority.”

Silliman ends with a great question for fans of The Unbelievers:

The real question that this documentary raises, though, is why there’s such a market for the conflict thesis. Why does it persist in its obfuscations and false oppositions so long after it was demonstrated to be historically bankrupt as a theory and demonstrably empirically false?

Is it because a fight is just more interesting than a compromise?  Is it due to our reality-show culture in which viewers insist on drama?  Or are there substantial differences, necessary hostilities, that persist in the face of historians’ denial of the warfare thesis?

*You can tell it’s a great blog because he lists yours truly as one of his links.  Thanks!

Dinosaur Quizzes and Beleaguered Minorities

Have you seen it?  The dinosaur quiz below has been making the rounds lately.

dino quiz

Source: Answers in Genesis

This seems like a good chance for an ILYBYGTH gut check: What does this quiz tell us about creationism and American education?  For fans of evolution, this quiz confirms that creationism is a looming threat.  For young-earth creationists, though, this quiz and its public career tell us that Biblical creationists have become a righteous minority, besieged on all sides.

Here’s the story so far:  This quiz apparently came from a fourth-grade classroom at a private Christian school in South Carolina.  A parent posted it online when he found out to his dismay that his daughter had been learning this account of the origins of life.

What does this tell us about the state of American education?  Depending on your perspective, it can teach very different lessons.

For some commenters at r/atheism, this quiz serves as proof of the creeping power of Christian fundamentalism.  One poster noted, “They’re teaching these kids how to respond to people who spread the ‘evils of the world,’ in order to defend their faith.  It’s just very, very sad.”

Another agreed.  “This is just disgusting, my goodness,” he or she noted, concerning the fact that so many accredited schools in the United States teach this kind of science.  “I would really love to see a full on description of what is required to be taught to remain accredited, and then see if I could develop a program based around worship of FSM [i.e., the Flying Spaghetti Monster] that would meet those requirements.”

For young-earth creationist leader Ken Ham, however, the brouhaha over this quiz tells a very different lesson.  Ham complained that the backlash to this quiz proves that atheists have taken over America.  As he put it recently,

It seems that since the last presidential election, atheists have grown more confident about having something of a license to go after Christians. These secularists want to impose their anti-God religion on the culture. They are simply not content using legislatures and courts to protect the dogmatic teaching of their atheistic religion of evolution and millions of years in public schools. There is something else on their agenda: they are increasingly going after Christians and Christian institutions that teach God’s Word beginning in Genesis.

The danger, Ham and his colleague Mark Looy warned, should be readily apparent: “the atheists want your children. They are aggressively trying to demonize and marginalize Christians in their attempts to recruit your children for atheism or secularism.”

So who is the victim here?  Is it besieged Christians, defending their schools against dominant atheism?  Or is it science and reason, holding out in a last-ditch effort to save American education from Taliban-ism?

I’ll go out on a limb and try to define America’s educational consensus on this one.  The overwhelming majority of Americans agree, I’ll argue, that private schools can teach whatever they wish.  But there is one enormous exception: schools cannot teach doctrines that will cause harm to students or the wider society.

Obviously, this kicks the discussion back to the definition of “harm.”  We will all agree that teaching students how to rob liquor stores will ultimately be bad for both students and society.

But does teaching creationism constitute harm?  To anyone?  Here’s where tempers get heated.  I do not endorse young-earth creationism, but I believe the harm it does to students and society is far less than the harm that would be done if steps were taken to coerce schools to teach evolution.  Let schools teach young-earth creationism.  Try to persuade–not force–people to teach their children evolution instead.

Smart people disagree.  Some folks consider teaching young-earth creationism to be no harm at all.  Others, such as physicist Lawrence Krauss, consider teaching creationism to be a form of “child abuse.”   

Whichever side of this fence you fall on, this dinosaur quiz and the response it has generated can serve as a creationism quiz, a quick check of your attitudes toward this alternative science.  Does this sort of teaching harm students?  Does this sort of education harm society?

 

Common Core + Climate Change Science = Progressive Beer Bong

Solve the equation for X.

Many conservative educational activists are up in arms about the new Common Core State Standards.  Today we read a new articulation of this conservative hostility from Iowa State Representative Ralph Watts.

Watts called the Next Generation Science Standards—the science branch of the Common Core—a “beer bong for American education.”  For those whose college education did not include the arts and sciences of beer bongs, the Honorable Representative Watts meant to imply that these standards will deliver ideas quickly enough to overwhelm students’ ability to digest them.  In his words, the new standards constitute “a vehicle for progressive activists to spread their philosophies and propaganda to our children through a conduit designed very effectively to serve their needs.”

Next Generation Science Standards, Watts warns, insist that human-caused climate change is a fact.  This is another episode of federal overreach, Watts insists.  “Centralization. . . .” Watts concludes, will be a “colossal mistake and a classic failure.”

