Today's Blog: Time for the Guv to morph into Chris Christie My husband and I and a couple hundred friends watched in Green Bay as ...(more) Search Archives

Blogs

Time for the Guv to morph into Chris Christie (6/28/2011)

Time for Gov. Walker to talk more about the cake (3/4/2011)

Today, reality hits home (3/1/2011)

FoxPolitics News going on hiatus (1/28/2011)

Brown County Executive candidate forum Feb. 8 (1/28/2011)

Education done right (1/27/2011)

To Obama, the ‘We’ is Government (1/27/2011)

(more)

• Removing Ten Commandments monuments and crosses from public lands
• Halted prayer at public institutions, halted public financing of nativity pageants 
• Ended a “122-year abuse of commencement prayers” at a Top Ten university
• Overturned a state Good Friday holiday

Just a selection. Take God’s love and moral plumb line out of our schools. And substitute for them… what?

Editor's Note: Many thanks for your helpful comments John, and for additional perspectives on the issue. Has the Power Team been connected to a teacher requiring his or her students to pray a certain way? In the consideration of the superintendents, how was cancellation of the assemblies seen as a 'compromise'? And lastly, why is religion so bad? Why can't religion (and I agree with you - not twisting-arms-religion) be a piece of Character Education (as you call it) in many facets of our lives, including the public school? Have the Jefferson School District efforts at "Character Education" been successful? If so, how have you measured success? JE

John Foust (Tue Feb 27 17:10:09 2007)

1. You asked whether the Power Team (PT) was connected to any teacher asking students to pray a certain way. I am not aware of any situation like that in any of these districts. 
2. In fact, due to at least one district's concerns about religious content and advertising, they did try to get assurances in writing. I haven't seen them. Apparently the districts were not persuaded by this promise and it was outweighed by other concerns. In short, I don't think the PT is as sensitive about the First Amendment as I am. Based on the many news stories I found, I think they are happy to deliver an assembly with a religious message in a public school when they are allowed to, either through complicity with admins who believed there would be no community outcry against it, or through ignorance due to a lack of prior research, or through the sheer impossibility of being able to outline all the things you don't want them to do that could go against policy. I described many other ways the PT could have engaged in self-promotion and proselytizing while still be able to claim a religion-free program. At what point do you think they'd cross the line? There is no five-second delay on broadcast. Orally inviting students to the revival meetings, with the come-on that there would be more head-smashing and loud music? Handing out paper invitations? Promoting their upcoming movie or their summer camp? Christian messages in the amplified music? Personal testimony?
3. If you examine the PT web site and literature, their stated primary mission is boosting attendance at churches. They are hired by churches to do that. The school assemblies are secondary. They're not educators. They're athletes and ordained ministers, operating a marketing ministry. The circus act is a come-on. Given past opposition to phonics, whole-language learning or the "new math," I would've thought there would be hordes of people opposed to the notion that you had to use rap music and flaming brick-breaking to teach moral lessons. I think the PT gets a free pass because they're ministers.
4. Exactly. Who decides? I think I also successfully showed, by presenting examples of what the PT had done and said at their past public school events, that the admins had not adequately examined the message and methods of the PT. For example, school districts work very hard at how to carry out the sensitive task of sex education for each grade level. I asked if they had assessed whether the Power Team's message squared with district policies. 
5. I don't understand. I've never suggested it's wrong to teach moral tenets. I've never seen even the FFRF claim that, either. You claim it in your headline "Why is a moral message anathema to atheists?" I don't see that in either my story or the FFRF's case. Morality is a frequent discussion among humanists. I quote Wikipedia: "Humanism is a broad category of ethical philosophies that affirm the dignity and worth of all people, based on the ability to determine right and wrong by appeal to universal human qualities."
6. I'm eagerly following that case. Again, if the shoe was on the other foot with a president who had religious beliefs you didn't agree with, and who used executive orders to use tax dollars to carry them out, you wouldn't holler? Can you name a theocratic country you'd like to live in?

John Foust (Wed Feb 28 17:31:24 2007)

"Character Education" is the term used by Jefferson's district. For several years now, they have been a leader in this arena. The superintendent and his wife have made this their central community cause. Last summer they hosted a character education conference with national-level attraction in Waukesha. The effort selects a "value of the month" like "honesty" or "courage" and ties it into classroom activities at every opportunity. Does it work? The principals and admins tell us it is working. They show us the stats of the improvements in several metrics like disciplinary frequency, missing homework, etc. No, the Power Team didn't have anything to do with a teacher praying. In Jefferson, though, the principal told me the Team would spend a few minutes during the assembly to invite kids to the evening revival meeting. As for the word "compromise," I'm just quoting the Fort super's memo. Can you see the distinctions they made? I wasn't at the meeting - but the agenda says they weighed the pluses and minuses. They didn't want to give the impression they were involved in promoting a particular church's event. No one was claiming that "a moral message was anathema." There are many shoes to try on your other foot. What would you say about a public school teacher who told your child to pray in a fashion that's contrary to what you teach at home? (After all, the original prayer-in-school Supreme Court case came from religious parents who didn't like the particular prayers their children were being forced to say.) It's not as if religious speech is the only speech we ask teachers to restrict. What about a teacher who told the kids they had to tell their parents to vote for a particular candidate? Or shop at Piggly Wiggly because Pick'n'Save is run by bad people? What would your objections be if it was the Arabian Knights, an Islamic group, instead of the Baptist Power Team? As for why religious instruction is not a part of the public schools... If you think it should be reintroduced, I look forward to your explanation as to how you'll address the many questions from past decades that led to our present religion-neutral condition. When you say "religion" I suspect you mean your religion and not someone else's religion. Who gets to pick the message? If history is any guide, your largest conflicts will be between different religions, not between belief and non-belief. Who decides which religions are included and which aren't, and on what basis? How will you teach religion, yet respect everyone's freedom of belief? What consideration will you give the minority religions, the non-believers or the merely unsure? I think you were trying to tar me with the same brush as the one you used on the Freedom From Religion Foundation. Their Supreme Court case today only regards legal "standing" - whether they can even legally question the executive branch's faith-based initiatives. Where's the connection to morality, the Power Team or to me?
John Foust, Feb. 28, 12:16:10
Editor's Note:
1. Again I ask, who's saying anything about praying?
2. If advertising the evening revival was an issue, I'm assuming the contract could specify advertising wouldn't be allowed. I imagine however, that when certain folks come in to the school, they are free to advertise something, whether it's hamburgers or chocolate milk or brand name clothing. Is that objected to?
3. It was my understanding the Power Team had nothing to do with "religious teaching?"
4. Yes, if another group came in that was upstanding and moral and was effectively teaching a character lesson, regardless their background, yes, I would see it as valuable. The problem, of course, is determining against what standard 'upstanding and moral' is to be measured.
5. Who['s saying anything abuot "religious instruction?" I said why is it so bad to teach moral tenets that may also be the base of a religion?
6. See NY Times article to assess importance of "standing" on FFRF argument.
JE

John Foust (Feb 28 12:16:10 2007)

Post a Reply

Print this Article

Email Article to a Friend