In the field of science education, Watts has a point.  Local control often protects the teaching of creationism and intelligent design, for example.  The same could be true for climate-change skepticism.  Putting mainstream scientists in charge of more rigorous science standards can’t hurt.  But I worry that it also won’t help too much.

In spite of Representative Watts’ poignant words, there are no true beer bongs in American education.  There is no way for any central body to deliver ideology so overwhelmingly to students nationwide as to overwhelm their home culture’s beliefs.

Pennsylvania Science Teachers Teach Creationism as Science

Pennsylvania science teachers teach creationism.  It really should come as no surprise, since that is the case for science teachers in public schools across the country.  But every new batch of data offers some new insight.

Thanks to the ever-vigilant Sensuous Curmudgeon, we see a new survey from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.  It doesn’t contain any mind-blowingly unexpected results, but the facts on the ground in the evolution/creation/intelligent design controversy are always mind blowing.

This survey collected results from 106 science teachers from the Keystone State.  The responses show us once again that there is no bright line between science and religion in many public-school classrooms.  For instance, while 90% of teachers said they believe in evolution, 19% listed creationism as their belief, while 13% claimed to believe in intelligent design.  Unfortunately, the survey did not require respondents to define what they meant by any of these terms.

But even with these results, we see that for many science teachers, it is entirely possible to claim both creationism and evolution as beliefs.  Teachers could choose more than one label, and many did.

As we might expect, teachers’ beliefs seem to carry over into their classroom practice.  One teacher claimed to spend five class periods teaching evolution and one class teaching creationism.

Another accused the newspaper of conducting a witch hunt to identify and persecute Biblical Christians.

One teacher warned his students against tools such as radiocarbon dating, since they contradicted the Bible.

In each of these cases, teachers insisted their school administrators approved of their classroom practice.

Most intriguing, one anonymous teacher—the one who taught one creationism class among five classes about evolution—confirmed the findings of political scientists Michael Berkman and Eric Plutzer.  Though Berkman and Plutzer hail from Penn State, they collected data from across the nation.  “Many teachers’ individual values,” they concluded, “match up well with those of the district in which they teach” (30).  Stricter state standards and certification rules, Berkman and Plutzer argued, will not make a decisive impact.  Instead, teachers tend to teach the ideas and values of their local communities.

This teacher agreed.  “Most parents and officials,” this teacher from Indiana County—just west of Pittsburgh—reported, “do not want evolution ‘crammed’ into their children.  They have serious philosophical/religious issues with public schools dictating to their students how to interpret the origins of life.”

For those like me who want to see more and better evolution education in public schools, this survey confirms the difficulty of the task.  Just as schools cannot be charged with solving poverty, so school science cannot fairly be asked to change our culture’s beliefs.  In the case of evolution, creation, and intelligent design, those beliefs are far different from what mainstream scientists might like to see.  Instead of locating the problem in science classrooms, we need to understand the true dimensions of this controversy.

 

If You Don’t Like It, Get Out: Hasidim and Schooling in Rockland County

“The hand that writes the paycheck rules the school.”

That was the line of William Jennings Bryan in the 1920s.  As I describe in my 1920s book, the conservative Presbyterian leader hoped to purge American public schools of theologically suspect notions, especially evolution and atheism.

Almost a century later, we can see a case in which religious conservatives have put this saying into action.

But William Jennings Bryan would have been surprised.  The conservatives in this case are not Protestants, but Hasidic Jews.

Journalist Benjamin Wallace-Wells offers a spellbinding account of the takeover of the public-school system in Rockland County, New York by Hasidic Jews.  Over the past several years, the ultra-orthodox Jewish sect has moved in large numbers into towns such as Ramapo.  Members of the community have used their demographic dominance to win control over the East Ramapo school board.  Since community members send their children to private schools, the school board has shifted funding from those public schools to private yeshivas, most commonly in the forms of special-education services.  Public-school funding has also been cut to the bone and beyond.

Public school students, Wallace-Wells describes, often have a hard time filling their schedules, since so many teachers have been laid off.  When non-Hasidic parents and activists complain, the president of the school board has a simple message: “You don’t like it?  Find another place to live.”

According to Wallace-Wells, the origins of the public-school takeover came from the unlikely field of special education.  Hasidic parents noticed that many of their children needed special-education services.  Yet they could not—for religious reasons—attend the pluralist public schools where such services were provided.  As a result, the Hasidic community won spots on the school board.  That school board then allowed students with special-education needs to receive needed services at private religious schools.

Many of the foes of conservative educational activism and policy worry about a “fundamentalist takeover” of public education.  What would it mean if conservatives won control of public schools?  In this fascinating essay we can see one example of conservative takeover in action.